Not_mikey

joined 6 months ago
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 15 hours ago

WWII was the war to end all wars, so we couldn't have a department of war anymore. Still "needed" and army , navy, marines and all the weapons for them though so we created the department of defense.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

I think I know what happened here. Curtis decided to sing "fucking problem" by A$AP rocky at karaoke because he can say

I'm the n*gga, the n*gga n*gga ...

Like an edgy 15 year old. Then he heard A$AP rockies bar:

they say money make a n*gga act n*ggerish, at least a n*gga n*gga rich

Got mad at A$AP flexing on racist haters like him and then posted this.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

N*gga rich is a term used by racists, and co-opted by rappers, to mean getting a small fortune and spending it on flashy ostentatious things.

Fair enough, the figure you're looking for / what I based on the Bangladesh claim is here, 39 billion tonnes total so even less, 0.28% reduction. But that is for only 10% reduction in one country. Increase that to 20% and do it for all countries and your probably getting a couple percent reduction. Again not going to stop climate change or give us another decade before 1.5c, which we've already passed in 2025.

Were going to need every percent we can get though and any sort of reduction helps. If we're going to have a carbon neutral future it's going to require these sacrifices, and the earlier we make them the better. Delaying them is only hurting the cause for some temporary comfort.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

It would make a meaningful impact, if everyone in America just drove 10% less that would result in a reduction of 110 million metric tons of co2, close to the total emissions of Bangladesh 122 million tons ( population around half the US). The same is true about meat consumption, which is even more feasible to completely stop today for most people.

Sure those two things aren't going to stop climate change, systemic change is needed. But the methods for everyday people to create that systemic change are either illegal ( blocking ports, destroying oil infrastructure), and thus most people aren't going to risk there livelihoods for, or they're ineffectual (peaceful protest, electoral politics) so doing the above choices would make more of a difference.

Yes attention and effort are finite resources, but the choice for most people is not block a port or become vegetarian, it's gonna be go to a peaceful protest / vote for the dems or become a vegetarian. In that choice, becoming a vegetarian is the better use of effort.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It's not a con, people can and should still make choices and sacrifices to stop climate change while recognizing that the real problem is corporate greed.

You can recognize that litter is caused by corporations use of single use plastics for everything, while at the same time recognizing that it's your responsibility to at least dispose of them properly instead of throwing it on the street.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 days ago

Considering the past couple elections she's probably as left as we're gonna get here in California, barring a charismatic young mamdani like figure coming out of nowhere.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

Just gonna give myself a little bit of cancer stan

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

It's the most luke warm response to starving children from the most luke warm leader of a major country

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I agree for normal, everyday people. But for the politicians and members of the media that enabled and in some cases cheered on this genocide , FUCK THEM. We can't allow them to launder there reputation with an "oops guess i was wrong" statement and let them keep running this country. If we don't hold them and there terrible decision making accountable then they'll just get us into another atrocity in a couple years, just like Iraq.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Like humanity?

 

My Uber driver was telling me about this company, trying to get a referral. He was saying you get paid $60 for a two hour session where you wear a helmet and type shit out.

Not as much of an ai hater as a lot of the people here but this use case sounds particularly dystopian. So I figure if enough people sign up and just think about random shit and fuck up there data maybe that'll gum up the works long enough for them to run out of money.

 

The u.s. produces a surplus of staples, especially corn and soybeans that are exported mostly to China. If China does retaliatory tarriffs won't that lower demand for those staples and thus the price in the US? And theoretically couldn't that also reduce the price of downstream animal products since feeding them will be cheaper?

This assumes:

  1. Food companies don't use the excuse of tarriffs to raise prices even when there costs go down
  2. The government doesn't step in to back stop corn demand and buy tonnes of it to keep prices high. I know they did this with dairy in the 70s and 80s, not sure if they still do it.
 

Idk if media rants are allowed on here but didn't know where else to post.

For context righteous gemstones is a comedy about the children of a mega church pastor who try to succeed him and lead the church despite there horrible personalities. Generally makes fun of the hypocrisy of these rich church pastors pretty well.

The first episode of the newest season is a flashback to the civil war and the origins of the family. It opens with the ancestor of the gemstones shooting a southern pastor preaching about "states rights" after the service. At first I thought this would be great, this guys gonna go around killing confederates like django. Sadly no he just did it to rob the pastor then goes on to impersonate him as a pastor for the confederates on the Frontline. The rest of the show centers on him being a horrible pastor and focuses on how bad this con man is compared to the soldiers. It then ends with the union capturing his unit and committing a war crime by executing all of them except him.

The depiction of the civil war is completely white washed and focuses on making the confederate soldiers sympathetic children suffering and dying for there country. Slavery is never mentioned, there are no slaves or black people shown, none of the confederates even say anything racist.

I understand that portraying all the confederates as ultra racists with every other word out of there mouth being the n word would be inaccurate. It would've been funnier if they did and then we watched them get mowed down by the union, but for some reason this episode they tried to be serious. If you are going to be serious and pretend like this is an accurate portrayal then whitewashing them is just as bad as painting them as evil racists. I get there trying to humanize people often cast as the bad guys but removing there flaws isn't humanizing, it's veneration.

The rest of the season seems to be fine and pretty unrelated, so if you do want to watch it go ahead and skip the first episode, wont miss much unless you want to learn about the lost cause myth and how a lot of southerners still view the war.

 

The representatives who signed it are:

Rashida Thalib, Michigan

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin

Nydia Velazquez, New York

Delia Ramirez, Illinois

Ilhan Omar, Minnesota

Jasmine Crocket, Texas

Summer Lee, Pennsylvania

Ayanna Presley, Massachusetts

Latefah Simon, California

Al Green, Texas

Gwen Moore, Wisconsin

Andre Carson, Indiana

Nikema Williams, Georgia

James Mcgovern, Massachusetts

view more: next ›