r1veRRR

What is the collective but a collection of individuals? What, therefore, is collective action, but a collection of individuals choosing to take responsibility and do what they can?

Imagine politicians and CEOs decided tomorrow to make meat production sustainable and ethical. The cost of meat would skyrocket (yes, even if we removed all corporate profit). The very next day all those individuals that aren't responsible, according to your logic, would be in the street protesting.

But that's true of literally every single community. Posting copyrighted images in a pics community, copyrighted music in a little video/gif, a nazi denying the holocaust (illegal in Germany) in one little comment a hundred comments in...

Who do you think is more likely to overstep? A community very well aware of the risks and the scrutiny they are under, full of people that are themselves aware of the risks, or some rando on some random community?

Obviously, they are allowed to ban or not ban whatever they want, but I just think it's a very short sighted, quickfire decision.

Because from everything I've seen, those communities did not do ANYTHING illegal. They talked about software that can be used that way, but if we go by that measure, discussing any Fediverse software is illegal, because you could use that to host illegal content.

It's better than "invisible" exceptions, but it's still the worst "better" version. The best solution is some version of the good old Result monad. Rust has the BEST error handling (at least in the languages i know). You must handle Errors, BUT they are just values, AND there's a easy, non-verbose way of passing on the error (the ? operator).

It's absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.

And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any "nice" company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.

I agree that not everyone can go 0%, but the vast, vast majority can. Especially if we're talking about people with access and time to chat on some internet platform, aka everyone reading this.

Not every man can stand up for womens rights either. For example, his sexist boss might constantly make sexist jokes about his coworkers. He needs the job, though. He can't afford to do the right thing. Do you think, therefore, it's a good thing to ALWAYS BRING THIS HYPOTHETICAL UP, whenever the topic is that men should stop supporting the patriarchy, feminism is good, etc.? If non-feminists were the ones always bringing up the exceptions, would you believe they actually cared?

So tomorrow all politicians decide to do the right thing. Meat (just as one example) suddenly costs 5 times as much, because environmental and animal welfare regulations (ones with teeth, this time). In what universe do you think the population would accept that???

ANY sustainable policy change absolutely REQUIRES the support of the voting population. And that's a million times easier in a world with even just 10% vegans. Any collective action is comprised of INDIVIDUALS choosing to participate, and do their part.

Unless you think they could pass mandatory consumption laws, not eating meat would absolutely work. We're at just 2% vegans, and we've got Beyond and a lot of vegan options in soo many places, compared to just 10 years ago. Imagine just 10% vegans.

This would only make sense if morality, or caring for others was somehow genetic AND unalterable. My parents aren't bad, per se, but most of my moral and philosophical growth came from other people. Be it teachers, random people, philosophers, or Breadtube.

I'm totally on board. Theres a good video on this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgQ3tKJMA34

One thing that really erked me was how most criticism of open world games suddenly were lauded as good elements. Endless, monotounous fetch quests, or pointless busy work (Korok, those assassins) was suddenly good. An empty world devoid of much live, that wasn't much but filler between mini dungeons (shrines), the pointless busy work, or towers was suddenly good and necessary.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, considering you're on lemmy.ml, and assume you understand how capitalism works. You also know how the exploitation of the planet, the minoritized, and the worker class works.

Why in the world would things somehow magically be different when it comes to animals? They are resources with very little rights. Any and all suffering that increases profit is MANDATORY under capitalism. It's a huge billion dollar industry, why in the world would they suddenly be any nicer than every other industry?

More importantly, they exploit actual humans, with acutal rights, that can actually talk, every single day. It's insanity to believe they wouldn't treat animals, who can't speak and have less rights, well.

To your example: My grandparents are land lords. They're really nice. By your logic, every landlord is therefore nice and I shouldn't ever question their existence.