I believe I read people donate much less if money is involved. Part of the motivation is the altruism of the donation.

Couple weird looking folks

Thanks that’s not what ai was expecting!

That’s also what I’ve been using, they just don’t look very permanent or polished in my high traffic areas.

Could I trouble you to link a relay you’re talking about? Because if it’s a naked board that’s cool I’ll hide it in the wall, but amazon is confused and thinks I mean a switch I think.

You know, that’s actually really sound advice. I hadn’t considered that. Maybe I’ll go with relays or something else.

No reason to bring race into it, bro.

A) that’s just like, your opinion, man.

B). You against GMOs too?! Like, someone worked hard to breed him (and me) at near 100% dick. We bananas wouldn’t even be edible if not for selective breeding to increase phallusy-ness!

Not being extremely mobile or having chronic pain does not require you to eat more calories than you burn. I have a torn disc and take nerve meds so I obviously don’t lift weights or run like I used to, but Im allowed to moderate my calorie intake.

Age and a slowing metabolism are more pernicious, but even those things don’t “force you to eat more calories than you need”. Nothing is forcing anybody to do that.

Whats wrong with being a dick? None of us would be here without dicks. Say no to dick shaming. Dick pride.

AROOOOOO, BROTHER!

And hang about 2 extra feet of skin? You bet.

I laughed when I wrote it.

While you are correct (and while I said destroy OR deface), the two different posts about this both contain people advocating for actual destruction for the same reasons.

Please read the other posts and alarm your tits to the reality / tenor of the discussion.

What’s the point of destroying Stonehenge if humanity survives as a cascading result of stopping air travel? Defacing or destroying Stonehenge is not the lynch pin that solves or even moves the needle on climate change.

Worse, if it WORKS it means the next cause that is perhaps not existential is going to come and destroy something else that belongs to humanity. Weirdly, when nation states destroy heritage sites it’s considered a type of war crime, but when it comes up for raising awareness for climate change fuck yeah everyone’s in!

Nope! I think it’s stupid and entitled and I’d rather distance myself from it and from you. So happy trails!

The last reply I will have here is that by messing with unrelated stuff, you ARE NOT guaranteed to solve the problem or even improve it. This Stonehenge business is totally extraneous. It has nothing to do with anything. If it were permanent, it’s destruction for its own sake. What is more, it’s an implicit green light for more and worse variations of this sort of vandalism or destruction going forward.

If we all make it through, YOU remember you thought it was worth it for the sake of a sound bite and 2 more days in the news for awareness instead of even trying to address the actual problem: airlines, shipping companies, cruise services, coal plants, etc etc etc.

Fucking up history for news hits is stupid, selfish, and ultimately not even particularly effective.

And I don’t want to devalue the cause because we are on the same side of it, but those bits of destruction are still legitimately incidental and not central to the cause.

To put this another way, let’s suppose that we stop climate change in as sound a way as we responded to CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. Two years later, in support of women’s rights, St. Peters Basilica is destroyed before lent. In support of trans rights, angel falls Venezuela is irreparably dammed on the cliffs before earth day. To bring awareness to police brutality the following year, the main chambers of the Great pyramid is collapsed.

It is all just stuff. But if your unrelated cause is justified in doing actual damage (which I know didn’t really happen yet), why not the next cause? Sure, climate change is an existential threat so maybe there is leeway, but it won’t be the last one. I see that you find it important to make sure we protect where we are going, but I also think it’s important to protect where we have been. It’s not something to be taken lightly or for the sake of “awareness” to destroy our own history.

On the one hand, the roaches may be all that’s left to enjoy our history; on the other hand, if the people and nature are all that’s left and our history is gone, I find that only marginally better than having not existed at all.

You break eggs because you need eggs. There are casualties of war because civilians and infrastructure are near the opposing force. There’s a word for doing that stuff when it’s not necessary: war crimes.

Find me a single revolution that was won or significantly enabled by defacing a heritage site or a priceless work of art as a core tactic.

You’ve created a false dichotomy. There is no need to trivialize shared treasures or heritage in pursuit of any cause in order to save anything or anyone. You’ve decided in some Machiavellian twist that whatever cause you think is truly just is more important than anything other people might value.

It is absolutely important to protect our future, ourselves, and the life we share the planet with, but not by throwing tantrums with unrelated collateral damage. Fight for the climate by fighting for the climate, not by desecrating churches/monuments/art/nature in some weird plight to accidentally piss off the right people and get more TV time.