I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I believe that Reform represents a cancer on society; but you don't build a better future by writing a huge chunk of people off as beyond understanding.
It has been proved over and over, UK and overseas, that the non-millionaires/not wealthy people voting for right wing populists (MAGA, Reform, AfD, RN) are doing so for emotional not logical reasons. You can’t argue people out of a position they didnt use logic to get to.
This implies that everyone else used logic to arrive at their points of view. I don't believe this is true for the most part. I think it is almost impossible to make a logical political choice given the complexity of the world we inhabit.
To argue that your position is grounded in logic whilst the 'other' group is ground in emotion is an ego-inflating fantasy. People most often make decisions based on emotional reasons and then use logic to post-hoc justify them.
We are all closer to reform voters than we would like to believe.
I think this is a dangerous view to hold. It feels nice to tarnish them like this but it leaves open the risk of never actually allowing us to understand their motives.
A large swathe of the media did this with Brexit, and those dragons were never put back into their cage.
I think they do see it, but they see themselves as realists; some of them see it as refreshing that the corruption of democracy is out in the open rather than being hidden.
I mean if you want to be technical about it, projectiles aren't flying objects; they fall, but by definition they don't have any mechanism for powered flight.
Got it, you're a troll. Because stockpiling grain totally wasn't the process which allowed humanity to settle, develop agriculture, and dramatically increase in size. It definitely causes famines, not an abundance and reliable source of food.
There is not a finite amount of wheat in the world, there is not a finite amount of beans. If people buy a bit more now, it signals producers to produce more of these things. And in the short term, generally speaking there is some slack in supplies of these things so buying a little bit more now doesn't generally affect availability or prices to consumers. Slow and steady stockpiling is fine. It is called preparedness.
This means that when crisis hits, you don't need to go out and panic buy food because you have some at home stockpiled already; this means that people who really need what's left on the shelves have a better chance of getting it.
This is describing stockpiling before the crisis. If anything an inherently pro-social act; leaving resources available for others when the crisis hits
RTFA.
This is the better approach; getting people to stock up before the crisis ever arrives. It's when people are unprepared and a crisis hits that panic buying causes problems. This advice is more likely to cause people to buy a couple of extra items each week to build up stocks than to get them to suddenly clear shelves in one go.
This doesn’t make sense, stocking up on food doesn’t make more food. There is x amount of food regardless if you buy it in one shot or at regular intervals.
Yes, but it will help people weather the short-term crises that are inevitable. Imagine there are floods or fuel shortages or cyber attacks which cause shortages in supermarkets; your stockpile of pasta and tinned beans prevented you from going hungry for a week.
It must be nice to have such wild self-belief.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I believe that Reform represents a cancer on society; but you don't build a better future by writing a huge chunk of people off as beyond understanding.
This implies that everyone else used logic to arrive at their points of view. I don't believe this is true for the most part. I think it is almost impossible to make a logical political choice given the complexity of the world we inhabit.
To argue that your position is grounded in logic whilst the 'other' group is ground in emotion is an ego-inflating fantasy. People most often make decisions based on emotional reasons and then use logic to post-hoc justify them.
We are all closer to reform voters than we would like to believe.
I think this is a dangerous view to hold. It feels nice to tarnish them like this but it leaves open the risk of never actually allowing us to understand their motives.
A large swathe of the media did this with Brexit, and those dragons were never put back into their cage.
I think they do see it, but they see themselves as realists; some of them see it as refreshing that the corruption of democracy is out in the open rather than being hidden.
I hear that is more free-flowing than blocked up with any stoppages.
I mean if you want to be technical about it, projectiles aren't flying objects; they fall, but by definition they don't have any mechanism for powered flight.
Now there are UFOs involved? We're screwed.
Send me all of your photos. I might send them back to you upon request, if I feel like it at the time.
It's lady Hitler
What an offence
This thread is a cesspit. I didn't know lemmy attracted these types.
You're an idiot. Go away.
edit: Or perhaps you're just suffering from AI psychosis.
What do people want from fire? Do they want it nasally?
Got it, you're a troll. Because stockpiling grain totally wasn't the process which allowed humanity to settle, develop agriculture, and dramatically increase in size. It definitely causes famines, not an abundance and reliable source of food.
Are you being intentionally dense?
There is not a finite amount of wheat in the world, there is not a finite amount of beans. If people buy a bit more now, it signals producers to produce more of these things. And in the short term, generally speaking there is some slack in supplies of these things so buying a little bit more now doesn't generally affect availability or prices to consumers. Slow and steady stockpiling is fine. It is called preparedness.
This means that when crisis hits, you don't need to go out and panic buy food because you have some at home stockpiled already; this means that people who really need what's left on the shelves have a better chance of getting it.
Do you want me to explain basic arithmetic next?
This is describing stockpiling before the crisis. If anything an inherently pro-social act; leaving resources available for others when the crisis hits RTFA.
This is the better approach; getting people to stock up before the crisis ever arrives. It's when people are unprepared and a crisis hits that panic buying causes problems. This advice is more likely to cause people to buy a couple of extra items each week to build up stocks than to get them to suddenly clear shelves in one go.
Yes, but it will help people weather the short-term crises that are inevitable. Imagine there are floods or fuel shortages or cyber attacks which cause shortages in supermarkets; your stockpile of pasta and tinned beans prevented you from going hungry for a week.