Or if they get the wrong address.

Or if they don’t like your skin color.

Or if they don’t like your tone.

Or if they just generally feel like it while their body cams are “malfunctioning”.

Basically, if you want to kill people with impunity, become a police officer in the US.

If these posts are made in a relatively short time then it could appear as spam. I browsing New is my default and, on a couple of occasions, I have blocked a user simply for being too active and flooding my feed.

As individuals will each have multiple records associated with them, one for each of their previous home addresses, the breach does not expose information about 2.7 billion different people. Furthermore, according to BleepingComputer, some impacted individuals have confirmed that the SSN associated with their info in the data dump is not correct.

National Public Data scrapes the personally identifying information of billions of individuals from non-public sources

Honest question: If these sources are non-public, how did National Public Data get access?

Facetious questions: If they are using private or restricted sources of data accumulation on an international scale, should they be calling themselves National Public Data? Seems like Global Private Data would be more fitting.

There are studies that show introvertion is not a “preference”, but rather the result of increased blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989562/

There are other studies showing a “high reactive” or “low reactive” response to unfamiliar events and stimuli in infants and it’s correlation to behavioral inhibitions as toddlers. While it requires some extrapolation, this suggests that introvertion may be a a condition of “nature” rather than “nurture”. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283938/

Let me know if you are interested and I can send you additional peer reviewed studies and papers on the topic. Personality and human behavior is a fascinating topic.

Yes, I did read those articles. Allow me to highlight some of the points from those articles which bolster my argument that the avoiding our limiting of social interactions of introverts is rooted in finding those interactions to be exhausting and mentally draining.

they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, which is more suited to the make-up of their nervous system. Evidence suggests that, unlike with extroverts, the brains of introverts do not react strongly to viewing novel human faces; in such situations they produce less dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward.

Introverts gain energy from reflection and lose energy in social gatherings.

Highly stimulating situations with lots of social interaction are draining for introverts, while these types of encounters tend to fuel extroverts.

Introverts usually like to be alone and recharge by spending time by themselves.

A person with introverted tendencies might still like to go to parties and socialize with others. However, they will likely need to spend time alone afterward to recharge.

Being introverted has to do with how you gather energy.

Hanging out with friends on Friday might max out your energy, leaving you craving solitude on Saturday to rest and refuel.

If you have any articles or research studies to suggest that introvertion is not associated with a psychological drain or that it is a condition of choice, I would appreciate reading them. I’m always receptive to new information that may change my mind on a topic.

I would consider that definition to be overly simplistic and failing to capture an important point that is often referenced when describing traits of an introvert. Introverts find social interactions, especially in large groups, to be draining. I believe this to be a key distinction between people that avoid social interaction out of misanthropy or frustration or fear or depression or any of a myriad of other reasons that a person might seek solitude over the company of others.

The reason and motivation behind the desire to avoid social interactions plays a role in determining a course of action in responding to them and ending them early. If you find them draining, a simple “sorry, I gotta get going”, when you start to feel drained, is all you would r really need. However, if social interactions trigger a negative emotional response, then more tools would be needed.

Here are a few references on the topic of introvertion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/introversion

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/introvert-definition

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-an-introvert

Mutually exclusive or not. Nothing in the description nor the original post depicts introvert behavior.

Thanks. Fixed my comment.

What you described is being antisocial asocial, not introverted.

I’m just guessing here but I would think that cooking would kill off anything picked up from the thawing process.

It’s nasty, but not necessarily unsafe.

Think of it like this

• HTTPS hides what you are saying.
• VPN hides who you are saying it to.

I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).

The one point of your argument that I do question is the “kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years” claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.

And if they were hunting non-endangered species for food, then I would be outraged by a lethal response, but that’s not the case here.

You are using 2 different analogies that contradict each other. The poachers are cultivating a product, similar to poppy and coca plants, not the street dealers, and the wealthy are the buyers / “users”.

So if they are poor and eradicating a species off the face of the planet, then they should get a pass? They have the equipment and skills to hunt non-endangered animals which would provide food for themselves and their family. Excess meat could likely be traded or sold. Poaching is not a crime of necessity.

Good idea to share our definitions of boycott and protest. For me, a boycott is the attempt to remove yourself from contributing or supporting a situation, institution, or person. For example, not purchasing a product or paying for a service. A protest is actively speaking out against something and while it could involve putting yourself at physical risk, it does not have to. In my view, the people in this thread that have shared their discontent with Nestlé are taking part in a protest and those that have been willing and able to avoid purchasing Nestlé products are taking part in a boycott.

the problem, as has been demonstrated all over this thread, is that there are many people who simply can’t afford to do that (in money, or time, or for medical reasons or all of the above). They need essentials, and only shitty companies will sell them these essentials, they’re often not in a position to be dropping things completely, or even shopping around for other brands (99% of which are owned by companies just as bad as nestle anyway) because they’re already struggling to maintain the bare minimum and are too busy working however many jobs or struggling in other ways (like living in a food desert).

