Man, I think we tend to see stuff like this and oversimplify it as “hUmAn BaD” without actually engaging with what’s going on. I think focusing on farmer’s interactions with the lions running into their property is much more apt than the writer realizes. While it’s true the lack of legislation, poor land management, and predator stigma are all big issues in why lions are getting killed so much in Estosha, but I think the core issue we should grapple with is our general view of living space with other animals.

In our back yard, we’re trying to do our best to cultivate a space that not only benefits us, but also the local wildlife. That means no mowing, no chasing off rabits or squirrels, planting natives, chop/drop invasives(or burning the ones that make it to seed), FUCKING LEAVE THE LEAVES, composting, etc. The attitude my spouse and I are trying to cultivate is to co-exist with the local wildlife, because it’s their home, too. I’m thinking much less about how to protect my property from them and more about considering all my neighbors. The city says it wants us to do a manicured grass lawn like everyone else “for the health and well-being of our citizens”, because the legislation was drafted with the premise of wildlife being a threat vector of disease and property damage. While we’re groaning away about the destruction of the habitats of wildlife due macroeconomic factors, we fail to see it’s manifestation in our literal backyard. Yeah, lions are being killed by humans because the lions directly threaten the farmers’ livelihood by hunting/killing their livestock, but maybe the solution isn’t merely legislation to reduce human and lion interactions with fence and shelter requirements, more zoning laws, and tracking lion movement. Maybe we can find a solution that benefits the lions since, ya know, it’s their home, too.

What if we started bringing into consideration the rights of local wildlife before drafting legislation? Where I would much rather consider the moral obligation exclusively and primarily, I should also bring up that we not only can and should have a mutually beneficial relationship with local wildlife, but we do, indeed, ultimately need them. In my backyard alone, bunnies keep eating up a bunch of invasive plants and their poop is fantastic natural fertilizer, dragonflies/damselflies keep the mosquito population in check, birds help spread seeds and keep grub worm/spider populations in check, coyotes and snakes keep the rodent and bunny population in check, isopods help break down all the poop to keep the nutrient cycle going, bacteria in the soil provide nutrients directly to the plants growing in the yard, ground-cover plants shield the soil bacteria from solar radiation that would otherwise kill them, the shrubs around or house grow deep roots to keep the soil in place around our foundation, the trees provide shade to keep ground temperatures steady and shelter for them critters, etc. The benefits from wildlife aren’t limited to distant functions like the food we eat, the materials they provide, or helping keep neature neat, you can see them right out your window-- even in the big city!

On top of that, we do have an obligation to protect local wildlife from climate change caused by the worst of our species AND we also need their help to combat climate change. While I would prefer our moral compass would be sufficient to support the argument to manage our collective approach to wildlife interactions, I cannot ignore the fact that the practical application is also an act of self-preservation for us all.

TL;DR: While local farmers protecting their livestock from lions is becoming a primary threat to lions’ existence, I think the core issue is bigger than just extinction of certain species, but the problem of framing it as “humans vs other animals” when Earth is their hometown, too.

Even shorter TL;DR: The real problem is fucking NIMBYs.

Should probably mention that the survey for this study was conducted in Australia in 2021 as an online self-report survey. It was funded by the government and the participants were selected and invited via text/email, though. I say this to contextualize more than anything else.

From reading the solutions considered as potentially effective in the paper, it would seem there’s still a big patriarchy problem for younger men in Australia. While it does show younger men had work commitments as a disproportionately higher barrier for them than older men, I wonder how much of it is typical corpo discouragement versus the “gRiNdSeT mInDsEt” bullshit getting shoved on them by those grifter finance-bros on social media. I get that it’s outside the scope of the paper, but surely things like that need more consideration in these studies if they’re looking into this for better health engagement(which is, admittedly, my assumption). I dunno, it just seems like all we’re doing is treating superficial symptoms when some of the suggestions are framing getting medical help as ‘strong rather than weak’ or that pro-active medical consultations can be framed as optimizing job performance.

Man, ‘potentially’ sure is doing some heavy lifting here. For those of you that didn’t read the article, looks like they’re talking about oxidation in the context of the introduction of outdoor ozone inside, combined with all the regular-ass pollutants from cooking, cleaning, etc. The oxidation cloud in question we produce is coming from our naturally secreted oils, which was dampened by lotions and perfumes acting as a barrier. The potentially harmful portion came from the interaction of said oxidation cloud interacting with whatever else is in the air, like what comes out of our sofa when we sit on it. It would seem to be that it’s only potentially harmful because we haven’t really studied these interactions that much yet. You’d be just as correct in saying it’s potentially beneficial.

