Lol, yeah Eisel is a bit of a mixed bag. Quite a controversial figure in the vegan community who many disagree with on a lot of things. But I think the actions he advocates for are probably positive for the most part (not destroying nature, not exploiting animals etc, even extending that further than a lot of vegans will by saying we shouldn't own pets etc), even if his views, ideas and expressions can be problematic. I agree that part especially at the end about saying non-human animals are "mindless" didn't sit well with me, and the implication that their lives aren't very meaningful. It also continually surprises me that he actually cares about not harming/using animals given how lowly he sometimes speaks of them in comparison to humans and how focused he is on the supposed greatness/potential of humanity and civilisation. For him, veganism/animal rights is a "civilising mission" for humanity to stop doing barbaric things for the good of our own evolution, as much as or perhaps even more than it is for the good of the animals themselves. I think you're right that it's a more than slightly egoistic and anthropocentric perspective for sure. But again, at least he seems to place some value on non-human animals sufficiently to the degree that he maintains it's not acceptable to abuse them, and holds fairly high standards for that comparably to his standards for human rights. I primarily mention him in the topic of this post as one of the only people I'm aware of actively speaking out about the concept of petism / pet ownership and why vegans/animal liberationists shouldn't support it, rather than for his other musings. He rarely focuses on one point at a time and usually drags in multiple other topics into the discussion, lol, so it's hard to find him talking exclusively on that issue for reference. Like you said his book quotes are pretty eloquent.
I would generally agree plastic = bad in most cases, though it's probably an unavoidable necessity for our modern world. It should be reduced where possible. However, plastic = bad doesn't change the fact that animal farming is usually far worse for the environment.
There are 2 "organic" alternatives to synthetic leather (aside from not buying any of them) : plant-based leather or animal-based leather (which is not exactly completely organic or natural considering the plastic coating and chemicals used to preserve and produce it). 1 is better than synthetic leather and 1 is worse. I'll let you work out which is which :) Spoiler: plant-based comes out on top
Also, leather uses plastic coating. A fact many people don't know. It's also dead flesh that's been heavily preserved with chemicals in order to not decompose and to remain usable. It's far from the natural product people would have us believe. Keep in mind the massive size of the industry and propaganda similar to the meat and dairy industries which it's directly connected to.
Setting aside plant-based leather which is definitely more eco friendly than animal leather (and the fact most of the ways in which leather are used are wholly unnecessary to begin with), I don't agree that synthetic leather is worse for the environment. In fact it seems like it's still a lot better than leather products.
A 2017 report entitled "The Pulse of the Fashion Industry" went into some detail on this subject. Real leather is regarded as being much worse for the environment than faux leather, primarily due to the massive water requirements, fossil fuel usage and contribution to the eutrophication of waterways. The report concluded that synthetic leather has less than half the environmental impact of cow leather and rated cow leather as the least environmentally friendly of the commonly used raw materials in the fashion industry.
This video also goes into some of the reasons why animal leather is so damaging to the environment and why not only plant based leather but even synthetic leather is a lot better: https://youtu.be/x-UGgf7i0qM?si=tcnfiT8wVOj4ii4_
All that aside, veganism is about not exploiting animals, and buying leather definitely does that. By supporting leather you're supporting beef. There are even some cattle farmers that raise animals specifically for leather. It's a highly profitable industry and can probably be considered a co-product rather than a byproduct. The ethical thing to do both for animals and the environment is to boycott leather and either avoid any kind if you want to or use plant based or even synthetic leather.
Sorry and I hope we can set this issue to rest since it was not the purpose of my post at all. I'm here to talk about fuggs
This is the true animal rights mindset. Reject petism / mascotism. Animals are not living toys or playthings, they are individuals. They are ends in and of themselves and not merely means to our ends. The pet industry is horrific along with pet ownership itself and all the rights violations, sufferings and deprivations it causes, many of which are overlooked or dismissed by "pet owners" or petists.
Have you listened to or read anything by Eisel Mazard by any chance? His newest livestream touched on the topic (don't be thrown off by the title, he does talk about petism) https://www.youtube.com/live/SSiVZ0UIwbM .
Lucie Munson also has a good podcast on "pet ownership" and veganism. https://youtu.be/GD-6XJfkF2I
One thing I would say though, I think animals should be referred to as "they" or he/she, rather than "it". This helps to individualise them and see them as someones and not somethings, individuals vs objects. "The dog was restrained and we chained them/he/her (rather than it)." I believe language can have a powerful effect in how we view other animals leading to how they're treated societally. For the same reason I reject the use of animals as insults, such as calling a human a pig derogatorily.
Hi, just wondering if fuggs are vegan. As in, do they contain products made from animals?
As far as I can tell, "fuggs" is a portmanteau of "fake" and "uggs", and so fuggs are "fake" uggs, meaning fake ugg boots. Uggs or ugg boots are a kind of boots traditionally made from sheepskin/shearling, and sometimes with suede leather (cow skin) on the outside.
But there's a bit of confusion about what "fuggs" or "fake uggs" means. Unlike something such as "faux fur" or "faux/fake leather", where it's pretty clear that will be vegan and not made from animals like the traditional kind is, "ugg" has some weird brand authenticity thing going on.
I might get some facts wrong here, but from what I could gather, there are 2 companies, called "UGG" (American brand) and "UGG Since 1974" (Australian brand) which both lay some kind of claim to what can be considered an authentic ugg boot. Uggs were first made in Australia, but I think the American UGG brand often sues other companies, including those in Australia, for using the "ugg" name. However in some places ugg simply means the style of shoe rather than the brand.
