Es gibt da keine Zielgruppe. [citation needed]
Selbst wenn das Morgenmagazin nicht explizit eine Zielgruppe ansprechen würde, hieße das noch lange nicht, dass es keine “Zielgruppe” gibt.
Wie du schon schreibst
das sind vor allem Familien mit Kindern
die müssen in der Redaktion doch zumindest eine grobe Vorstellung haben, wer ihr Publikkum ist. Das ist nicht mal als Kritik an Ikkimels Auftritt gemeint, sondern Verwunderung über die Entscheidung der Reaktion.
Are you now just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Your friends are already evil. You are evil. I am evil. We all deliberately cause harm, knowingly or unknowingly. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
If people would really live by this, then why even do anything “ethical”?
I don’t understand what you mean by the question.
That was a response to your “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism”. With your current response even contradicting your previous statement, i.e. “Because you care for people and want to cause them no harm, or at least less? I don’t understand what you mean by the question.” <- see. There are ethical ways to live/consume in capitalism, not everything is about greed. There is a choice. Which is what vegetarianism and veganism are explicitly about. If you really lived by “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” then there would be no rationalization for being vegetarian or vegan.
Also still - this whole discussion can be had without going into who I am or what I do. My comment is about the video, in which he went vegan for a while, then decided to eat meat again the first second the time is over, without taking a minute to think about what he did the last month. That section where they were eating the burger could as well have been a discussion about how their month went, and how and why they continue from there. That’s a criticism that can come from anyone, no matter whether they are vegan, vegetarian or omnivore. I never claimed anywhere that I’m vegan or not, it’s irrelevant for this discussion.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
If people would really live by this, then why even do anything “ethical”?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate on him (I don’t really have the impression that I hated on him at all, that was criticism at best) for going vegetarian, I even said earlier that it’s a step in the right direction. If this would have been a video on him going vegetarian, I wouldn’t have bothered much. Sure, from a general outside view, vegetarian is better than omnivore, but - again - in the context of the video, he himself shows why there’s not much difference between the two.
Also this is not about me, it doesn’t even matter whether I’m vegan or not. Don’t worry, I don’t go around judging people by what they eat, “some of my best friends are vegetarian”. But those people usually don’t put videos of their eating-habits out there. I’d just have preferred some deeper introspection.
I purposefully portrayed it a bit harsher, because of their own framing.
Sure, it’s a step in the right direction, and I’m all for that, but their own reasoning doesn’t make much sense. I don’t want to cite the whole video here, but they mention so many points for why you should go vegan, and even dispute some that would argue against it, they even say that they don’t have that “craving” for meat or milk any more. They don’t even especially like the burger they ate after the month is over, but still decided that they have to do that, on the exact second the month is over, even though they went out for dinner before, and include it in the video - what kind of attitude is that? Is this all a game to them to produce content?
Heck, he even mentions, that one of the things that would make going vegan easier is for more people to go vegan.
And he even mentioned that industrial livestock farming is one of the most cruel things we do to animals, he mentions that cows are one of the main reasons of the huge environmental impact of our food production, etc (I’m getting tired of having to repeat all this all the time, he even summarizes all of this very well in the video). From that point of view, vegetarians are not really much better than omnivores.
Better for you to be happy and well-motivated to join in solidarity with other animals.
This is exactly one of the points why vegetarians and vegans are not “friends”. Abusing and exploiting animals is not really “joining in solidarity” with them.
\rant over
Good on them for… immediately going back to eating meat the first second the month is over?
Yeah, he did go vegetarian afterwards, but…
Wait - some people pay for zines?
I also wasn’t aware that people ask for money for zines. Then again, I have never seen a zine in the wild :/ This one is definitely worth a read, it’s a whole mood
Ah, mir ist jetzt erst aufgefallen, dass ich deine Aussage missverstanden habe, tut mir leid, war keine Absicht.
Ich dachte beim OP gehts bei der Regulierung der Raumfeuchtigkeit um ein gutes Raumklima. Im Endeffekt ging’s mir ja auch nur um die Darstellung, dass “Lufttrocknung = Regulierung der Raumfeuchtigkeit” bei Klimaanlagen eine etwas merkwürdige Darstellung ist. Bin wohl etwas übers Ziel hinaus geschossen.
