It is a perfectly coherent argument that Boeing is more harmful than Lowes despite both being $120 billion megacorporations. You have a point, but there are real functional differences between the actions a person or a corporation or a country takes. Make another pro-nihilist argument, I will listen, discount the validity of viewing the world through any other lens and I will not give a shit

I do not think it is a coherent argument to lean on history to discount the effects of brand new surveillance and killing tools. Drones are supposed to be able to limit casualties with precise strikes but the disconnect between the operator and the victims is so great that it makes the act of killing easier, evidenced by so many botched attacks during Bush and Obama administrations. Which way does the pendulum swing? We don’t have historians and declassified documents and longitudinal studies to rely on for an answer. Maybe our children’s children can fill us in, but in the meantime I actually feel very confident claiming that expensive advanced weaponry widens the gap in power between oppressor and oppressed. The fact that practically nobody from the US died while the Misdle East cowered is evidence of this; I think Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge actually reinforce this claim as well. Clashes and bloodshed and genocide are ancient—but I think the systemic rounding up and genocide of millions in just 4 years is quite difficult to accomplish without fairly modern weaponry. There are only a handful of genocides that even compare on a numbers scale and only one I can think of is pre military industrial complex. I don’t see how today’s superiority through guided missile, drone, etc. systems differ from yesteryear’s superiority via small arms in that regard.

I’m sure it would be interesting to talk to you in some other set of circumstances—I think you have twice now made a salient point about how seemingly innocent industries end up fueling these genocides, just now and elsewhere regarding steel manufacturing—but under these circumstances it’s like pulling teeth. You are arguing that advanced weaponry does not increase bloodshed, which I disagree with, and you are avoiding any discussion of responsibility, which I think is a pretty natural impulse within all of us but it really fucking matters. I hope at least that you enjoyed interpreting everyone’s critiques in the worst possible light.

Yeah, that’s a pretty pointless response on the Uyghur front and I don’t think we’re making progress on the “how easily is the genocide carried out” front so let’s just drop everything else and hone in here:

China’s comprehensive surveillance system is what makes tracking the movements of Uyghurs possible. It is what has made detaining and killing them so easy. So the people that made that system possible are responsible. Please explain how actually it’s nobody’s fault because things just happen.

It is pretty radical to argue that a small contingent of Zionist Israelis would be successfully eradicating the people of Palestine if both sides just had sticks, so the U.S. should just keep manufacturing and selling MK-84 bombs. Or we can talk about how absurd a claim it is that the arms industry is looking out for the little guy—you know, the group that can pay for less of their product? Thank god for arms manufacturers—that’s probably what Uyghurs think when they’re stopped at checkpoints by military police

So do you work for a defense contractor or do you just have great respect for the act of killing in general

I have also worked shoe retail. US household name brands makes single widths for the majority of their available shoes. If you have narrow feet try the equivalent size in the women’s model. If you have wide feet try the men’s options. The lasts are different. I’m aware you can do better than what is available in a standard retail setting. I’m generalizing.

Just like in the US

The letters denoting widths exist, but they’re not used. Very few US shoe brands offer different widths on the same size shoe. Some offer two. A handful three, and now you’re talking about workwear, not trainers or anything else. Generally, US shoe widths are decided by whether it’s a mens or womens model.

I don’t know that there are many white capitalists in South Africa who deserve their money more than any black individual living there

In what sense is he correct? It’s not because he’s not black, you’ve just cited the workaround—and it’s not like he’s a guy who takes a principled stand against nepotism. The idea of the state taking partial ownership of a company that is operating in their country also doesn’t give me too much pause, free trade is extractive—and I’m simply not sure that Elon Musk deserves that money more than someone in the South African government, lol

Idk, I don’t care about powerful, I care about convenient size and convenient battery life. Websites should be websites and text messaging should be text messaging. I hate that every time battery capacity improves there’s a new bloated web experience that breaks real scrolling and new animated Memojis that scan every pore on your face to properly convey how anxious you’re feeling or whatever.

A lot of core concepts in Christianity are incompatible with being white in America. It’s a religion for the oppressed being practiced by the oppressors. They’re the Pharisees. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to figure out how to see themselves as the lepers and the Jews.

Well yeah, the people who want a small reliable phone are unlikely to replace them every year for no discernible reason. Cue more articles and comments about how there’s no sale data to support the idea that people want small phones! The odds are stacked against us.

It’s a quick win if it leads to further progress. It’s a distraction if it’s not part of a larger plan that includes real change. That’s my fear. Banning plastic straws was all we talked about for two straight years. That’s wasted time, and it didn’t really lead to anything else.

Diatribe alert. If you just wanna know, here: 75% to 86% of plastic waste in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch came from fishing industry, article, study.

It’s not bad, and I didn’t claim it to be bad. It’s not relevant in the same way Dr Thunder and Pibb Xtra aren’t leading to a soft drink crisis in the USA—they’re a small part of a much bigger problem.

To carry on with this dumbass analogy, it would be misleading to argue for a ban on off-brand sodas while continuing to mass produce Sprite, Pepsi, and Diet Coke, and it lets big businesses off the hook for their destruction. Same with letting industries shovel untold plastic waste into the oceans behind our backs while making more visible efforts to ban much smaller amounts back on land.

Also, we’re not just worried about plastic because it ends up on beaches. That is, again, missing the bigger picture. It’s also missing why those items in particular end up on beaches, which is because of local littering. A cup on a beach is actually great for the environment compared to a piece of nylon disintegrating in the ocean. It just looks ugly. Our primary focus can’t be on ugly right now.

If you ban plastic straws from European beaches and say job well done, the planet will never notice. We need to start with the big issues, we don’t have time to pat them on the back and keep subsidizing the destruction of our planet. Agricultural fertilizer is next followed by plastic bags, iirc, or maybe bottles.

This is a list of end-consumer items put together by a government body beholden to fishing and other industries. And it’s not even about pollution levels, it’s specifically about beach pollution. Plastic lids on cartons of heavy cream are “also a problem” if we focus only on reducing plastic waste in the kitchen, but implying it’s even relevant compared to industrial plastic waste is disingenuous

Thankfully the people in charge of deciding whether your actions are performative or not have great judgment

They said they’re not going to provide the foundation with additional funding while the foundation is spending their money in ways they disagree with. What is the specific misunderstanding?

Yeah it’s funny the nostalgia that gets attached to the old sponsor. But I think it’s because you forget the company. Nobody gives a shit about Sears anymore so I think it’s one of the best examples. It’s just what people call it, and refusing the new name isn’t defending Sears’ honor, it’s taking a stand and claiming practical ownership over something in your community. It’s eschewing the idea that someone’s virtual monetary exchange that’s represented on a couple of spreadsheets and in a bunch of advertisements news articles somehow matters more than what the actual people call something

Baited

Nice bait