No reason to bring race into it, bro.

Sure you can. But there’s a difference in being compassionate and saying “yeah I can see how you got where you are” and saying “corpos and your stressful job made you obese, you sweet child” which was the vibe I was getting.

A) that’s just like, your opinion, man.

B). You against GMOs too?! Like, someone worked hard to breed him (and me) at near 100% dick. We bananas wouldn’t even be edible if not for selective breeding to increase phallusy-ness!

Possible I misread your intent.

All fine and good, and agreed on all fronts.

I still don’t think it’s a great perspective to normalize or justify obesity because people cope poorly with stress / only have access to fast food / really like French fries / have a back injury / etc. It’s not (generally) an unchangeable destiny, and everyone at every moment is the caretaker of their own bodies.

I didn’t think anybody is arguing it’s a bad thing to avoid / reduce body shaming. Instead, the argument is that overeating is not predestined and out of people’s control and it’s also not a blameless activity.

By all means go to the beach every day, and fuck anybody that says anything negative. Not everybody has to like the look of your skeleton or your furry suit or the look of you spilling out of your bathing suit though: that’s preference not shame.

All of that can be true (and is) and it still doesn’t mean you can’t stop dinner before the fries are gone or cut your sandwich into pieces to eat and then don’t eat them all.

If you’re eating to destress you’re choosing your psychological health over physical health and that’s it’s own problem to address.

Not being extremely mobile or having chronic pain does not require you to eat more calories than you burn. I have a torn disc and take nerve meds so I obviously don’t lift weights or run like I used to, but Im allowed to moderate my calorie intake.

Age and a slowing metabolism are more pernicious, but even those things don’t “force you to eat more calories than you need”. Nothing is forcing anybody to do that.

Whats wrong with being a dick? None of us would be here without dicks. Say no to dick shaming. Dick pride.

AROOOOOO, BROTHER!

And hang about 2 extra feet of skin? You bet.

I laughed when I wrote it.

While you are correct (and while I said destroy OR deface), the two different posts about this both contain people advocating for actual destruction for the same reasons.

Please read the other posts and alarm your tits to the reality / tenor of the discussion.

This is also not “attacking things” it’s attacking people. I can’t argue against the fact that it might be effective though.

What’s the point of destroying Stonehenge if humanity survives as a cascading result of stopping air travel? Defacing or destroying Stonehenge is not the lynch pin that solves or even moves the needle on climate change.

Worse, if it WORKS it means the next cause that is perhaps not existential is going to come and destroy something else that belongs to humanity. Weirdly, when nation states destroy heritage sites it’s considered a type of war crime, but when it comes up for raising awareness for climate change fuck yeah everyone’s in!

Perfect! Go find a list of parents with one child and punch those babies. Then figure out which grandparents have the most grandkids and stomp their feet. Next set an orphanage on fire when everyone is playing outside. All these things are exactly as related to climate change as putting beans on art or paint on Stonehenge.

Of course you are exactly right: this is why all the great protests you hear about for civil rights, women’s rights, and reproductive rights all started by going where it was safe and fucking up some art and history.

You can have a disruptive impact and not be a totally entitled piece of shit.

Which is, frankly, overwhelmingly stupid.

Nope! I think it’s stupid and entitled and I’d rather distance myself from it and from you. So happy trails!

The last reply I will have here is that by messing with unrelated stuff, you ARE NOT guaranteed to solve the problem or even improve it. This Stonehenge business is totally extraneous. It has nothing to do with anything. If it were permanent, it’s destruction for its own sake. What is more, it’s an implicit green light for more and worse variations of this sort of vandalism or destruction going forward.

If we all make it through, YOU remember you thought it was worth it for the sake of a sound bite and 2 more days in the news for awareness instead of even trying to address the actual problem: airlines, shipping companies, cruise services, coal plants, etc etc etc.

Fucking up history for news hits is stupid, selfish, and ultimately not even particularly effective.

And I don’t want to devalue the cause because we are on the same side of it, but those bits of destruction are still legitimately incidental and not central to the cause.

To put this another way, let’s suppose that we stop climate change in as sound a way as we responded to CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. Two years later, in support of women’s rights, St. Peters Basilica is destroyed before lent. In support of trans rights, angel falls Venezuela is irreparably dammed on the cliffs before earth day. To bring awareness to police brutality the following year, the main chambers of the Great pyramid is collapsed.

It is all just stuff. But if your unrelated cause is justified in doing actual damage (which I know didn’t really happen yet), why not the next cause? Sure, climate change is an existential threat so maybe there is leeway, but it won’t be the last one. I see that you find it important to make sure we protect where we are going, but I also think it’s important to protect where we have been. It’s not something to be taken lightly or for the sake of “awareness” to destroy our own history.

On the one hand, the roaches may be all that’s left to enjoy our history; on the other hand, if the people and nature are all that’s left and our history is gone, I find that only marginally better than having not existed at all.