comfy @ comfy @lemmy.ml

Posts

29

Comments

970

Joined

3 yr. ago

Also, at least where I live, it's much more casual and less sterile and stilted than the verbose "I was made to feel upset".

I’m sure that, in the same way that there’s still a market for objectively inferior exploitatively mined diamonds as a status symbol instead of lab created diamonds, there would still be a market for rEaL meat where “you can really taste the suffering” or whatever.

I don't think the value is sadism in itself, but the supposed natural purity; it's the sense of authenticity. They'd be more likely to market it like "As nature intended", "no nasty chemicals, organic", "no added dihydrogen monoxide", like that. You can play on the silly fear of scary chemical names.

I suppose animal furs is a relevant case study. Synthetic alternatives exist, but the real thing is considered a status icon by idiots.

That all said, fuck those cruel idealistic pieces of shit and the suffering they enable.

Now here’s the more interesting question that actually has me on the fence: if “growing any kind of animal tissue” is what has been achieved, where would you stand on consuming lab-grown human meat? Is it immoral?

Human meat, the inevitable question!

I see literally no ethical problem with eating non-sentient lab-grown meat, and I don't see why it being human flesh should be treated specially. I'm not even trying to equivocate humans and other animals, I don't consider human meat to be a human being, so there's no farming torture I'm concerned about, and I care about the meat's death as much as I care about a jellyfish or grass being squished. It's not like they're farming an entire conscious human like The Matrix, that would be uneconomical. (that said, what if humans were lab-grown for scientific research like lab animals? That's a more confronting question to me!)

Are there risks?

I'm no expert, but I suspect human diseases are more transferable than other animal meat diseases, so that's a consideration. Contamination is always a concern, I'd assume.

What would be the proper etiquette and presentation and everything if it became socially accepted?

I don't care. I can buy chicken nuggets and eat them with my elbows, if I want. I'll do that with human meat too. I already side with Frank Reynolds' perspective on the whole 'respect for the dead' tradition, put me up on a mountain for vultures and flowers like the Zoroastrianists, but this isn't even a sentient, let alone social, being. The only real etiquette I would consider is to make sure people aren't unknowingly served it, same with pork and other meats, because that could be unreasonably cruel to someone who is alive.

I wonder how much of people's disgust over certain foods is social rather than any ingrained revulsion, and if normalization will therefore make it a non-issue for the vast majorities.

edit: Also, lots of people actually like anchovies and eat them on Caesar salad and in sauces without realizing.

For what it's worth, I like some foods in certain forms but not others, such as pureed but not whole. A plain anchovy (yum!) is far more powerful, bone-filled and salty than in sauces.

Then there are foods where I only like certain varieties, or they're very different when you have them in different regions, so someone can think they don't like a food but in reality they've only experienced a crappy version of it so far.

I didn't even watch this video.

Thanks for commenting. I miss when the big wave of redditors hadn't showed up yet...

.ml is not a "tankie instance". The admins are Marxist-Leninists, so they fit some definitions of tankie, but its just a technology instance for leftists.

Hexbear isn't one either. A lot of their users are, but there are just as many who aren't, such as anarchists (basically the opposite).

For what it's worth, I am critical of the assassination and don't consider it an effective way forward, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily immoral. That's not why I think it deserves criticism. Ultimately, I think if it somehow does lead to policy reform and saves lots of people from going into debt, it was the moral choice for society.

I mean considering law is the practical application of a moral construct

Ideally, as part of liberalism ideology, it is. Practically, it isn't. Law is the dictatorship of politicians (and therefore of the mega-rich owning class they are beholden to), interpreted by judges, and in special cases, a jury who are instructed to ignore their own morality. The politicians' own morality is optional in how they create bills and laws (consider: bribery/'lobbying', pragmatic deals), and the moral constructs of you and I have effectively no real relevance to law. The idea that modern law is representative of society and some "mostly agreed upon" moral construct is a blind claim which clearly isn't the case when we examine how our countries' legal systems works. How could we possibly know what is agreed upon? Our representative liberal-democracy system is far too over-simplified to extrapolate this: for example, the US system, there was a common statement here of people pleading "vote Democrat even if you think their policies and behavior is horrible just so we don't have the worse Republican candidate", along with many people choosing on single-issues or even just vibes. Voter turnout was less than two-thirds. Clearly we can't take the results of such a system and assume the winning party's consensus represents the mostly agreed upon moral constructs!

There is no perfect set of laws. It's a utopian fantasy. So it's fine to have rules and close loopholes, I don't think it's a valid excuse to say we can't outlaw or legalize [x] because someone might abuse it. The extreme conclusion of that logic would be, for example, outlawing cars [often used as weapons to murder people, e.g. at protests], lots of fertilizers (critical ingredient in basic explosives manufacturing), and other ridiculous measures. So obviously, and like you hinted at, there has to be some sort of compromise and exceptions.

