FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
No bio...
User ID: 157
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4mo ago
Mate, they're in the middle of a war right now, and all you can think about is "Does this affect my chances of getting laid?"
Would you prefer the women stay there to get killed? That's not going to help the fertility rates post-war, either.
Content like this is why I can't take incels seriously: it's like the crazy guys going on about being circumcised as babies which means that now they are being denied mind-blowing orgasms like men who were not circumcised get. Bringing everything, even a war that is killing people daily, around to "I am not getting the fantastic sex I should be getting because I'm owed that!" makes you sound like a toddler demanding to get those cookies instead of the veggies for dinner.
Call me nuts, but I kinda think a single young man in Ukraine is more occupied with the bombs, bullets and missiles flying around him than chances of getting his end away. You have to be alive to have sex, after all.
Can I ask all the men blaming women, the hussies, for not getting married at seventeen and pumping out a baby a year for the next ten years - are you fathers? Any of you? Do you have kids? More than one kid? If not, why not? "I always wanted six kids but I couldn't find a woman willing to have that big a family" or "Don't be dumb, I'm not forty yet, time enough for me to settle down after I build my career and have my fun along the way with as many hot chicks as I can persuade to let me bang them"?
Because I'm fed-up right now of this stream of comments as if women magically are the only ones having babies or not. Oh, all the eighteen year old men just aching to take on adult life as a husband and father, if only those trollops weren't busy painting their faces and working at jobs!
Excuse me if I don't believe that.
Let's turn the solutions that have been presented in previous comments around. Easy one first: no contraception. Men who have sex are going to become fathers, or else they can wait until a woman decides to marry them. And let's make it harder for men to waste their prime fertile years going to college. Get them working good honest blue-collar jobs out of high school, married to their childhood sweetheart, and having babies by the time they're twenty.
Men can wait ten or so years to have a career, they'll easily pick one up when they're thirty-plus and asking an employer to take them on for full-time white collar work for the first time ever. It's much more important that they be around to be the head of the house and raise the kids right. Women can take a year out to have a baby and then go back to work, but it's a full-time job for a father. And since women have it so soft and easy in this world, and it's easier for women to get degrees and white-collar jobs, let Mom be the worker but Dad should be there for his brood because who else is going to teach them the right ways?
Economic incentives for men to marry early, father lots of kids, and postpone further education/career-building will surely change the fertility slump! If it would work for a woman, certainly no man would object to having his freedom curtailed in this way - after all, his duty to society and the future trumps any petty personal ambitions, right?
EDIT: Yes, I am going to put this out there: unless you are a married father of at least three kids, shut your yap about this. You are as much part of the problem as the women. Any guy who is not married (if you're cohabiting, why the fuck aren't you getting married instead of lolling around getting free milk without buying the cow?) and not the father of kids (are you putting it off until "someday later"? "it's too expensive"? "it's not the right time"?) can't have the neck to say "oh why aren't those women getting married and having kids?"
While this is very scholarly, upon reflection let me say:
Fuck you.
My late mother smoked pretty much all her life, tried and failed to stop smoking various times, and over the years I could see that the amount she smoked increased. She tried switching to low-tar cigarettes, but ending up smoking way more of them, presumably to get the same effect. EDIT: My father, on the other hand, smoked but succeeded in quitting and lived to be 81 before he died of an unrelated illness.
Eventually she got lung cancer. It was diagnosed very late, partly as a result of her reluctance to go to the doctor until the symptoms were undeniable (coughing up black phlegm in the mornings) and partly because the tumour was behind her shoulder blade so they didn't pick it up on x-rays until it was too big and too late for anything.
They offered her chemotherapy as more of a sop than any hope it would do anything; the first bout of it made her so sick that she refused any more, and the doctors said "yeah, it wouldn't do anything anyway".
I saw her die of it. It is a horrible, painful, wretched way to die, even with morphine as a palliative.
So maybe, yeah, maybe it's all propaganda that tobacco gives you cancer. But if some fool reads this, and starts smoking, and gets cancer, that is a miserable and avoidable death.
So, once again, Fuck. You.
