That this meme is low effort content and it’s spamming everywhere
It’s the first time I’ve seen it.
Can I borrow the rock you’ve been under?
I guess I just unsubscribe from communities where there are a lot of low-effort memes?
But seeing it here is fine, it’s started some discussion.
The real reason I posted it. There’s a decline in user engagement and posts after the peak some months ago (reddit API) .
Aren’t ask lemmy posts “low effort” in general as well in the sense that it’s just a question? My point isn’t that ask lemmy is bad, my point is just because it’s low effort doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Memes are low effort in general
health insurance != healthcare
health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.
but lets make sure everyone has insurance but not care
I thought this thread was for hot takes 😉
Is this your first time in an “unpopular opinion” thread? lol
Yeah, there shouldn’t be health insurance, just health care. Some things are uncertain like whether you get in a car accident, or whether a weather event causes damage to your house. Health problems are not uncertain. People will all have them. Just spend the money on training and hiring doctors and nurses to treat these issues in a large enough quantity that the care is sufficient.
health insurance isn’t really insurance either.
it’s like a health services subscription plan with a million convoluted rules.
Myers Briggs is posh astrology.
That doesn’t stop an absolute fuck ton of people believing in it. One of my friends is quite deeply into it, she’s in FB groups about it, and decides what everyone’s type is upon meeting them. According to her I only think it’s nonsense because I’ve only done the free online tests, not the proper one. She wouldn’t listen the other day when I tried to put her right about flouride in the water, either.
Sounds like the test itself isn’t the problem but how it’s used and how much people attach to the results, like with IQ tests. Neither that nor Myers-Briggs should be part of interviewing for a job either but apparently some US companies do it anyway.
No, the test itself is definitely the problem. Regardless of whether you believe a personality type test can be effective, the MBTI is particularly and provably ineffective in just about every measurable way:
It’s not reliable. It has terrible test-retest reliability. If I’m X personality type, I shouldn’t test as X type one time, and Y type the next, and Z 6 months laters.
It’s not predictive. If a personality test accurately judges someone, it should mean you now know something about someone’s behaviours, and can extrapolate that forwards and predict behavioural trends. MBTI does not.
It fundamentally doesn’t match the data. MBTI relies upon the idea that people fall neatly into binary buckets (introverted vs extroverted, thinking vs feeling, etc). But the majority of people don’t, and test with MBTI scores close to the line the test draws, following a normal distribution. So the line separating two sides of a bell curve ends up being arbitrary.
And finally, it’s pushed very hard by the Myers-Briggs foundation, and not at all by independent scientific bodies. copying straight from wikipedia:
Most of the research supporting the MBTI’s validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center’s own journal, the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT),
I risk sounding very “AKSHUALLYY” here, but online tests do a huge harm to the credibility of MBTI, no wonder it gets such a bad rep when the tests are so unreliable and people nevertheless base their entire personalities on it… Originally it’s not supposed to be based on the binary choices of the 4 letters but the “cognitive functions” as defined by Carl Jung, which a lot of people will find to be just as much non-sense but with the right attitude I think they’re a useful tool to learn about ourselves and others.
This should be a popular opinion honestly, because it’s correct.
This is insulting to astrology, but yes lol
I used to think this, but I think the new posh astrology is mental disorders in general. It costs thousands of dollars to get professionally assessed, whereas MBTI is a free quiz online. Crippling anxiety, depression, OCD, panic attacks, etc., are the new ENFP
Jesus this is a bad take
Things that are scientifically provable are valid.
So you don’t think a rich person can use their money to shop around for sketchy psychologists? You don’t think it’s possible that Munchausen syndrome (something science has proved exists) could be becoming more common? Why did you even state things that are scientifically provable are valid? Duh. Things that aren’t scientifically disproven are also invalid, in case anyone else wanted another useless reminder to up vote.
You seem very upset about this. I doubt this will help since it doesn’t seem like your reasoning is influenced by logic, but, the fact that there are fraudulent doctors and diagnoses doesn’t mean science isn’t real.
It shouldn’t be taken as scientific truth but it can help you know yourself and others better, and it’s an insult to compare it to astrology because at least it’s not based on completely random things like the position of the planets when you were born. The issue is that most people only know MBTI as online tests, which are self-report and have extremely vague and stereotypical questions that can very easily be manipulated to get whatever result you want, with the worst offender being the most popular one, 16personalities, which isn’t even an actual MBTI test but a BIg 5 one (which is not to say Big 5 is bad, but it’s very misleading to map it to MBTI types). In reality to use MBTI somewhat effectively is going to take studying Carl Jung’s work, how MBTI builds on that, lots of introspection, asking people about yourself, and lots of doubting and double checking your thinking. And very importantly you have to accept that in the end this all isn’t real and just a way to conceptualize different aspects of our personalities and it’s in no way predictive, you have to let go of stereotypes, anyone can act in any way, it’s just about tendencies.
Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.
Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.
Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn’t exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.
The world got essentially all classical music, the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. without the need for copyright. Shakespeare’s work wasn’t protected by copyrights either. So, it’s not like amazing works of art require copyright. They’ll happen regardless. It’s more about how artists are incentivized to create and who profits.
People are crazy when they promote closed-source AI (okay, okay, generative model) projects like ChatGPT, Bard etc.
This is literally one of the most important technologies of the future, and after all the times technology companies screwed them (us) up big time and monopolized the Internet, they go into the same trap again and again.
First they surrendered the free Internet, now they surrender the new frontiers.
Wake up, people. Go HuggingFace, advocate for free AI, and ideally - for a GPL one. We cannot afford for this part of our future to be taken away from us.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Time and time and time again proprietary technology fucks us over, this is no different.
I pointedly avoid ChatGPT for that reason. When the NovelAI leak happened, it was amazing, and the open ecosystem flourished in response. I just can’t believe they call themselves OpenAi.
Ah, that name was left from when they’ve been open-source, which us why I advocate for the emergence of GPL-licensed projects.
The open-source license for GPT model was very relaxed, which OpenAI took advantage of and, once it could afford their own programmer staff, closed the code with all the contributions all the programmers from all over the world have made.
It’s an extremely dick move, and it was repeated by Google, too.
deleted by creator
I don’t use the current AI, specifically because it isn’t open source. Could I audit the code of an open source AI? Certainly not; it’s way over my head. However there would be an opportunity for experts to examine the source and report their findings. Currently? Black box, so no thanks.
There are so many projects that could become possible through novel use of an open source AI (or whatever it should actually be called).
Judging by the seemingly exponential improvements and integration, opinions such as ours are a grain of sand in Death Valley.
99% (likely more even) of the people out there don’t have a clue what software is, or remotely how it works, what it does, and what open or closed software is, let alone why it’s important.
Most people are seriously ignorant about these topics, so obviously everyone runs with closed source.
All the open source gods are getting older, the eff founder has cancer… I don’t really see a next generation step up like the previous one and that one was already a miracle that it had gotten us this far. We’re screwed on the software front. Eh, humanity is screwed in so many ways anyway
It’s true that majority is unaware and doesn’t care, which is sad.
But we shouldn’t give up. There is plenty of youth going for freedom, and while we don’t yet have RMS of our generation, we will.
Young people are people and deserving of rights, including but not limited to the vote. There is no stupid thing a young person could do with their vote that old people don’t already do and we don’t require them not to in order to keep their vote.
When I was mid 20s I thought young kids were too naive. I got older and saw how fucking stupid most adults are and think young kids are much smarter than their predecessors. They should absolutely have a voice in elections. 16 seems like a good age to me
If you can legally work, you should be able to legally vote!
They have a lot less lead poisoning today than those kids from 20th century past, too.
Hell yeah! People say that kids and teens don’t have enough life experience to make decisions, but also it’s really difficult to gain life experience when you’re constantly shielded from everything.
Yep. I’d say 12 is a good age to start, because most will be able to read and understand government.
12 year olds voting, Jesus Christ
Why not? Have you talked to a twelve year old recently?
I have and that’s exactly why. I have also been one.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Is a 12 year old actually worse in any way?
TikTok and YouTube shorts are brain-rotting garbage, and if you use them regularly you need to stop now. Yes, even if you claim you only watch educational stuff.
Also giving a child under the age of 8 or 9 a personal internet-connected device should be seen on a similar level as neglect if not full-on abuse.
Pitbulls are not more genetically predisposed towards biting or mauling than other breeds and the supposed “statistical data” on the subject is based around a confluence of inaccurate metrics caused by 1) people not being very good at accurately identifying dog breeds, 2) existing groups that hate pitbulls pushing bad statistics for political purposes, and 3) a self-fulfilling prophecy of pitbulls having a bad reputation and actively being sought out by people who want vicious dogs and who will treat their dogs in such a way as to encourage that behavior. And I say all of this as someone who does not own a pitbull and probably never will.
