Ich möchte auch in einen privaten Verfolger gelangen. Ihr scheint weise zu sein in den Wegen der betreffenden Wissenschaft. Ich habe des Lebens rascher Hetze wegen für sie keine Zeit mehr. Könntet ihr mir nicht zu einem Zugang verhelfen, etwa durch eine Einladungsverknüpfung?

Ich bin auch gewiss legitim, was meine zahlreichen auf das Teilen orientierte Kommentare veranschaulichen.

Gibs als zusätzliche Soße vielleicht ne ungefähre Zahl an “Schaden an der Allgemeinheit”, nicht gezahlte Steuern oderso?

Kann nochmal jemand für Teilzeit-Zuhausis zusammenfassen was pasiert? Also ich latsch gerne mal hinterher aber Was der vorher/ nachher Unterschied dieser Pilgerung?

I was gonna add “these days” but didn’t

Oh god please no, please don’t escalate this war by adding the killer kind of weapons to it

Looks more like a few hours of cramping body and soul followed by 3 days of emotional hangover

I understand and totally support that in general. I’m gonna try to explain my point of view.

In this case we don’t exactly look at policy-making. Between stating that a majority supports governmental action to ban one use plastics and actual policy is a process.

This process will “forge” the outcome. In it, several conflicting interests will meet/clash and according to the power relations between them, they will be able to enforce their respective will.

Since the power relations are, let’s say, fucked up, we are constantly seeing how profit of few overrule need of many and overall rational solutions.

Thats why the criterion “clearness” seems out of place for me at this point. Certanly, before it comes to the actual policy-making, things like the washabillity of surgical equipment will be processed. You will certanly not end up with a dirty scalpel in your body.

That’s why the scepticism of your initial comment seemed odd to me.

Don’t know if this should be seen as a given standard, or if we (“average lemmy users”) should disclaim it more often, but I don’t mean to be offensive (even though this format of short message discourse provoces a certain sass). I mean to have meaningful conversation about each others POV’s. That’s somewhat the point of lemmy, imo.

The magic about collective action is that the everyday-normal-coorperation of humans comes up with solutions for everyone. The pointer to individual decision-making in lack of collective action thus doesn’t work as a measure of how serious people are.

Also seen in episodes like

“Oh, you are wearing shoes made under unfair conditions?!”

And

“Oh there is fossil fuel in your energy consumption?”

Or

“Oh if you like democracy so much, why do you exist in a not-so-democratic-country?”

Regarding how rushed international policy-making for the environment and against profitability is not at all a problem has never been and won’t be anytime soone, that “scepticism” seems to be the product of “looking for superiority” here, imho

1. Tiniest fraction of single use plastic
2. Could be recycled or reused/resterilized
3. What flavour of skepticism are you trying to perform rn?

https://akg-online.org/arbeitskreise/fkpb-forum-kritische-politische-bildung/faq-e-konzept-und-gesinnungspruefung.html

Southparknice.mp3

Ja, aber irgendwie auch nur in dem Maße in dem politische Inhalte gewählt werden und das setzt Auseinandersetzung mit den Inhalten vorraus. Sonst is nix mit Mitbestimmung oder kollektiver Meinungs- & Willensbildung

Probier aus meine These: Eine Gesellschaftsordnung, in der auf Wahlplakaten keine Inhalte sind, ist keine Demokratie.

Gleich rot? Schön wärs

“The Idea of the Yeti was long called bullshit, but now I got myself bigger shoes”

And “helping” is still a major understatement

Ja! Auf eine extrem sperrige Ausweichformulierung einigen und die immer einsetzen bis das Verbot wegfällt.

Z.B. “Schülerinnen und Schüler und alle diee sich keinem binären sozialen Geschlecht zuordnen und auf diese Schule gehen und selbstverständlich ebenso dazu gehören”

untertitelt mit “Innenminister schlagen Alarm”

Diese husos. Erstmal komplett das System ausgehebelt indem ich bei Aldi die BILDs in der Auslage umgekippt hab, sodass sie so eingeklappt da lagen…

Ok imma try to get my point across one more time: There are two different layers of reality about the war.

Both layers contain meaningful information.

A bit of info in layer 1: The war is bad.

A bit of info in layer 2: Not all people see that.

We agree on both. Now my point is: We should understand the nuances on layer 2.

Your answer is: “Layer 1 has no nuances”

The war is not the same thing as the opinions about the war.

To influence the discourse, i.e. opinions, it’s better to understand the opinions specifically (“in nuances”).

To close the discrapancy between misguided public opinion and actual reality, we need to understand the opinions, not confuse its object with its (ideologically structured) representation.