“There are more important hills to die on” is kind of a cop-...

Nic

npub134u08yp6rdcgcamfdcra9aysvhne9wpssft8ntm9qvfu95erxdcqx9qjkm

hex

512b293bf6e4d7a2cff263ff4c8db1750b214e83ac9b1046a59a290e5a494c32

nevent

nevent1qqs9z2ef80mwf4azelex8l6v3kch2zepf6p6excsg6je52gwtfy5cvsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsg678njqapkuyvwa5kup7j7jgxteujhqcgy4ne4ajsxy7z6v3nxuqg4ezfl

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-03-15T18:52:05Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

ff32156c8cd2a8b6690f9d52f0b21312277cd573fdd03623f2f01af3a6d943ed...

“There are more important hills to die on” is kind of a cop-out argument.

You’re already choosing a hill to die on by supporting the idea that gross images should be mandated on certain products because they’re considered unhealthy. If you didn't care, you wouldn't argue for it.

If that’s the standard, then why stop there?

Should Lucky Charms and other cereal boxes have pictures of disgusting fat people on them, to show kids what can happen when you build a habit of eating sugar for breakfast?

What about wine and liquor bottles? Should every label include pictures of damaged livers, drunk-driving crashes, or alcohol poisoning?

If the principle is that unhealthy products should carry graphic warnings, then it should apply consistently, not just to the ones people already dislike.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "512b293bf6e4d7a2cff263ff4c8db1750b214e83ac9b1046a59a290e5a494c32",
  "pubkey": "8d78f3903a1b708c77696e07d2f49065e792b830825679af650313c2d3233370",
  "created_at": 1773600725,
  "tags": [
    [
      "alt",
      "A short note: “There are more important hills to die on” is kind..."
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "fe7b8f721f711d5a867dca24d42ea9e2975c56c5b391254ff5268b9419aff105",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "root",
      "8d78f3903a1b708c77696e07d2f49065e792b830825679af650313c2d3233370"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "be3da8b269b4d9f31974b7661008d33f55c5ddaa687dfc5aeb482695cc9f7944",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "",
      "8d78f3903a1b708c77696e07d2f49065e792b830825679af650313c2d3233370"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "ff32156c8cd2a8b6690f9d52f0b21312277cd573fdd03623f2f01af3a6d943ed",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "reply",
      "5afa711a2e4f45294c9ca8033861a0e15a879e6fc1a4a6903640f7faeae0d7b8"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "8d78f3903a1b708c77696e07d2f49065e792b830825679af650313c2d3233370",
      "wss://relay.primal.net/"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "5afa711a2e4f45294c9ca8033861a0e15a879e6fc1a4a6903640f7faeae0d7b8",
      "wss://nostr-01.yakihonne.com/"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "“There are more important hills to die on” is kind of a cop-out argument.\n\nYou’re already choosing a hill to die on by supporting the idea that gross images should be mandated on certain products because they’re considered unhealthy. If you didn't care, you wouldn't argue for it.\n\nIf that’s the standard, then why stop there?\n\nShould Lucky Charms and other cereal boxes have pictures of disgusting fat people on them, to show kids what can happen when you build a habit of eating sugar for breakfast?\n\nWhat about wine and liquor bottles? Should every label include pictures of damaged livers, drunk-driving crashes, or alcohol poisoning?\n\nIf the principle is that unhealthy products should carry graphic warnings, then it should apply consistently, not just to the ones people already dislike.",
  "sig": "cc078da85289aadb7ca89ac7705ea7a8de64a60351786185467c84b6eb4a6661bd3bd09c1a65e2df5212ffd5ef2a29ffb2ffe0909ac64ba7b2132f9086e0ea41"
}