I assumed it was to sarcastically “twist” there idols. Kind of like the “Jesus being a dick” memes.

I think the difference can be drawn in parallel to cigarettes: an unfiltered cigarette is worse than a filtered one for smoking. Both are obviously bad for you, but if you’re stacking carcinogens and other health concerns, eventually you’ll reach someone’s breaking point. I don’t think anyone is claiming alcohol is healthy, but I also don’t think the response should be “it’s already unhealthy, so this isn’t won’t stop anyone”. Every risk associated decision we make adds to the statistics pool for whether we get sick. Mitigating that might actually worry someone enough to switch to a healthier (not healthy) form of alcohol consumption.

I think I kind of understand the term, but what does “hallucinations” in this context refer to? It seems like it might be fabricated unformation?

I live in Florida, surrounded by red and I’m from a red state/area. To be clear, I think it’s PERFECTLY VALID to hold the thought “my money and stuff are mine and I should have a say who gets to use it”. And to your point about democrats: yeah that’s effectively what I mean. Universal health care and paying for college are publicly funded from…other people’s money. Most Republicans I’ve talked to wish we had either or both, but balk when taxes are raised. They would rather be the ones to decide who gets a portion of their paycheck from an understandable hesitancy to have the government be the one to decide who gets the money. Republicans see that prudence as necessary, and most democrats I know see that as an unwillingness to contribute to the “greater good”.

I think the defining difference is whether that sharing extends to just friends and family, or if it becomes more egalitarian and extends to everyone. From my experience, Republicans tend to stop at the former, and Democrats tend to stop at the latter. There is also usually differences in what they’re willing to share to both parties, namely money.

I think that comment is saying the opposite of what you’re saying

Buo-y

Apparently we have the Dutch to blame for that one, as the verb form is apparently descended from Spanish.

It’s obtuse because it’s not like another one is going to crop up in the same town in the same day to give the workers jobs, nor is it going to solve the issue of regulating the industry properly. The people enforcing the policies need teeth, and those teeth should be able to bite at the people causing these conditions. Places get like this because 3rd party inspection is underfunded and underpowered. Shutting a place down means it cuts into profits while potentially cutting off workers’ incomes. It doesn’t mean the owners or board get significantly impacted.

Assuming you aren’t being purposefully obtuse, the answer is to make them safe and suitable environments for people to work in. You can figure out a way to punish the company who is creating these conditions, but for the time being, the answer is to make them reasonable to work in.

No. They’re saying that slaughter houses don’t appear to be going away in the near future since there is a still a fervent demand for meat, so the answer of “just shut them down” isn’t a valid solution yet. They should be removed of human cruelty until we can fully remove them.

The link is to a piped video. The link is named after whatever the original hyperlink used. If it was labeled “butt penis” the piped bot would have a link “butt penis” as well.

I didn’t even know they tested for DHMO. I thought it was something they noticed was so prevalent at autopsy, they just assumed it was naturally present. It’s nice to see the awareness efforts have not been all for not.

8.49’!~=116699.97’

I am a human, hear me rar.

It’s funny that I never considered it, but why would they replace the low wage workers? Capitalism would care most about replacing the high wage workers (except for the CEO and other board members. They obviously are worth every penny and are irreplaceable with ai. ~signed CEO)