And don't try to tell me she didn't die of lung cancer or that the smoking didn't cause it or any bullshit. Like your stupid-ass example of "if someone is killed in a car crash, it's not because they smoked so that shouldn't be counted as tobacco-related death" - who the fuck is counting "died in a car crash" as "died from smoking"?
it is impossible for a pathologist to determine, from both gross and microscopic examination of lung tissue, whether a person who died from other causes (such as a vehicular accident) is a smoker or a non-smoker.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
So do you think we would be better with a complete break between the idea of relationships and the idea of what it really comes down to - the feminist critique of marriage being "exchanging sex for meat"? Men and women are all perceived as economic factors, and if men want sex they don't bother with dates or relationships, they patronise sex workers where the transaction is overt and there is no confusion about who does what or pays for what. If the expectation is "the man buys dinner, the woman pays him back with sex", then dump all that and just "the man is horny, he buys a sex worker for however long, no hurt expectations or mismatches".
Women have their own thing, they enjoy working and status that way. Everybody knows their position and role. If marriage is still considered a necessary thing, back to the old days of families making alliances without emotional entanglements. But why is marriage necessary? If society wants children, the stigma around single motherhood is gone, and perhaps we'll get the artificial wombs and IVF babies gestated in them and brought up by government creches.
Because reading all the screeds about "it's so unfair! women have all the power! they should lose all their rights and be forced back to the days of exchanging sex for meat so that men can have a fuckdoll of their own at home for their own exclusive use!" makes me wonder why women would want to get married in the first place.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Now come on, you know it's only a few odd people on Twitter, or a few kids on college campuses, and it never ever happens in reality, and if it does it's only very, very rare and it's conservatives blowing up a few incidents into a big conspiracy...
... and if it does happen, then they deserved it/it's good and normal
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Please do not use meaningless insulting terms like TERF. It just tempts me to use insulting terms about you.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
10mo ago
Wow, those Jews and their International Zionist Conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, who could be up to them?
I'm not Jewish and I think eugenics is bonkers and evil. The Nazis just took it to the logical extreme, but before the war there were Eugenics Societies popping up everywhere happily planning the betterment of the human race (by letting the superior stock breed and discouraging the undesirables).
If you think the 'forty years of unscrupulous Jewish conspiracy to stop the goyim from practicing eugenics to improve themselves' is bad, be glad Francis Galton never got his way to make eugenics a common social practice. In order to marry and have kids, you (a gentleman) would need to be working towards your Certificate of Fitness since you were a child, being assessed and scored by your teachers and others all the way up to and through university, until finally you got a high enough score to be a potential spouse.
Meanwhile the young ladies would be advised by their families, and the prospect of an uneugenic marriage would be regarded with the same scorn and detestation as incest. Forget falling in love, that's romantic nonsense the young are confused by, sensible mothers and the neighbourhood nosey parkers would make sure Mabel marries Philip and not Terrance.
I am not one bit surprised Jewish people would think eugenics a discredited notion and work against it.
But here was me thinking Jewish eugenics was "make sure before marriage that you're not carrying the genes for the various bad syndromes that Jewish populations are at high risk of due to centuries of in-breeding in a small genetic pool", but no! It is all a secret plot to reap the benefits of the Super Master Smart Race for themselves and keep it from us Gentiles!
The plot must be working, I feel I have lost 10 IQ points reading the post above.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Since the worthy ones will just ignore their claimed victim hood and realize they like male attention.
Ah, the good old "women mean 'yes' when they say 'no' so just keep on going" which never ever ended in assault or rape. I thought this one had gone the way of the dodo, but apparently there are still men out there who don't believe "no" does in fact mean "no" and not "overpower me you big manly caveman".
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
(1) If this is a genuine question, then yes. Back when this was first mooted, I came down on the side of "it's the anti-parasitic effect freeing up the immune system", before ever Scott addressed the question, because I grew up in an agricultural region where ivermectin was advertised morning, noon and night for treating various animal ailments.
(2) Yes, ivermectin is used to treat humans. FOR WORM AND PARASITE INFESTATIONS.
(3) No, you will not convince anyone except your partisans that Scott was wrong, wrong, wrong and you are right, right, right about this. When the list of trials was posted on ACX, I trawled through them all. All the positive results were also in countries that are Second or Third World regions, except for Florida. And duh, Florida. Flesh eating screwworms, anyone? A case from 2016 which is mainly in deer, but which can spread to livestock and to humans.
Hence you are not going to get your Canossa moment from Scott, with him going on social media everywhere to tender a grovelling apology to you. And even if he does change his mind, I'm not going to because see points (1) and (2) above. Scott did not convince me, I already held the opinion and was mildly chuffed to see him later come out on that side of the question.