Mate, have you seen the statistics?
https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Statistics-on-Dog-Bites_2-scaled.jpg
You’re saying that in 90% of cases the wrong dog breed was identified?
Add into this people who love pits and own them, but also believe they will “turn,” and so constantly give their dogs subtle cues to be on edge, stressed, and like something is wrong. They’re no more prone to dangerous actions than any other breed, they’re just very, very intelligent dogs that learn how to react to their surroundings. The myth of the aggressive pit is what causes the aggressive pit. We need real education on dogs in general, because that Labrador you love or the poodle who was your best friend when you were a kid is just as capable of snapping or “turning.” All dogs can bite, and all breeds can be sweet and well behaved.
The problem is that terriers are very susceptible to Kushings disease, which can lead to very irratic behavior. That’s manageable when it’s a 20lb Boston Terrier, but horrifying when it’s a 60 lb terrier of any type.
Omg thank you! The old place, you would’ve been downvoted 200 times and gotten death threats for saying this.
I did say this in the old place and people got PISSED.
I’ll bet they accused you of being an irresponsible pitbull owner and mockingly said some shit like “oh my little sweetie wouldn’t hurt a fly!”
Indeed they did.
Me too. Every. Fucking. Time.
I know a lot of it is from what people did. When I was a kid in the late 80s/early 90s, we lived in a town which had many illegal dog fighters in it. They mostly chose pitbulls but not solely. We ended up saving one puppy from them and he was some sort of mastiff mix.
One of their pitbulls escaped once. I opened my door and it came running from out of nowhere, snatched my cat from beside me and shook her to death in front of me. It was so terrible.
They would do the worst things to these dogs. They would beat them, use food against them and for a long time it was even really popular to feed them gun powder to make them more aggressive. They would condition their dogs in any way they could to make them good fighters and as aggressive as possible.
Pitbulls have a lot of sharp teeth and sturdy, muscular bodies, so they never had a chance with these assholes.
The dog breed I’ve personally seen get out of line as a pet and bite people the most is the German Shepard. That’s just my experience. Either way I believe that dogs are like people. They can have genetic tendencies but their environment will have the largest influence on them most of the time. I’ve never met an aggressive pitbull outside of those terrible dog fighter’s dogs.
The meanest, most dangerous dog I knew was an american eskimo owned by my ex wife. This was a 20 pound fluffball, and he looked like he would be friendly and fun to scratch behind the ears.
He loved to bite people, especially children. He had a specific thing he would do when someone looked at him: he would look up and smile, while vigorously wagging his poofy tail. You’d reach down to pet that brilliant white, angel-soft fur, and as soon as you were close enough, he would take a chunk out of your hand or arm. This wasn’t a playful bite, he would bite down hard and hang on.
So I think your 3rd point is highly likely, but I do disagree about the genetic predisposition. If it can’t be genetically influenced then goldens are not more friendly than others, and smart dogs (poodles, Australian shepherd, etc.) are not actually smarter; they all have the same genetic predisposition.
Having an aggressive breed is possible, but as I said earlier I think the 3rd point pushes up the numbers of maulings quite a bit. I’d add a 4th point of a lot of people being real shit dog owners and not knowing how to properly raise a dog to be socially capable without harming others.
Science suggests this is not actually the case and that environment has a much larger impact on animal behavior than almost any factor: https://www.science.org/content/article/your-dog-s-breed-doesn-t-determine-its-personality-study-suggests
Pit bulls aren’t genetically predisposed to attacking things, but when they do attack things, they’re genetically predisposed to doing a lot more damage than most other breeds. Gameness is a thing.
On a tangent, I’ve seen many pitbulls breathing heavily. Is this normal for these dogs? Are other dogs races like this?
What? Ours does snore. I never related it to her phenotype (she is a mutt but very pit looking). I agree she doesn’t seem bred for aggression and she isn’t high strung, reasonably relaxed and gentle with the cats, playful and rough with the other dog (they are both pretty young). But she is freakishly strong. Smaller than our other dog but weighs the same, it’s like she is a black hole.
Any comment that gets more than one upvote fails the subject.
I gave your comment its second upvote.
I disagree. Lemmy is a very small group of individuals and these type of threads are going to have similar minded people finding eachother. In the grand scheme of things we are next to nothing in scale of the billions of people on this planet.
Upvotes ideally don’t equate to agreement though.
Religions are mostly just popularized conspiracy theories. Believing in God is about as realistic as believing the world is flat.
