Hmm…one of these seems more important to do than the others…
Recycling right?
Recycling is literally the least important thing you can do (despite still being important).
The phrase “refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, recycle” is listed in order of importance.
I hate that they added more shit. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” was perfect.
“refuse” is literally the same thing as “reduce”
“repurpose” is a subset of “recycle”
What the fuck is it nowadays with wanting to tack on more useless shit to perfect mnemonics? Especially for a mnemonic whose entire point is to prevent wastefulness.
“repurpose” is a subset of “recycle”
Repurpose is reuse, just for a different use than originally intended.
Your point about reduce, reuse, recycle being enough is absolutely correct and all I ever hear about is the recycle part which is counterproductive when it is used to justify mass consumption and disposable products.
Cause people often misunderstand the meaning of words.
I’d think ‘repurpose’ is part of ‘reuse’ rather than recycle. Doesn’t recycle mean that you’re going to destroy the object to extract its raw resources to be made into a new product? Whereas ‘reuse’ just means that you are going to use it again. I’d say ‘repurpose’ means you are going to use it again, but not in the same way it was used the first time.
In any case, I agree that the added words are unnecessary. Maybe they were added to deliberately weaken the slogan. Sometimes people deliberately try to make sustainable living sound like a lot of work, by adding a whole lot of extra steps and conditions.
Repurpose is also similar to recycle though.
Because recycling’s entire point is to repurpose it into something else…
Which might be why people also want repurpose… but I’m old and RRR is better than RRRRR. A mnemonics entire point is ease of memory.
Recycle reuse damnit!
Just missing “revolution” in that list
Based on what do you say that? Any sources?
Hm, those are just saying it too, without data to back that up.
I mean, it’s really more of an intuitive kind of thing: recycling takes more than zero energy, while refusing or reducing take less than zero.
Okay, let’s look at it again: refuse - not buying it at all reduce - buy less reuse - use a thing multiple times for the same purpose repurpose - use a thing for a different purpose recycle - recovering (parts) of things
Why is buying less, without even specifying how much, automatically better than recycling (more of) the mountain of stuff anyone uses to live? (Note the indirect impact too, just because someone is rich and can outsource their impact does not make the net impact lower)
Also, many would see reuse and repurpose as forms of recycling. Like making trash bags from recycled plastic.
This is a complex topic and everything but simple.
EU Waste Framework Directive
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en
Recycling is not at the bottom there and generally it is not the same argument (not showing the different impacts of these things).
The bottom is disposal, and recovery is energy recovery - as in, burning it. Part of the disposal process.
Yes, recycling is the bottom for what individuals can do.
I should have known that my comment needed a “/s” at the end…
Recycling your glass bottles won’t negate the effect of a private jet taxing or a yacht sailing for 20 seconds even.
Always recycle. But don’t compare it to the incredible environmental impact the rich has on the planet. Everyone has equal rights of polluting. Some polluting is just necessary as a human life require energy to sustain. The rich and poor have the same quota.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem. Some more, some less, some far more. 1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem.
Yeah, except it would be more accurate to say that the richest one percent have their 48 shares each.
1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot
So because each rich person isn’t responsible for a MILLION times as much, you want to pretend that they’re no worse at all? Fuck off with that nonsense!
Hahaha, that is not what I said. I said everyone is responsible for driving less, looking at what they are buying, flying less, … Instead of just throwing their arms in the air and saying the rich are to blame for everything. And note that probably all of us here are part of the world’s top 10 %, given how poor most of the world is.
Removed by mod
You only need 100k net worth to be in the richest 10 % of the world. Wiki: Distribution of wealth
Maybe stop talking about me personally and instead discuss the topic.
I agree. The rich are the main problem, and that should be top priority. But that also shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not improve oneself personally. My suggestion is that people shouldn’t worry about aiming for personal idealism, but should just make a conscious effort to be less environmentally damaging than their peers, their family, work colleges, and friends. If a person achieves that, then they can be confident that they are not the problem.
[edit] Obviously if everyone did what I’m suggesting then it would be a kind of race-to-the-bottom. But that’s not happening. If it was, then we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. All I’m suggesting is a rough heuristic for what’s reasonable for an individual to do on their own.
You are right, we should all do something. That’s why I solemnly pledge never to take a private jet and to not engage in Space tourism. I dare any billionaire to follow my lead.
