Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 50%
So the people who go "I would have done something, but now that they painted stonehenge I won't" will suddenly change their way when they see "normal protest" as you call them?
Suuuure. Keep telling yourself that. You're not sounding ridiculous at all.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 33%
Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn't spell it out for you.
Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
Your questions seemed rather rhetorical to me. As long as you act on the premise that there's no solution, any conversation about the topic - including this one - is a monumental waste of time. So let's just leave it at that.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 33%
Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there's nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?
Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn't about you. They didn't hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don't have to bother.
Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 66%
How do we stop evil corporations? With political action. How do we get political action? Either by voting or collective activism.
There's no solution that doesn't require ourselves to spring into action, even if it's "mostly the fault of a few corporations and their executives".
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 28%
Gaining momentum within the movement, keep public attention high, pressure politicians to public statements, legitimise other forms of protests, encourage public debate, inspire involvement of people who generally support them, to name a few.
On the other hand there isn't a single form of protest that wouldn't be either ignored or used as an excuse for inactivity by the people you claim to want to reach. Or could you name even a single example that would make them actually do something?
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 28%
That's not the tactic here at all. The people who are outraged aren't important. They will never participate meaningfully. Those people are and forever will be part of the problem. So it doesn't matter if they're angry now. This isn't about them.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 22%
The BS part is that they would have done anything helpful to the cause without the protest.
This is just another excuse. "People think I support throwing starch at Stonehenge" is not a reason to vote conservative and eat red meat at every meal.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 50%
Or you fell for the propaganda that's discrediting them.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Far too little is being done against climate change, on every level - socially, politically, economically, individually. One would have to wonder what the fuck is happening if we didn't have some form of protest. They are necessarily going to become more extreme as time goes by, and they will have every right to do so.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 60%
Look at the raging reactions in the comments to a little bit of starch. If they would actually destroy something, let alone hurt someone, they'd be framed as terrorists and prosecuted in a heartbeat.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 30%
Now that's just BS, sorry. Not a single person who was on the fence of doing something against climate change will go "oh well but I didn't like the method of those protesters, now I won't do it".
The people who are constantly looking for excuses to do literally nothing are lost to climate action anyway. Every meaningful progress will have to be won against those people, not with them. If even slight inconveniences are too much to ask from them sure, they will shout and cry how this protest is the reason, but let's be honest: They were never going to be a part of the solution anyway.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 65%
Why not? They used starch. It's not like Stonehenge is actually damaged. And using symbols people care about is the only way to convey that the crisis we're facing is actually threatening things we care about. Everything else will be, and has been, ignored.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
That sounds really good. Glad to hear it.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
Ah okay. So deinstitutionalization in that context was meant to include psychiatric institutions into general hospitals? Because that I can totally get behind.
Based on the other comments I got the impression that there simply is no inpatient treatment plan for mental health in the US.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
My experience does not come from movies. I am an outpatient psychotherapist (in a country with a reasonably functioning psychiatric system). I have repeatedly seen patients slip into psychomental crises where outpatient care is no longer sufficient. The local psychiatric clinics were sometimes real lifesavers. That's why I find the idea of healthcare without emergency institutions confusing. I would find it terrible not to be able to offer my patients anything in such emergencies.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 75%
Bleak.
I don't quite understand how deinstitutionalizing was supposed to work here. That's like dissolving the fire department because we want to avoid cars. Was there no way to reform or replace the institutions? Just getting rid of an emergency service seems kinda like the situation you're describing was part of the plan.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 75%
If you live in the US and experience a psychotic episode, a suicidal crisis, or another mental health emergency - where do you go?
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
Diese Menschen haben für Spione gestimmt. Und das ist kein Witz, so schön das auch wäre.
Mrs_deWinter 4mo ago • 100%
Wer in dieser Wahl AfD gewählt hat, hat seine Stimme bewusst Verfassunfsfeinden gegeben. Das ist ein Fakt. Die AfD hat buchstäblich Spione als Spitzenkandidaten nominiert. 16% haben sich davon nicht aufhalten lassen. Wenn das irgendwas belegt, dann das: Diese Menschen sind für die Demokratie verloren.
Die [Beitragsbemessungsgrenze](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitragsbemessungsgrenze#cite_note-13) wird [ab 2024 wieder einmal leicht erhöht](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/versicherungen-sozialabgaben-beitragsbemessungsgrenze-100.html). Und wieder mal stellt sich mir die Frage: Warum gibt es die überhaupt? Die Grenze höher anzusetzen (oder - ohgott die armen Millionäre! - bloß nicht anzutasten) fordern erwartbar verschiedene Parteien. Bis auf Die Linke [[1](https://www.linksfraktion.de/themen/a-z/detailansicht/buergerinnenversicherung/), [2](https://www.linksfraktion.de/parlament/parlamentarische-initiativen/detail/beitragsbemessungsgrenze-in-der-kranken-und-pflegeversicherung/)] scheint allerdings niemand darüber nachzudenken, diese tatsächlich einfach abzuschaffen. 2016 gab es die Idee, feministisch gedacht, mal aus der Richtung einer [SPD-Familienministerin](https://web.archive.org/web/20161118162722/http://www.wochenblatt.de/bildung/regensburg/hochschule/Ein-Mann-ist-keine-Altersvorsorge;art13131,403342), innerhalb der Partei gab aufgrund von Sorgen um entsprechend steigende Rentenbeiträge allerdings genug [Gegenwind](https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/sendung/tagesschau_20_uhr/video-226915.html) um die Überlegung wohl gleich ganz zu begraben und sich mit der jährlichen Anpassung zu begnügen, die wohl gerade ein kleines Stückchen besser ist, als nichts zu tun und durch Inflation und Lohnentwicklung immer weitere Teile der Arbeitnehmer:innen hineinrutschen zu lassen. Durch die Schonung der Sozialversicherungsbeiträge bei den reichsten Prozent unserer Gesellschaft entgeht dem Staat dabei in Zeiten von Einsparungsnöten an allen Ecken wahrscheinlich immense Summen, die anderswo investiert gehören. Das sorgt bei mir für Kopfschütteln. Ich glaube: Wenn mehr Menschen wüssten, dass diese Grenze existiert und wie sie funktioniert, müsste es eigentlich mehr Gegenwind dagegen geben, anders kann ich mir das nicht erklären. Im Kern halte ich sie für einen fundamental unfairen Mechanismus, der im besten Fall dazu dient, sich politisch den Allerreichsten unserer Bevölkerung anzubiedern, um diese bloß nicht verhältnismäßig zu belasten wie den Rest. Wie ist eure Meinung dazu? Gibt es Aspekte, die tatsächlich für die Grenze sprechen, oder was soll das ganze eigentlich?
"Unhöflich" nennt der Minister für Kommunikation und Digitales den Leadsänger, weil der öffentlich seinen Bassisten küsst. Good Vibes gibt es in Malaysia nur für Heteros.
Link zum Original: https://mstdn.games/@chris/110553477682106144
...dann ist das nicht WW3, sondern nur die Nato. https://taz.de/Nato-Luftvereidigungsuebung/!5939792/ https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/airdefender-manoever-faq-100.html
Wissenschaft ist (fast) immer richtig. Kapitalismus führt, konsequent gedacht, immer dazu, dass du am Ende von einem verhaltensgestörten T-Rex verfolgt wirst.