[insert cool MSN status here]

1. At the time of this study, only 2 other comprehensive studies on the issue existed. 1 found that rates of trafficking increase, the other found that they don’t. (Page 4).

2. Page 12 is what I opened the study looking for: The caveat that reporting of human trafficking is higher in countries where institutions are more accurate than others. Therefore, “data collected might lead to an overestimation of human trafficking incidences in these regions relative to other regions due to reporting biases.” While Germany may seem to be a hub for trafficking, it’s possible that this is inflated by it’s data tracking and countries without robust tracking have more real trafficking but less reported. For this reason, the authors repeatedly urge caution in interpreting this data, which reflects only reported trafficking. SWERFs will of course ignore urges of caution.

3. Page 22, yes the raw data shows a correlation between legalization and trafficking: “Also, while we have established that the legalized status of prostitution is associated with a higher incidence of trafficking inflows, a cross-sectional analysis cannot provide a conclusion as to whether legalizing prostitution would result in increased trafficking after legalization.” Emphasis mine. The data described here, according to the authors, can’t be used to support the economic theory OP is proposing. The authors turn to case studies to determine if the data is “causal or spurious.”

4. The case studies don’t show a causal relationship. They examine Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, which all have different laws around prostitution. Sweden went from legalization to prohibition, Denmark from legalization to prohibition. There was not significant difference in reported trafficking found in these two countries. (Page 24).

5. Pages 24-25 detail the differences between Germany and Sweden. The proportion of willing/trafficked sex workers in these countries is roughly the same. As for Germany, when it first legalized prostitution, rates of trafficking went down. Later, when it FULLY legalized prostitution, rates of trafficking went up. The results are still not significantly different ratios than in Sweden.

6. My question, which this study doesn’t address, is whether or not countries that legalize sex work also have more robust metrics for data collection and is it easier to report and leave situations of trafficking? Consider that in the US, where sex workers go to jail, and even trafficked children go to fucking jail, traffickers can easily manipulate victims into not reporting because they will also be at legal risk!

-pulled gilneas out of the alliance because “helping people” and “taxes” are for losers

- decided to go one step further and build a giant wall around his kingdom, except it also was going to go right through some people’s land and wall them off from the country they lived in and also leave them way vulnerable to the giant undead army currently ravaging that part of the continent.

-This singlehandedly caused a civil war led by the dude whose lands got cut in half by the wall.  The rebellion was very successful until it wasn’t for Reasons (blizzard r monarchists)

-Then he realized that the scourge currently ravaging the continent that he had done nothing about were going to be a problem and immediately had the perfect solution: release a bunch of worgen into the woods. This immediately went bad because they started eating people.

- “ah shit” he thought. “the best solution is to go on Secret Gentlemen’s Hunts with my boys to get rid of the worgen” He immediately got bit. Sad!

-Cue like the whole Gilneas storyline in which Genn Nobly Rescues His People from the problem he created. 

-THIS FUCKING PANEL FROM THE COMICS WHEN HIS SON TELLS HIM HE LOVES HIM. HES SUCH A HORRIBLE DAD

-jump to like now, when he spends all his time being sad about his son dying and like adopting anduin as a replacement son when he still has a kid left (but warcraft is about fathers and sons so whatever tess)

And then

And THEN

After getting bitten and becoming a worgen himself he had the royal physician developing an experimental cure in secret for YEARS which, while it was not perfect and did not lift the curse nor give the same level of stability as the Scythe of Elune does, was still FUNCTIONAL and prevented him from totally succumbing to the druidic magic

AND THEN

HE DIDN’T DISSEMINATE THIS. AT NO POINT DID HE MAKE THIS TREATMENT AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF GILNEAS. 

"Veganism is anti-Indigenous" is a talking point non-Indigenous people use to avoid accountability, and it's literally the noble savage trope. It assumes we all hunt and fish, erasing Indigenous vegans, plant-based traditions, AND the fact that the meat and dairy industry is actively destroying Indigenous lands, waters, and food systems. Using us as a shield while buying your meat from the grocery store is tokenism. We're not your excuse.

Tiktok post by @ hiililylani (she/her).

Secondly, the "noble savage" stereotype is harmful in both senses. It not only assumes that indigenous people are living off as hunters and gatherers aka "savages", but also it automatically assumes that they are all "noble". Meanwhile indigenous practices in some places have directly led to endangerment and extinction of some species. Hunting has never been noble, we used to do it for survival, and then we started doing it out of greed. This is true for all of humanity. To deny this fact is also racist.

It's kind of like some Asians now think MSG is bad for you or that soy makes you feminine and have adopted more meat-heavy diets. Racism & misogyny affects everyone, and people also internalize it. Sure, some of our ancestors were hunters, but foraging was just as important if not more so.

When I was a kid, we'd learn in school that our ancestors had a completely different culture & beliefs before they were colonized & forced to convert to Catholicism—and then on Saturdays most of my classmates still had to go to Catholic mass because "it's tradition".

i actually thought this was satire when i first saw it, but apparently this person is being serious lmao

"made up morals" particularly stands out to me, morals aren't like, natural, I think the idea of moral relativism is flawed and leads to harm, but morals are a social construct, they're all made up.

Plus the implication that all vegans are following the instructions of one guy who just came up with it one day is really fucking funny.

There's no reason given in the post that being able to eat something makes it ethical to eat (given you have other options ofc). But operating of this logic by itself, it would be ok to eat people even if you don't have to in order to survive, and to say otherwise would be wrong. If anything is being pushed on entire populations it's carnism. A lot of governments subsidize animal products and the majority of people are raised eating an omnivore diet. So is it ok to force a populace to eat a specific diet then?

And where do the concerns about racism and forcing people to do things go when they say that it's wrong to talk about morals in eating just because "someone or some creature" is "not being treated well" (the examples of not being treated well including being: killed, enslaved, mutilated, and forced to do dangerous labour, to name a few [talking about both humans and other animals here btw])

Also the assertion that we should try to make lives better is funny in this context, I guess this only applies to humans (and plants???) from their perspective. It's not like it makes lives worse to not pay for them to be ended prematurely, and lived out mostly commonly in cramped and uncomfortable environments. But according to this person, even making that choice for yourself and not talking about it is racist.

The spiel about plants feeling pain being "scientifically proven" is both unoriginal and incorrect. As I'm sure like, everybody reading this knows, omnivore diets take more plants being killed than plant based diets, but it's also generally agreed upon by botanists that while plants may have more complex senses than we originally thought, it is unlikely that they can think or feel any pain.

But none of that matters because it is apparently super racist to not want to torture animals. All diets based in morals are actually super racist, except of course, that of OP. Unless they eat anything they think could be good for them. their diet has moral elements. Abstaining from eating other humans is normally a moral position, so is not eating dogs and cats. So according to this person, the least racist diet is actually eating anything you want and can.