abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

Honestly seeking explanation because this is new to me and I'm afraid to Google it. What is "winnie" a dogwhistle for?

There's too damn many conservative dogwhistles these days.

My local chain does that bullshit upsell standard.

They'll even show you your CLEAN air filter in hope you're a sucker enough to say yes.

And they don't get in trouble if they just say "wow, look at this cabin air filter. Would you like us to replace it while we're working on your car?"

I stopped believing their shit when I took my car for an oil change the week after the cabin air filter was changed (confirmed visually).

I'll be damned if I didn't have a bad cabin air filter that needed replacing.

This is why I hate marketing pushes. If they're a good-faith business, the efficiency needs to be within shooting distance of reasonable against costs. But as we learned from the artificial meat industry (that ultimately admitted we've already probably reached lifetime price/quality/scale limits from the methodologies they're using) brutal honesty doesn't get you investors.

Sure, and I agree, but what your approach is forgetting is that you’re not a dictator who can change the laws at will, and the people must still obey them

There's two types of philosophy about the law. There's the philosophy that laws are meant to be followed for organized society. Then there's the philosophy that laws are about taking (or reclaiming) antisocial elements out of society. The former has always been toxic to me. The latter would say "if a law says something useless or wrong, you should be changing it instead of mindlessly obeying it)

And "people must still obey them" is simply untrue. The fact that people won't obey bad laws is exactly what leads us to this situation.

Politics takes time, and the community won’t let any democratic government force revolutionary new laws on them without trying them out first. So decriminalisation is the first step.

As I said elsewhere, making the black market stronger isn't necessarily a step in the right direction. Politics aside, I think someone needs to get their head out of their ass and find a better way to get from "illegal" to "legal" without going through "organized crime paradise"

That was a quick comparison with white supremacy

I'm not Godwinizing this. The analogy is apt. Not because Veganism is as bad as the White Supremacy movement, but because militant veganism is culturally near-identical with regards to levels of organization, cohesion, and belittling and exclusion of the opposing majority.

Vegans are not special. It’s like if I had the same nationality as someone, do you really need to call out someone from the US that shit on European (assuming you are from the US) ?

No, vegans aren't special. Thank you. And yes, I consider it my responsibility to call out the American anti-Mexican rhetoric that's been rekindled because if I don't, I am complicit. I am struggling not to tangent into at least 20 other incidents between old racial slurs and attacks insults about homosexuality where I've had to stand up against "my class", but the moment I hadn't done so, then I'm as bad as them.

this article that list a few vegans that are against militant

Unfortunately, this article supports my point in a way I don't know you intended. This is an article discussing how militant vegans (including the creators of Dominion) are against the tactic of insulting non-vegans directly in their goal of getting everyone to stop eating meat. Further, this clearly rebuts your earlier claim that militant veganism isn't "a community".

Remember, if you're activists against someone's behavior, you're attacking that behavior. You need to be damn sure the behavior you're attacking is objectively wrong. Good-cop Bad-copping it doesn't change that.

And I never wanted to say most vegans agree with extremists. Theses assholes are ruining veganism image

Then, do the world a favor, and call them out. It probably doesn't get veganism across the line of reasonableness (stopping pushing for others to be vegan is where that happens) but it gives you a bit more of an ethical foundation.

Without them people would hear vegan and think about nature, saving animals, saving the evironnement

I hate that most vegans I meet won't agree with me on animal protections in farms because my goals still involve people eating them (EDIT: them=animals. Stupid English language unclear pronouns). I consider my home state's new free range chicken law a massive win because it doesn't play with the meaning of "free range" like many big companies do, but most vegans consider it "just another step in normalizing humans eating animals". You've heard the statement "making perfect the enemy of good", right? Well, there's a step worse, which is making "my personal preference the enemy of perfect".

Let me make this clear. We exist in a world where we can scaleably give farm animals a better quality of life than they'd get in the wild with a better environmental impact than not eating them, but it requires regulations that vegans are often unwilling to openly support because it's not what they want.