This is your hobbyhorse, and while you may have a bee in your bonnet about it, please give it up. We've already had one of your partisans over on ACX to chivvy Scott into the grovelling apology, and as I said - it won't affect my opinion since I arrived at it independently. Ivermectin is not a miracle Covid cure. If people are suffering from existing medical problems, such as worm or parasitic infestations, then ivermectin in conjunction with other treatments probably helps by killing off the parasites and freeing the immune system of that burden to fight the virus. Ivermectin on its own in otherwise healthy people won't do anything.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1mo ago
Did they make the female models fat, or did they just stop doing sex doll caricatures?
I shouldn't care about this, this is not the kind of game I'd play, and I do know that such games aimed exclusively at guys are not worried about women, they're putting in sex dolls. But the whining irritates me when it boils down to "I can't wank to this image".
What games I play, I'm not thinking about "whoo, look at the crotch bulge on that beefcake, I'm gonna beat off". But male and female sexuality is different, and guys who play games about shooting stealing it go boom etc. want their sexy sex doll wallpaper as well. That's fine, but don't complain as if "women are supposed to look like anorexic stick insects with zeppelins for breasts" is the normal depiction of women.
Great, and now I'm whining. I should go back and finish my replay of Baldur's Gate 3 for the evil ending, then continue on with the second replay I started and see if I can get Wyll to get into Astarion's pants this time round 😈
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4mo ago
Do you ever feel like there are just... too many men on this planet? Not humans. Just men, in particular.
No.
We're a violent species, but women can be and are every bit as violent as men. Take this shy little blossom here, who bashed her husband's brains in so she could get his kids and his money. Seems she got her very own episode in this lurid tabloid series about Deadly Women.
I don't know if we need war - other animal species fight each other over territory, resources, and mates - but I do think you're going overboard about the intra-sexual competition. Men who can't get women are not going around fighting other men to take away their mates, they're complaining on the Internet that women are all whores who won't even glance at them.
I know this comment is very hit and run, and not really in the context of the above, but this is the best place I can fit this one in.
Online atheists, God bless 'em 🤣 I'm fresh from an exchange with a guy on his high horse about how I know nothing about Christianity (well I'm Catholic, maybe he's right there) and making guesses about me that are so wide of the mark it's hilarious. Me big ignorant! Not never read any Bible! Not even know what language it writted in!
May the tribe of "I know sooooo much more than you guys and even though I'm not Christian/not any more, here is what I think Christians should do" never decrease, God bless their cotton socks!
EDIT: The guy even reached for "I can read Classical Greek, you know, so I know what the Bible says" which immediately triggered my "You are James White" reaction, that being another guy who makes a big deal out of "I can read Greek so I know what the Bible says". My man had no idea who that was, so I imagine this is because he's English and isn't aware of the big apologetics kerfuffles.
Ah, I love a good ding-dong with someone who is cocksure about a religion they abandoned when they were (probably) ten 😁 Plus he was Anglican, so, you know. The only sin there is not being nice.
Oooh baby, did I hurt your precious fee-fees?
Since that seems to be the level we are now operating at. I'm single and childless by choice (and circumstance, a lot more circumstance than choice) and although I don't owe you bozos an explanation, it's because I would be a terrible parent and my family genetics are too shit to inflict on a new generation. I don't give a fuck about my chromosomes, except as part of my shitty genetic heritage. Were I a man, I'd be the same if women were writing about how men were all cockhounds who don't want to settle down to be responsible citizens, husbands and fathers until they're worn out and shagged out and think a much younger woman is a magic elixir to rejuvenate them - they're wrong and unless they have skin in the game, shut up.
That's partly why I don't appreciate a bunch of childless guys telling me and other women that there's a fertility crisis and it's all our fault, men - the innocent little lambs - have nothing to do with it. So yeah, I damn well am going to say "Okay, if you're out there judging women for 'riding the cock carousel', what have you done to address the problem? Are you a husband and father? If not, why not?"
Shut up unless you have skin in the game. I'm Catholic. We're officially anti-contraception, anti-abortion, and anti-fornication. And I think the remedies suggested by some on here are stupid to the point of being indistinguishable from the Taliban. If the likes of me are saying "Cool it guys" due to sounding like that, consider you might be going a tiny bit too far.
"Bitches ain't shit crowd"? Excuse me while I laugh. You have no goddamn idea the level of misanthropic loathing I have for the rest of humanity, and I freely include myself in the "ain't shit" category. If you honestly think my ox or any cow, bullock or calf has been gored, you are living down to your user name.
