danciestlobster

This may be true but it also assumes idealism that everyone will be open to being a good steward of the planet. The way I think about it, lower population is sort of a buffer against an inevitable portion of the population who, no matter how direct and obvious the impact of climate change is, can't be convinced to help society. And unfortunately, at the time of having kids you can do everything you can to teach them to be interested in helping the planet but they still might not, and that would come with a huge amount of guilt in my case.

This is a genuinely nice sentiment, but it is worth noting that the world is way more populated than most past generations, and while any hope for us will fall largely on the squares of future generations, their job would be so much easier if there were a lot less of them.

Some developed countries seem to have this notion that declining birth rates will be the end of them and while that can be somewhat true for how economic systems are set up, the world was objectively a lot more sustainable before the boomers generation, population wise

Tell me you are from the south without telling me you are from the south

You can trust her she is a professional smoker. Kid is doomed

I think it's a spectrum, some are worse than others. This one is particularly incensing as it drives house prices up for average consumers. Me putting my meager retirement savings in stocks, while still arguably just as much a capitalist behavior, feels a little less negative on the working class. But maybe it is and I just don't understand economics enough for the nuance

I and I think many in the left would say no to both of those, especially if you lived there yourself in the second case. The abhorrent behavior is buying multiple houses and charging rent that is high enough to not just cover mortgage and maintenance but also turn a large profit, enough to where you can live entirely off of it at the expense of your tenants. And do things like raise the rent every year because "the market allows for it" even though your mortgage cost hasn't changed.

There is obviously a grey area in between that everyone will have different opinions on. But in my view it is POSSIBLE to rent a property ethically, using lower than industry rents and being generally nice about it rather than viewing it as an opportunity for exploitation

What if they were 9 inch nails instead? I've heard people like them

It's amazing to be how seemingly rare this take is, at least among country leaders

I, too, enjoy pumpkin spice lattes

At the very, very least, they are guilty of lopsided financial support and advertising dollars behind each candidate. The rest is largely supposition, though certainly COULD be true. Sometimes it's easier to accept that than that the other voters are dumb. I have no idea which is actually true

Also, this isn't exactly a fair statement since the primary was declared over before the majority of states even got to participate. Yes there is low turnout sometimes in states that get to participate, but there are many of us who would like to and can't, hence feeling like it isn't exactly a fair or representative process

Well if you want anything to get better you need to find common ground with those people and have a united front against facism. Even if you don't like or agree with them.

The reality is, some people struggled to vote for Kamala, not because she is just as bad (she is obviously not) or because they were paid bad actor agents of the far right, but simply because, despite being the better of two options, she just wasn't left enough to represent their views.

I'm not saying this is the correct approach or they did the right thing here. But the varying degrees of left constantly arguing with each other creates more and more room for far right fascists to trample us. You don't have to agree with them, but you do need to organize with them to make any real change.

It's that, or yell into the Lemmy void ineffectually at people who are closer aligned to you than the actual problem.