Do you really think there's more wildlife in managed hay fields compared to letting those fields rewild? Seems quite dubious

FYI I'm a reject modernity return to hunter gatherer shill so I think humans should aim to reduce the amount of cultivated land in general

This post was maybe referring to agrovoltaics?

The largest instillations in the US are in the middle of the fucking desert.

Still this is obviously worse right? We're taking untouched wilderness and turning it into a wasteland of blue silica. Deserts are pretty unique biomes with their own set of diverse animal and plant wildlife.

Farm land is already void of most biodiversity and usually used to grow corn or some other form of unnecessary cattle feed - yeah ideally both get rewilded - but it feels better to reuse an already existing bio wasteland instead of creating new ones..

What I don't get is why spend the effort dealing with YTs shit just to increase their userbase when we should be focusing on shifting people away from YT and into decentralized solutions like PeerTube anyways?

That's easy. People who wish others to die. They die first. If they are willing to accept sacrificing others, they die first.

I didn't agree to die. Or to be killed. Or murdered. Yet I have to be executed all the same, because they don't care if you die or not.

First to die.

Still let's not forget the right-wing policies from their manifesto:

• Increasing military spending by 13 billion

• Increase police funding

• More border security force to "stop the boats"

• Build more prisons

• Pour money into polluting industries (car gigafactories, steel production, "carbon capture")

• Keep oil and gas production in the North Sea for decades, with the only focus on jobs and none on environmental issues.

So yeah I guess it's better to have an authoritarian social-ish democratic state than an outright fascist one but that's not a very high bar and will only work until the climate crisis boils us all alive :)

Isn't this just a DIY brushless dynamo? Am I missing something? Still cool tho

In my country here's how it works:

0. Parties provides free food and transport to unemployed masses they know will vote for them
1. Wait 3-4 hours in queue at polling station to receive ballot in person
2. Drop ballot in secure box
3. Go back to work for a few days
4. See on election day that the party that spent the most on voter courting wins

How would you propose we deal with this when people who are working (and can't take a day off to go vote) would come out in much smaller numbers than ones that have nothing else to do (and get free lunch and transit to and from the polling stations) and even when voting happens on a weekend you have to trade your only time off to go and vote out of the goodness of your heart.

I think this is one of the reasons for digital voting - I'd much rather be able to vote from work or home or anywhere when I don't have the time to sit on a queue for 5 hours just to have my vote diminished by a group that isn't politically active but loves a free lunch and something to do

I mean you could have asked why Israel attacks refugee camps in the first place (even before Hamas)?

Or do you think that atrocities like "women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered by automatic fire" doesn't breed resentment? (not that Hamas didn't do the same on 7.11 but let's not pretend Israel isn't at least as complicit as Hamas in the overall conflict)

I'll admit using civilians as shields is indeed dreadful - but my main point is acknowledging that violence only breeds more violence and that the first step to preventing more deaths is dismantling the current terror state form of Israel, not killing more and more civilians as some form of extirpation..

I'll leave you with this - if there's no oppressor to rally against, what would give Hamas power?

I mean you came in swinging with the whole "but why is Hamas holding hostages in a refugee camp" line which is actual whataboutism when the thread is about the IDF killing over 200 people.

Why not ask why the IDF doesn't have procedures in place to prevent civilian casualties? Why not ask why is it impossible to send ground troops instead of carpet bombing Gaza? Why not ask why does Hamas exist in the first place? Is there a single thing you'll admit the IDF/Israel has done wrong that isn't somehow the fault of Hamas?

Your lack of humanity was already showing, but I didn't think you'd be so unable to retort that you'd just forfeit the debate..

You accuse me of whataboutism then you just use it yourself.

Yes, I don't think Hamas should be using human shields but I also don't think Israel should be settling land even before the partitioning of Palestine. (I mean the idea of a foreign state partitioning land they don't inhabit is insane, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument)

How do you not see using civilian encampments as a makeshift human wall just as immoral?

And we can play the whole who started it first game as much as we want but it doesn't negate the fact that even after unfavorable borders for Palestine were established - settlers continued to take over land with the support of the IDF - where is the defense in burning homes and expelling Palestinians from land not even within the borders of Israel?? (oh but it was contested territory you see so that gives us the right to massacre people, yes I am very intelligent...)

Saying Hamas is the reason the IDF is killing civilians completely misses the history of the struggle - what's next the Nakba was also Hamas' fault then?

Is it on its way to save us though? Sure the global north might be able to escape the worst and maintain some semblance of normality but how does that work for the remaining 90% of the world? Those that can neither afford nor have the time to wait until the "green energy revolution" reaches them? Do we just accept they'll never be able to reap the benefits of their own exploitation?

I know you don't have the answers but these are questions we nees to grapple with that nobody seems to know how to answer..

So then would you hold Israel to the same standard of using human shields that you do Hamas?

If so would you claim the Hamas attacks on the 7th were justified because they attacked settler towns like Be'eri, whose ideological purpose of existing this close to Gaza was specifically to create a civilian border (literal large scale human shield)?

Using civilians to protect any military objective (including the land you've settled by force) is appalling - but let's not pretend only one side is doing it.

If you really care about peace - petition your leaders for a one state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians (no matter their religion) are allowed to coexist and are equal in the eyes of the law and the people.