Installing solar panels?
Wow, way to not care about the environment. If you’re suggesting systemic change that can work, then I’m just saying you should make half-assed unilateral sacrifices that aren’t working. Or else you’re a dirty hypocrite!
/s
The corporations made me buy a big ass SUV
They gave you the options you can choose from and they all suck.
There are plenty of options that arent trucks or SUVs
Sure. But where’s the option of a sedan where I can detach 75% of it when I just need to drive someplace alone? Where’s the electric car with 300 miles range under 30k?
You can hate on trucks all day long, and I do too because trucks suck, but we’re still stuck with horrible polluting expensive options that were designed with efficiency of cash flow as their primary goal.
bikes? mopeds, motorcycles? you dont need 300 miles of electric car range. none of this shit is any excuse to buy a big ass SUV
Oh thanks! Here I thought I knew myself, but thanks to you I now know myself even better!
track your miles tomorrow
Me personally? I own a Nissan leaf. I just don’t have a presumption to know everyone else’s lives.
Ah yes, a single day’s travel is the best way to figure out what kind of range someone needs.
Some suck less than others.
For real, I was looking at the newer subaru models. Outside of the BRZ (which is a rebranded toyota 86) all of em are SUV. It’s insane
More like the Toyota 86 is a rebranded BRZ. The platform of both cars are made by Subaru, using the Subaru boxer engine, in a Subaru factory.
Oh my bad! I thought it was the opposite
Crosstrek is pretty awesome though. It’s basically just an off-road lifted Impreza. I mountain bike and climb a bunch and some times get onto some pretty questionable roads. It’s great to have something that handles that, but also feels more or less like a smallish 2.0l hatchback the rest of the time.
They are definitely getting bigger though this last year, and sad none of them are manual anymore. Luckily got the last model year that was
No manual is truly a shame
Right give me electric hatchbacks and sedans. Then start funding public transit as we fix North American infrastructure gore.
And driving it around needless. Impressing peers is not natural and imposed by corporations.
If anything, impressing peers is very natural, it probably predates humans as a species
I know, it was sarcasm like the comment I replied to. Corporations are not to blame for everything.
Ah, you fell another innocent victim to Nathan Poe
Pretty much the only option.
Obama passed some great regulations to improve fuel economy and reduce pollution, but there’s different li.its for car type and an SUV is a truck standard so much easier tegs then sedans. That’s why you see so many SUV car things. It’s bullshit heaven forbid you do the right thing automakers.
Easier to get an car/SUV ev then a sedan, model y, Lexus option, Kia etc are all half way SUV with the functionality of a sedan is dumb.
https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html
there’s you another goddamn option
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
the forest is personal vehicles make up the single largest source of emissions in the US, and SUV’s are by far the most sold new vehicles currently making up the majority of that.
SUVs are passenger vehicles, the emissions of which have been trending flat or lower year over year since about 2004. It’s not individual passenger vehicles, including SUVs, that’s the source of increasing emissions. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/420f24022.pdf.
The forest that you’re missing is the fossil fuel industry driving decisions for what the hell we as consumers can even access, in nearly all sectors of the economy.
Removed by mod
U mad bro?
Americans when you try to get them to stop fucking up people’s lives.
The oil companies made me do it.
Yep and if we push harder for 4 day work weeks and work from home for everyone that can do so, emissions would plummet and we could still drive our SUVs…
Removed by mod
The worse enemy of public transport and other changes to cities are probably Nimbys and culture.
SUVs and trucks are more expensive than smaller cars.
2000 for a shitbox grand Cherokee vs 30000 for a hybrid.
Why are you comparing used to new? Spend that 2000 on a used Prius
No guillotining on a Monday then.
You still can, but you should promptly refrigerate. It is very important to keep food out of the danger zone of 4°-60°C, that’s 40°-140° in school shooting units.
glad to see my Guillotine-chan around here 🙂
Fun fact, billionaires are the only ethical meat
Posting about it on Lemmy is pretty much the same as being in the revolutionary vanguard.
Vanguard means the front. So either you don’t know what that means, fam, or you’re being sarcastic. O:
Indeed
Sarcasm it is then. And a good comment, though I wish I knew it was sarcasm from the start :P
Meatless Mondays doesn’t go far enough. It should be everyday. Meat is murder.
