Unfortunately for any minority group that seeks change within a group led by the majority, this is true. Perhaps the vitriol against vegans is part of the game of realizing change: there will always be resistance and tendency from some portion of the population to keep things the same as they always were, regardless of whether those things are good for the population itself.

Yeah that was a wrong decision on the vegan’s part. Perhaps this sort of behavior might be acceptable in the public commons, but work is a private space where people join a company for specific purposes. Work and philosophy/politics should not intertwine.

And who knows: if she excluded herself from the breakroom during lunch without notifying others, maybe coworkers would notice and be more willing to hear her out out of a desire to socialize. It probably could have helped her effort to do this actually.

Vegans live and learn. We are part of a minority group, and with being a minority comes all of its benefits and detriments. We just need to learn that in situations like these, we often are the only vegan around people and so we need to carry our entire movement on our shoulders, whether we want to or not. Else, you get general, anecdotal sentiments the likes of which you see in this post.

As a vegan myself, I’ve only met a handful number of other vegans in my lifetime irl, being raised omnivore for 23 years until changing.

Whenever I talk about the reasons why I made the switch to those who are curious, I always keep the militant vegans in mind and try to offer more charity than I otherwise would.

We vegans need to show the world that whether it’s diet or clothing (general use, specific use, etc.) or medicine or society (e.g. slaughterhouse workers contributing to societal psychosis) or climate or species loss or economic transparency, making the change is easy and a socially accepted thing to do.

This absolutely cannot take form as aggression against those that would be considered outside of our “group”. Any means of using coercion or manipulation to change what others do is a violation of their moral capacities. Unfortunately, humans also violate the moral capacities of more than 100 billion animals every year, so the trade-off can seem justified to some.

Every vegan needs to remind themselves that we’re doing this for the animals first and foremost. All behaviors should be guided by that principle: to reduce suffering for them as much as possible. Being militant, aggressive, and shameful to others can result in backlashes where people dig their heels in. A better way of convincing would be to give the science, show moral charity, offer easy alternatives, and illustrate factual evidence of the crimes done against animals. If we respect people to be able to change their minds given the evidence to do so, then they will.

Not all beliefs are good. Veganism seems to minimize suffering for a group of life on this planet that has traditionally been at the whims of humans.

But as another commenter pointed out, people’s egos can’t usually take the claims that they are making bad choices and should change. This kind of pressure shows up in exercise, for example.

Animals dying don’t care about egos though. On the one hand, entire beings seize to exist, while on the other the top predator remains to exist and satiate their taste buds with a steak or pork chop.

If you are concerned about moral behavior in this world, then you can’t not extend that consideration to animals. If you can’t, then you’re morally inconsistent.

The billionaire class really flourished after Reagan eased taxes on the rich in the 80s. We need to go back to a time before him, but idk if that’s possible. Genie might be out of the bottle

Doesn’t the first sentence in this post specifically not include “s”? So, not all letters are included?

Wikipedia gives the conventional pangram: “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog”.

Cups is a volumetric measurement. Honestly I’d be fine with switching to liters for measurements, or deciliters or whatever makes sense. Gravimetric measurements never made intuitive sense to me.

Man I so want to get a treadmill standing desk

I agree with you on the technology part of it, but I’m wondering if OP meant “existing” as in how relevant of a social media platform it becomes.

Now that you mention the apartments bombings, I do remember seeing footage of that. You guys are right

Yep. And if this app turns bad after a while for whatever reason, we can always go back to the FOSS alternatives.

Me when I’m balls deep in a research project. It’s even worse with how some browsers allow you to group and hide tabs!!

They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.

And there are portions of people in our society that will pay for those minimal prices either because they can’t afford anything else, or strictly because it’s convenient for them to spend that little so that they have more money left over to do more stuff in their life elsewhere.

But there are also people that are willing to sacrifice and make changes to their lifestyles and spending practices to accommodate the impacts of their actions.

The same is true with corporations. Some large corpos in the world are actively trying to move towards sustainable, circular economies. I’m doing a lot of research right now into the textile industry, and two of the biggest corporations in that space that I’ve seen are doing decent work on the two fronts I previously mentioned are Lenzing (TENCEL™) and Aquafil (ECONYL®).

Lenzing uses wood of various species from places in Europe, all managed well and FSC/PEFC controlled, to draw out fibers and filaments that are just as fine and useful as polyester fibers/filaments, yet with the added bonus of biodegradability. They also recycle cotton clothing from collection centers in Spain and some larger textile service companies in southern Europe and mix that in with their wood-based feedstock to produce the same rayon fibers.