But it’s not about that for many people. For many people, being religious is more about finding strength and peace in that kind of guided spirituality
And explaining what happens when you die. Which by its very definition nobody alive can know
The same thing can be said about most conspiracy theories. People want to believe in aliens because then we aren’t alone and they feel more comfortable, for example. The biggest issue I have is it leads them to do things that are un-helpful for the rest of humanity.
But c’mon… There ARE aliens. Just maybe not here necessarily. But somewhere, there are 100% aliens.
Probably true, but we all know what we’re talking about here…
False peace through a false god
Believe is a powerful thing I would ague even if what you belief is wrong if that belief brings you peace it is not a false peace.
Believing in God is about as realistic as believing the world is flat.
That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.
But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God’s existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist. As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.
On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God. If simulation theory is correct and we are all just in a simulation would be people outside of the simulation be our Gods? Or if an extremely advanced civilization existed would they be Gods to us? Or If we as humans advanced enough could we become Gods our self.
I agree with the first sentence, seriously disagree with the second. The shape of the Earth is a testable hypothesis, we have the technology to just go look.
As you go down the rabbit hole of consciousness and existence itself, with a purely rational and materialist mindset, the most reasonable and conservative hypotheses approach the descriptions of deity. Certainly the more specific claims of various religions are as you described, conspiracy theories, but the entire concept? Wholesale dismissal of the generalized God hypothesis strikes me as evidence of rationality applied incompletely, arbitrarily cut short.
Here’s one of them there conspiracy theorists I was talking about.
Here’s one of those who arbitrarily stops using rationality I was talking about. What is consciousness made of?
Nuerons, and the small electrical signals that pass between them. Also religion and there being a god are two different things. The Bible can be easily disproven just like flat earth.
Notice the top comment compared belief in god specifically to flat earth theory, hence the structure of my response.
As to your hypothesis, I didn’t ask about brain activity, I asked about consciousness itself, the subjective experience. It’s still very much an open question.
Oh yeah I forgot the good old adage that everything that can’t be clearly explained must be a God’s work.
What a superb example of hypocrisy. Bro agrees with you, explains, however, that scientifically speaking your analogy is incorrect, and then you proceed to go against precisely the science you were idolizing earlier.
I am an atheist. My mother is Catholic. She is Catholic, because sometimes she needs mental comfort. Religion can be very therapeutic, a community and someone/-thing to prey to are things that comfort most humans. Note, my mother does not believe what it says in the Bible word-for-word, she believes in metaphors. Don’t be a jack-ass to these people, they have not harmed you. Be a jack-ass to the people who start spouting entitled crap and try to murder people.
His believe that science points towards a diety is of conspiracy level bullshit to me sure maybe there is some chance but its not overwhelmingly true. If there is a god it likely does not follow the fables written in any religious text.
It’s an opinion he has based on no or misguided facts just like many conspiracy theories. Yes there is a key difference in that you can disprove that the earth is flat but there are other conspiracies that are not easily disproven similar to how it’s hard to disprove the existence of a god, I put them into the same box, they and I am assuming you don’t put them in the same box. Sure I could have probably made a larger explanation but I was probably busy in the moment or otherwise didn’t feel like it.
Conscience is not limited to Humans, Humans are not special. Why would that ever point to there being a god?
Teachers should be paid 50% more. If you want good teachers to stay, you have to walk the walk, otherwise you’ll get a perpetual cycle of overwhelmed grads being bossed around by rusted-on bottom teer heads.
That is hardly an unpopular opinion.
If I can interject - I don’t think the OP is showing an unpopular opinion. The people they’re talking to aren’t mad. It looks to me like an opinion whose wisdom isn’t generally accepted - and there’s a difference.
Unpopular opinion: pedophilia is a mental disorder; child rape (including “statutory” rape) is an act of violence, cruelty, and power - or, in arguably the worst case, crimes of opportunity. Not all child rapists are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are child rapists. Pedophiles should be treated; child rapists should be imprisoned forever. (Those that are in the overlap can be treated in prison.)
This opinion is (I think) probably true, but if you go around talking about it, you will be unpopular.
Unaccepted opinion: well, there are a lot of them here, but this one - about teachers - could be tweaked into one: the only way we are going to see changes that would actually benefit our society and country, the things the news and politicians say are “luxury expenses” - aka health care, teachers’ salaries, rent and real estate regulation, etc - is with a general strike. The propaganda and gaslighting and victim blaming are so deeply entrenched that they have become the most profitable sectors of our economy.