Es wäre mir neu, dass Häuser ohne Klimaanlage alle vom Schimmel befallen sind. Das wäre auch reine Symptombekämpfung. Willst du im Keller im Winter eine Klimaanlage laufen lassen, damit die feuchte Ecke nicht schimmelt?
Abgesehen davon ging es um “regulieren”. Klimaanlagen ziehen durchgehend Feuchtigkeit aus der Luft, das ist kein “regulieren”. Lehm bzw. Ton “reguliert”, in dem Sinne, dass sie Feuchtigkeit auch wieder abgeben, wenn der Raum zu trocken ist, also die Luftfeuchtigkeit auf einem gewissem Niveau halten.
Das würde ich nicht als “regulieren” bezeichnen
Sure, I basically agree with everything you said. The thing is that even without data centers we’d be in this mess. I’m not trying to defend them, they definitely undo the little progress that was made. However, Trump would have undone the regulations with or without the data centers.
It’s just that it’s not only data centers that are fast tracking climate change. I mean… gestures broadly at everything basically everything is fast tracking climate change.
I guess you definitely are right in the sense that it’s one of the sources that’s among the easiest to get rid of.
Nice of you to side-track with current emissions (per capita even), and not cumulative historical emissions, which were actually mentioned.
Feel free to compare different countries yourself: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-metrics (I’m not sure why ourworldindata doesn’t just put all of this on one page instead of splitting it up. It’s always a hassle to find the right one it even is on the same page, I just didn’t look close enough) The more interesting comparison might be high-income vs low-income countries.
To get back to the discussion: Yes, Europes share is not as huge as it used to be, and it’s getting lower, but what can be seen from @Tehdastehdas@piefed.social graph is that that’s less due to Europe behaving better and rather due to other countries polluting more. Not a good argument for saying “Europe is doing better now”
Don’t blame everything on the data centers. Everything else is doing its part in contributing to climate change.
Apart from that data centers, at the scale at which we seem them pop up now, are way too young to have a considerable effect on the current heat wave. Which doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. Climate change is, after all, a decades long project
Ich find das an sich eine witzige Idee, aber ich glaube dafür ist das Bild nicht chaotisch genug, es würde zu sehr herausstechen. Und es würde das Bild ziemlich eindeutig datieren.
Vom Stil her hat Katapult Wimmelbilder, in denen so etwas durchaus vorkommen könnte
I like the general concept of this, it reminds of Kants categorical imperative.
However I’d be cautious to mix general concepts/principles and laws. I already found a contradiction between the right to life for everyone, including “Mother Earth” (I share @Vicinus@piefed.zips reservations on this term), and the explicit inclusion of the right to bear firearms with the explicit mention of hunting. I think it’s obvious which of the two parts is not supposed to be in there.
Also the further one reads, the more it feels like the text adapts more and more to existing structures and problems, instead of getting rid of them. Why even include states and borders, if it explicitly mentions that they are to be ignored, and nationality and place of living can be chosen freely? In that case the concept of nationality and borders does not make sense any more
posting a drive.google .com link in an Anarchism and Social Ecology community
Sorry, but I’m not going to open that.
Did you know that slrpnk.net also hosts a collaboration platform?
What do you mean by
I’d been pretty skeptical that solar could ever cover its production costs
If you mean EROI, no one should be skeptical about that, unless you are constantly being fed misinformation. Solar panels quickly generate the energy required to produce them, in the worst cases it takes a few years.
And the good thing about solar panels is, they are incredibly durable, once they are put up they just keep on producing energy. Personally, I would argue that as long as not every roof is covered with them, recycling solar panels is bad. Why replace something that is still producing energy (and at that point for free, in EROI terms), when you could leave the old ones up and put the new panels on roofs that have none yet.
Luckily, companies are starting to see that as well, and refurbish solar panels instead of recycling them.
There’s a reason it goes reduce -> reuse -> recycle.
Der Plot oben ist einfach nur die absolute Differenz zwischen den Prozentpunkten “hohe Bildung” minus “einfache Bildung”? Wer zum Teufel dachte, das ist eine gute Methode, das zu visualisieren? Damit ist der Unterschied bei kleinen Parteien zwangsläufig kleiner.