How so? The system of patriarchy is beyond any one individual to solve. Yet I’m damn certain you believe every man should still do their best not to contribute. Why should the system of animal exploitation (and environmental destruction, while we’re at it) be any different?

Is it because one of these requires actual work on your side? You are the one measuring the same thing by two different standards.

Es ist ja auch ein Problem, dass erst seit dem Streik existiert. Es ist unmoeglich, dass die Fuerhungsriege, die sich staendig riesige Boni zahlt, das Problem einfach verschleppt und dann (so wie du) denn ausgebeuteten Arbeitern in die Schuhe schiebt.

Die CSCs lassen wahrscheinlich noch auf sich warten, aber privat kann man ja dann bald schon anbauen. Bubatz@home Guide wann?

But that isn’t true anymore, right? Renewables are now way cheaper per produced Watt. And still, we’re stuck with people pretending that’s not true.

Proton seems on the wrong side of the usability - privacy spectrum. Every last feature I’d want from an online provider is impossible or massively neutered by the overly strict security.

I wish there was a similar service in a trustworthy country with a more sane level of safety, like opt-in encryption for example.

Kannst du mir eine soziale Bewegung nennen, bei der die Gegner/Nicht-Anhänger nicht auch immer das gleiche behauptet haben? MLK war Public Enemy #1, und alle seine Proteste und Marches wurden auch immer als “falsch” oder “nervig” oder “zu aggressiv” angesehen. Das gleiche für Feministen, für Gewerkschaftler, etc.

Wenn alle Bewegungen deinem Standard folgen müssten, hätte die Hälfte der Menschheit immer noch keine grundlegenden Menschenrechte

Warum glaubst du, dass das Problem ist? Inzwischen wissen alle um mich herum notgedrungen, wie man vegan lebt und kocht. Trotzdem bin ich der einzige Veganer.

Diese Informationen sind auch schon lange überall verfügbar.

Der Hauptgrund warum die meisten Nicht-Veganer nicht Veganer sind, ist der gleiche Grund, warum die meisten Nicht-Feministen oder Nicht-Anti-Rassisten oder Pro-Kapitalisten oder Abtreibungsgegner oder Anti-Klima Leute es sind: Fehlende Überzeugung, bzw. die fälschliche Annahme, sie seien im Recht.

Was haben die alle gemein? Sie werden einen Scheiss tun und sich freiwillig über das Thema von der anderen Seite informieren. Sie bleiben, soweit möglich, in ihrer Bubble, wo jeder zustimmt, oder zumindest jeder jeden “leben lässt”, aka presence of a negative peace is more important than working towards active justice.

JEDE FORM PROTEST IST AUS SICHT DER GEGNER ZU VIEL, ODER FALSCH. War schon immer so, wird immer so bleiben.

Protest und Aktivismus müssen stören!!

Removed by mod

Is a VPN even worth it for that use case? A seedbox won’t cost that much more, esp. if you factor in electricity costs from keeping your machine running. And getting to 1.0 seed ratio is also much easier.

Who do we throw into the reactor when the majority of people DEMAND something that is only possible with massive destruction of nature, horrendous waste of resources and horrible immoral practices?

If we kill all the “evil” factory farm owners, but still demand cheap meat every day, we’ll end up reinventing that same horrible system.

You can totally incrementally step towards veganism. That doesn’t mean that veganism isn’t the correct end goal.

A world where everyone does the best they can to avoid and/or fight against bad systems is absolutely the ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD where positive change can happen.

How else would the world change if not through individuals choosing to do the right thing? Are really expecting the same people that have fucked us(rich/politicians) to spontaneously develop a conscience and change the world out of the goodness of their hearts?

Before you bring up guillotines, those ALSO require individuals to make personal choices and changes and take risks.

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.

They also only ever believe that when it’s about work THEY have to do. If it’s about other people, or it’s about things that directly affects them, the tune suddenly changes.

I can’t, as an individual, end rape culture. Is that therefore an excuse to keep making rape jokes, defending rapists etc.? Obviously not, but by the logic of “people against individual change” it’s entirely logically consistent. As long as I say “rape culture bad”, I can keep supporting it. I just have to wait for magical “systemic change without individual change” to rain down from heaven.

Sure, and then what? If we keep the systems around that created this situation in the first place, we’ll end up back where we started, just with new rich people.

Just to pick out the example of veganism: If all rich people are dead, but the masses still want cheap meat every single day, they WILL definitely reinvent factory farming, with all it’s horrible environmental and ethical consequences.

Sure, on board, but we the people would still need to then build a new world with different systems valuing different things. Most of those things are on that list.

Without the individual changing, we’d just end up swapping rich people.

We don’t need animals to consume plants we can’t, because plant food is soooo goddamn more efficient on every metric. We can drastically reduce land, water and energy usage AND still feed way more people with plant foods. We simply do not need to eat animals.

Any form of “sustainable” animal farming I’ve read up on end up being still less resource efficient than plant foods, AND obviously massively reduced output. So we’re truly talking about vegan vs. an ounce of meat a week. That’s not a difference worth defending, considering the other obvious ethical issues.

Finally, why do you feel that it’s important to argue for “99%” veganism? Do you genuinely believe people don’t understand that less is better, but none is best? Do you apply the same argument to other ethical issues, like feminism? Being 99% feminist is a big improvement, but constantly arguing for it in favor of feminism (aka 100%) would obviously look ridiculous. Finally, don’t you realize the humongous difference between “we should abuse animals for our pleasure less” vs. “we shouldn’t do that”? A whole class of racism disappears if we get rid of the association between “animal” and “lesser moral consideration”.

Just in general: More sane defaults, less RTFM. Sure, you can configure everything, but MUST you? A lot of opensource developers seem to believe that configurability is a get-out-of-jail-free card for having to provide a good user experience out of the box.

While it wasn’t 100% free from hate, Heroes of the Storm had significantly less of it. Similarly, GW2 has a far friendlier community than WoW, because game design does matter.

NEIN, nicht wer sie am meisten gefährdet, sondern wenn sie als rücksichtslos empfinden. Eines davon könnte man nämlich mit Daten erforschen, und rausfinden, dass wie immer das Auto das allergrösste Problem ist.

Und es ist doch absolut gesponnen so zu tun als ob der FAKT, dass Räder wesentlich weniger Menschen umbringen nur so ein unwichtiger Nebenfakt ist. Persönlich habe ich lieber 5 blaue Flecke vom Fahrrad als ein gebrochenes Genick vom Auto.