The real news to me is that we haven’t really studied stuff like this that much. I would have assumed we would have studied the health effects of indoor air from this kind of source many times before, but I usually forget that I tend to severely overestimate the patience researchers have for controlling a variety of highly specific variables. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Aw, why the downvotes? I thought it was funny.

Lemmygrad: claims to be anti-imperialist Also Lemmygrad: supports Russian invasion of Ukraine

Hmmmmm…

Eh, I dunno that I’d actually characterize him as a liberal so much as him being an authoritarian that just pushed whatever happened to serve him at any point. Kinda in the same vein of fascists not having any economic ideology, just whatever serves their ideal of the state at any given moment. So yeah, I certainly agree with your sentiment that Stalin certainly was not a communist, but more because he only cared about gaining/maintaining power rather than actually subscribing to any economic theory.

… that restaurant?

I’m struggling with answering this question. I mean, obviously, I don’t know. I could give an opinion on what I think is most likely to happen, but what does it matter? Like, legitimately, what does it matter? And I do mean it earnestly, what would it matter even if I just so happened to be right about my speculation?

We all certainly hope that 2025 will be better. But I think the important thing to remember is that 2025 being better is possible. In fact, I used to be a homophobic ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian bigot. In my remorse over the person I used to be, I noticed I felt shame rather than self-righteousness over my condemnation of people just being who they are. In my longing to undo the evil I committed in the past, I realized I have the opportunity to fight for good, even if it means fighting what feels like my own reflection. I got better. I still have a ways to go and even more internalized prejudice I need to demolish, but at least I know getting better is possible, because I did it before goddammit. And if a dickhead like me can be better, can’t we all?

And even if things just turn to absolute shit, I know I can at least make my tiny corner of the world a little bit brighter if I can make myself better. And you know what? I think it’s good enough for me to know that I can start doing something about that right now. Afterall, as Marcus Aurelius would say to himself; It is up to you!

Ooo man, this is a super underrated take. Too often people get caught up in what the law is trying to do, how people could get around it, and what the incentives/disincentives are, while not really taking into consideration how the law would actually operate. Sometimes people get all conspiratorial about it trying to point to ulterior motives, but man, most of the time it’s more that bad-faith actors are taking advantage of what’s already out there rather than actively creating the problems they want to create.

As a preface, I absolutely agree that the parents here are very likely to be wrong in that it seems like they were ideologically opposed to their son’s identity.

HOWEVER. I find it difficult to trust the validity and/or truth in the details given about this particular story as the article and title are both blatantly biased. On top of that, the claims made about the intentions and motivations of others are aggressively ignorant and just insanely unhelpful. You want people to double down on transphobia? Tell them they’re a terrible person and they’re only transphobic because _____. I get it, conservatives, Christians, etc should respect Trans people and their autonomy, but it’s better for literally everyone to find the best way to reach these people in a way they’d actually be receptive to, rather than trashing and dehumanizing them as monsters. If they’re conservatives, it shouldn’t be surprising when they act like it. We should also recognize that they’re people who are capable of learning to be better.

I used to be homophobic. I was a fairly conservative Christian back in the day and the justification came via biblical principles. I didn’t learn to be better by being characterized as “he only hates gay people because he’s secretly gay himself” or “he just wants to control what other people do in the bedroom”, but rather by actually engaging my own rationalizations. I would have rejected the premise that I hated anyone who was homosexual, so any rhetoric that mirrors the dishonesty of this article would have been a non-starter. In fact, it would have seemed to me that there were no legitimate arguments to be made against my position, so I would have felt more justified with the given approach above. Being in a few opposing positions on the topic, I never believed that my concurrent position was morally wrong, even though I would strongly submit today that my position before as a conservative Christian absolutely was immoral and extremely uninformed. The takeaway I’m trying to emphasize is that going on the offensive for any such position is not only ridiculous, but very counterproductive.

While I understand the frustration with what this article appears to portray, the added dishonesty is harmful in that we’re dehumanizing two parents who probably legitimately believe what they are doing is justified and moral. Attacking them would make them double down on their beliefs and who would directly suffer for it? Their son. So where I always found the blatant bias of articles or the always ridiculous non-argument “you just believe _____ because _____” inherently dishonest and icky, I think we should definitely take better stock of how we approach these topics for more than just the intellectual honesty, but also to recognize the second, third, and even fourth order effects our method of approach manifests. Outrage, especially about something moral, feels good, but what good is it when directed the way it is in this article? I could accuse them of being blind and only utilizing outrage as a clickbait tactic, and I have a chance of being correct, but I’m not arrogant enough to assert that I know for a fact what they believe and intend and post that on the internet.