This opinion is - again, in my opinion - probably true, and there are a lot of people who agree - but not enough. If the crowd in that picture represents a country of 350 million, then that one person represents maybe 0.5-1 million people? Which is way more than the supporters of a general strike.
Why did I say all that? Mostly because I’m bored - but I think it’s a neat distinction to make.
That pedos shouldn’t be subject to extra-legal punishments. Think being lynched and shit. I also don’t think they should be getting their own special cases in the law beyond those with a clear purpose of preventing reoffending.
Don’t get me wrong, I think they are pure scum.
But things we allow on the basis of the accused being a pedo or terrorist have a habit of spilling over and affecting the general population. A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
A lot of bad laws have made it onto books by blaming these two groups, for example.
You can’t even classify or discuss pedophilia as a sexual disorder and not an intentional decision without sounding like a pedophile.
I think the worst thing we do is basically shut down non-harmful outs.
We attack therapists who don’t outright vilify non-offending pedos, without considering the fact that said pedos come to them because they don’t want to offend, don’t want to hurt.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
If these people don’t have harmless outs, they will instead turn to harmful outs and covering up their crimes.
Wasn’t it that studies show that in most child abuse cases the abuser is not a pedophile?
An egregious crime should have an egregious sentence but only in accordance with a fair due process. I also feel like far right groups are packing gunpowder in the barrel of the musket with hate for pedophilia (an easy thing for anyone to hate) and are planning to use it to invoke violence on people with fabricated evidence against them. It’s becoming a dangerous powder keg
It’s possible to think both “these people deserve to have their fingernails removed” and “a just society cannot inflict cruel punishment”
Piracy equals culture preservation in an age of subscription services.
I suppose all the people standing in front of you are record label executives then
No of course not.
I still pay for things I can actually own, however subscription services routinely change, limit or simple remove items that you supposedly bought.
People overlook vegetarianism and semi-vegetarian lifestyles as an option too much and it is not helpful that real life examples of vegetarian cultures, get co-opted by Vegans purists as “Vegan cultures” in easily disproven claims- thus hurting the whole movement
I’ve had debates with vegans on something similar:
I’m not vegan, I’ll never be vegan. That’s a complete non-starter for me.What I have done is reduce my meat intake from 2/sometimes 3 meals a day to 1 meal per day - occasionally (less than once per month) two. Once Lab-grown meat is a viable alternative on cost/taste/texture, I’ll be all over that. I still won’t be vegan. Even if I reach a point where no animals are harmed from my diet.
I believe it is far easier to convince 1 Million people to do this than it would be to convert 100,000 people to full veganism. A Million people doing this would save Billions more animals per year than 100,000 vegan conversions and maybe even in itself convert a few of those people to full veganism along the way.
They’re never interested. It’s all or nothing. Black or white. Vegan or Animal killer. They usually have issues with lab grown meat, as well.
It’s as though they’re a member of an elite club and membership is more important than actually saving animals.
You’re probably still eating way too much animal products and you’ll most likely get bowel cancer and gout if you keep eating like that.
Most likely? By this logic, most people are killed by bowel cancer. They aren’t.
Way to confirm the stereotype lmao
I mean, most vegans would still commend your effort to reduce animal product consumption.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
“Racism is wrong, so I reduced the amount of racial slurs I use to only 1/3”
“Rape is wrong, so I only rape on Mondays now” (in reference to meatless Mondays)I hate to be so militant about it, but you either think animal abuse is acceptable or you don’t.
Now, what I do think could be a moral standpoint, if you really want to still be able to eat meat, is to only eat “humane” meat. I put “humane” in quotes because even farmers with the best intentions are still killing animals young. I don’t personally believe any animal product can be humane, but even then I can recognize that any animal that was raised on a pasture and ate real food is more ethical to eat than one in a factory.
So if you genuinely only ate pasture raised beef and chicken (and you were sure about it), then I would say that is quite honorable.
But from a moral standpoint, simply eating less animal products really doesn’t have much value. Imagine using your argument for other moral dilemmas.
Ahh yeah about that: My reasons are not what you’re calling “moral”. We are naturally omnivores. We’ve been omnivorous since before we came down from the trees. Probably since before we left the water. I don’t have a problem eating meat. I think a vegan diet is unnatural for us, though I have no issues with anyone who chooses that lifestyle.
My reasons are from a sustainability/environmental position. Our present consumption levels already put a strain on the planet, and we sure couldn’t sustain it if everyone on the planet ate meat three meaty meals a day. This is another reason I’m all about that lab grown meat.