Aquafil runs on a similar model to Lenzing, except they base theirs on nylon instead of rayon. Aquafil collects ghost nets from around Europe and South America, along with other corporations’ scrap nylon (pre-consumer waste) and post-consumer waste from a number of brands (e.g. sunglasses, jackets, etc.) to regenerate nylon back into the same quality as you would find in virgin materials. Now, I don’t think that plastic is sufficient anymore thanks to the non-degradable waste associated with it, but it’s better than nothing.

Are there flaws with those 2 companies: of course. Their chemical processes might not be 100% closed loop and their claims might be overexaggerated in ways, but it’s better than nothing.

Anyways, what this examples shows is that there are corporations and even people on the ground that are willing to make more sustainable choices because they legitimately see the benefit of doing so compared to convention. Someone else might describe this as a form of an adoption life cycle, where you have those more willing to change and those less willing to change as practices and habits shift over time.

Could government help with that? I believe so. I think that’s just one lever of change though. If you’ve been following solar PV growth over the last decade and a half, then you know about the “contagion” phenomenon: some early adopters pick up solar, only for considerers and even late adopters to do the same as word of mouth and other social drivers influence decision making at a people level.

Could the same happen with other sustainable choices in the economy? I fall more into the early adopter camp, so I would say yes. I think corporations spend a lot of time and marketing convincing their customers that said corporations are the best and only options and that no other alternative exists out there: when there absolutely is or might be. Perhaps all it takes is demonstrating to people, doing, not talking, walking the walk, to change their minds. I think the same tactics could be used, in addition to government intervention.

Bottom-up + top-down is the strategy I’ve heard described by many proponents of sustainability, most notably Al Gore, and I’m all for it too. Luckily humans, at least in some countries around the world, live in free societies and can divide and conquer to work on both of these fronts to affect change.

They’re animals.

Since animals cannibalize others of their own species, does that mean humans should?

Artificial insemination is no more or less rape than any other means of production.

Artificial insemination != forceful insemination (rape).

The former requires consent that removes boundaries (as a result of conscious choice made by a couple that is incapable of reproducing - or not); the latter violates consent that destroys boundaries.

We can’t communicate with animals directly so there little to no way we can ever ask for consent to do these things to animals. Any animal insemination is forceful insemination.

Bulls don’t exactly get consent, or give a shit if the cow is actively resisting for that matter.

Cows can communicate between each other, meaning that there is a possibility that consent is given, if said concept is even comprehensible by cows.

Consent as a concept might not even be necessary for bovines, however. I’m no ethologist, but it appears that one of the main ways cows communicate that they’re in heat is by emiting pheromones that bulls then cross-confirm with other signs of estrus like mounting (see Cow Talk namely Chapter 4). Outside of matings seasons, however, the source indicates that wild cows tend to separate themselves according to sex: males with males, and female with females/young. There isn’t a tendency here for wild bulls to seek out heifers unless it’s the right time of year and heifers communicate that they’re looking for sexual interaction. This is a form of consent since some information is communicated indicating a desired behavior from the other party.

Contrast wild cattle with domesticated cattle and it’s been shown that bulls tend to be put in isolation from heifers, and that primary introduction between the sexes results in isolated bulls exhibiting “excessive mounting (buller-steer syndrome)” where “injuries to the bull being ridden, decreased weight gain and even death” happen (see Social Behavior in Farm Animals, namely Chapter 5).

If anything, domestication leads to unnatural social patterns that can allow for even more suffering than in nature. Again, I’m not an ethologist so we would need to review the literature more.

You can make your own plant milk usually by soaking/boiling nuts/seeds in water and then blending that together. Some people use juicers for this, and then some people run the blended liquid through a filter to remove any bits. Cashew milk is lovely if homemade!

Ignorance is bliss, you’re absolutely right.

Exactly. If people reading this don’t see the moral disconnect here, think back to how the US administration handled the southern border and the influx of immigrants a few years ago. Children were taken from families without any regard for keeping said families together. It’s devastating no matter the species it happens to.

I’m not sure there is anything ethical about forcefully impregnating female cows for our gain.

Just think if we thought doing so was ethical for humans. Rape, the sex slave trade, etc. would be morally acceptable.

Thank you for making this software. It’s really opened my eyes about what the internet could be in the future, and how it really mirrors real life in many ways. Take your time, I’m sure you (and any other dev) will knock out the big issues with the software if they ever pop up. The small stuff can wait

I sort by TopDay and that seems to get me quite popular content, but Hot is also good for new stuff. Love the options for sorting on Connect for Lemmy