Hazor

Ah, right. My mistake.

That occurred to me too. Having an awful, public crime to blame on "the left" is awfully convenient, and Trump and his ilk immediately came out blaming Democrats and calling for political violence. What if Trump or one of his circle is behind this because they wanted a distraction from the Epstein situation and literally everything Trump does being unpopular? People who are okay with raping kids clearly have no moral compunctions preventing them from such an act.

But I'm not one to profer conspiracies without any kind of actual evidence, and I doubt Kirk is really considered enough of a somebody for them to believe he'd be enough of a distraction (although that may be because I just ignore anything to do with him because of his being a bigoted dumbfuck). Having something to blame on Democrats and "the left" just happened to be good fortune for them. I do think it more likely that the shooter was someone like a parent of a kid who was a victim of a school shooting or who was queer and died by suicide.

Charlie Kirk wasn't even a politician or CEO? He was a talking head, a media personality; an "influencer".

The political leanings and goals of the shooter, who is not in custody, are not yet known.

So ... We don't actually know if this was a politically-motivated shooting. I mean, I'd be willing to bet money that it was, but for all we know it could have been a jealous husband, an enraged parent, a jilted ex lover, or someone with delusions.

In any case, political violence is not a new thing here.

The worst part is: the wealthiest few of them could each, individually, if they wanted to, end world hunger permanently with their current wealth. Estimates I've read range $40b per year or something like $250-300b just once to set up sustainable long-term solutions globally.

Musk, Zuckerberg, or Bezos could end hunger globally and permanently. Any one of them, individually, could do it. If the richest 10 billionaires all pitched in a portion, they'd all recoup everything they spent within a couple years at worst. If the richest 100 did, many of them wouldn't even notice the expenditure.

But it would only take 1 of them.

Wiktionary suggests both "fixing to" and "fitting to" are used synonymously. Fwiw, in Tennessee, I only ever hear "fixing to". As someone who learned English outside of the southern US, it makes little sense to me also. But what makes even less sense to me is people saying "trying to" to mean "want to".

As a Tennessean, I'd be shocked and dismayed.

But I'd still say throw her in the slammer.

Also consider a healthcare career. As a teenager, I wanted to do computer science/engineering, and sometimes I do wish I had stayed on that track. But now, as a nurse, I could get a job in any state in the US by tomorrow. I dare you to try to find a hospital that doesn't have open nursing positions. Even when the economy goes down, people still get sick. Even if society collapses, the knowledge/skills will be useful.

And if you don't want to change diapers or deal with blood, there are still options; I'm in psychiatry and rarely have to deal with either.

I used to do most of my grocery shopping at Trader Joe's. When they came out calling the NLRB unconstitutional, I never went back. Fuck Traitor Joe's.

I really don't understand why I constantly see this sentiment on every post pertaining to protests. Rome wasn't built in a day. How do you expect the masses to go directly to violent revolution when many of them don't even recognize there's a problem, and most of them have spent their whole lives in a system which hasn't required any political participation at all? Drawing attention to the problems is how you get more people active.

Obviously, protests won't do anything to directly influence the corrupt leaders in any meaningful or beneficial way. I don't know anyone who actually hopes for that. But a handful of individuals resorting to political violence will be easily quashed by the fascists' enforcers and then demonized or ignored by the fascist-friendly media, so the logical thing is to make the movement too big to fail or ignore. Drawing attention to the problems is how you get more people active.

As a vegan:

A. wtf, why would this warrant banning? At most it should have been a warning to use a less hostile tone? B. Why is it absurd? Should I be okay with a burglary in my neighborhood when there are wars going on somewhere else? Your equivocating meat consumption with wasteful transport suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of veganism. No sentient, feeling creature has to suffer and die for someone to take a jet ride, but they do for me to eat a hamburger. I think the private jetters should feel guilty too, but for different reasons. In any case, how do you feel about dog meat?

Regarding availability and cost efficiency: shipping soybeans from Kansas fields to a cattle ranch in Nebraska and then the beef to a grocer in Idaho is less efficient than shipping soybeans from Kansas to the grocer (obviously, this is an oversimplification). Not to mention that animals aren't perfect energy converters, reducing efficiency further. I'm not arguing that it'd be easy for the whole world to convert to veganism, but in most developed countries it'd actually be more efficient and cost effective (at the society level; not necessarily for all individuals) for most people not to eat meat. Especially if subsidies for animal agriculture were redirected to plant agriculture.

In any case, who's actually "ramming" ideology? As a casual lemmy user, I do see a surpising number of discussions on the matter of veganism, but most of what I've seen has been pretty civil. I do recall a lot of self-defeating thoughtless toxicity from vegans in the vegan subreddits, but I haven't witnessed it myself on lemmy.

Something something only the best people?