But right now they only think about 30 years old Karen screaming at them for no reason calling people murderer and so on.

Agreed. Memes become that because they're often true. "How do you know someone is a vegan?" EVERYONE has experienced that particular little joke dozens of times if not more. I used to have a coworker who aggressively preached veganism at me, as he gained a ton of weight and his health degraded. This is not me saying that vegans can't be healthy, but he was definitely doing veganism a disservice.

Whatever beef… you have with veganism

With militant preachy religions where outsiders are inferior.

For the rest, you've gone off the deep-end. I'll stop replying to you until the next time I see you insult me to somebody else.

True, actions speak. So I do what I can. You probably don’t but that’s an assumption I admit

And this right here is the problem. But you know that and I'm not sure you care.

You’ve got a lot of assumptions, but that’s OK

I'm not the one judging the supermajority of people as "unworthy" and "uneducated". I make very few assumptions, and even fewer judgements. Look in the mirror.

Even if they’re anecdotal. Like people don’t need to be educated. I disagree.

People don't need to be propagandized. I'm all about education. I encourage education. For most problems, education is the way out. Listening to someone take their morals and convince you of some hokey pseudo-scientific claim of fact is not education.

As I reinstate, it’s simply anti vegan rhetoric that you’re so on board with

Would you listen to yourself? If someone says something that doesn't match this clearly fictional view about a meatless-utopia is "rhetoric". Like I'm reading some "how to screw with perfect people, by Mr. Satan" pamphlets? How about this counter. The vegan side simply doesn't hold water. Period. That's it. My so-called rhetoric is just "calling bullshit".

For clarity, I don’t think you’re an idiot or uneducated, just misguided and have been misinformed for so long, your very core is against the idea, and you’re smart enough to justify why you feel like that.

Why? Because I disagree with vegans? All I see is trollish behavior and downvotes from people who demonstrably show lack of knowledge. When I grew up, my friends were becoming environmental engineers and farmers, and my family struggles have made me acutely aware of the complex nutritional questions that exist. I'm "misinformed" because I've been surrounded by experts in the various fields. But I suppose you would tell a PhD in nutrition that they're misinformed on the health side if they don't agree with you, and would tell a PhD in Environmental Engineering the same. I bet you would tell a small-time farmer that they're misinformed about how their negative-margin milk cow (since the strike price of milk is down) is still necessary because it's the only way their plant crops are profitable.

We're alllll just misinformed. But the vegans, oh boy, just like the Christians, those vegans know the right of it. And they'll save my soul if I just let them.

At the end of the day, you are against veganism

Correction. I'm against preachy, militant, veganism. More specifically, I'm against all proselytization, but that from veganism is the worst I've seen of late. I have vegans in my family, and I have no problem with them.

but I do hope one day people like yourself can see the fight against oppression doesn’t stop at humans

I already don't. While you're fighting to get everyone to stop eating meat, I do my part to fight against Big Ag (meat and plant). I support free range laws that are actually animals getting to live their best lives. I'm against anti-natalism (like PETA and anti-farm initiatives) because that is oppression, too. I fight against preachy vegans because they are oppressing animals in their own way.

99% sure it was Sydney Powell. If I'm remembering wrong, then it was Jenna Ellis. Coulda been both. In Ms. Ellis' guilty plea (I skimmed the video of it) she was bombarded with 5 minutes of confirming questions and I don't have time to listen to all of them. This recently came up on... I think it was Legal Eagle's analysis of all these guilty pleas, and if you haven't checked him out and are interested, you might want to (he's on Youtube)

Fun fact, that popup was a lie, and you could still beat the game.

It’s millions of random people that have nothing to do with each other and thus don’t see the loud minority or feel the need to correct them

So vegans are "special"? Can you think of other examples of groups of millions of people where there's no such expectation on their members to call out bad behavior by their fringe? I'm white; skin color is not a community, but I would still be complacent if I didn't stand against white supremacists. And in terms of randomness and "community" size, there's more white people than vegans.

they do not represent the many 60 yo Asians that just don’t eat meat.

