My interpretation of her having to hide the remains is that she couldn’t afford to go to a hospital and have things dealt with properly.

This woman is a victim of the shameful state of US healthcare and repressive law.

Whereas right wing folks will elect vile criminal garbage to represent them.

What country is this car from?

Ah, I see where the miscommunication happened. Only my first response was a defence of them, and only as far as the comment you were responding to. Their opinions are theirs and mine are mine.

I don’t think a general strike is a remotely plausible possibility, it simply requires more labour organisation and willingness endure hardship than what currently exists. Me going into hypotheticals and theoreticals is based on this. You’re right that If it were somehow we’re to happen, the suffering would be immense and I don’t know of any remotely realistic goal that it could achieve that would justify it. There’s a lot wrong with society but I don’t see how bringinging it all to a stop would do much to help.

The main point I initially tried to make(but got very sidetracked from) is that just because someone is advocating for a course of action that causes harm in persuit of a goal, it doesn’t mean they are ignorant or uncaring of the harm. But rather that they believe that the end justifies the means.

Sorry for the confusion.

I’m not expecting anything, I’m talking entirely theoretically. I’m not asking anyone to do anything, I’m speculating on what I would do in that situation.

If I’m in a situation where I’m solving the trolley problem by equation, which track I’m on is not a factor. Or to put it as simple as I can. If I had to be one of those who die, it would not change my thoughts on what would be acceptable.

You are completely missing my point. Firstly, just because I consider something acceptable doesn’t mean I think that it’s okay. It’s more that If action or inaction on a problem causes the same amount of suffering and death, then I believe that action with the hope of a good resolution is the better course.

Let me phrase it in terms of the trolley problem. Just because I would calculate to take the least shitty course of action does not mean I’m uncaring of the outcome. I would simply be forced to play the hand that I’m dealt. And like I said, the problem of US healthcare is not mine to fix. So I can only speculate on what I might do without having to face the potential reality of action.

So what about you? Would you choose action causing harm to stop it later, or inaction and do nothing to mitigate the present harm?

There’s no course of action available in which people won’t suffer and die. In an ideal world that would not be so, but we must face reality however shit it may be.

People dying of treatable conditions does bother me, it’s one of the main reasons I’m disgusted with the state of healthcare in the US.

As many as 44,789 people in the US die each year from lack of health insurance.

I’m under no illusions when it comes to the limitations of mutual aid, it’s not a replacement for a functioning society. It’s far more a foundation of a strong labour movement and sense of community.

The hypothetical being talked about here is a general strike. I know full well that not having access to healthcare kills people. I’d also like to specify that I’m not advocating for a general strike, I was speculating on the justifivuof those who are.

And to answer your your final point I’d like to refer back to the 44,789 people who die every year from a lack of health insurance in the US. Now attempting to bring about radical changes would most certainly cause more deaths than that, but you asked for a number. So if I could change things for the better without killing more people than those who are currently dying under the current system then I would consider that acceptable. So there’s your number, 44,789 people dying per year to achieve the goal of universal healthcare in the US. I however live in a country that already has universal health care, so I thankfully wouldn’t have to make such a grim decision. It’s easy to engage in such calculations without having to have the emotional burden of potentially condemning thousands to suffer and die.

So for how much longer would you consider it acceptable for the current system to cause more suffering and death before drastic actions for change are acceptable?

It seems you care more about those who would be hypothetically be harmed than those who are being harmed right now.

I don’t think that those who advocate for mutual aid networks and a general strike are either ignorant or uncaring of the harm that it could cause. I think they believe that the harm caused would be less than the harm already being inflicted by the current system. That said, I think it’s a big ask for people to put themselves and their families at great risk, even if it’s for a good purpose.

How prevalent the use of the exact phrase ‘Your body, my choice’ is irrelevant when the intent behind it is so common in other espoused rhetoric. The fact is that too fucking many people are happy to tear up a woman’s right to self determination and force women into situations that put their lives at risk. I don’t think we can ignore any rhetoric that supports or gives cover to such attacks on a woman’s autonomy.

At this point I would not be surprised if we started seeing feminist groups becoming armed and violent. And as much as I have a disdain for political violence, I don’t think I could condemn them for doing so.

Progress towards what?

I prefer to use Main/Sub terminology. It also works without needing to change any acronyms.

You can get all the classic C&Cs on Steam and you can play a good chunk of them online using CNC online. I agree though, we need a new C&C Generals.

As a bisexual British person I absolutely support the idea of returning queer to it’s classic meaning. There’s also the option of just using both meanings. Context will establish which one you mean.

The Republicans are a right queer bunch, unlike my fellow queers in the LGBTQ+ community.

Fair points. I was mostly thinking of situations like downloading using a separate device, writing to a usb drive or SD card and installing via that. Downloading an installer and using it is just downloading without using an app store.

I’ve always took side-loading to mean installing from local storage, as opposed to downloading from remote storage. As far as I’m concerned downloading from a third party app store should not be treated as side-loading.

It kind of is actually. Throwing a milkshake isn’t likely to cause much harm, and would probably result in an assault charge. Throwing acid can cause serious disfigurement and possibly death, and a far more serious charge.

You can condemn her actions without the hyperbole. This happened before and it didn’t result in a wave of acid attacks and I’ve no reason to think this time will be different.

Do you know that he didn’t take a gun safety course? For all we know, he could have had plenty of knowledge on how to safely handle a firearm and simply decided to ignore it for the sake of looking cool. The fact is that no amount of safety training can stop someone who decides to do something stupid.

I absolutely agree with your last point though. There should be extensive training in how to handle a firearm safely required before someone can buy a gun.

I’m pretty sure internet means internetwork, as in between networks. There’s also intranets, which are limited access web networks.

You are right that geoblocking really shouldn’t be a thing, it’s existence is thanks to varying laws and regulations, and most annoyingly, IP distribution contracts.

None of that relates to this murder as based on the description of settler concerns, which are more of an issue in the West Bank rather than Gaza, I’m guessing that this happened in the West Bank. (Where Hamas is not the government.)

Whether the murderers are IDF or settler militants is immaterial to the point of this being an unjustified killing of a Palestinian shepherd living in the West Bank, who is rather unlikely to be a Hamas fighter or involved in the 7th October attack.

How does the atrocities of Hamas relate to the murder of a Palestinian shepherd?