james1

Unless you're a raw milk TB-chaser type the milk you drink is probably processed too. Being processed doesn't make something inherently worse, and "no nutritional value" is a daft claim. OK if you consume milk as your only source of protein or fat, you probably want to choose your milk substitute tailored to whichever the rest of your diet is deficient in, but better or worse for us is a fairly arbitrary concept.

Livestock for dairy production are unarguably bad for the planet though.

Most people don't vote

About 70% of the electorate vote nowadays, it has varied higher or lower but never been as low as 50% of eligible voters to even say "half of eligible people don't vote" let alone "most"

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8060/CBP-8060.pdf

So assuming you have say 20 old people on your fictional bus, even assuming that all of your voter info is correct and everyone is on the register, the chances of all of them being able to cast a second vote without any of them being caught are billions to one.

The idea that millions of people will risk a significant chance of a lengthy prison sentence for their individually tiny extra votes is absurd when any actual attack on election integrity would not happen at the point of "turning up at the polling station and hoping for the best."

Even if one in a million voters did try and get away with this - which again is a hugely inflated number from anything we get an indication of - if to do so you stop tens of thousands of people from being able to vote at all that still makes the election less democratic overall.

Why would you need a passport if you aren't leaving the country?

It's a piece of paper you buy every ten years if you want to travel across national borders, it's not like some intrinsic part of your being.

At the point that the new voter ID legislation was introduced, about 8% of the electorate - ~3.5m people - did not have a passport or a driving licence.

Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it's bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that's definitely not a uniform definition.

the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

- Britannica

The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.

- Wiki

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

- Collins English Dictionary

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes... government or resistance to government by means of terror.

- Webster's

While some limited ecotage does happen, non-permanent disruption is more popular than permanent damage. And the more public, less relevant showboating stuff is what gets the public eye. Just Stop Oil got a lot more attention when they started sitting in traffic and throwing stuff at paintings and whatever than when they were focusing more on things like blocking oil terminals.

I'd recommend Malm's book How to Blow Up a Pipeline for more discussion about more radical approaches to protest, but bear in mind that there is a distinction between strategic sabotage which can get public on-side and the sort of adventurism that ecoterrorism implies. As /u/lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml mentions below this has the risk of driving more people away anyway.

I'd really recommend Marxism Today's youtube video about the film pseudo-adaptation of How to Blow Up a Pipeline, discussing both the risks and bad examples in that film itself but also the broader context of trying to encourage this.

Disruption and sabotage of fossil fuel machinery might be effective from a public optics perspective, as well as on a large enough scale hopefully impacting capitalist profits/making polluting ventures seem riskier to investors. However, ecotage is distinct from eco-terrorism and the latter should be avoided.

However, not the question of subjective motives but that of objective expediency has for us the decisive significance. Are the given means really capable of leading to the goal? In relation to individual terror, both theory and experience bear witness that such is not the case. To the terrorist we say: it is impossible to replace the masses; only in the mass movement can you find expedient expression for your heroism.

- Trotsky in Their Morals and Ours

The [Earth Liberation Front] realises that the profit motive, caused and reinforced by the capitalist society, is destroying all life on this planet. The ELF therefore feels that the only way to stop the destruction of life is to take the profit motive out of killing.

- ELF spokesperson in a 2003 interview

While stuff like Tomb Raider is the quintessential example, for a five year old you would probably be better with something more colourful and fun, even if you are the one playing it.

With that in mind my first thought was A Hat in Time although I've not played it through to verify end to end appropriateness.

You could also try Mirror's Edge because bright colours and dynamic movement, I don't remember it being that violent but maybe on second thoughts consider the safety aspect of introducing a child to the concept of jumping between buildings and maybe I'm talking myself out of this.

Celeste is colourful and fun and honestly at that age I don't know that she would pick up that much on the heavier aspects of the story which are allegories for anxiety/depression/gender dysphoria. A five year old is basically going to see it as a story with an evil twin I think.

I haven't played Child of Light but that might be appropriate?

The main character in Crypt of the Necrodancer is a girl called Cadence, although that is one you would really have to enjoy to make it worth it imo. I'm mostly thinking rhythm and bright colours are child friendly again to be honest, but you still have to play what is basically a roguelike mixed with a rhythm game and if that's not your jam it will be a waste of money.

You can always play a game with selectable skins too, like Spelunky 2 has a few characters you could pick between which all play the same but has a variety of designs you can play as.

I don't normally plan my reading much ahead of time but August is an exception on a few counts.

Firstly, Whalefall by Daniel Kraus comes out on August 8th. It's such a goofy idea for a story (think Jonah and the Whale meets The Martian) and I have been so pumped, I've been talking people's ear off about it for months. It's like scientifically accurate Pinocchio.

Secondly, one of the bookclub picks for the Discord server affiliated with !bookclub@lemmy.world is The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K LeGuin

And then it's Tropeical Readathon (a semiannual reading challenge thing) again so I have a couple dozen books picked out to cover that, but the only other sci-fi one apart from the above is Under This Forgetful Sky by Lauren Yero.

I made a kind of "if you like PHM you might like these other books" rec chart thing when I first read PHM; if you've finished reading it you might enjoy some of these (although it does mention a few key elements of the book so if you're going in completely blind and aren't far in yet then don't look at this yet).

This mindset is why a lot of Blairite Labour policy is "be slightly less right wing than the Tories; the policies might suck but as long as everyone left of Thatcher and Farage feels we're the lesser evil we don't need to actually try and be good." Not having anyone representing the left on the national stage is just going to result in more rightwards drift. I've commented elsewhere in this thread on not wanting to split the vote too much between dozens of tiny splinter parties, but also voting for Labour in their current state builds complacency about the voters they think they've banked because they used to stand for something, and just leads them to chase more of the Tory vote.

The strongest centre left candidates at the moment are the Greens. As far as electoralism goes, it would be better to stand behind a party that actually has a membership than split further into parties which frankly look the same as countless other "like the left flank of Labour but better" parties.

At least something like the Northern Independence Party could raise the priority of the North. I'm not sure what this offers that, say, the Breakthrough Party doesn't apart from further vote splitting.

Feels like it will offer a similar level of political success and distinction as when you are trying to look up CPB vs CPB-ML vs CPGB-ML vs NCP vs RCPB-ML vs... except with everyone having platitudinal tech marketing guru's branding like Transform, Change, Breakthrough etc.

Well There's Your Problem episode about the Goiania incident