• 0 Posts
  • 288 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月12日

help-circle
  • Look, I am not “trying to push you into complying with the linguistic framework that legitimizes your perception of reality”, I am telling you that language is important and you can’t make words up or subvert the meaning of them, else society will not understand you at best, or think that you are just a lunatic at worst. Sure you can decide that for you “up” means “down” and insist that everyone else is wrong, but then you are probably wasting your time replying to others’ comments on social media.

    I get where you are coming from, you really care about your ideas, but so do antivaxers and lots of other radicalized groups that are just drifting off reality and, well most of society thinks they are just lunatics. I am not even a native English speaker but a few examples:

    “Murder” is defined as the killing of a person. I understand why you are using it for animals but it comes off wrong, that’s not what the word means, and the only use of it as an hyperbole (a karaoke singer killing a song) has the opposite meaning that you are trying to convey. There are plenty of words for describing the killing of animals and some of them are already loaded with meaning, it’s not like “slaughter” and “butchering” are used lightly. You don’t need to come up with your own vocabulary, that’s like Trump saying “bigly” he looks like an idiot to a non-maga crowd.

    The word “formula” refers is an artificial (formulated) human milk substitute, your use of it to refer to “cow’s milk” sounds pretty ridiculous, particularly when you add another 3-4 words around it and when the rest of society uses the word milk to refer to cows’ milk, or if specified, to other milks like goat or soy. Your example where you use “meat” to refer to grains is just bonkers; and describing meat as “rotting” is just silly, as technically so are broccoli that have been cut off the plan: specifying that any food is rotting while waiting to be eaten, while technically not wrong, makes the person you are talking to wonder what is going on in your head.

    Now let’s take this topic more broadly. Are the words vegans use merely ‘edgy’, or is it an attempt to encapsulate the totality of how monumentally bad of a predicament you carnists are putting us in? “Chick culling” sounds almost innocuous. Why don’t you try looking up that term on YouTube, and see what that entails.

    Based on the above, I am afraid it is merely ‘edgy’. In fact it’s worse, people that talk like this come through as they are either 12 years old trying to cause a reaction, or just lunatics. You are really not making any favour to your cause, and I will come back to that later because that is a shame Still on language, I am not sure in what world “Chick culling” sounds almost innocuous, it describes exactly what it is, quite perfectly, it’s a horrible practice, do you really need to add any more words? One more thing that is quite annoying about radicalized groups is they tell you to check something up on Youtube or do your own research, I am very familiar with the concept of chick culling, I don’t like it, you don’t need to be vegan to know how certain industries work and suggesting it in that way is again off putting.

    I am familiar with most of the arguments vegetarians and vegans use as I have been interested in tangential topics for a long time, I am passionate about environment, permaculture and food self sufficiency. Some of the points I actually agree with, I am against industrial practices like chicks culling, the way animals are treated in industrial farming, I agree that the planet would be better off if we all reduced meat consumption dramatically and if there were more vegetarians and vegans. I think that if someone is passionate about these and other messages they should try to convey them in a way that they can be absorbed by the rest of society. That is, if you want to convince anyone to marry your cause or part of it. And if you don’t want to, why are you even wasting words?

    The reason why I am particularly annoyed when people do this is that there are some topics that I would be interested to discuss like adults, particularly where I stop agreeing with veganism, and this is just off putting. Example, I have three egg producing chickens that are treated like pets, they have plenty of space, protection, access to food, water and treats, they play with my babies, and they drop one egg each every day that they quickly forget about and they proceed to ignore. I use those eggs to feed my family and to reduce our meat consumption with something that is organic, nutritious and (in my opinion) ethically produced with no impact on the planet. In fact, the contrary is true because those chickens eat my leftovers and I use their poo as fertiliser. I’d like to understand how many people are vegans because industrial farming is a horrible practice, and how many would for example still eat eggs if they were produced more “humanely” like I do, and the reason why I am interested is that i cannot conceive non-industrial farming without animals being heavily involved, at the very least for using their shit to grow plants. In short, there are some discussions I’d enjoy having, but every time a vegan engages they distort the language and they make the assumption that I don’t know anything about industrial farming :)







  • Because on lemmy you can’t have a reasonable discussion about meat eating without being brigaded by vegans that add little to the conversation besides meat cruel and meat pollution.

    Mate here brought up a good example. I myself raise chickens for egg production (i also engage in less sustainable/ humane meat eating to be frank). Would be happy to have an intelligent conversation with someone besides the usual 3-4 arguments like ‘battery chickens’ which don’t apply to my chooks are happy, have plenty of space, toys, food and protection.




  • Sure they have all your info. I’m not familiar with Canada but in other countries where this happens happens, the site tells you that you need to check that everything is correct, and that YOU are responsible for the information submitted. When you confirm you have effectively submitted your tax return, albeit with the help of a number of automations.

    I’m in Australia now, and that how it works here too. Yes it’s just a couple of clicks for most people, but you are indeed doing your tax return.

    I haven’t don’t it in Europe in a while, but that was the case when I was there (albeit less automated) and I’m pretty sure that’s the case in most countries



  • Facebook went public at a time when they were THE social media site and everyone’s aunty was on it.

    I’ve been on reddit for probably 12 years and know few people irl that use it (not usa mind you). Moreover they don’t really have a plan and they do have competition. Ignoring for a second that 99% of lemmy users are probably disgruntled ex redditors. Why should anyone invest som ofnl their savings in reddit going public, besides playing wall Street bets? Is there anything there to believe in? Do they have a credible plan to increase users and monetise that increase? In other words, any “step 3: profit” to buy into?




  • From memory all those were performing well, getting load of attention and be used by “everyone” at the time of their ipo. Particularly google was THE search engine and Facebook was THE social media site.

    Reddit has been around forever, most of us left, what does it really have to offer? Keeping in mind that llms have had access to all that data for s long time, I can’t imagine the last 8 months or so of reddit data to be that significant.

    Usually companies go public because they have an aggressive plan that requires growth and a massive cash injection. What is spez’s plan if he gets that? I’ll admit I haven’t really followed much, but I doubt reddit had this huge potential. And that’s even if they didn’t alienate their users and nods.

    Reminds me those pet food companies going public in the late 90s during the internet bubble.






  • The company is still using a person’s material situation to pay them less. More purchasing power in their subjective economy is part of their material situation. They are still receiving monetarily less as is their country.

    Less than what? Your personal belief that they should be paid a us salary because you say so? And if so, should that be a new York city salary, a Louisiana salary, or?

    I directly covered your second point, while they do spend the money they earn from their American job within their economy they are not being paid the exact value of their labor because profit is being extracted so the amount of money they stimulate their economy with is not as valuable as their labor would be. I don’t want to explain the entire labor theory of value here because it would take up too much time and space but you can look into it if you’d like. Put simply, the profit that company makes is extracted from that employees labor meaning that some of their labor is being used not to benefit their country or people but another’s. Outsourcing is an extraction of mans most valuable resource from the less fortunate to the more

    Again you have this imaginary number in your mind that you feel everyone should be paid regardless of circumstances. I keep thinking this is not ethical, but from an economic standpoint the Filipino employee is better off than working for less money for a local employer or not working at all because of unemployment. And so are his family and their government.

    Stop comparing with the American salary, it doesn’t make any sense. If the American company was paying an American salary, they would hire someone in the states.