Not_mikey

joined 6 months ago
[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If you live in a swing state or any state that is up for grabs, then yeah don't vote for third party. If your in a deep blue/red state, I'm talking > 15 percent swing, vote for whoever you want in the presidential, your votes just going to get collapsed into the state vote for the electoral college any way. Should still vote for the two parties or whoever's competitive in state and local elections because your vote can have an effect.

If the electoral college says my vote effectively doesn't matter in deciding the next president since I'm in California, then at least let me use my vote to send some sort of message.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 2 points 17 hours ago

Yeah but they were mostly aristocrats who hated the uppity new rich bourgeois as much as they hated the peasants.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 7 points 22 hours ago

I didn't like this line of attack, yes you're going to have to negotiate with a terrorist organization after you lost a war to that terrorist organization and that organization is going to take control of the country. The fact that you talked with the Taliban isn't the problem, the fact that you negotiated a bad deal is.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Most of the 'electricity' emissions on that nice pie graph isn't joe bob's playstation, it's industrial power.

Again please cite some sources and look at the actual data. Adding in electricity and looking at end use does up industrial but only up to 30% . It ups commercial and residential far more to 31%, your right though most of the electricity isn't going towards joes PlayStation it's going towards heating and cooling joes house.

Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and residential buildings also increase substantially when emissions from electricity end-use are included, due to the relatively large share of electricity use mostly building related (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; lighting; and appliances) in these sectors

Again personal consumption choices have an effect on this, even barring the choice of where to live the amount of energy needed to heat and cool a home goes up as the size of the building increases. Heating and cooling a large detached single family home is way less efficient then heating and cooling a small apartment. Like a big truck no one's forcing you to get a big house and the choice you make has climate impacts.

I agree auto companies are largely responsible for the mess we're in with transportation, but the solution isn't to just put our hands up and say we need to hold them accountable, that won't happen in the current environment. We all need to make the personal choice to drive less, and take more public transit. If public transit numbers go up then politicians will actually start prioritizing it and improvements will be made which will cause more people to take transit causing a positive feedback loop. If traffic numbers go down as well the government won't have to spend money on adding another lane to the freeway and would save on road maintenance due to cars wearing them down less, allowing more money to be available for transit and adding to the feedback loop.

To kickstart that feedback loop though we'll need people to choose to take a more inconvenient transport option at the beginning, and you aren't going to get people to make that choice by saying there actions don't matter and that it's all the corporations fault so you driving a mile to CVS is fine.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

did you not get sent some fucked up videos

Oh yeah, all that shit, I wasn't talking about porn and fetish stuff though cause my comment was getting long, was just talking about actual atrocities like war, famine genocide etc. I don't think preteens have an interest in that stuff. They definitely do have an interest in porn / gross stuff but I'm not convinced that stuff is necessarily detrimental or traumatic. I'm open to being convinced but most of the arguments seem to be pearl clutching about them losing their innocence and anecdotally I know most of my friends watched porn / gross videos at that age and turned out fine and don't mention it as some traumatic or life changing experience unless they tie it up with some religious guilt.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Could you please give some sources instead of pulling numbers out of thin air. Because the numbers don't seem to align with what your saying since industry only accounts for 23 % of emissions, so unless holding companies responsible includes completely eliminating them and there emissions you aren't going to get a 20-30 % reduction in emissions. That 20-30% your talking about can actually be obtained if Americans just stopped driving and flying. Hell we can get almost double that "measly 1.5%" by Americans just driving 10% less then they are. Cars and air travel are emitting just as much as those evil corporations everyone likes to blame, and to stop climate change we'll need to rein in both. Thats just cars, it doesn't account for other consumer choices like eating meat and fast fashion that also have huge impacts.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The video seems to mostly be nostalgia and her lamenting over the death of the consumerist mall based culture she grew up in and trying to naturalize it or imply it's the right way to grow up, ie. Kids these days. Half the video seems to be about how companies aren't marketing to preteens which I'm fine with and is pretty normal in even recent historical terms. The 90s-10s marketing specifically to preteens on cable is more an anomaly then anything natural. If you were 11 in the 70s no one was marketing to you and when you went to the department store there was a kids section and an adults section for you to look through, I'm sure people who grew up then had fond memories of first exploring the adult section just as much as the author does of going to Claire's.

I did find it funny when she said the advertisements didn't effect her. Those ads and media were selling you a vision of what a happy preteen lifestyle is and you bought it so much you made a whole video years later on how that vision is correct.

As for the atrocities I don't think kids are watching that. As someone who grew up with full Internet access in my preteen years I could've looked up isis beheading videos or famines in Africa, but I didn't because 11 year olds don't care about that stuff. Even pre internet if a kid had access to cable they could watch CNN and see all the horrors of the world but they don't because it's boring.

None of this is to say that I think social media is fine for preteens, but the reasons I think it's bad like decreased physical activity, unrealistic beauty standards, social isolation aren't shown in this video, I'm sure she has others addressing it but the death of the preteen market doesn't seem like the best reason to ban it for preteens.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They'll also be exposed to other external views that are a bit more unsavory. For every kid that watches a video by an LGBT creator and learns being gay is okay, there's another kid who watches some alpha douche Andrew Tate type that teach them women are objects. The internet is the definition of a mixed bag and should not be used to educate children

Which is why we shouldn't be relying on social media for this stuff anyway, this should be done by schools. If a child is in an oppressive abusive house they probably won't get social media anyway, but they will more likely have to go to school. Also teachers and counselors are professionals who know how to educate children and handle abusive situations way better then some stranger online.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your missing the big one that most people don't want to hear, eat less / no meat. That's about the biggest decision your average person can make that will make the most impact, going vegetarian is about equivalent to not driving but most Americans need to drive, they don't need to eat meat.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Corporations aren't forcing you to buy a bigger house, a bigger car, to eat meat or to fly across the country regularly, those are personal consumption choices that are driving climate change. You can blame the corporations for pushing you to consume with advertising or not doing there best to minimize the impact of that consumption but fundamentally there's no way to make a carbon neutral meat burger that the average person could consume regularly. It's not just corporations that benefit from ignoring climate costs, the average consumer does as well

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 83 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I mean you probably are a communist to this guy. If you mace him and he can't insult you based on your race / ethnicity then he'll probably just call you a communist.

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 days ago

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they've been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

 
37
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Not_mikey@slrpnk.net to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
 

First of all this isn't an anti-weed post, I use weed regularly and enjoy it. What I'm arguing against is occasional use, once a month or less, at that level your tolerance usually resets between uses. The thing they don't tell you in health class is tolerance goes both ways, you become tolerant to both the positives and negatives of use. For weed the negative im referring to is anxiety, though short term memory loss also goes down with more regular use. Whenever I take a break and then start doing weed again I get way too in my head and anxious which usually goes away after a couple sessions. This has also become worse with modern legal strains that have become way too concentrated. Dispensary edibles are a bit better since you can dose them easier but even then the longer the time in between uses the more likely you'll forget what's a good dosage. I see this a lot with friends who don't regularly do weed and they smoke with me, get way too high, have a bad time and then won't do it again for a while and repeat the cycle. So for those type of people I'd recommend not doing weed at all or doing it more regularly so you can keep your tolerance up. No shame in picking either but the middle ground kinda sucks.

EDIT: a lot of people are saying get lower percentage strains or higher CBD ones, to that I'd say I wish I could. I always try and get the lowest percentage stuff I can find at the dispensary and that stuffs still usually in the high teens percent THC with less then a percent CBD here in SF. So I guess part of this is just a rant on how stupidly concentrated modern weed is and how it leaves little margin for error.

view more: next ›