OBJECTION!

This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”

Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.

If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.

I can see how an RV, lab equipment, and a helper might help, but you don’t actually need any of those to do OF.

out of context

Everything’s always “out of context” with him, isn’t it? Because that’s his whole deal. He does controversial stuff to make people mad while hiding behind plausible deniability.

Whether it’s saying the n word, or saying what he did about CP, or whatever other antics he’s gotten up to, it’s the same playbook of controversy-bait. Stir up shit, get people mad, get hate clicks, get clicks from people who hate the people who got mad, get clicks from people who don’t want to get left out of the loop about what’s going on, etc.

I only partially dislike him for the times he’s taken the controversy-bait too far and done something legitimately shitty. Mostly I dislike him because he’s controversy bait, and whether or not he plays the game well enough to make sure nothing sticks doesn’t really matter. It’s still just stirring the pot for attention.

The best thing to do with people like that is just to pay them no mind. It’s not like I’m missing some unique insight or valuable perspective. I wish I could to that with politicians like Trump who employ similar outrage bait tactics, but he is unfortunately relevant to world affairs.

Anyway, it is my longstanding policy to downvote any comment or post about Vaush, positive or negative, since I don’t think he’s worth paying attention to and doing so just drags down the level of discourse, so, true to my policy, I will now be downvoting my own comment since I talked about him.

You should’ve listened to your hesitancy, the less you know of him the better.

No throw, only take?

All the answers are slightly wrong. The Katagana that’s causing confusion is “under-skort,” skorts being a combination shorts/skirt, “under-skort” is the part that’s like shorts, underneath the skirt part.

Jisho.org

Honestly at that point I think it’s lower effort to just go vegan. You’re already avoiding meat in every situation where you can’t investigate the supply chain, so no meat at restaurants, fast food, friends’ houses, etc. I guess if you really crave the taste of meat or something or if you live on a farm already I could see a case for it. For me, the case of going to the grocery and making a meal at home was always the easiest case to have a vegan diet (and avoiding all the extra prep and cleanup from preparing meat were nice perks), the parts that were actual hurdles were the convenience of fast food and not wanting to assert myself in group meals.

Personally, I figure that the tiny sliver of meat that’s produced ethically can go to the tiny sliver of people with weird dietary restrictions, and to cats, I guess. We still need to see a massive reduction in meat consumption if we want to address the abuse that’s rampant in the vast majority of meat production.

Ah, the classic diffusion of responsibility under capitalism.

The consumer is blameless because they have no control over the production process. The people committing abuse are blameless because they’re just doing what they’re paid to do, and if they didn’t do it someone else would. The CEO is of course blameless because they have a feduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. And so, the real villains are the shareholders, like granma who has a S&P 500 retirement fund with 0.00001% of the company.

If you accept that when it comes to meat, then what’s the difference when it comes to something like slave labor, or sweatshops? A company sets up in a third world country with deplorable, illegal conditions, which are necessary to compete in the market and secure a contract with a multinational corporation, if their practices get exposed, the big corporation pleads ignorance, some low level manager takes the fall, and they set up another company to do the exact same thing. Once again, everyone’s just responding to price signals and doing what they’re told or what they need to to keep their job.

It’s a wonderfully designed system that ensures that the evil necessary to keep the machine running can be performed without the hindrance of those peaky little consciences. But I have to question whether it’s more moral to make sure everyone can pass the buck for doing something wrong, rather than one person directly doing the same thing and being responsible for it.

Is it more “moral” to kill someone if you do it via firing squad where only one gun is loaded than just having one person shoot them? Is it more “moral” to be 1% responsible for abusing 100 animals than 100% responsible for abusing 1? I’m not sure I understand the moral framework you’re using to arrive at your conclusions.

Rating this one moderate effort, with a side of, “Wtf are you talking about?”

It’s kind of impressive how many wrong things you just said.

First, it is valid to disregard someone’s opinions based on their other political views. If you had a swastika in your username, should I ignore that and listen earnestly to everything you say? Of course not.

Second, this is about fascism because the quoted text in OP is fascist propaganda. What they’re describing is the idea of the ubermensch, of certain people being inherently superior and genetically predisposed to rule over others.

Third, you’re not a mind reader. You’re incorrectly assuming that you know my thought process. I did not think, “This person has an Israeli flag, therefore they must be wrong,” I thought, “This person is telling people to look for a point in what is very clearly fascist propaganda, hey, look at that, they also have a fascist flag in their username, I guess it makes sense that they’d do that.”

So no, I didn’t write off your opinion because of your support of a fascist regime, though if I had it would’ve been valid. I simply thought critically about two different behaviors you did and noticed that they both display sympathy towards fascism, which I found interesting.

I thought critically about the issue and came to the conclusion that genocide and apartheid are bad and that fascism is wrong. Not my fault if enough other people reach the same conclusion for it to be trendy.

>Isreali flag

>“Maybe the fascist propaganda has a point!”

Checks out.

That’s your highest effort one yet.

As a vegan tankie, I’m more than happy to welcome anyone who is passionate about justice and equality. If you think for yourself rather than just following and upholding arbitrary social norms, you’re going to get pushback from the people who believe in those norms. Whether the norms in question are the needless industrialized mass slaughter of animals, or the needless industrialized mass slaughter of the victims of US imperialism. And it’s much easier to have meaningful, higher level discussions among people who share certain common values, so you’re not having to constantly refute the same shitty low effort talking points over and over.

Please, keep pushing your vegan users our way.

Lower effort.

Low effort

“Plants rights activists” out in full force in this thread lol

Well, I guess I’m just not sure why you’re trying to give us advice about something you have zero experience with.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that you don’t actually care what kind of approach is more convincing, and you’re just trying to tell us to shut up, or say things in a way that makes us easy to ignore.

You have no idea what you’re talking about at best, and realistically, you don’t even want us to be successful. So, thank you for your unsolicited advice on which tacts are unhelpful, but, just so you know, I will be promptly tossing it into the trash.

That’s called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

You don’t get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn’t a strawman to show that someone’s premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that’s literally the point.