CitizenVectron

And they are also not accepting paper copies/cards for proof of vaccination, it has to be a valid government QR code confirming full vaccination using the vaccine passport app.

Meth was found in the fetus' blood, so they convicted her of murder. The testifying doctor even said he couldn't be sure it was the meth that killed the fetus, but...she's not white and "baby" died, so to prison she goes. I wonder if they'd convict a white woman of the same thing if she went running daily and suffered a miscarriage.

My school division just unveiled the plans for proof of vaccination for teachers and staff. Everyone needs to be fully vaxxed or provide a negative PCR test once per week (or be fired). Government PCR tests cannot be used (so as not to burden the public testing system), so people would have to pay $200/week for the private PCR testing in my city.

As long as Gaia doesn't appear, then I'll be happy.

🤷‍♀️ People can pressure companies all they want. If the company gives in to something stupid then I'll be upset, but there's nothing wrong with it from a legal or moral perspective. In the case of the hosting for porn, I don't know how effective a letter-writing campaign would be if there aren't people boycotting who actively give money to the hosting provider. That's why usually it's big advertisers pulling from places that convinces companies to change their ways. People get mad and the companies don't want to be tied to the other company.

I've used a bow before...no one is killing anyone unless they have experience and training with the weapon. Anyone can pick up a gun and use it fairly effectively (especially in close quarters), a bow is totally different. Not that any argument will convince the braindeads.

I would have a problem in the sense that I wouldn't approve of the decision if it happened, but not in the idea of them putting pressure.

I guess it would depend on the methods taken. So far, I have just been describing education campaigns (including advertising). It would depend on what "brow beat" means. If it's convincing existing paying customers to switch (through an educational campaign), then that's fair game. People should be free to choose to not support something a company does, and people should be free to point out what a company does to other people. I don't think there is a solid black and white line where something goes from acceptable to not acceptable, it's a grey transition. It's not my business what you spend money on, but my own actions could affect your ability to spend how you want in a hundred different ways. I could sue a company for harassment against me (that shuts them down), I could open a competing store that drives them out of business, I could put up billboards saying that the company supports something I disagree with (and they shut down when other people stop shopping there, too). But companies shutting down can happen for hundreds of reasons, and if customer demand is one of them, then it's just a result of the market not supporting what they are selling/doing.

I did edit my previous post after you started replying, I think, but I think we would need to define what "preventing" is, vs. "informing/educating/persuading." Conveying information intended to persuade is fine. I don't know exactly what "preventing" would be defined as. If we define it as "changing the behaviour of a business so that customers can no longer support it for what they want," then I still don't think that's immoral. You could sue a businesses and get them shut down for entirely different reasons (workplace safety, etc) and prevent someone from buying Oreos, for example. But no one is suggesting suing them to stop selling Oreos. Even an extreme boycott campaign (e.g. putting up billboards on the street, asking people to avoid the grocery store until it stops selling Oreos) is perfectly moral. It's up to the business to then decide if it wants to retain the customers that want Oreas, or wants to retain the customers that don't want the company to sell/support Oreos.

With that logic, people should never make public efforts/requests for people to avoid certain businesses for actions taken, etc. Basically, no boycotts. There is nothing immoral or wrong about educating people about what a person/company has done wrong, and attempting to influence the person/business into changing through it. EDIT - Now, I think that specific efforts themselves can cross the line, and need to be determined on a case-by-case basis (in terms of the methods used to inform the public, etc). Because it can cross over into harassment. But the general idea of a public campaign to change a business' behaviour is not itself immoral.

It depends on what you mean by "prevent." There are again multiple levels: Publicly ask people not to support the store because they sell Nabisco Publicly call for the store stop selling Nabisco Physically try and stop people from buying it/the store from selling it The only invalid option is the third. There is nothing wrong with me publicly calling for a company to stop doing business with another company, and to put pressure on them by asking people to not support them until they do.

I don't think it's very clear-cut where the line is. For example, these are some possible options if I don't like something that Netflix is hosting: Simply cancel my own subscription, and don't say anything to anyone Cancel my own sub, and publicly tell people that I did so (and why) Cancel my own sub, and publicly (to the general public) say why I did it, and say why others should do the same Cancel my own sub, and start/take part in a large public movement to do the same (as pressure for the company to stop the content) Personally, I think that only the last one really constitutes stepping over the line, but only in some cases. In the end, not spending money at a company is the only real recourse a consumer has to change that company's behaviour, and bringing attention to a company's behaviour publicly is a perfectly valid thing for someone to do to educate other consumers. Heck, as small as an impact it made, I stopped buying Nabisco products while their workers were on strike, and the same for Kellogg's. I don't think that is any form of cancel culture, I am simply taking part in a large boycott movement to try and change the behaviour of a company (in this case to do with working conditions). But changing a company's behavior, whether for working conditions or what they support/do in other areas, is perfectly valid. Other people don't have to listen to what I say.

On the one hand I'm happy that sci fi is getting this kind of budget and treatment...but on the other (so far, at least), the actual ideas of Foundation (which make it great, since the writing kind of sucks) aren't really translating. Salvor Hardin was great because they were intelligent and smart enough to avoid violence to save Terminus. The show's Hardin is...a chosen one? Or something? And likes violence, maybe? And in Foundation, the Empire wasn't really a part of the books, it was all about how scientists (with very little access to advanced math or psychology, initially) could survive when surrounded by massive spacefaring provinces and kingdoms.

And Bev is definitely such a dislikable character. She actually really reminds me of a character that Stephen King would write.

People who tend to complain about free speech and wokeness/cancel culture tend to believe (and are really trying to say) that they believe that speech should have no consequence.

If someone shares a link for a virtual meeting with me, I don't see any other way than to interpret that as an invitation.

To be clear, I am not talking about letting people die, I am talking about them not being born in the first place. I believe the goal of all life should be the improvement of the living experience. For sure, I was just using a high number to illustrate the point. Barring any world crises, the world's population will likely peak between 11-13 billion in the mid-late 21st-Century, and will then rapidly decline.

And it resulted in doctors going on strike in protest. Fortunately it went into effect, was loved by the public, and was later expanded to cover all of Canada.

I didn't say shrinking to zero*. But a stable population of say, 500 million people, is far preferable to a population 20 billion. *although I do believe a universe without consciousness is preferable to one with it, simply because the creation of consciousness/experience leads to pain, with no ability to opt out before experiencing it.

So, on the one hand, the world's shrinking population is great for the world (and human species) long-term. However, in the short-to-medium term we can only hope that the massive disruption caused by some countries shrinking (like Russia, China, etc) and others expanding (specifically USA and Canada, who tend to welcome immigrants) will be contained to local strife, and not spill over into regional/world wars.

There are so many factors, but in the end people would likely go back to "shit" jobs like waiting in restaurants if they had certain things: Management that took their side vs disruptive customers, seemed to care about them Better pay Better stability/predictability in hours And while #2 and #3 might seem the most important, #1 is often the reason why people hate their job/want to leave. Feeling like you matter and are respected by management is a HUGE driving factor in how people behave in their jobs. Even though management courses always stress this (as it's well known that respect/value is usually the top-ranked thing that employees care about), most managers are just absolute morons and ignore it.