I understand that some people think “there can be a justification for a killing” [and rest of paragraph]

I think you've already hinted at it, but there are plenty of legal justifications for killing already. Imminent self-defense is one I assume most people consider justifiable (based on situation). Military service is another (at least in defensive situations, when your mainland is invaded, but plenty of other people will reasonably argue offensive security like invading [list middle eastern countries here, list asian countries here, list south and central american countries here] was morally justified). Police intervention in violent situations is legally justified.

A particularly relevant type is social murder. Because of its indirect nature, it's often simply not recognized as murder, but is certainly just as horrible, premeditated and impactful, and due to how it works, is systematic and effects large amounts of people. Immoral legal murder. The kind that companies including UnitedHealthcare commit through systematically denying procedures necessary to survive. Many morality systems, such as the very popular utilitarianism school, consider the people running that company to be effectively equal to the worst mass murderers, and since the legal system does not recognize and stop them, there are few 'good' options which aren't just allowing mass murder to continue, one of those options being to scare the executives into complicity through vigilantism.

I also wanna say that it makes sense for him to get charged, even though a lot of people don’t like it. Killing another human is an issue no matter what it is. And just because we think this crime stands for something bigger, that doesn’t justify the killing in the first place. It’s just shades of immorality.

It makes sense, from the perspective of the legal system and of liberalism as an ideology. But I disagree with the claims after. Justification and ideas of morality are highly subjective, that's why we have philosophical thought experiments like the trolley problem. There are plenty of mainstream moral frameworks that consider the killing of that CEO to be morally justified, just as there are ones that don't. But ultimately, hard idealistic moral stances like 'killing another human is always immoral' just aren't a useful approach to apply to the real world, it's flaws and its constraints. Sometimes there just aren't other viable options which won't just cause more people to die.

I exaggerated for effect, in the way that 99% sure might as well be a fact in this case:

I have never given them to YouTube, and they have no financial incentive to acquire them AFAIK - holding that kind of PI is a liability so if anything they wouldn't want it without having a need for it. YouTube can't even know what countries I live in, my digital identity from the POV of their servers is too fluid and non-unique for my viewing habits to meaningfully correlate; I blend in with many other people also trying to stay hidden from them.

As for other Alphabet companies, like those engaged in surveillance capitalism who want to scoop up all of the datas, it's theoretically possible they've illegally acquired them from third parties and found a use for it, but there's just no feasible way they could associate that with most of my online activities, say, this account I'm using. The only people who have a chance at that are certain state intelligence agencies who are eavesdropping the wires, and they have much bigger problems they're paid to worry about. Hell, unless things have gotten better for them since Snowden, even they might struggle - most of their super cool hacker shit is only really useful if someone's worth active targeting.

They quite literally don't have my credit card information. What are you even trying to say here?

Personally, considering I can get it for free, and that Google bad, $22 is a bad deal for me. I'd rather donate $20 to the groups helping us get around it, and spend the other $2 on jawbreakers!

Also relevant:

• alternate frontends (e.g. Invidious and Piped)
• yt-dlp🔗 (youtube downloader, can also be used to stream videos into players like mpv)

I really doubt they're trolling, it's a real question. A person can clearly fit between the gaps and sleep.

It would block things like tents and mattresses, but it's reasonable [edit: even if ignorant] to ask how it works if it doesn't obstruct a sleeping person. For what it's worth, in my city, it's rare to see tents or even mattresses, usually just blankets and shopping carts.

Try sleeping on them and report back to us.

No need for that kind of talk, it's as pointless as saying "Go there and prove you can't sleep on them".

Yet they still block every single gun control measure that comes up.

That's not quite true: they selectively block gun control measures. For example: they put through the Mulford Act, a gun control measure, because black activists started arming themselves.

Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party, which was conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods in what would later be termed copwatching.

Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America.

They're less "pro-gun" and more "we should have guns", and I think that difference is important to emphasize in liberal society.

For what it's worth, their platform is an interesting bridge which does make the concept of 'socialism' more palatable to those who have only heard of the term in reference to Stalin and Mao. They're the entrance to a pipeline. And while I think it's worth investigating and IMO ultimately a good thing, it's also important to understand that Bernie is not a socialist in any meaningful interpretation of the term - they're pro-capitalism, what they want is social capitalism. They only aim to fix the symptoms, not the root cause.

You responded to a FANTASTIC explanation of the difference by splitting hairs on what by your definition qualifies as a class.

A fantastic explanation? It literally isn't an explanation, it's a comparison of two statements. Which is fine, and so is the critique of those statements to examine their perceived contradictions.

From the perspective of the CPC and Marxist-Leninist theory, their ruling party represents the working class, just like our ruling parties represent the owner class of CEOs. [wikipedia page: DotP] Obviously that's a contested claim which not even all Marxists will agree with, but it's far from splitting hairs. It's the basic foundation of the comparison, the implicit claim that one is a working class act and the other is not.

The authorization of CEO execution sounds like a good thing. People are clearly singing for it, so why not make it policy?

Vuvuzelans? In my mountains? More likely than you think.

Tigers are female lions.