"Just don't eat meat" isn't veganism. Veganism is "just WON'T eat meat... and just WON'T eat other animal products".

More importantly, look at the context. All he did was point out that vegans NEVER call down militant veganism. If he's wrong, and I'm wrong, stop saying "there's no responsibility" and show me just a few sites by "Western hip vegans who tweet" or whatever the hell subset of veganism we're going to run with, where they are calling out militant vegans on their bullshit. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

Let me give my counterpoint. What you're really trying to say is that vegans have no responsibility to call down militant veganism because most vegans think there's nothing wrong with it.

You’re fine to believe all that, it just comes across as though you’re assuming everyone who eats meat has done the due diligence in finding out what happens behind closed doors

Not really. Actions speak. People who are choosing to eat meat are choosing to do so for some reason. If vegan food is really better than meat in every possible way, nobody would choose to eat meat for any reason.

Someone doesn't need to be as educated on the meat/vegetable discussion as I am to make those decisions. Obviously I feel the same way about most vegans as you do about meat eaters. I've literally had unprepared vegans tell me that it's better to let overpopulation wrack an area than to hunt and eat deer.

That’s not the case, and it’s too obvious you’re wrapped up in your own views to ever change based on what one guy tells you on the Internet

There comes a point where one is educated enough on an issue that it's not easy to get them to flip-flop in the opposite direction of all the evidence and their conclusions. That is not the same as closedmindedness or zeal. But more importantly, the "ecology, health, ethics" gishgallop often used in vegan debate is ineffective at doing anything but guilt someone too ignorant to see it happening (which is the whole point I was making tot hat person, who was shifting the topic). Or did you mention ignorance above because it's about converting those who don't know better?

Which is OK, people who care are putting in the work, and the world will be better for it.

With all due respect, it's bad faith to accuse everyone with the opposite view as yours of being uneducated. I have discovered myself to be more educated and prepared than most militant vegans, put in more work, and make the world a better place than they do. The reason is that ultimately, veganism stems from a singular ethical position... not unlike the "single issue voters" so common in modern Democracy. If all you're seeing is "right and wrong", you can convince yourself on every other issue. I like to also point out how many good-faith religious folks are convinced homosexuality is harmful because they think it is immoral. Unfortunately, that's where I see vegans on these topics.

I hope you find compassion one day, because I’m certainly not telling you why you should be.

I think you are exemplifying this remark. You are so zealously and irrationally convinced of this "one and only right morality" that any human who would eat meat has no compassion. Ironically, I used to (and occasionally still do) feel the same way about vegans, since the only workable veganism involved agricultural anti-natalism. You note how above I said I'm more educated on topics than most vegans? The ones I'm not "more educated than" are the real problem here. They're the ones that, eventually, will admit that their vision of utopia involves preventing farm animals from being born as a better outcome than those animals living a better-than-nature life that happens to end on a dinner plate. I cannot get over the fact that position is the one more lacking of compassion.

So I guess this is the part where I hope YOU find the compassion one day to overcome your squeamishness and do your part to hunt a deer, keep some chickens, or just go to a local butcher to help the entire ecosystem.

I agree with everything here, but I wouldn't use conviction rate as a good metric. The US has a fairly disgusting conviction rate itself (especially federally) linked in with that whole "plea guilty to 6-60 months (judge's prerogative) or face 40 years to get a trial, but we don't call that duress".

I've only once seen a guilty plea where the defendant is asked under oath if they actually agree there's enough evidence to convict them, and that was a high-profile person getting a slap on the wrist for basically treason.

The real problem. Republicans thought courting the moderate vote could keep them relevant, and then 2016 happened. After that, they realized the only way they stay relevant is if they can get a large number of angry, uneducated, single-issue voters.

