Those savages living in the modern recreation of the Warsaw Ghetto we created for them attacked us! It was completely UnPrOvOkEd!

iPhone mini lovers 🤝 iPad mini enthusiasts

One of the reasons billionaires managed to gather so much power and influence in our current system is because they are more coordinated and way better at class warfare than us workers.

I'd say that and the obvious mind-boggling amounts of hoarded wealth are the two main ones. And never forget those billions are, for the most part, stolen from workers through wage theft, which circles back to billionaires waging class war on us.

Boy do I have a movie for you

That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.

https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html

Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:

The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Wealer from Berlin's Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

"The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically," he said. "In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available."

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

"Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build," he said. "When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."

He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. "And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution," added Schneider.

And now that you know part of the story, please don't stop checking out this unknown gem:
https://youtu.be/GXyq2xUmsVQ

We deserve more Cate Blanchett in comedy roles

Bottom right is a fuckcars mod. Based kitty

Microsoft is generally not as bad with this kind of stuff anymore

FTFY. 90s Microsoft would've sent some thugs

You didn't dismiss the accusation, yet you demanded more information, which again, we are not owed.

It's also incredibly damaging to trust everything someone says without some verification.

The implication being that's what I'm arguing? I don't know you go from “It's incredibly insensitive to treat sexual assault claims like any other subject and ask victims for details and verification, you should understand how these tactics have historically been used to intimidate and silence women victims of sexual assault and abuse”

To “Believe any and all claims made by supposed victims like some kind of religious dogma”.

That's quite a leap. If you're not going for a flimsy reductio ad absurdum, you should know (although I feel you already know) no one in this thread is arguing in favor of believing any and all claims of SA like a proof of faith.

People lie.

People do lie. The implication that women lie about SA is statistically false and has historically been a key tool of the patriarchy in silencing women.

Surely you must understand how incredibly insensitive is to dismiss someone saying they got grabbed/ touched because they didn't give us the details down to the nitty-gritty.

I'm all for encouraging victims to press charges if they think there's basis to do so. But we, the public, aren't owed any more information than what the victim wants to share. After all, we are not a court.

In order to better live with the fundamental contradiction of loving animals but also eating them, people put some animals in the “pet” box and some in the “meat source” one with a one way street between the two, in that animals that would be considered meat sources can become pets but never the other way around.

I bet it subconsciously makes some people feel more compassionate towards animals. But it's nothing more than a moral contradiction trying to be masked.

It makes sense to feel some sense of apprehension or even disgust when the topic of eating dogs is brought up because it feels so geographically and culturally distant from us, but the truth is you can see this happen across the relatively small European continent. Dog meat used to be a thing in Switzerland, maybe not anymore. Nordics will be horrified to learn cute bunnies are a very culturally relevant meat source down south in the Mediterranean (traditional paella contains both rabbit and chicken meat), where they are also kept as pets. France loves their horse meat but in other places of Europe this is unheard of. And so on.

Don't get me wrong, I eat meat and have a couple of cats as housemates. You couldn't pay me enough money to try cat meat. But I don't pretend like it isn't a fundamental contradiction, nor will you see me retching if I hear eating cats is a thing in some region/culture.

viral left-wing Twitter account

”cartoonishly liberal”

Friendly reminder that liberals are not leftists, because apparently it still needs to be said