Or did you not know what Amadán means as Gaeilge?
as I usually ignore your explosions when you are re-reminded that the "bitches ain't shit" crowd you like to hang with as long as they are dunking on wokes includes you in that category
Ignore away, little man. I don't care a straw for your opinion of me.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Men's marriage standards are "teenage virgin".
With DD boobs and who is a slut whore who will perform any sexual act he asks for, at the same time as being a teenage virgin. There are unrealistic expectations on both sides.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Kulak, I'd agree except that a woman having a baby requires, still, even now, a man to get her pregnant. And men who don't control their own fertility now see the effects of that. I agree that there is a lot of unfairness and damn stupidity, but come on.
It became equally understood that the very second of coitus (or even without it if the sperm is stollen). That absolutely an child conceived will result in the man's complete legal and financial ruin.
Oh gosh, oh no, the wicked vixen talked me into having an orgasm and ejaculating inside her. Oh woe is me! Whatever could I have done to avoid this? (Not have sex with her? Wear a condom? Get married first and be determined when you wanted to be a father, and then be a father who is involved with his kids?)
What is your opinion of things like fellatio? Anal heterosexual intercourse? A lot of things that men expect now as normal parts of sexual activity which once were considered the province of whores only, and even a whore might balk at some of them?
Men profited every bit from the sexual revolution as women did, and the bad effects of that liberalisation were argued down - by men as well as women - as religious imposition on the freedom of others, prudishness, repression and the rest of it. Howard Stern didn't get a reputation as a hero taking on the fuddy-duddy FCC by broadcasting home improvement tips and how to repair your car yourself:
Between 1990 and 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined owners of radio station licensees that carried The Howard Stern Show a total of $2.5 million for content it considered to be indecent.
In May 1985, Stern claimed the highest ratings at WNBC in four years with a 5.7% market share of the afternoon audience. In a sudden turn of events, Stern and Quivers were fired shortly before they were to go on air on September 30, 1985, for what WNBC management termed "conceptual differences" regarding the show. ...In 1992, he believed Thornton Bradshaw, chairman of WNBC owner RCA, heard his "Bestiality Dial-a-Date" segment that aired ten days before his suspension and ordered the show's cancellation.
I don't like the rise of single parenting, abortion as birth control, and general promiscuity encouraging women to behave like whores - sorry, sex workers, where sex work is real work. But as they say, it takes two to tango. Men who were glad that now they could get free milk without having to buy the cow still have responsibilities.
And it's the children who suffer the most out of this entire mess of broken homes, irresponsible mothers, half-siblings with different surnames because you all have different dads, dads who never show up in your life and are out producing more half-siblings with other women that you don't even know exist. There was a bitter 'joke' in an old job that in about fifteen years time there would be a lot of unintentional incest, as the kids involved in what we were working on grew up and starting dating or at least hooking up with others they met out socialising, with no idea that was their half-sib.
Conservatism? Yes, I'm for the old-fashioned type where men who wanted sex without strings or consequences have to keep it in their pants (or pay for a whore) every bit as much as women were expected to do. Instead, we've got both sexes (and all genders) behaving like dogs in the streets, mounting a bitch in heat, and with as little thought for the litter of pups afterwards.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Why are you using the term "military-aged"? For whose military? If I look up the USA, the age range for conscription is 17-45. Are we to be concerned about all these 45 year old men?
Ah, but wait: apparently there is a thing called the Selective Service System for men - included illegal immigrants - in the age range 18-25.
So let us say you mean "men aged 18-25". Why then not say "young men", "young adults" or a similar term?
I think there is meant to be an effect here with word choice: "military aged" has the connotations of the military. Soldiers. Active fighting men. Violence.
Hence, "military-aged third world men/military-aged minorities" is meant to evoke immediately, bypassing the brain and getting the limbic system riled-up, the image of "violence-prone, aggressive, fit and capable of fighting and hurting you" non-white men who are involved, or likely to be involved, in crime and violence. Not alone will they take er jerbs, they will take er wimmin too! And beat you up, then laugh and call you a cuck as they leave you bleeding on the ground and steal your car to drive off in with your kidnapped daughter. Or even worse, not kidnapped, she goes with him voluntarily. As does your wife, because they both want bad-boy young alpha cock.
