I'm not trying to make a case for or against veganism, or hunting. My point is that "we are animals and animals sometimes do X" implying that makes it ok, is bad logic. Animals also sometimes eat their young, or murder or rape other creatures of the same species.
Now like I said, I'm not arguing against or for veganism here, I think there are good arguments for both sides, I just don't think that the "we are animals" argument is one of them :)
I respect your viewpoint, but I wanted to point out that I think the argument of "animals do X, therefore it's ok" isn't a really good one, imo. In fact I think one of the features of being human is being able to rise above what other animals do, when we think it is a good idea. (Whether it's a good idea here though, is another topic)
I think part of the issue is people tend to conflate "does something immoral/less moral than an alternative" and "is a bad person".
I think most meat eaters would acknowledge that meat is inherently worse for the environment, and also less moral due to more animal suffering, than not eating meat. Doing so does not make them bad people, just like owning an iPhone doesn't make someone a bad person, etc. And yet when the topic of "meat is immoral " comes up, people very quickly seem to think it is an accusation of them being a bad person?
I'm not sure why you are making up imaginary arguments. Have you ever heard anyone ever accuse someone else of "not being vegan anymore" because they ate a non vegan product? I know quite a few vegans, I try to be vegan myself (but quite often cave, cheese is delicious), and all the vegans I know would be simply thrilled to know that someone was making an effort at all. Literally no one cares if you aren't 100% vegan, basically no one is anyway. But if you decide once a week to eat a vegan meal instead of a steak, great!! That's still helping the planet, better for the animals, etc.
But making up these ridiculous vegan cliches doesn't help anyone, it just makes more people annoyed at each other.
But I mean, that's literally what their ideas are, how else should they promote them? Are you mad that they aren't just pretending that meat is good, for the benefit of the listeners?
It's much more like politics than it is religion. People take a stance because of their values, ethics, mortality, etc (as opposed to religion which is generally a more irrational basis for belief). And the reasons for being loud about it follow from that.
So if you can understand why someone might proselytize about the situation in Gaza, then you should also understand why someone might proselytize for veganism, even if your views might align differently for different issues.
In seriousness, the reason people try spread vegan ideas is the exact same reason people try spread their political ideas: because they believe there is injustice in the world which they are trying to help fix.
While I agree, I am also not sure why vegans are being singled out for this, since I see memes and post shoving leftist politics down people's throats constantly, and not just in political channels.
It seems that for most people, the throat shoving is only a problem when they disagree with the content, and there are a lot less vegans on Lemmy than leftists.
But again it wasn't the team, and it wasn't " throwing shade" it was one guy, who listed it as one reason against AI. Power consumption is also a valid reason against using gentoo. People are able, and indeed should be aware of potential problems and downside of things, even if they are involved in other things which also has those issues. I am sure most of the gentoo team would readily acknowledge that energy consumption is a downside of gentoo compared to other distros.
You really went looking for something to hate on there didn't you. That is the only sentence in the whole article that even mentions power consumption, all the other arguments both fit and against are for a variety of other topics.
It seems to be that you are more likely caught up in some kind of movement if one argument from one person is enough for you to label everyone there luddites
Sometimes people want to be generally helped, and sometimes people just want an answer to their question. If the answer is "it's impossible" then that's a valid answer, but if the answer is "I'm not going to tell you, instead I'm going to assume that what you actually want is me to teach you why you were wrong to ask the question in the first place" then theres a good chance that actually they just wanted an answer, and you deciding for them what they need comes across as patronising.
I think the talking down aspect comes from phrases like "you shouldn't be doing X", especially when these statements are made as absolutes, rather than contextualised with actual reasons.
Running GUI programs as root might cause security problems, or it might cause software problems. And while you might find these issues important, others might not.
In my opinion, saying something like "it's not a good idea if you care about security" or "doing so might make your PC burst into flames" gives helpful warnings for OP and future readers without talking down to them by making decisions for them what they should and should not do.
I'm gonna mention "How to train your dragon". I actually preferred the books, but they are very different and I know many people who much prefer the movie.
I'm not gonna go claiming that the Eragon books deserve a prize, but I loved them as a kid, and comparing them as equals to that movie is bordering on insanity.
You're of course free to watch whatever you like, but it seems to be that if you are going to boycott anything which involves someone who happens to be an asshole, then there isn't going to be anything left for you to enjoy.
I'm not trying to make a case for or against veganism, or hunting. My point is that "we are animals and animals sometimes do X" implying that makes it ok, is bad logic. Animals also sometimes eat their young, or murder or rape other creatures of the same species.
Now like I said, I'm not arguing against or for veganism here, I think there are good arguments for both sides, I just don't think that the "we are animals" argument is one of them :)