[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's a concerted effort by western media to delegitimize them through language. I've often heard “Houthi rebels” which makes the intention very clear. Ansar Allah is the proper name like you said, and not only were they the de facto government of Yemen before, but also the recent US/UK bombing campaign is making more and more Yemenis unite behind Ansar Allah.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago

Those savages living in the modern recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto we created for them attacked us! It was completely UnPrOvOkEd!

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

iPhone mini lovers 🤝 iPad mini enthusiasts

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One of the reasons billionaires managed to gather so much power and influence in our current system is because they are more coordinated and way better at class warfare than us workers.

I'd say that and the obvious mind-boggling amounts of hoarded wealth are the two main ones. And never forget those billions are, for the most part, stolen from workers through wage theft, which circles back to billionaires waging class war on us.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

I want to get off Mr. Bones' Wild Venture Capitalist Ride

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nobody seems to have pointed out the obvious historical angle where China and Vietnam have been long-time enemies.

The issue goes back to the Cold War era and the Sino-Soviet split and it's kinda hard to synthesize in a few short paragraphs, you can read more on the wiki article about it, but these sections could be a good summary:

Vietnam was an ideological battleground during the 1960s Sino-Soviet split. After the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping secretly promised the North Vietnamese 1 billion yuan in military and economic aid if they refused all Soviet aid.

During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese and the Chinese had agreed to defer tackling their territorial issues until South Vietnam was defeated. Those issues included the lack of delineation of Vietnam's territorial waters in the Gulf of Tonkin and the question of sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

And also:

In the wake of the Vietnam War, the Cambodian–Vietnamese War caused tensions with China, which had allied itself with Democratic Kampuchea. That and Vietnam's close ties to the Soviet Union made China consider Vietnam to be a threat to its regional sphere of influence. Tensions were heightened in the 1970s by the Vietnamese government's oppression of the Hoa minority (Vietnamese of Chinese ethnicity) and the invasion of Khmer Rouge-held Cambodia. At the same time, Vietnam expressed its disapproval with China strengthening ties with the United States since the Nixon-Mao Summit of 1972.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was going to post a comment saying how thankful I am we could leave the extreme and unabashed aporophobia over at Reddit but… uh, never mind.

Still pretty tame compared to the gems you'd find there I guess.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.

https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html

Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:

The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Wealer from Berlin's Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

"The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically," he said. "In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available."

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

"Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build," he said. "When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."

He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. "And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution," added Schneider.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

They operate on our collective belief that it will never happen.

If we want to change that we have to start with the thought that it can happen, I'm all for firing squad but if we have to settle at bleeding them dry to cover the very (very) costly climate catastrophe they have brought upon us, so be it.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago

In order to better live with the fundamental contradiction of loving animals but also eating them, people put some animals in the “pet” box and some in the “meat source” one with a one way street between the two, in that animals that would be considered meat sources can become pets but never the other way around.

I bet it subconsciously makes some people feel more compassionate towards animals. But it's nothing more than a moral contradiction trying to be masked.

It makes sense to feel some sense of apprehension or even disgust when the topic of eating dogs is brought up because it feels so geographically and culturally distant from us, but the truth is you can see this happen across the relatively small European continent. Dog meat used to be a thing in Switzerland, maybe not anymore. Nordics will be horrified to learn cute bunnies are a very culturally relevant meat source down south in the Mediterranean (traditional paella contains both rabbit and chicken meat), where they are also kept as pets. France loves their horse meat but in other places of Europe this is unheard of. And so on.

Don't get me wrong, I eat meat and have a couple of cats as housemates. You couldn't pay me enough money to try cat meat. But I don't pretend like it isn't a fundamental contradiction, nor will you see me retching if I hear eating cats is a thing in some region/culture.

[-] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

It's crazy to me how so many things follow the Pareto principle

view more: next ›

BrokebackHampton

joined 1 year ago