We live in an unjust world and it’s not likely he’ll face consequences in line with his actions.

See also China, Korea, and Japan discussing free trade.

What I’m trying to say is they’re going to use pedantic definitions of what’s classified, or what is “war plans”, to distract from the issue. You can make a case for these people needing to be severely reprimanded even if the leaks were completely unclassified. I’ve seen people get fucked up for way less with unclassified information.

I think it’s because your average person doesn’t know the difference between classified and sensitive information.

Classified or not is mostly a moot point to me. It’s still extremely sensitive information and I’ve seen servicemembers get fucked over for much more minor infractions, like posting on Facebook when they’re going to be deployed or leave port.

At no point did I say this was ineffective at extorting men. I am saying that due to societal biases women tend to be judged (unfairly, in case that’s not clear) more than men for any given sexual activity. This makes blackmail more effective.

I feel like this would be much easier to attribute to “boys will be boys” than an excuse for women. The odds of being negatively judged for being a slut are significantly higher for women than they are for a man.

I’m not saying men aren’t negatively judged for these things, but if you took 100 people and showed them equally compromising pictures, my money is on more people negatively judging the woman. It’s a deep rooted societal bias.

I think the reason men are more likely to send unsolicited nudes is because there’s not going to be near as much consequence as compared to a woman. Same reason I think blackmail with nudes is likely more effective on women.

Not the commenter you replied to, but I would say it’s more effective on women due societal biases. Of course men can be extorted with nudes too, but the same tactic will be more effective if used on a female population. There’s still an expectation for women to be modest, or at least more so than men. How often do you see women topless vs men?

You know, I didn’t even realize that when my pre-coffee morning brain wrote my comment.

Pulse shooting - 49 dead, 53 injured
The Station nightclub fire - 100 dead, 230 injured

Pulse shooting doesn’t even make the top 20 of nightclub disasters - fire is much more of a threat, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires

Also, a ceiling coated with highly flammable material

I just don’t see people taking vacations or seeing relatives across the country as being the problem at this point in time. I think the limited resources we have to pursue environmental changes could be spent significantly better elsewhere.

If you came up with a revolutionary technology that saved an astounding 50% of the air transport emissions, you’ve eliminated 1% of total global emissions.

If you come up with a much more mundane technology that saves only 10% of electricity generation emissions, you’ve eliminated >2% of total global emission, more than twice the impact.

Limited resources would be much more effectively applied starting with the largest polluters.

I don’t think kneecapping air travel, pissing off many normal people, for little environmental benefit, is the way to get people to start seriously caring about emissions. It’s just going to fuel more reactionary bullshit and people completely missing the point, IMO.

As a side note, ships are way more efficient than trucking. Despite the scary numbers they put out, they also haul an insane amount of cargo.

I disagree. Electricity generation and industrial processes are emitting many times more greenhouse gases than air travel. If you eliminated all emissions from electricity generation tomorrow it would make a massive difference, far exceeding the 2% of air traffic. Looking at an EPA source electricity generation is 25%, industry is 23%, and transportation less air transport is 26%.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I stand by my point; even if you eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would barely make an impact. Efforts are best focused elsewhere that would have more of an impact on climate and less of a negative impact on people’s lives.

Air traffic altogether is only 2% of global emissions. We could focus efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere without the negative effects on logistics and people traveling. Even if you completely eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would be insignificant compared to other sources. Not that I think it’s a bad idea to reduce emissions from air traffic, but it’s going to highly impact people’s lives for barely a dent in emissions.