Can you be a little less obvious about trying to put up a scare? Maybe this age cohort of men are something to be worried about maybe they are involved in crime and fraudulent use of resources, but making it sound like "wink wink, they are actually an army you know or at least a militia" is not the way to discuss the topic of immigration (I do think the US should be cracking down hard on it, but "the brown men army is coming for our wimminfolks!" is not a good angle).
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Seriously? Ivermectin Guy once again? This is your second time posting something from/about him. Either you are his biggest fan, or you are him operating a sock-puppet account.
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
4mo ago
These are all distinctly male or male adjacent renditions of intelligence. Even within the more gender equal ones (wordcel or artist), I specifically define them to highlight a sub-group that tends to be majority male. Other than a few unicorns, the women who display these aforementioned types of intelligence are often tomboys or awkward wierdos.
There's an entire slap-fight waiting there for you, but I'm not inclined to get into it, just rather sit back and watch you get smacked about (probably not on here, it is majority guy as you say).
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
8mo ago
It's meant to be idiot speak, and if you think that sounds like Black English, I think that's more of a reflection on you than me.
This reminds me of some miminy-piminy pursedmouth posting at Neil Gaiman about "ooh a building in one of the episodes of the TV adaptation of 'Good Omens' which you co-wrote has anti-homeless spikes", trying to show off how Virtuous they were and take a scalp of a Big Gun as well, and being tutored that the particular object they pointed out in the screengrab was, in fact, a Victorian boot scraper.
Try harder to be Woker Than Thou.
Is this an acceptable conversation to be having in the mainstream culture? ...How is this different than (((Triple Parentheses)))?
The answers seem to be (1) yes, after all didn't we have for years the struggle to take religion out of schools and your rosaries off my ovaries? You are not permitted to impose your morals or your beliefs on the public square, and if the law protects minority groups and punishes hate speech, then engaging in hate speech about minority groups means you should be prosecuted; religious belief is something to do in private, not out in public where everyone can see (2) because they're Christians, silly! And Christianity is the dominant religion, so it's in the place of power and is the oppressor. Punching Christians is both punching Nazis and punching up, which gives the nice warm glow of virtue when you do it.
The thing is, what does it take for her "religion" to be seen as the threat to "public harmony"?
No, see, she is on the right side of history. Remember that? Also, remember: slopes are never slippery and all those conservative doom-mongers were just silly-billies complaining about nothing!
This helpful article from Wikipedia may explain it all to you, it certainly opened my eyes:
Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are political beliefs and actions further to the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, as well as having nativist ideologies and tendencies.
Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.
If Sanderson believes his church's teachings, and his church teaches that gay acts are sinful, then his church is homophobic. And being homophobic means you are far-right, which means you're the same thing as a Nazi. Doesn't matter if he never personally burned a gay or trans person at the stake, until and unless he denounces Mormonism and acknowledges his guilt and accepts he was wrong all along, he's a Nazi. And you don't tolerate Nazis, now do you?
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
10mo ago
they believe their existence on earth is to secure the Jewish People and a future for Jewish children
Nice veiled reference there, very subtly done, ha ha you are so clever to link Fascism and Zionism!
Look, if we hadn't had a war within (just about) living memory over a damn good attempt to wipe out the Jewish People and Jewish children, you'd have a point. But given that the extirpation of European Jewry (and any where else they could manage to conquer) was indeed an aim of the Nazi party, there is some grounds for forbearance on "let's encourage our people to have babies".
I mean, haven't we already had plenty of posts and comments on here about "so the fertility rate in the West is dropping like a stone, how do we encourage women to have babies"? Should such commentary be free from criticism, given that they want to ensure white birth rate goes up?
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
5mo ago
Your notion of entertaining hypotheticals seems to be "agree with them". 'Oh, you don't like that proposal, you disagree with it? You're a low decoupler who's too stupid to be able to think abstractly'. That seems to be your go-to position.
Listen, you want to fuck goats? That's your thing, but don't try and get around objections with "Why are people so mean to me about goat-fucking, it must be because they're all too stupid to think outside of conventional notions".
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
Sure. But unless you introduce literal sex slavery, you can downgrade the economic conditions for women all you like and still not be able to force them into "I have to marry the first guy that asks me and have six kids which he will have very little interaction with since he'll be busy with his career". Why do you think prostitution got started in the first place? Make it hard for women to get legitimate jobs, and the sex trade will flourish because Mr. Husband and Father with wifie at home looking after the six kids wants something different, something that won't be kid number seven, and all the tricks that his wife who married him straight out of high school doesn't know or doesn't want to do.
