• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle














  • Absolutely, targeting activism towards the lifestyles of the rich is a crucial step in addressing the issue of higher CO2 emissions and climate change. It’s not about vilifying individuals, but rather recognizing that certain lifestyles contribute significantly to environmental harm.

    Focusing solely on the lower and middle class isn’t the solution, as they are the ones who often bear the brunt of climate change impacts and economic adjustments. What might be considered “luxury” for them is often just basic necessities, and their livelihoods are directly affected by climate-related changes.

    On the other hand, the elite and super elites can afford to make substantial changes to their lifestyles without sacrificing their basic needs. Cutting back on private flights, yachts, and excessive consumption won’t significantly impact their quality of life. Their choices to reduce their environmental footprint can send a powerful message and create a domino effect, encouraging positive change on a larger scale.

    This doesn’t mean demonizing anyone; it’s about promoting awareness and responsibility. We need systemic changes, and these should start from the top down. By targeting the source of excessive consumption and promoting sustainable choices among the rich, we can create a more equitable and sustainable future for everyone.


  • Honestly, while the humor and memes might seem amusing, it’s important to recognize that this is precisely what they want. By making the situation seem ridiculous, we risk diverting attention from the serious and substantial allegations against Trump.

    We shouldn’t allow them to manipulate the narrative and trivialize the issues at hand. Their intention is to downplay the gravity through memes and laughter, while the actual impact on global democracy is a significant concern.

    Stay focused on the real issues and their implications.





  • Mateoto@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Interestingly, it’s still debated if it was necessary to drop not one but two awful bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    More left-wing positions argue Japan was already on the brink of surrendering. Here is one publication summing it up pretty well m:

    As General Dwight Eisenhower said, Japan was at that moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face, and “it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

    Saving face meant for one part of the Japanese military to keep the Emporer untouched. On the other hand, the Japanese military, contrary to the Japanese government:

    […]wanted to keep not just the emperor but to avoid an Allied occupation, disarmament, and war crimes trials.[…] They were determined to fight a final, all-out “decisive battle” to bleed the United States invaders until the Americans sued for peace.

    We can at least say, whether you agree with the necessity of the use of atomic bombs on Japan, that humankind never again should make use of an atomic bomb.

    Here is a GIF to remember (and look up the NSFW version of it…

    https://gfycat.com/flusteredartisticjanenschia