I’m sure with that attitude you’ll surely convince a lot of people. /s
I’m not vegan to make friends. I do it for animals rights and the environment.
Being less of an extremist about it would result in fewer animals being eaten, though.
In other words, you are killing animals via your attitude.
Lmao why I’m responsible for your actions? I don’t financially support animal exploitation and murder. You need to stop eating animals and get with the times. That is a lame excuse and you know it.
If you want to learn more of where vegans are coming from then watch Dominion 2018:
You are responsible for my actions because you are so combative I’m going to order a hamburger because of you. And today is salad day.
Sounds to me like you were just looking for an excuse to do something you’re not totally convinced is the right thing… Your comment also reads way more aggressive than it would have had to be, which makes me think that vegan got to you more than you’d like. But that’s just me. And I’m in permanent conflict myself for trying to eat vegan myself and raising two kids (as predominately vegetarian omnivores - if that makes any sense.)
Sure if you want to read into psychology of a comment and “who got to who hardest” go ahead. I just saw a combative vegan and ordered burgers which I didn’t plan on eating today. Do with that what you will, attribute some internalised guilt, whatever.
Lmao meatflake.
I decided to order two
I don’t financially support animal exploitation and murder.
no one does.
you should give a trigger warning when you link gore
Factually untrue lmao. All social rights movements historically only brought about major change by being loud and disruptive
There’s some truth to that. However, not all loud and disruptive activities have been successful at achieving their goals. Most are counterproductive.
I would say that militant veganism is about as productive at promoting a plant-based diet as the Westboro Baptist Church was at promoting heterosexuality.
Why not vegetarian first? Improving step by step?
Vegan is not sustainable and far more effort, not possible for most. People try to get by. Unlike with emissions, a poor person essentially eats as much as the richest. But those are also those with the least free time and money to change to a different diet.
Why not vegetarian first? Because dairy is seriously messed up.
Cows have an average lifespan of around twenty years off the top of my head. Cows are mammals, and produce milk to feed their young. To keep them producing milk, you have to keep them perpetually pregnant. This is done via artificial insemination the overwhelming majority of the time, where a farmer puts her in a rape rack, sticks their hand up her ass far enough to grab her cervix and align everything, then jams a syringe full of bull semen into her vagina.
A side effect of pregnancy is children. Her calves are stolen from her after she gives birth, and murdered to be sold for veal. This cycle is repeated continually for four or five years until she becomes physically incapable of functioning from the repeated pregnancies. Then she’s slaughtered for her flesh too.
Dairy is the meat industry, just with additional abuses. Vegetarians are continuing to support the abuse of animals. It makes much more sense to just go vegan from an ethical standpoint.
Her calves are stolen from her after she gives birth, and murdered to be sold for veal.
almost no calves end up as veal at all. the vast majority of cattle are brought to full weight before slaughter.
Cows have an average lifespan of around twenty years off the top of my head.
no, they don’t. they have an average life span of about 18 months as beef cattle and maybe 6 years as dairy cattle.
To keep them producing milk, you have to keep them perpetually pregnant.
this just isn’t true. they aren’t perpetually pregnant.
A whole foods plant based is 30% cheaper and will save thousands of dollars in healthcare related costs.
I’m low income can manage just fine as a vegan. The only extra time needed is to learn the new recipes.
Abstract
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.”
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/abstract
Yeah, no, raising children vegan is the hardest possible thing to do safely/healthy. example from a study in Poland
And this comes on top of the fact that vegan people are richer and spend much more time thinking/planing food than average people.
So what does it mean for children on vegan and vegetarian diets?
This doesn’t mean every child who follows these diets is going to have these nutritional and health benefits or problems. And we also can’t say whether these problems will persist into adulthood.
But it does highlight potential risks which health practitioners and parents need to be aware of. And it’s a reminder to either find suitable replacements that align with the family’s diet philosophy, or prescribe supplements if a deficiency is diagnosed through a blood test.
In particular, parents and caregivers need to be careful their children are maintaining a good intake of protein from a variety of vegan sources (beans, lentils, nuts) and calcium (from calcium supplemented plant milks).
Whether you’re following a vegan, vegetarian or meat-eating diet, you still need to make sure the diet is balanced across all food groups.
I get it might not be easy, especially if you’re just starting out, but “hardest possible thing to do safely” seems like a stretch.
