I think what stands out to me is the growing use of legislative power to stop strikes and remove negotiating power from unions. The most recent major example being the then pending rail strike back in 2022.
Sure Trump will be 10x worse, but the Dems really haven’t done enough to address the health and safety of these people, and to protect them from growing corporate exploitation.
Just to be clear, this is a matter of workplace policy, so relating to the law, but not of the law. But yes, it would be prudent to know the policies of your workplace, and doubly so if you’re a goddamned judge.
I feel like there’s something peculiar about those slanty words you used, but who am I to judge?
My spitball theory is that she sees this new Loomer person coming to eat her lunch as token crazy maga lady, so she’s trying to get off her sinking ship.
Cannon had filed the Sage Lodge trips with the federal judiciary’s administrative office but had “inadvertently” not taken the second step of posting them on the court’s website. [The clerk] explained that “Judges often do not realize they must input the information twice."
Seems like a bad system. Why not just have it be done automatically, or have the clerk do it. Presumably the judge’s time is going to be more costly than the clerk’s.
It almost seems intentionally bad so these little oopsies can keep happening.
OK, wise guy, listen here… >:(
Somehow it seemed to actually work
Tell that to East Palestine. Train derailments are on the rise because of lax safety measures, and this was one of the issues that the workers were trying to resolve. Instead Biden had congress force them back to work.
Nova is great, but you have to turn off auto-updates and use version 7.0.57 which is the last version before the rug pull.
I wonder if that’s because most of its value is predicated on him being able to gain an unfair advantage due to his potential position in office.
If so, then this is probably a more accurate indicator of his chances in the election than any pollsters.
When you surround yourself with sycophants, of course nobody will tell you when you fuck up. People who can’t accept criticism always end up in a bubble of unreality that’ll grow and grow until it pops.
Would you rather take on 30 otter-sized horses, or one horse-sized otter?
Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation. I warned you about sophistry before. If you have knowledge relevant to the domain at hand, put it to use, or stop wasting both of our time.
If you want the barest understanding, I guess the barest definitions are “good enough”. If you want a more sophisticated understanding then you have to take the time to understand the actual philosophical lexicon that the definition relies upon, since, as it points out itself, “Veganism is a philosophy”.
Y’know, considering your username is commie, I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation, as Marx was really pivotal in developing that philosophical concept.
That would imply that vegans could not have sex with each other because it “uses” the body of an animal.
Exploitation involves one using the vulnerability of another in order to gain something in an unfair manner. It’s not simply “use”.
We’re not talking about consensual exploitation. Were talking about behaviors that aren’t exploitation due to, or perhaps shown not to be so by consent. There’s no need to explicitly mention consent because a) it would needlessly complicate the definition, b) as a practical matter, it almost never actually arises except in these sorts of thought experiments, and c) it’s already included implicitly in the concept of exploitation.
Let’s look at our original thought experiment: “It’s vegan to eat someone who has consented to being eaten.”
Usually we don’t put too much thought into this sort of stuff because it doesn’t really come up much outside of tongue in cheek mention, but I digress.
OK, so off the bat, if you think about it, there are indeed some problems with this statement. There could be systemic issues that made them consent to something harmful because the transactional benefit outweighs the harm to them. So in that sense, you’re right, looking directly for exploitation is the more objectively vegan thing to do.
However what if they have a genuine desire to be eaten (non-injuriously or posthumously, hopefully) where there are no confounding influences like above? The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent, in this case, and indeed, without any form of consent the other party would have no way to know of their desire to be eaten.
I think maybe a more realistic example than eating someone would be “Is it vegan to honour someone’s organ-donor card?” That seems to me to be a fairly clearcut case of accepting consent as implying non-exploitation.
Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.
Also, not that it matters, but there are 10 mentions if you also search for “consensual”, but that’s not really here nor there.
If you don’t wish to debate, you’re free to not respond at any time.
If we we’re having a discussion about physics, presumably we would use the terminology of physics. If we are having a discussion about morality and ethics (fields of philosophy, that is) we should probably use the terminology of philosophy. If you want to play semantic games, play them by yourself.
Veganism is an ethical position and as such can only be properly understood in the context of ethics.
An astute observation. Good thing I get all my knowledge from dictionaries so I can have a paper thin understanding of everything.
Cynical take: Presumably to protect corporations from whistleblowers.