I think that my point was lost. I’m not suggesting that people do without essentials. If they are forced to do business they don’t like, they can still speak up about their dissatisfaction of the situation (a.k.a. protest). Their story may encourage somebody else to do the same and maybe that other person will be in a position to skip the Hagen Daz or switch from Peligrino water to flat water or change their cat food from Friskies to another brand. Will they likely end up giving their money to another evil corporation? Yeah. Most likely. But sometimes it is about picking a lesser evil (and I hate using that term, but it fits). And, optimistically, maybe the voices speaking up will get another corporation or maybe even an activist organization will see that there is a need for alternatives. Ultimately, my point is that nothing is served by staying quiet and doing nothing.

Even if your words and actions have no impact and changes nothing, the act itself still holds significance and meaning.

If you’re going to use nestle’s atrocities, and by all means do, add them to a list of other atrocities companies committed for profit too, and use them all together to make the case against capitalism itself.

For the record: Fuck capitalism. I think it is a Ponzi scheme that thrives on the subjugation of the masses for the benefit of the few. Sadly, I have never encountered a system of governance that did not ultimately fall to that same demise. Even the more idealistic systems (e.g. socialism and communism) fall guilty to this once the community gets large enough. I feel that they fail because they are ultimately built on an idealistic view of humans and ignore that we are, as a whole, selfish, corrupt, and are destructive to everything we encounter. Are there exceptions? Yes, that’s why small communities can make these ideologies work. Could we be better? Maybe, but I doubt it.

You are right about activism fatigue being real. I am a victim of it. I still speak out, but I am done with putting myself in harms way, thinking that the powers-that-be give a shit. I’ve shifted my energies to taking control of my life and usage of resources. For example, growing my own food and dealing directly with farmers, ranchers, and hunters for other food supplies. I’m far from where I want to be, but I continue to move to where I want to be.

I feel like you and I are very similar in our views. Not identical, and with some differences in our responses, but the core I feel that our beliefs are similar.

BTW: I do not think that you have come across as argumentative nor an ass (pretty sure you said something like that in a previous reply) and I have appreciated our exchange.

I think that we were both confused about what the other was trying to say. What I was hearing from you is “boycotts and protests are pointless and never change anything, so don’t even bother trying” and I think what you were hearing from me was “well, I stopped spending money on this one thing, that aught to fix society.” I do not think that was what either of us were trying to say.

Personally, I find that boycotting is only one step in a process of trying to break away from the influence of corporations. Once a person takes that step to say “I don’t need this.”, they are more inclined to look at other things in their life that they don’t like and find ways to remove them from their lives as well. They start to encourage others to take similar steps and find their own forms of freedom, maybe even get so upset that they start trying to enact reform. But it all starts with the self.

From my person experience, it takes a highly offensive act to get others to look beyond their personal convience and comfort. Hence my sharing the atrocities of Nestlé. It was never about influence a corporate mindset, it was about hoping to influence a persons mindset.

I would enjoy continuing our discussion, if you are up for it, though maybe through DMs or somewhere else more appropriate. For instance, I would be interested in hearing your views on large societies and impact they have on the individual as well as your thoughts on countering personal greed and how it corrupts efforts and movements intended to help others.

What actions do you suggest? I am open to suggestions.

My goal was to say what some of their more egregious acts. I would hate for people to forget that Nestlé caused the slow painful death of infants because it was grouped in with general corporate behaviors.

I’m also aware of other atrocities performed by companies; the Banana Massacre by Chaquita (then United Fruit Company), Ford letting their customers burn to death instead of adding an $11 safety feature to the Ford Pinto, Apple using state sanctioned slave labor through Foxconn, etc etc. And when I get the chance, I share those acts of corporate malevolence.

I’m not excusing any of them. I’m just doing what I can to help prevent these acts from being forgotten.

For me, boycotting and / or protesting this behavior is not about changing the collective minds or behaviors of corporations. It’s about not accepting it and expressing personal outrage, even if it is commonplace.

While I understand your perspective, you failed to mention their actions which specifically targeted new mothers in developing countries with unethical actions that resulted in the slow deaths of infants.

This is why I boycott Nestlé. Not poor treatment of employees, nor a disregard for the environment.

Nestlé implemented a plan that caused babies to die a slow and painful death while their mothers could only watch helplessly.

Fuck Nestlé.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestlé_boycott