Now they're beholden to them. We got to watch as they slowly enacted their little congressional coup in the House.

But don't feel bad for them. Republicans are all-in. All that had to happen was under 10 Republicans break ranks and vote for a Conservative Democrat for House Speaker and the Congressional Soap Opera would have ended. They prefer the extremist to anyone with a "D" next to their name.

Largely, they obey the chain of command. And for better or worse, the highest ranks of the military have shown to be downright level-headed on the topic of there never being a military coup in the US.

What the fuck dude, you’re comparing preachy vegans with actual police brutality

No, I'm comparing people who cover for assholes with people who cover for assholes.

Kindly get the fuck out and think about what you said thank you

There's a block button if you want to use it. And a report button if you think I broke any rules. I, for one, just hit the latter.

No, I'm a case study of "I actually grew up in a farming community, had enough vegan friends, and came up with my own conclusions" See, I see zealous vegans the same way I see dirty cops or post-1/6 Trump fans. Best-case is deluded, worst case is bad-faith.

One common trend is how much vegans will double- and triple-down on the idea that because they feel veganism is morally superior, it's actually magically better in every other way, from health to the environment. When you discuss with someone whose "spoke" arguments are based upon what they consider a moral imperative, the truth doesn't matter.

There's something wrong with the health/environment/morals tripod of veganism. Everything that is real has pros and cons, and everything that doesn't have cons is a fiction or exaggeration. The way these moral vegans come out swinging, their description of the vegan reality is indefensible. Eating vegetables is alleged to be tastier, better for the environment, healthier, easier, cheaper, faster, more ethical. Then come the contradictions... people, even experts, who eat meat as part of their healthy diet, farmers that keep livestock (despite having to PAY the government more in taxes, not getting subsidies) because it's more sustainable for them. The list goes on, until you're picking the battles based on the things the other side won't immediately see as willful ignorance.

There's no element of physical addiction to meat-eating. The supermajority of humans eat animal products because it is the right choice for them, for their health, based upon their morals, and in many cases for their sustainability.

So sorry if "knowing what I'm fucking talking about" is antivegan rhetoric. Have a nice day, I don't expect a reply.

If you wanted to be honest, it would be "look, I know it's going to fuck up your ecosystem and local sustainability, but animal lives are important to me" or "look, I know it's harder to eat healthy and requires more research and supplements, but we can figure it out". Those are positions I'd respect, if disagree with (because my ethical position, a fairly well-established one, considers eating meat to be perfectly fine)

Dennis Leary described it perfectly. "Meat tastes like murder, and murder tastes pretty goddamn good."

You're gettin downvoted, but you're right. It's the metric we're coming to use for any group. It's "okay" if your group has some fringe members that need to be distanced from. It becomes "not okay" when the majority silently accepts the horrible behavior of them.

Similarly, very few cops take abusive actions against minorities, but the number of cops who will defend that behavior in the name of "police brotherhood" closes in at 100%.

People who are downvoting you are out-of-touch with the fact that they are "the good cop who does nothing" in their own group.

I think anyone who has lived on or around a farm, or has just come to understand everything involved, would have a problem "admitting" that. Non-Factory farming in a modern country is dramatically benefited from having meat livestock alongside the vegetables, not to mention that there isn't really any better use for marginal land than to have farm animals like cattle on it. In fact, there are arguments that cattle on marginal land are better for the environment than leaving the land unused because they are better able to sequester carbon than nothing. The environmental discussion that is "clearly pro-vegan" requires bringing in countries that are downright backwards and use their behaviors to overwhelm the many countries where animal ranching provide overall benefit.

And there's as many Ethical arguments for meat eating as there are for veganism. The "big" argument for veganism here is the classic Utilitarian argument for veganism, but it has easily been beaten by Negative Utilitarian and straight-Utilitarian counters.

And since many of us aren't Christian or adherents to any Divine Command theory, "morality" is itself unethical and unsustainable to us.