The intent is secondary to the effect. If certain muslim people cannot put their religious sensibilities BELOW the secular human rights of their fellow country men, they LITERALLY need to leave. They are literally bad for us, and our social, secular order. EXACTLY like the hardcore christians are bad for human rights in the USA.
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?
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.
With the second hand market, Dota 2 (and CSGO) are LITERALLY excatly like trading card games. Noone gave a fuck for years about those. Hell, of all "predatory" systems, Dota 2 is the absolute most fair, most tame one. The only realistic alternative are 20 dollar skins, like with Overwatch 2.
Which is what 90% of day 1 DLC is for most other games. It would be fine, but it's the mightier than thou attitude and the blind exceptionalism from rabid fans that makes this so hypocritical.
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn't exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games "back in the day" lived forever without any DLC. That's just not true.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don't care about that.
I don't read it that way, quite the opposite. So, so many people act like this is mostly about protecting the climate or the environment or animals, not about protecting our way of life. The way so many frame it as protecting the earth makes it so easy to make it sound optional.
But the world will be okay, it doesn't need protecting. It's the 8 billion humans that RELY on the world AS IT IS NOW that will be fucked. It's human protection, not ecological protection.
Your 7 year old probably also wishes for world peace, better stop working for a better world!
Everything on this world dies, therefore it's morally totally fine to artificially create, imprison, and then kill billions for no other reason than taste. Every dog dies, therefore shooting them for fun is morally totally fine!
Appeal to nature, seriously, for your 7 year olds sake, look it up.
Not significantly enough to make the general statement untrue for 99% of meat eaters. Just for reference, "high meat diet" starts at 100g of meat a day. And farmed fish is fed wild caught fish and a fuckton of antibiotica.
r1veRRR
joined 1 year ago
You have to think practically: When has systemic change ever happened without individuals choosing to make a change? Never!
It's the same for voting, or boycotting or unionizing or even guillotining. The french kings head didn't spontaneously fall off, it involved many individuals making a choice, risking their life and even dieing.