It is the hardest thing possible in terms of proving the right nutrition to your children using only vegan food. Any other form is easier. Any other age is easier.
“Whole Foods” is not what you want there.
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that
no, it’s not. this position expired. from your link:
This position is in effect until December 31, 2021.
they had been renewing it every time it expired, with as much of a gap as abut a year. it’s been 3 years. i don’t believe there is any reasot to think they are going to keep this same language if it is ever renewed at all.
A whole foods plant based is 30% cheaper and will save thousands of dollars in healthcare related costs.
not for everyone.
Sounds like you’re vegan to make enemies tbh
According to that logic vegans are seen as enemies to everyone who is ignorant, cruel and lazy.
The more education someone has the more likely they’re to be vegan.
Removed by mod
this comment was removed without explanation.
edit:
i have received a reason: supposedly it’s misinformation to claim that (something) doesn’t help the environment, but i have a proof:
(something) exists the environment is getting worse therefore (something) doesn't help the environmentmy logic is sound, it is not misinformation. in fact, labeling it misinformation is, itself, misinformation.
So when you don’t have any actual arguments against their point of view, you resort to criticising their ‘attitude’. I see
And when you don’t even try to ask my point of view, you resort to assumptions.
Serious question, what could possibly convince them?
We all learnt about the atrocious living conditions on factory farms long ago. We all know that the meat industry is terrible for the environment and climate. We learnt about the avian flu being spread on cattle farms, with owners hiding the cases from the authorities, with 0 regard for public safety. We all know that migrants and children are systemically exploited by slaughterhouses, many get PTSD or become alcoholics, some get severely injured or die because of accidents.
Yet after all of that, meat eaters still happily give their money to these places every time they go to a supermarket or restaurant.
The meat industry got people so hooked on animal products that they can get away with basically anything, change my mind.
Price.
Vegans should stop trying to guilt others into veganism and start lobbying to end meat subsidies (or reapply them to vegan food).
The reason people hate vegans is because many of them do it for personal moral superiority, not to actually help anything.
We’ve already come a long way on price, thankfully. When I go to local supermarkets or discounters (Lidl, Kaufland, Aldi, Penny,…), the store brand meat alternatives are already as cheap as their factory farmed products. Same for the milk alternatives, soy yoghurts, and so on. So price parity has already been reached in many cases, at least here in Germany.
I guess now the issue is that many of the discounter alternatives don’t taste the same as meat yet (although they’re getting better), and the premium plant-based products taste great, but are still more expensive than the cheapest meat products.
That’s a good point actually. If meat and animal products weren’t ridiculously subsidized and the price at the cashier reflected the true cost then there would be an overnight surge in veganism. Nobody would have the political will to completely tank massive well lobbied industries though, regardless of any long term benefit.
I for one don’t really give a shit about murder. Less animal cruelty would be nice, but it’s not a deal breaker for me.
I’m cutting back on meat because I researched the climate effects and it’s ridiculous, especially for beef. I care about the climate far more than I care about the lives or wellbeing of animals bred for slaughter. “Meat is murder” annoys me. “Meat is destroying our climate” resonates with me.
I know there’s a lot of people who don’t give a shit about the climate either, but there’s a lot more people who give a shit about the climate than there are people who give a shit about the wellbeing of animals. So maybe focus on that?
Buddy vegans are always calling out animal subsidies. Like I have been with Canada wasting 2 billion dollars on it. You need to pay more attention about the vegans you claim to know so much about.
Because it is the animals are sentient, they have feelings.
“People in the US consume far more meat than is normal or necessary for human beings to consume. This has resulted in an obesity epidemic, were heart and circulatory system problems are the biggest (second biggest?) cause of death in America and tens millions of people (probably more but I didn’t check) spend decades of their lives suffering from chronic health conditions related to food overconsumption. Eating less meat is not only good for Environment of the planet you live in, it’s also good for you”.
There you go.
Start with an “eating less meat is good for you” message (that can even sway selfish assholes) and then as they get used to doing it slowly convince people to eat less and less meat, which is basically the step by step approach that Meatless Mondays is going for.
Even just a reduction of the demand for meat might reduce the use of the worst, industrial, methods of killing of animal for food and will certainly reduce the number of animals getting raised just to be killed for food - it’s basic Economics.
