Exactly. Star Trek takes place in utopia - and the creators' version of utopia is one with equality, freedom, and respect for all. If someone's version of utopia doesn't align with this, I think that says a lot more about them than it does about how "woke" Star Trek is

All the more reason to make every community better. If quality of life is improved across the board, then everyone gets access to the benefits and you get rid of the risks of gentrification.

I think it is good that there are organizations tracking this sort of thing based on multiple criteria. As individuals, we are prone to bias, and our outlook can be overly optimistic or pessimistic based on what news we happen to read and how our lives are going.

Additionally, knowing the rate of change is important. Sure, "everyone" knows that the planet is getting hotter each year due to climate change. I still want scientists out there checking thermometers each day so that we have data to support better decision making. The attitude of ignoring legitimate research and relying on "common sense" is part of how so many people were swayed by MAGA bullshit in the first place (i.e., they dont want someone with a fancy medical degree telling them they should vaccinate their children). Maybe we can get off our high horses for a bit and look at what experts are saying from time to time.

I suppose that's why they're asking you to take the results based on the research data rather than faith. It's important not to confuse pessimism with objectivity.

Well, if you read the article, there's some good news for you: they haven't taken this long.

If you would read to at least the second paragraph (and I know I'm asking a lot), you would see that this organization has been tracking the descent since 2017. The "new" bit here is that it seems to have stabilized, i.e., it isn't currently getting worse than it already is. The bad news (which you have to read more of the article to get) is that it isn't going to get better any time soon, either.

Doesn't bombing civilians just make it more likely that the survivors will take up extremist stances, though? From a long term standpoint, attacking civilians is always a bad move if your goal is peace/stability. I feel like the last hundred years has been a lesson in this

Maybe I'm missing context, though, since the comment you replied to was removed by mod.

This is a fair take, and I greatly prefer an "innocent before proven guilty" justice system. I think it's also fair for you to read the article before commenting.

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology released a notice to members last week, cautioning that inclusion in the Epstein files does not alone imply misconduct.

Worse, it's a few megabytes of selfhosted storage. Data on a server you own that you are not allowed to access.

Ken Klippenstein strikes again. Man is hard carrying journalism

"Staying peaceful" and "fighting back" aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone who thinks nonviolent tactics don't work hasn't read up on their history (East Timor, Philippines, etc.). Every time ICE shows up to pepper spray cops and shoot at priests, local police gets more pissed, and they drive a wedge between local and federal law enforcement, weakening the administration's ability to project power. Don't underestimate that opportunity.

That being said, current actions are far more symbolic than transformative. No kings protests don't do anything on their own, but could easily be leveraged into an enabler of things like boycotts and general strikes which will have a strong impact.

The assumption that you'll lose a lawsuit against a large corporation probably stops a lot of viable lawsuits from ever happening - good for him for giving it a go.

One of the factors in whether a nonviolent resistance movement can succeed or not is whether any state forces end up shifting loyalty. "Appealing to the moral sense of the people oppressing them" may be false if you're just talking about whoever's at the top, but it absolutely is a factor for the day-to-day bureaucrats and security forces. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to cause these sorts of changes (particularly when violent crackdowns against nonviolent resistance backfires).

Consider the success of the following movements:

• Peoples Power Revolution (First one in 1986) - several military leaders defected from the Marcos regime
• Velvet Revolution (1989) - had several government officials defect
• Malagasy Political Crisis (2002) - Defense minister resigned, generals and military officers were split on who to support (source for this one, since the article is hard to find). In fairness, although this one would largely be classified as nonviolent, at the time, it was hard to say whether or not there would be any armed conflict (aside from some incidents with police attacking protesters early in the movement)

There's several other cases of this happening over the past century, but I hope you get my point - nobody's appealing to the guy on the throne, they're appealing to all the other cogs in the machine.