While I agree with your general point I'd like to say that the relation of company emissions with consumer emissions is a bit different, ultimately what we consider consumer emissions are the company emissions of what the consumers buy.
But that still means we need to change both consumer behaviour and laws restricting companies, reducing consumption is important but so is reducing the pollution involved in producing what we do consume.
Pretty sure it's more than that. The entire concept of just obeying someone "because they're the authority" is incomprehensible to me. Give me a reason and if it makes sense I'll do it. Otherwise if I don't agree with it I don't see why I should.
Imo it doesn't matter much whether that behaviour is caused by some recognized condition or is just their personality. Someone could have texture related issues with eating certain food and not be autistic, doesn't make them an asshole for not wanting to eat it (not to mention that almost no one likes all food). In the end we're all mainly a product of our genetics and environment, and the specifics of what people should and shouldn't be considered responsible for is a whole philosophical argument in itself.
You can criticize people for their behaviour regardless, as the other commenter said there's a difference between criticism and bullying. And I don't think "I'm autistic" is any better or worse a reason than "I just don't like it" (using that loosely here, could include the whole range of extreme responses like vomiting). Because autism here in the end is just a label saying "congrats, you have a recognized reason to not like it". There's no way to know what precisely is going on in someone elses head regardless.
Current anime is still largely made by underpaid and overworked animators, that really isn't what changed...
Absolutely any policy that protects people can protect neo nazis. If a platform wants someone gone for being a dickwad, they can just ban them (not that that's gonna happen to nazis on twitter). Questioning sensible rules because they happen to protect bad people sometimes is some dystopian shit. It's the same line of argument as wanting to ban e2e encryption to scan messages for csam.
Doxxing is a crime in some places, only selectively enforcing that would be quite the problem.
I'd also argue that the two can be related, a big reason I find social interaction draining is having to fight my anxiety at all times. The few ppl I'm truly comfortable around I can interact with for much longer.
Like english?
Might be from german "Staatsgewalt", Gewalt would usually be violence, but here it'd be more accurately translated as force or power.
Isn't the US the only country in the world requiring its citizens to pay taxes if they both live and work abroad? Or is there some huge earning limit to that that most people will never reach?
Through that logic I'd always figured unanimous stems from "without animosity" and the word animous just got lost to time, which would make un-animous the more sensible pronunciation. But it seems that while they do share a common etymology, it's not "un" as in negation, but rather "un" from "unus" meaning one, with both sharing "animus" meaning mind.
I also found out that animous used to exist as a synonym for animus at one point.
Poorest state in the country might be why
Yea, if I don't know the full context then I can just accept it unless I think it's completely stupid, and then I'll just ask. Getting the explanation also helps with understanding the processes better.
I think I most commonly notice this when it's a movie theme, where some character is struggling with disobeying a person of authority that doesn't actually hold significant power over them and is just an authority because of social hierarchy. It wouldn't even cross my mind to obey them if I didn't want to do what they're asking, and all I can think is "why are you doing this".