TriplePlaid

joined 2 months ago
[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

In my opinion there may be a better option for you (unless you have a clinically bad case of extra sweat, which obviously is another thing). Try a deodorant that aims to control the population of bacteria on your armpits. Bacteria are what actually produce the chemicals that smell bad. Since switching to a scentless bacteria controlling deodorant, I still sweat but my stink is gone. Same for my partner. And it's much healthier for you in my opinion.

https://superdeodorant.com/

This was for real life changing for us.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm confused - are you trying to argue that we should not try to stop the spread of hateful propaganda? Or just that it doesn't matter to have it in schools? Maybe you are trying to argue that exposing children to hateful rhetoric will not have an impact on their developing brains?

What you are saying does not make sense to me.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

From my perspective it is worth pointing out because it shows how Kirk's murder was NOT a good thing, and is NOT something that should be looked back upon with glee. Rather than being the end of Charlie Kirk's vision for Turning Point, his death invigorated it and has now potentially set up an entire generation to be propagandized.

It would have been better for the world for Kirk to have kept living and continue embarrassing himself (which he did on a daily basis) and come to a more typical end for these far right influencers - jailed/disgraced. Not to mention that noone deserves to be executed, especially without a trial.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This does not convince me that we should redirect all effort away from environmental legislation. In my view human rights are very much intertwined with environmental stewardship.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Even if you feel that the white house should stop being used as an active part of the USA government, it doesn't make sense to tear it down.

Take Auschwitz for example - a horrible place, but worth preserving so that future generations can see history in person and learn from the past. At the very least, the whitehouse is worth preserving for its historical value, if nothing else.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

I would say that food scarcity in preindustrial countries is not "manufactured" per se, because there isn't an excess of food lying around in those places. You are right that people there starve in part because it isn't profitable to get food to them, but there are other reasons too such as lack of adequate infrastructure to store and transport food and perhaps even lack of trained personnel to distribute it etc.

So really I think for preindustrial countries it's a complex picture that basically boils down to the oppositional philosophy generally held when considering international relations. So in a situation like that I think it isn't accurate to say that scarcity was manufactured in order to justify the existence of capitalism.

Also your statement that it isn't profitable to industrialize other nations and so we don't seems contrary to what I understand, which is that it is often profitable and that is why developed nations are often trying to invest in industrialization efforts (of course taking their unfair piece of the action in doing so). I feel that this principal of investing in industrialization has largely guided the international efforts of China, the USA, and others.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think there is a big difference between "tough love" and unkindness. I don't think being unkind is ever the best way to encourage someone to improve. Instead be "blunt" in communication/upfront with constructive criticism - which I see as a kindness.

[–] TriplePlaid@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I see how this meme is clearly targeting capitalism and not farmers, and I understand and agree with the point that money is the primary incentive for growing food under capitalism.

But in my opinion the part about letting people starve in order to manufacture scarcity misses the mark. As far as I can tell, the primary reason that so much food goes to waste is liability. No one wants to sell food that could reasonably be constrained as having caused an illness for fear of a lawsuit - if not for that fact, much more food "waste" would actually go to use. Even in the hypothetical absence of liability no overall food scarcity needs to be manufactured because there remains a scarcity of "premium" food.