Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.

Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?

Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?

You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?

Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.

I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.

I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.

I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.

Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.

I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss.

The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?

They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action.

How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people “make a fuss”?

What are you doing?

Not turning potential allies into enemies?

What are you doing?

It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.

It’s not just pointless, it’s potentially damaging to the cause. I don’t mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.

Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.”

And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.

Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.

Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.

I don’t give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it’s stupid to believe that others do not. It’s also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.

They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.

Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don’t want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.

Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?

I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you.

Not exactly a good thing… One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.

Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn’t really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.

If you’ve ever played in the surf and can feel when a wave pulls you towards the ocean before another wave pushes you back towards the beach. It’s like that, but just the undertow part. It’s very noticable.

would argue that Muslims are, by default, required by their religion to make the hajj. You make it sound as if it’s opt in, but their religion mandates it with some exceptions.

Nah dude, the vast majority of Muslims never go to mecca. It’s not a mandate anyone enforces but yourself. I think only like 9% of Muslims ever actually get to make the trip.

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

There no language in the EEZ article that mentions “territorial military outpost”.

According to who?

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

Can you link what article that falls under?

Nah, there’s pretty clear rules. It’s just that the main power in the region tends to ignore them when it suits them. Again, how is the Philippine government breaking international law?

I think that’s more plausible than China’s claim that their exclusive economic zone stretches over a thousand miles off their coast, and supercedes both Vietnams and the Philippines exclusive economic zones…

What’s your point?

You seemed to be suggesting that what the Philippines is doing is breaking the rules of unclos, but you haven’t explained how.

but flouts it at every opportunity. International law for thee but not for me.

How? They are allowed to protect the resources in their exclusive economic zone. China on the other hand is still attempting to enforce a claim that was invalidated by international courts in 2016.

Seems like you might be projecting on the behalf of China.

And how exactly does China’s claim work within unclos? The shoal is only 190nm away from the Philippines and should be part of the Philippines exclusive economic zone. If there is any questions of legitimate territorial claim it would be with Vietnam not China.

Also, stopping any navigation within your own exclusive economic zone goes against unclos, let alone stopping navigation of a country in their own exclusive economic zone.

First of all, that guy looks like shit for a 34 year old. Doesn’t look like the hair plugs took as well as he hoped.

Secondly… This guy just went through like eight years of school and like ten of residency and fellowship to be a surgeon, and he just threw away his whole damn life to own the libs.

No hospital with an operating room is ever going to allow this guy to practice, even if he somehow gets away with a slap on the wrist. This is the exact type of scenario that hospitals dread. Texas Childrens is going to be sued, especially since they let him access patient information after he finished his rotation. I also think there are fines for the facility where a HIPAA violation occurred.

What a loser.

No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were.

Like, does this mean you are afraid of other people you don’t know judging you, or that you or your friends find it socially unacceptable?

Either way that seems to be more of an individual problem rather than a social one. I am physically affectionate with my friends and have never been confronted about it by a member of the public , not that I would really care if I were. People be dumb, I’m not going to let someone else’s projected homophobia dictate my friendship.

Japan is still a fairly insular nation, especially in regards to the topic of history. During the Meiji restoration they basically rewrote their own history, which also kinda requires you to ignore or reshape everyone else’s history to suit your perspective. As a result, I doubt world history is very well covered in their public education.

You just used the concept of the strawman fallacy to build your own strawman fallacy, over a post about a different strawman fallacy…

Do you work for big hay or something?

Also WTF was that Russian crew doing top side?!

Never heard of ablative armour?

Look up the meaning.

I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is… Attacking someone’s argument is not attacking them as a person. Who was I attacking?

Your logical fallacy is not my fault.

Lol, I think you need to relearn your logical fallacies.

I don’t. The one who “instinctually” believes it means something other than men hanging out are the people who think it sounds gay.

Again, unsubstantiated. And you haven’t explained how it would be homophobic.

First, that’s you inferring it from me not saying something, not me implying it.

Insisting a pro lgbtq website is being homophobic because one sentence taken out of context…

clarified the question, which you ignored

Because you didn’t add any clarity, you just questioned what the point of context was.

Personal bias and logic are too different things. My points are either wrong or they are right.

Personal biases affect how you developed an argument in the first place.

Whether they come from someone who is biased or unbiased does not change whether they are wrong or right.

Yes, and in this point of the argument you still haven’t sufficiently explained how a gay person labeling something as gay is homophobic. You know the entire point of the argument.

Your biases are leading you to draw conclusions from information taken out of context.