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.

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.

deleted by creator

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And to think I bought a Japanese car specifically because of Dieselgate… well.

They’re all corrupt, aren’t they?

Aktuell wird doch ne Stromtrasse durch BW gebaut. Diese lächerliche Nummer von wegen, wir hätten gerne Strom, aber keine Trasse, war eine astreine CSU Nummer.

This idea of “actually, all Germans secretly think this way” is a common excuse of modern day Nazis to justify their increasingly brazen behaviour in public. Just so you know whose talking points you’re reproducing here.

Insane. Thanks for sharing.

I am a psychotherapist. Mental disorders are often curable. Our mind, our psyche, our brain develop and change in every waking moment, one small increment at a a time. A good indication for this are mental disorders themselves. Their emergence is proof of our mind’s capability to change - for the worse, in this case, but change nonetheless.

So in theory it should always be possible to change the other way around, to get significantly better to the point where the disorder is no longer present. (If you define a episode of mental health and wellbeing after a depressive episode as “managing” a still present disorder, then sure, they are incurable, but that’s because that’s part of your definition to begin with. The symptoms of a mental disorder can definitely disappear.) A more difficult question would be if our surroundings and social realities allow for so much change to take place. And sometimes, unfortunately, this isn’t possible, since our society can be a fucked up place and economic constrains have an unavoidable influence on our capability to shape our own path.

Still, in my personal experience working with hundreds of patiens in different therapeutic setting, most people can (and do) reclaim their mental health, given supportive surroundings and adequate treatment. From your pessimistic outlook at mental health I will cautiously assume that you don’t have those widely available to you. In this case you’d be somewhat right: Under such circumstances the possibilities to cure mental disorders are limited. Another complicating factor might be mental disorders themselves though. The feeling of “this is never going to get better, I’ll never be happy again” is one most people with depressive disorders know all to well. So if we ask the affected people directly we will often arrive at the conclusion that the disorders are in fact incurable. And that’s a horrible feeling for sure. I find it important to remember though that what our thoughts tell us in those dark episodes isn’t necessarily the truth. In this case I’d argue it isn’t. I’ve seen too many examples of the opposite, luckily.

It’s going to be hard for her partner, friends, and family, but it would be so much worse and so traumatic if she didn’t have help or had to hide the desires until she took her own life regardless of the laws.

I’m not sure that’s true. Losing someone to suicide is in itself quite traumatic. One relief many people have is when they wrap their head around how a self destructive impulse in the heat of an especially devastating moment could have led to it. But living with the fact that your daughter/wife/sister/friend very consciously decided she would rather be dead than to share in this life with you - that’s tough. It’s not unusual with relatives of suicide victims to struggle with feelings of intense anger towards the person they lost, which in turn can lead to feelings of guilt and shame. It’s hard to work through something like that. And I don’t think it gets any easier if the circumstances are as emphasised as in this case.

I think there are very valid use cases for assisted suicide. Personally I doubt that depression is one of them, because suicidality is such an inextricable part of the disorder itself. At the end of the day this is a suicide, just with extra steps and a stamp of approval by a national agency. The people surviving her will not only have to work through the fact of her suicide but process the official approval as well.

The only advantage to a “regular” suicide I can think of is avoiding the trauma of the person finding you. (Although there are probably ways around that anyway.) But I guess she has her reasons to have chosen this specific method and setting.

Oh god not Outward. After trying it recently I’m honestly kinda shocked that it’s being played at all. Me and my mate got the impression of playing through a 20 year old hobby game dev project at best.

It felt so very unpolished. Combat, UI, inventory management, dialogues, character creation, narrative, quest logs, crafting; it all feels ancient. Co-op especially - only the host progresses the story, gets quest rewards, and so on. A second player can kinda come along, but that’s it.

Don’t want to discredit old fans of the game ofc, but I honestly believe without a hefty dose of nostalgia you wont enjoy it. It would be like picking up Half-Life for the first time in 2024 and expecting a decent game.

I understand the frustration about the injustice behind it, but it’s missing the point. Justice should never be the reason to support something thats so harmful to our environment. Imagine giving a private jet to every economically disadvantaged person in the name of equality - we’d be fucking ourselves over big time. Meat is actually a luxury product that’s only kept affordable based on some of the most environmentally destructive tools of capitalism.

It sucks that luxury products exist. It sucks that ultra rich people exist, but it’s the unfortunate fact of our times. Overturning this system is a seperate fight. And eating red meat won’t win it.

But that’s not how it was framed at the courts at all, proven by the fact that all the other product names containing “milk” were considered okay. It was specifically argued that customers could be confused to accidentally buy the vegan variant. Based on your arguments “coconut milk” should be problematic, but it isn’t. Soy milk and almond milk could have been grandfathered in, but they weren’t, and the reason very specifically was pressure from the dairy industry targeting their competition.

BS headline. Side effects are not the reason it’s withdrawn.