Demanding that others MUST fully obbey your morals is just going to generate pushback and actually strengthen resistance to even the practical positives of being more like what you want, which ends up resulting in far more killings of animal than an approach that accepts that the way to perfect goes through less than perfect.
We should have toxic vegan zealot free Mondays on Lemmy.
May I ask you nicely then? Because I think they have a point…
The most effective forms of activism are those that are the most disruptive
That’s true.
It’s also true that the most counterproductive forms of activism are those that are most disruptive.
Turns out that the degree of disruption does not accurately predict the effectiveness of the activism.
Pretty sure it literally is not murder, since that requires killing another human. I do love animals, but I will never agree to put animals and humans on the same level. I don’t want animals to suffer and die horribly cruel deaths, but other than that I do not care. I do not eat much meat nowadays, but that is because meat is bad for the environment. I care a LOT more about that, then about animals being killed.
Definitions are perscriptive, not descriptive.
Animals are moral agents, it is murder. It is unnecesary and cruel to forcefully breed and take lives for the sake of taste.
They have desires, ability to suffer, ability to love, build social bonds and connections. They don’t deserve to die.
They have desires, ability to suffer, ability to love, build social bonds and connections. They don’t deserve to die.
True but still not murder. You can use words to mean just what you choose them to mean if you please but murder requires a human victim
If some killed your dog it’s not murder then?
obviously not
It is unnecesary and cruel to forcefully breed and take lives for the sake of taste
most livestock is bred and killed for profit.
Profit from from consumers which buy because taste and habits.
Farmers are paid long before their products are on the shelves
They’re paid because there is demand for their bloodshed and torture. Supply and demand. If consumers stopped demanding it the supply would diminish
supply and demand isn’t a magic phrase that makes your theory true. there is no reason to believe animal husbandry will ever stop before people are extinct.
If consumers stopped demanding it the supply would diminish
this isn’t causal.
They don’t deserve to die.
everything alive dies. why should livestock be an exception?
We’re forcefully enslaving, breeding, and killing billions annually. Theres a difference from killing and dying naturally.
humans are natural. what people do is natural.
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is “natural” doesn’t make it good
i didn’t say it’s good. if anyone is claiming that natural things are good, it is you, by claiming something you want to paint as bad is unnatural.
Animals are moral agents
no, they aren’t
The whole point of the meme is contrasting tiny ineffectual lifestyle changes with actively targeting the people responsible for climate change. Changing the “meatless mondays” panel to “going vegan” ruins the meme by replacing what’s supposed to be small and ineffectual with something that’s actually radical.
lets go through the third item a bit more in depth please
I’m sorry, best we can do is still allow you to invest in our stock market to hoard more so you can retire with a pittance through the magic money generation machine that requires unlimited GDP growth.
Fixed it. Stop making excuses to unnecesarily kill 200+ innocent beings every year. Choose kindness at your next meal, not after more deaths.
The whole point of the meme is contrasting tiny ineffectual lifestyle changes with actively targeting the people responsible for climate change. Changing the “meatless mondays” panel to “going vegan” ruins the meme by replacing what’s supposed to be small and ineffectual with something that’s actually radical.
If you want a vegan meme then make a vegan meme.
Baby steps still lead to vastly more climate destruction. Radical change is what is needed now.
Yeah, radical change as in, I dunno, killing all the billionaires?
Yes that’d be a great step in the right direction but both are examples of radical change. Even if we lived in an anarcho-communist society killing animals when we don’t have to is unnecesary and cruel
Sure, but like, you gotta know where to advertise. Most people don’t like having their point hijacked even if you’re right.
Preaching by fanatics is sooo appealing and convincing… /s
Removed by mod
We’ll all shut up when carnists stop slitting throats because “taste good”
Bravo, you don’t eat animals. Would you like an award?
Self important, smug vegans who huff their own farts and feel the need to preach everywhere and attack other people for not being the same are hurting your ideology more than you realize. You aren’t convincing anybody and just coming across like a blowhard.
Self important? I live this lifestyle to do the bottom baseline, not kill. You’re the aggressor here by killing hundreds a year. The most effective rights movements always have and always will we fueled by those who are loud. You should be vegan. Killing animals is unnecesary.
The most effective rights movements always have and always will we fueled by those who are loud.
The Westboro Baptists were plenty loud.
