As long as we keep treating wealth like a scoreboard, this will continue. If we collectively demonized people with unreasonable wealth, ostracized them from society, and stopped glorifying it and treating them like celebrities because of it, we might be in a better spot.
KoboldCoterie
joined 1 year ago
Good to know; I only knew that usage from movies and whatnot, had no idea it was still used like that!
86 is a slang term that means to get rid of something. See the Green Day song '86' as an example. The origin is from a really long time ago, when it meant a menu item at restaurants was no longer available.
This statement pretty much summed up my feelings on this issue exactly. This is an excellent, succinct summary of the only sane viewpoint to have.
Maybe for some folks...
Giving the statues "an orange makeover" implies something a lot more permanent or at least harder to remove than high-vis vests. If someone tells you they "got a makeover", when in reality what they did was change their shirt, would you not think that was a little disingenuous?
I'm not being critical of you, or the protest, to be clear, I just think the title is a poor representation of what happened.
Same reason as why Bethesda slapped Prey on Arcane’s spooky space station imsim
This was the weirdest choice. I actually dismissed the new Prey entirely for a very long time because I didn't enjoy the old one, when the new one was actually a very different, very good game.
If the 'If' isn't true, then the 'you' doesn't apply to you, that's how conditionals work.
I know our electoral process is bullshit, and I believe our government is corrupt as hell.
I'm also a pragmatist. I can either work within the confines of the system we have to try and effect the least harm possible, or I can register a protest vote now in hopes that some time in the future it'll help fix things. I'm taking the first option.
If we manage to change the voting system to allow for third party votes without sabotaging our own self interests in the meantime, I'm all for it. If third party candidates want to run for lesser offices where they have a chance of being elected and have a chance of making a difference, I'm all for it. But voting for a third party candidate for president, or declining to vote as a protest maneuver, is simply the worst option. It's looking for a long-term solution to a very short-term problem, and I simply can't see any good argument for taking that approach.
Electing Trump right now is 'tearing it all down', but not in the way I want.
This is such a brilliant idea. I love low tech solutions like this. The scope of the solution is temporary and not too broad in the grand scheme of things, but to the 10 villages that are currently being helped, it's a big deal, and it's low-cost and has low environmental impact.
I feel like this title is intentionally misleading, probably trying to draw parallels to the defacing of Stonehenge with orange powder.
They put orange high-vis vests on the statues. No damage was caused.
There really needs to be a global fund that every country pays into, that's dispersed to countries with significant forestation in proportion to their contribution. If money is the barrier to climate action, we need to make it the best option economically to maintain forests and other similar areas.