Maybe women now do have ridiculous standards. But so do men. The entire problem here is women acting like men act in the sexual marketplace. Don't like it? Well, this is why society used to be all about encouraging marriage. Are we laughing at the Victorians for being prudes now, or can we afford to laugh at them?
FarNearEverywhere
undereducated and overopinionated
1yr ago
While I'm not broadly sympathetic to the whole organised atheist movement of that time, I can empathise with Watson, even though she did exaggerate somewhat; it was very late at night, they'd been drinking in the hotel bar and talking and she just wanted to go to bed. This guy goes up in the lift with her and propositions her. I do understand why she'd feel at risk in a confined space with a possibly drunk guy where she has no idea how he'll react (and her being possibly drunk and tired as well didn't help with how she reacted or felt).
Mainly what I took away from it was confusion; first when I heard about "do you want to come back to my place/come up to mine for coffee?" I was young and stupid and thought it just meant that: an offer of coffee. "Ha ha, don't be silly, it's an offer of sex and if you accept then you are consenting to sex" was the explanation I got when wondering about why women complained men were asking for sex on such occasions. Then came Elevatorgate, and suddenly "Do you want to come to my room for coffee?" simply meant an offer of coffee and how could anyone imagine it was an offer of sex? You see my confusion?
Hello! Today, on "Fucking Stupid Politics", here's a peach, a pippin, a doozy of an example.
'Why is peepul thinking we wuz talkin' 'bout killin' peepul? Y they not get de IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE CHANGE FIGHTIN' POINT?'
Because you idiots made it about "killing", "taking out", "terrorists", etc. That is why people are discussing the ethics of murder and not your BIG IMPORTANT POINT.
These are the same people who would lip-wibble over "speech is violence". Imagine I did a graphic about "this is the harm reduction we could ensure by killing just one trans activist". Do you think they'd be all "Well Chauncey, that is an interesting rhetorical device to illustrate your thesis"? No, they'd be screaming about hate speech, death threats, inciting violence, and demanding not alone banning from all online media but the police to get involved.
And this is why they are shooting themselves in the foot over such campaigns. Never mind that if right this minute all fossil fuel extraction and production stopped, and we only had renewables and limited nuclear power to rely on. Our entire global civilisation would be in a lot of trouble because we haven't yet solved the transition problems.
No, let's keep discussing ethics. They could use a stern course of Aquinas. Even BP oil execs do not get up in the morning and go "Today I think I shall be Evil. Let me knowingly and purposefully kill the planet!" (Moustache twirling, evil laughter and gleeful hand rubbing optional).
Those guys are trying to make a living, provide a service, and sell goods. Yes, increase the profits of their company. Yes, get rich. Yes, all that. But that only happens because the entire world pretty much runs on oil. Up until the mid-19th century, petroleum deposits were useless or even seen as devaluing land if you had a lake of thick black goop slopping out of the ground. Ironically, petroleum could be seen as the environmentally friendly option, given that it replaced whale oil (due to the dwindling population of whales that were being hunted to provide oil). And so our industrial civilisation was built around it.
You can't slam the brakes on all of a sudden to move from fossil fuels to other sources. And the dumb stupid "punch a Nazi" lazy 'we're fighting a war here and we're the soldiers in the army of right' tropes on display here about "killing" people just for the job they do don't help. This is why ordinary people think the Just Stop Oil etc. campaigns are damn stupid.
Because they are.
EDIT: Ah feck it, while I'm being ranty anyway: this is instructive to compare to what I'm seeing about "Trump's 'we're coming for you' tweet is being investigated" as presumably incitement to violence and death and treason and coup and the rest of it. I was already thinking about "I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of political speeches and speeches by police commissioners and DAs and so forth about 'coming after/coming for/look out you're next' political opponents, crime, etc." so singling out this as a unique example of "no it's a definite threat of physical harm" seems to be leaning heavily on the scales.
The same way the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt was portrayed as "the Republicans with their target crosshairs poster set her up for this", never mind that people found examples of Democratic politicians also using targets/crosshairs in similar statements.
And now this: 'if we talk about killing someone, you should understand it only means 'if there were one fewer oil exec in a job' but if you use languatge like that, you really do mean to kill/harm your opponents' perfect example of one law for me and another law for thee.
More options
Context Copy link