Enkers

I didn't even realize where we were until I read your comment.

In 2009, CNN's current CEO and chairman was called the 65th most powerful person in the world by Forbes.

I wonder if he'd have any financial incentive one way or the other?

I agree, and understand change takes time. But to be clear, I'm saying advocating for half measures is relatively ineffective, not that half measures themselves have no effect.

Really? That's how things play out in reality for sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling for anything less than a complete abolition of animal exploitation and cruelty. But let's try it with some social movement that's often discussed on Lemmy to be sure. Do you think this is a good take:

"You shouldn't call for an end to the genocide in Gaza, that's unrealistic. Just stick to 'Israel should try and kill fewer Palestinians.' Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."

The problem of advocating for half measures is that you don't properly communicate that the behavior in question is unacceptable. It sends a mixed message: "It's bad and you shouldn't do it, but it's still OK to do a little."

If you can't understand the difference between structure and content, there's no point in discussing further.

I don't mean to equate anything here, but do you think that would have been an effective strategy for social change in other movements?

Like: "What if we just did a little slavery? It'll be much easier to convince slave owners to give up slavery if they got used to having just a few slaves."

Do you think that would have been an effective strategy instead of calling for complete abolition?

Once again, I'm not trying to draw a comparison here, you could substitute any past social movement, but the logical structure should hold regardless.

For viewers in the developed west, “there’s plenty of stuff that we can do as individuals,” said Cowperthwaite: eat less meat, reduce food waste, buy less.

Disappointing the directors don't fully reject consumption of animals, but not surprising since we can't even covince people to wear a mask when they're sick.

Haha, yeah, that's why I said it's my diplomatic answer, as it doesn't utterly reject a capitalist framework.

Here's my mildly diplomatic answer that'd probably get tossed:

Piracy has become a plague on our society, but there's a more sinister cause to it. The average labourer can hardly afford to pay the same fee to access culture that the wealthy person can, and this has caused a significant and justified uptick in piracy.

This situation can be averted by increasing minimum wages and supporting universal basic income. If everyone knew they could at least make ends meet, they'd have some left over to pay for the culture that mattered to them.

Pushing a solution that requires dependence on animal agriculture is just someone trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

~~Also, was there supposed to be a linked article?~~

~~Why does just a picture and a headline have so many upvotes? Is this community asleep at the wheel??~~

Never mind, it's fixed now, and the linked article clearly views the "solution" as a negative.

"Climate change isn't re-blub blub blub!" >:(

Why does this seem like the part of an exponential growth curve where it starts to go asymptotic? Like maybe I'm crazy, but this seems real real bad.