No, it's not just the taxes, though that's obviously a component of it. A quick google search will lead you to find that they are obligated by law to directly contribute to Russia's military efforts by registering its draft-eligible staff, turning over information relevant to the war, assisting in the delivery of military equipment, and providing physical infrastructure, among other things.

Ukrainian or not, this isn't just "oh well you're kind of indirectly supporting the war by funding the government". It is a very direct form of involvement.

Eating factory farmed meat. With the way politics is headed there will be some politician at some point in the future trying desperately to defend his high beef consumption in what will become known as Burgergate.

Also, islamophobia in the context of defending religious nutjobs. For instance, it is islamophobic to complain about a muslim (Sikh, in reality) man at an airport because he "looks like a terrorist". It is not islamophobic to suggest that female students should be allowed in public schools just like male students. Both of these things have actually happened, very recently, and the latter was defended because people were scared shitless of being called islamophobic. We have to have some minimum human rights standards that religion cannot interfere with, and blatant sex-based discrimination is one of them. I do not give a flying fuck what your religion teaches you.

I'm sure this isn't the biggest thing, but I used to work at a big chain grocery store and "accidentally forget" to scan certain items. Old woman with a food stamp in her hand vs. u/spez-level arrogant billionaire CEO? You pay me $10/hr you fuckers, if you want me to notice the toilet paper in the bottom of the cart you'd better up my pay or help that chick out. I was far from the only one.

These are pretty common products. There are tons of ethical alternatives, in fact personal care items are among the easiest and cheapest products to find ethical alternatives for and a good starting point if you want to develop more ethical consumption habits. You don't need to make your own soap in order to avoid sponsoring genocide.

Why on earth would anyone oppose this? The only people who gain are companies who are ok with distracting you so that you pay attention to their commercial.

Frankly that's an excuse, and a lazy one at that. Ethical products are widely available outside of the US, and I say this as a digital nomad who has lived on three continents and lived in the US for less than a year in total. If the inconvenience is unbearable for you then that's your prerogative, but don't try to justify it by saying things that simply aren't true and thereby discouraging others.

It depends on the growth curve. Right now it's exponential, which means it will keep growing. When you see it stay linear for a while, it'll probably start to flatten. At that point, it's either big enough to stick or it's not.

I highly doubt this is anything but a sad attempt at getting some good PR. We've seen other big mods suspended supposedly permanently who suddenly negotiated their way out of it. Reddit has no reason to lose such a great employee, if they did this person would have been banned years ago.

I also lost weight, mostly out of stubbornness. We were sitting at the dinner table and people were making fun of my "mathleticism", I responded by jokingly saying that I could be super athletic if I chose to, and my sister then said she'd give me $1000 if I ever became "athletic". She still hasn't paid me. They still make fun of me, except now for going "from mathlete to athlete". So really I didn't accomplish much.

I quit meat and it was similarly amazing for my budget.

That's a political view though, not a philosophical one, unless it has a philosophical underpinning.

"He's so gay" was far less frowned upon in 2003. Shit changes.

I'm sure everyone has had at least a couple of cases. For me it was when a bank employee performed a cash advance, which I have never, ever consented to in my life, and then claimed I had given her permission to do it. Read: she fucked up and blamed it on me. I requested the contact info of her supervisor, who had the audacity to suggest that it wasn't a large sum of money and I should essentially suck it up. That branch manager got an earful and a half and a phone call from the competition bureau (which was great, because it usually takes multiple complaints for them to take action).

Now this is the Karen-y part. Whenever a company that I'm a regular customer of does something morally wrong (as opposed to a mistake or a less than competent employee), I boycott them until, in my estimation, I've cost them 100x the sum of the initial disputed amount (I have substitute actions for cases that don't have a clear dollar value). In this case I cancelled my credit products with them. My boycott is set to expire (i.e. reach the 100x mark) in February of 2024. The rationale behind this is that if 1% of consumers do it, it'll no longer be worth it for them to continue the practice, and it gives you a satisfying end goal. You can't boycott every company that wrongs you indefinitely - I only have a handful on my permanent blacklist - but I can make my peace with it if I know I've comfortably done my part.

Where do you live?

Don't worry, I'm sure spez is on it.

Yeah, that's the point.

If that happens I'm going to see it as an opportunity to go no-social media for a year. I've done this with other things, for example not buying clothes for a year, and my habits have changed permanently with each exercise. I'm convinced that if you can do it for a year, it starts to become part of the fabric of who you are, and if that's preferable you're unlikely to backslide.

I'll contribute mine: I'm pro-extinctionism. In basic terms, I think it would be preferable for our species to slowly start to pack up shop.

We have a huge amount of resources for very little effort though. Back in the day you could work your ass off in the field all day, but there was no medical technology to cure illness, no vast swaths of entertainment options, no heating to keep you warm (unless you made a fire), and no hamburger that could be delivered to your door with the touch of a button. If you could not starve, lose a toe to frostbite, or die during childbirth, you were doing pretty well.

Right now you've probably never had to deal with hunger - even those under the poverty line can sustain a nutritionally decent diet (albeit an insanely boring one) in the developed world, your life expectancy is somewhere between 75 and 90, the water you drink is clean, there are no soldiers looking to skin you to death, and you're lying on a fluffy mattress stuffing popcorn into your face. If you're an average person, you probably have access to luxuries that were completely inaccessible just a few generations ago, and your working conditions are far better even if you find them boring.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of the suffering you might argue exists is preventable. You're not obligated to eat unhealthy foods, watch crummy netflix movies all day, have children (well, unless an old white dude decided otherwise), smoke, etc. The balance of individual choice vs. external influence is debatable, but certainly preferable to having no choice at all.

I think there's two subsets of these people.

One subset is actually really smart, book smart even, but just doesn't have a personality that aligns with the format of the education system. Those people tend to do really well in a different environment where they have more intrinsic motivation to succeed. For example, I know someone who didn't do well in school even though he had the ability to because he just didn't really see any reward, so he had no motivation. He went into finance and got through uni and his first few job with flying colors, because there was a reward at the end of the tunnel to pursue.

The other subset just doesn't do well with any sort of "bookish" stuff - math, sciences, finance, engineering, etc. just don't really fly. A lot of them I find feel a bit lost because they feel pressure to find a passion or orient themselves around a career when they just don't have anything that sparks an interest. I find that those people tend to do well when they pursue "active" jobs that don't feel like school. A person I know in this category struggled with school throughout his life, but was really good at working with people and interacting on that emotional plane. He went into social services and now works as a crisis counsellor. Most of the "schooling" was basically just situational training, and the job itself is so intuitive to him. Honestly if he didn't have bills to pay I swear he'd do that job for free. Other people in this category are ok with a job just feeling like work, so any high paying trade tends to work well because they can go to work, do their hours, and then enjoy life.