They changed the comic to point out veganism being a meaningful change compared to meatless Monday. While I agree it doesn’t fit the context or intent of the comics original message, they aren’t wrong. Like it or not at some point we all need to acknowledge that animal agriculture is one of the worst things we do to this planet. All they did was point that out and suggest that hey, maybe we should not do that.
The only attack is your reply. They didn’t call you out as a self important, smug carnivore who huffs pig farts. It sounds more like you’re being defensive at the notion that something you do has a negative impact, and it’s easier to go “vegans preachy radical ideology, hurr durrr mah bacon!” than it is to confront the inconvenience that there are very real and surprisingly easy things you can do to bring about actual change in the world.
Thin sliced tofu, fried crispy in a skillet, tablespoon of both maple syrup and soy sauce, and a few drops of liquid smoke. I call it tofakeun. Seriously, try it.
If you do nr. 3 the others will simply happen pretty much by themselves.
Don’t forget hypocrite celebs that own yachts.
Unfortunately the same group who wants this also wants to disarm everyone…good luck on your guillotining when the only people are armed are the bodyguards protecting the people you want headless.
Edit: apparently this hurt some feelings
‘Disarm everyone’ is generally a liberal position, ‘guillotine the rich’ is generally a far left position, and plenty of leftists are pro-gun.
Under no pretext, etc.
The mix is higher than it should be though, tons of people who agree with the eat the rich are also the disarm everyone type.
I suspect a lot of them are just memeing, and would get very squeamish very quickly once the guillotines start being built
I have yet to see you usaians actually use those guns for what you have them.
Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge…we are in the ballot/jury section. You don’t just start with the last box because it’s available…no wonder you euros have so many wars under your belts, you just go right to fighting.
I have no idea what you are talking about. But the usa is alway at some war, just that the war is never on their own ground. My country had a war ~30 years ago, and is still recivering from the propaganda. Usa never stoped the propaganda.
The last civil war we had was almost two centuries ago, and the last war we fought a neighbor was about just as far back…yea we are at war a lot but it’s not internally.
Obviously.
I mean, if you had actually done any of the things for which us usaians actually use those guns, you probably wouldn’t be around to make such a comment.
Between not having guns yourself and not engaging in the behaviors for which we carry guns, when would you expect to see guns being used for their intended purposes?
Uhm… You know you got the guns specifically to fight over-bearing feudal lords ?
And from what i see online, guns are mostly used to shoot inocent people. Edit: and crackheads, that your overlords created.
You are telling me why I have guns?
Mine must be defective. I’ve used them a lot, but never managed to hit an innocent person.
You have shot a goverment person ?
That’s one possibility.
Another possibility is you haven’t the first clue as to how or why people use guns.
So wholesome :)
The only way
I get the meme but consider watch this video. Makes you think.
Your video is interesting because I’m french, and there’s currently a comeback in the public space about Robespierre, that he wasn’t the monster the medias are trying to make of him. You can check some videos here:
- wikipedia’s page
- Cécile Obligi - La légende noire de Robespierre
- Robespierre, un terroriste ?
- LE GRAND MÉCHANT ROBESPIERRE
- ROBESPIERRE, DANTON, ETC : LES JACOBINS, AUX ORIGINES DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
This means that the beginning of you video is most likely wrong about Robespierre.
After saying that, I don’t legitimate the usage of the guillotine, and most readers understood it is usually associated with the french revolution 😉
Rebellion is always illegal in the third person. While it is a less productive solution, guillotines are a perfectly legitimate cure for economic anxiety. It would be preferable for the Wealthy to be taxed fairly, however should the attempts to equalize the field fail, eventually the guillotine shall result. That is the whole point. It is a warning of History repeating, well rhyming any way, itself when society does not learn from said history.
we’ll see, but if it has to come to this, it will be a bloodshed.
Lemmy made your links unreadable. Not your fault just voicing my complaint.
Thanks, it was my fault, I edited my post.
Wow. Your video made me want to guillotine EVEN HARDER. It’s almost like the same shit happens in every revolution. But you know what, I’ll take my chances once I know the ones who are actively raping the planet are gone.
Is there a way to take care of billionaires that’s not so hard to carry around on a bike?
Guillotine would transport well by bike, like a canoe or kayak…
- Secure the blade
- add wheels to heavier end
- add bike attachment to the other
In fact, you could even make the wheels reusable for a nice kayak trip after using the guillotine! Win win!
c/penultimatepanel
