It was a general assumption, and apparently not an accurate one. I don't presume to actually know how you think from one comment. There are dog whistles on all sides, because it's essentially a term for an "inside joke," minus the humor (usually). It comes up most often with Nazis and racists not because they're the center of attention necessarily, but mostly because dog whistles are needed primarily by groups that are not socially acceptable. You cannot be openly racist except with other racists, or openly a Nazi except with other Nazis. Dog whistles allow people to declare allegiance and signal to others that believe the same without needing to openly state it. Usually, we still know anyways, but it gives them plausible deniability in their eyes.
erin
What? They used the word correctly. How are you gonna pull out "both sides" when they're correct? It hasn't lost its meaning, you just don't like hearing it so often because, surprise surprise, there's an awful lot of dog whistling going on in the current political cycle. It means a signal used to communicate loyalty or belief to an idea, group, platform, etc, that is understood by other people who agree, and not necessarily obvious to the neutral observer. In this case, the word "woke" is a dog whistle for bigots. It was applied correctly.
That's rather selfish. There is harm, but not to you. You're okay with hurting other people for your own gain to avoid having one difficult conversation. I can only assume that you wouldn't feel good if a partner treated you like that, so why do so to them? Either you have a general lack of empathy, lack introspective ability, or are just perfectly okay with the idea of being cheated on, and also the idea of someone else hurting because of your own actions. I'm fascinated, and also recommend you try consensual polyamory next time instead.
Yes. "Cis" is just a description, like "straight" or "white." Calling someone "cis" is not an insult, but some conservatives take it as such. The common phrase they echo is "I'm not cis, I'm normal." They're trying to denormalize trans people by making an inoffensive and common descriptor an insult. The same people sometimes have a problem with being called straight by queer people because they see themselves not as straight, but normal, and anything different is abnormal. In reality, "gay," "straight," "trans," and "cis" are no more abnormal descriptors than calling someone "black," "white," "American," or "tall." It's all just "othering" those they perceive as political opponents.
They're seismically isolated
Or much much longer. It's not going anywhere. It can't escape its cask, and outside human intervention the casks won't be breached. It's just locked-up metal that gives off some radiation, fully contained within the cask. It isn't oozing green goo.
The casks waste is stored in would take bunker buster yields to breach.
All the waste a plant ever produces in its lifetime can be contained with ease on site. Waste certainly isn't the main issue, though it's portrayed to be. Cost of deployment and staffing are more prohibitive issues, and both are surmountable. I don't think it's a bandaid for all power issues, but it's a powerful tool that should be used more often, not phased out.
"Doesn't believe in transgenders"
Genuinely funny.
Without getting all Agent Smith about it, yes, humans are an ecological disaster. I'm not trying to throw charged what-ifs back and forth. We solve the problems we can. Can you clarify what you're saying? I agree that no animal should be killed by humans, but I also recognize that we must work with the solutions we have. Are you suggesting that we stop cullings and allow overpopulation to happen?
I strongly agree that hunting should not be a sport. I also believe that if we're going to kill an animal, we should at least use the corpse to feed back into the ecosystem, and I don't begrudge those that eat the things they hunt, if necessary. Many people subsist off hunting to survive, and while I disagree with the concept of hunting another animal for food, I won't suggest that they starve, especially when they're filling a vital ecosystem role. If we don't need the food though, we should not be hunting animals for food. I don't know if my opinion is well founded enough to defend the position that if an animal is killed, tragically necessarily, for culling, it should not be eaten. I believe that to be true, but I can't defend that position with anything but my personal feelings and beliefs. On some level, I understand the argument that if an animal must be killed, then it's wasteful to not use the meat. Regardless of either argument, I strongly disagree with trophy hunting, and find any hunting for sport abhorrent.
I hope you can see the nuanced nature of my position. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or be contrarian. I have a well-formed belief from my experiences, and I am trying to argue my position, and don't think you have to agree with me, nor do I expect you to. I do not see a large scale alternative to culling at the moment. I think those types of alternatives are being pursued by some in the industry, but the scale is small. I also do not believe it's an option to allow populations to grow uncontrollably. I believe allowing that to happen would be as morally reprehensible as hunting for sport, as it's neglecting a duty we have to sustain an ecosystem that we damaged. I am open and interested in any and all alternatives to culling, but I've heard none that haven't been tried or that haven't been able to succeed at scale.
I'm vegan with a somewhat differing view on culls, having worked for the EPA and with national parks. I agree that a better solution than culling would be ideal, and that no life wants to be killed or population managed. However, we cull because of our past failings. We wiped out natural predators in many areas that kept a balance, and now, if left unchecked, deer will eat themselves into starvation, and devastate their ecosystem. It would be death on a massive scale if unmanaged, and would even affect humans. I think it's a far smaller crime to kill a few deer and manage populations at safe levels, than to allow the mass starvation of entire ecosystems because of our past destruction of that balance.
Better solutions have been proposed. Ideally, where we can, we reintroduce native predators and protect their populations until they're stable. Is that different from killing for population control? We're introducing animals for the explicit purpose of hunting and killing deer in order to keep a balance. If that's wrong, then should we kill all predators? Of course not, but I digress. Those aren't arguments I think you'd make, and I'm not suggesting you'd agree whatsoever, but those are the perspectives we think about. Many many smart people have tackled this issue, and we have not found a better solution than culling. Sometimes, we've done some of what you suggested, and attempted to reduce fertility rates, though I see the same moral issue there as well. No sentient creature wants to be neutered or drugged to prevent reproduction. However, it's better than hunting in certain circumstances, and something has to be done. This isn't a problem that can be ignored to reduce environmental impacts in other areas. Overpopulation will happen, and it is devastating. I wish there was a simple solution, but we made mistakes when we destroyed the native ecosystem, and now it falls to us to keep it from totally collapsing.
My experience is so different, and so are the market statistics. A "forever mouse" is a dumb idea just looking for a subscription cash grab, but the PC mouse market is expanding year over year as more people get desktop computers, and especially for PC gaming, an expanding market in its own right. The customer base of people who use mice might be shrinking in some Linux communities, but stating that across the board is just incorrect.