I don’t eat meat or dairy, so i technically i’m a vegan, right? But i wouldn’t identify as a vegan. When someone cooks and says: oh i forgot that you are vegan, and i used butter, still eat it. When i’m at a bbq and there is a steak leftover, and no one eats it and it goes to the trash, i would eat it. I find the idea of factory meat absolutely repulsive therefore i don’t support it in any way. Once i talked to a vegan guy, and he was super weird so we didn’t have a lot to talk about. I told him something like: when i was a kid i was really into chicken wings, and now in hindsight, i don’t think chicken is actually good. And he said: oh, you are one of THOSE people. Meat eater are like pedophiles, once you fucked a kid, you’ll always be a childfucker.
Eh… Okay, i’ll just stand over there and make sure to never talk to you again
this is called flexitarianism and is totally valid in terms of not wasting food and cohabitating in society. unfortunately some vegetarians would bully a person like you since ideological purity is more important than not wasting food to them
*Some vegans
I’ve never seen a vegetarian bully someone for not being purist enough. Vegans however do it constantly and even harass vegetarians
perhaps
they are great conversations about why people are so annoyed by vegans and most of the time it’s not because vegans are harassing or pushing their agenda, it’s more a question of how we perceive ourself when comparing ourself to others.
it’s due to cognitive dissonance.
For me it is usually due to how incessantly preachy and judgemental some vegans are. I respect their choices and consistent choice of morality. But people tend to get annoyed when someone else feels the right to dictate their morality to them. See also: religious nuts.
I totally understand your point of view and think that your perception is valid. If you try to analyse why you find them preachy and judgemental it could be interesting.
For example would find them so annoying if you agree with them? Is it the discourse that annoys you or the person? Is it your belief system being challenged that annoys you or the facts that are being stated?
It’s always intersting to understand why we feel that way when we are challenged, and veganism is one of a few topic that can create what we called in psychology reactance, an interesting topic.
Veganism is really different than religion tho, cause it is totally backed by science (regarding food production, waste issue, C02 and sentientism) and a logic construct.
I’ve never been closer to vegan than I am now. And I love meat and animal products and have long given up on the illusion of any ethical consumption in capitalism. It just turns out meat is way overpriced and you can make some tasty meals for cheap without meat and most animal products.
I’m a vegetarian just because it’s the cheapest option. Meat is absurd in prices while going fully vegan, where I live, isn’t feasible either.
So I live off a mostly vegetarian diet. It’s not even for ethical reasons. It’s literally a “I want to save money” motivation.
Yeah the only animal I’m tryna save is me. Shits insane rn.
It’s pretty nuts what they’re asking for meat. I don’t do the major shopping in the family but last time I went to get some ground beef… holy sweet baby cheez wiz. I could swear it the price had doubled since the last time I looked (which was probably pre covid).
There are so many great vegetarian recipes out there. Like, I mean, original things that were designed without meat in mind from the start not fake meat stuff like those vegetarian ribs I made one time. shudders
The prices for beyond/impossible are 1:1 with real ground beef at my local grocerywhore.
The choice is so easy.
“the prices are 1:1 with real ground beef”
Okay, does it provide the same nutrients at the same amount of higher? Even then you’re comparing to ground beef, which is too expensive on its own already
I’ll stick to my vegetarian diet
You absolutely can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
To be honest, I could see myself as a vegetarian. I can still eat eggs, have mayo, and most importantly, eat cheese. Also with vegans, they don’t just abstain from eating animals, they also abstain from consuming animal products, and using them in general meaning that not only are you giving up on eggs and cheese, but also leather boots and jackets etc. That’s too much. We are omnivores. Our ancestors survived on the scraps left by lions and other predators. Our only way to keep warm was leather skins. We could survive on berries and fungi, but we couldn’t keep warm with fire only. Anyways, I’m taking this a bit too far, but my point is, I’m supportive of vegetarians, but not of vegans.
The vast majority of humans are actually nice, altruistic and not selfish if you treat them with respect. And hence anarchism would not resolve in everyone killing each other.
Problem is you need more than the “vast majority” to be nice before you feel safe.
Absolutely correct. It would be the people who are in power now, building gangs and robbing the weak.
Anarchism is a schoolyard without teachers. Most kids are ok and will treat each other with respect.
But if you ever were molested in a dark corner of said schoolyard you know how important oversight is.
In an Anarchist world, it would be traumatized/autistic people like me running around with guns and shooting everyone who so much as touches another person on sight.
Not in my experience.
