• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 27th, 2023

help-circle



  • Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

    Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

    I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

    The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.


    1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
    2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
    3. We eat the nutrients in our food
    4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
    5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
    6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

    Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

    We need to close the loop again!





  • I’m generalizing here, but men’s lib looks VERY different to women’s lib. Women started from a position of very low power, liberation was nearly a continuous improvement for all but the most privileged women.

    Men’s lib requires first giving up a lot of patriarchal power before gaining the benefits of men’s lib, which in my opinion far surpass those of patriarchal power. There are a lot of barriers to this. First, most “online” feminists talk only about giving up patriarchal power. This feels hostile to most men and has bolstered misogynist influencers like tate et al. Second real life men and women are typically both complicit as men in enforcing patriarchal views of what a man is supposed to be. You can see experiences of men crying or expressing real emotion in front their prospective significant others as a prime example of this. Third there is no easy to access popular description of the benefits to men of men’s lib. There are great examples, but they aren’t as culturally relevant as patriarchal influencers yet.

    The path to men’s lib is complex and has very different challenges than women’s lib. I think we’re getting there, but it’s certainly a slow process and at this time I think the counter reaction is more prevalent and popular.


  • That income is high enough to be taxed more, but I agree more granularity would be better. I hope that they increase taxes on the rich mostly by closing loopholes that favour the 1% at our expense. A billionaire that pays no taxes now isn’t going to owe more if we increase the tax rate. 3 times 0 is still 0. It’s the loopholes we have to close.

    It’s not usually the doctors making 250-400k that are shirking their fair share of taxes, but the use of loopholes certainly starts in that range and accelerates exponentially with higher wealth and income.


  • You start off strong then move straight to supporting the fucking Taliban, as if that’s a reasonable position to take.

    I agree, the article is likely highly sensationalized, but let’s be clear the Taliban are a piece of shit government with extremely regressive and repressive views. Maybe this shit doesn’t happen in Kabul, but Kabul seems bad enough that women can only show their faces and most are even too afraid to do that. That shows you that it’s a TERRIBLE place to start with even in the best places. Unfortunately many people don’t live in Kabul and it seems that the government isn’t going to do anything to stop regional authorities from abusing their power and any young woman they can get their hands on.

    Don’t travel to Afghanistan. Every dollar that goes to Afghanistan supports religious oppression.



  • If you only had access to the coal furnace you couldn’t make power. The coal furnace is hot and it’s surrounded by room temperature air. The furnace really wants to heat the air around it and the air wants to cool the furnace because nature generally doesn’t like large differentials. So what we do is we force that heat to turn an engine before it can get to the cool ambient air.

    It’s like a putting a turbine in the way of a waterfall. The water wants to fall, so we force it to turn an engine before it can get to the ground.

    So back to your initial question, an AC is a heat pump. It pumps heat from the cooler inside to the warmer outside. It’s just like if we pumped the the water from the bottom of the waterfall to the top. Yes you can than use that water to generate energy, but you’re the one who pumped it up there in the first place so it’s a bit counterproductive.


  • Hacksaw@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlJBP has got u bro
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you’re trying to claim that a series of carefully selected “neutral” facts don’t create a narrative then you’re either being purposefully obtuse or extremely naive.

    I note that you haven’t aknowledged that bill C-16 doesn’t create any protections for trans people that don’t already exist for other minorities and I think that says a lot about this conversation.

    Lastly, when reality paints a deeply negative picture of someone, “neutral facts” must reflect that reality. Painting a bad person in a “neutral” light is not being unbiased. If I said of the unibomber that he was “an esoteric reclusive mathematician who was eventually arrested due to his anti-technology views” that’s a bunch of neutral facts, but it’s deeply biased to paint a terrorist murderer in a “neutral light”. Unbiased facts must reflect the murderous reality of his actions.


  • Nothing in what I said is a dog whistle. You clearly don’t know what that term means.

    This is the first time I responded to you and I was pretty clear: when you support heinous people so ardently you can’t blame people for assuming you support heinous people.


  • Hacksaw@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlJBP has got u bro
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The law doesn’t create anything for trans people that doesn’t exist for gays. If you repeatedly call someone using male pronouns when they repeatedly ask to be called by female pronouns that’s being insulting on purpose. This is very similar to using slurs or insults with any other protected minority, if you call a brown skinned person an “Indian” repeatedly when they tell you they’re Philippino you’d get into the exact same trouble. It’s not new. Purposefully being an asshole to minorities is, in many situations, illegal especially when you have a position of authority.

    I’ve read what your said and I don’t think I’ve been unfair. I feel your presentation of facts was narrow and omitted a lot of important nuance. I feel it created a narrative that is flawed at best and dangerously dishonest at worst. I do agree that my statements are more biased, I don’t like JP and I think he’s a predatory con man, I’m not claiming to be neutral. I also agree that on the surface your presentation of information is more neutral, but your choices on what to include and what to omit create a strong but more subtle bias, and I don’t believe this was entirely accidental.


  • Hacksaw@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlJBP has got u bro
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see what you’re saying “you can dig through this pile of shit (racism, homophobia, and other bigotry) and find a nugget of gold (basic ass advice on self help and leadership)” and that’s as true for JP as it is for Hitler.

    I think what everyone else is saying is “WHY?!??” why are you fighting so hard to dig through the shit. There are many people handing out that gold with very little shit digging required.

    When you fight so hard for the right to dig through that much shit to find small amounts of easily accessible gold, people are going to rightfully start to think it’s not just the gold you’re after.


  • Hacksaw@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlJBP has got u bro
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, that summary is disingenuous to the point of insanity. There was no law that criminalizes dead naming someone in Canada nor has anyone tried to pass one. The law he opposed was adding gender expression to the list of protected grounds for discrimination. Bigots like JP tried to make it seem like this was a ridiculous anti free speech law, but it gives the same protections to trans people as gays and other minorities. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

    He was also asked to take the training because he kept calling doctors who help trans people “butchers” and that’s a fucked up thing to call your fellow mental health professionals. He didn’t oppose the ruling on the grounds it was restricting his free speech, he opposed it because he said he “wasn’t acting in a professional capacity” but that’s bullshit. The court said he can’t have it both ways, both being recognised and introduced as an expert due to his credentials, then say that nothing he says is done in a professional context. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-court-rules-against-jordan-peterson-upholds-social-media-training-order-1.6530615

    Absolutely ridiculous that your summary is basically “he fights for free speech and everyone hates him for it” when the reality is that he’s a hypocritical bigot who thinks there should be no consequences to saying offensive things in public. I also love that you managed to blame Trudeau for stifling JP’s free speech when nothing even close to that ever happened.