So unfortunately due to this, I think there might be 2 different meanings of "fuggs" - one I believe indeed means vegan ugg boots which don't use animal skins/products, while the other meaning is simply an ugg boot made in the traditional way from animals but just not by the "official" UGG brand.
In all this confusion, how can we truly answer the question of "Are fuggs vegan?" Is the answer somewhere between "They could be, sometimes." or "No one knows, really." ?
I want more games exactly like that. They're hard to come by.
Thanks so much. So do I need something like this https://www.amazon.com.au/Komifa-Component-Cable-Composite-Playstation/dp/B07VCT41QV as well as this https://www.retrotink.com/product-page/retrotink-2x-pro (is there a cheaper option)? Does it matter that the composite cable will be unused there?
I plug all 5 cords except the composite one into the retrotink?
And then do I need a different cable to connect the Retrotink to TV (HDMI)?
All PS2 games look really blurry on Panasonic Viera TV.
For comparison, when I play the Jak trilogy on PS5 (which is just the PS2 ports), it has a sharp and crisp image. But the same games on an actual PS2 are much lower quality. This leads me to think there's some scaling issue that the PS5 automatically fixes since I don't think they remastered it or anything. And the same applies to every PS2 game.
It's currently connected via RCA component cables, and I tried messing with the game mode settings on the TV but it didn't really do anything noticeable. I'm wondering if I should buy a PS2 to HDMI converter or if that might be even worse than the current set up. I don't have much money I can spend but if I need to I will, just whatever it takes to get it looking good. It looks like sh*
Happens on lemmy world too.
In my opinion, lots of posts get removed here which would fall under reasonable (and even important) / valid free speech. So I do think the mods are abusing their censorship ability.
I kind of agree with your last sentence... but that's why I think this platform doesn't serve that purpose unfortunately lol. Interesting or radical liberal posts seem to get removed a lot.
I wish this site was more like Reddit's anarchy tbh lol. I see it as essentially a free speech platform aside from extreme cases.
So how do we determine if a question is nonsense? I didn't realise the questions had to be necessarily important
Hi, I never received a bot message that I was aware of. I thought that the links I posted in the comments were providing examples of what I meant and helping to describe the question. I don't really understand why it was removed. I can see that this post was also locked and then unlocked seemingly.
All I said was something like "We may want nature to fit into neat boxes but often vegetables are sweet and fruit are savory". It wasn't anything less innocuous than the title so I still don't understand it. Apparently it got removed because I posted some links in the comments to lists of common "fruits" that are actually vegetables and vice versa. If that's spam then I think they have a very low tolerance for content. I thought it added to the question to describe what I meant and provide examples.
Context is key, I'm just curious to gain more info and views. I'm not antisemitic but I saw a trend of people being accused of antisemitism when they disagreed with a Jewish person for something completely unrelated to anything to do with Judaism or even Israel. For the pedophilia one I was arguing with someone why pedophilia was immoral but just needed some back up. I can see why the titles look sus. Anyhow I understand those are controversial topics but I also think they should be allowed and Reddit would probably allow them unlike Lemmy seemingly. And I don't see why my fruit question was removed.
If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.
Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)
For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):
At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.
The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."
Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pursue a better outcome which is seen as absolutely required, rather than accepting a positive yet insufficient outcome? Would that necessarily be a fallacy or possibly just somewhat recklessly ambitious in a way that might be subject to interpretation on whether it was wise or not depending on the circumstances and the importance of meeting a goal?
Also, the phrase "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good" is often associated with the Nirvana fallacy or the perfect solution fallacy.
"The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when someone dismisses a realistic solution to a problem because it is not perfect, and they argue that a perfect solution is the only acceptable option. In essence, it's the rejection of a good or adequate solution because it doesn't meet an ideal standard.
The Perfect Solution Fallacy arises when someone rejects possible solutions because they believe these solutions are not perfect or do not solve the entire problem. It involves demanding that a proposed solution must be flawless and comprehensive, or it is deemed unacceptable.
The Nirvana Fallacy is about rejecting realistic solutions because they fall short of an ideal, while the Perfect Solution Fallacy is more about demanding an ideal solution and dismissing anything less."
I struggle to understand the difference between the 2 closely related fallacies, but my understanding is perhaps the Nirvana fallacy involves: "This solution is imperfect, and the perfect solution would be unrealistic, therefore we shouldn't try to improve anything at all." (ignoring that any improvement is better than nothing) whereas the perfect solution fallacy is more like: "This solution is imperfect, therefore we should reject it and only strive for a perfect/adequate or better solution." (ignoring that the perfect solution may be unrealistic and an imperfect solution may be a valid compromise to fall back on.) The Nirvana fallacy seems overly pessimistic/defeatist whereas the perfect solution fallacy seems overly optimistic in an unreasonable way of not accepting a valid albeit imperfect solution even when there's no reason not to i.e. it wouldn't prevent the perfect solution from still being pursued.
What the Greens did in this scenario seems more like the latter, however I feel like there's a slight difference, since they didn't just reject the imperfect solution (and take an all-or-nothing approach to pursue a perfect solution) purely because it wasn't perfect, but because there was reason to believe that only one solution could be pursued and either one would make the other impossible to achieve; in other words if the lesser solution was accepted it may prevent the chance of achieving the greater solution, and vice versa, so they rejected the insufficient solution only as a means to attempt to attain the "sufficient" solution which they viewed as absolutely necessary or non-negotiable.
So does it fall under one of these fallacies, or a different fallacy, or is it not a fallacy?
Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction?
And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?
It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.
Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"?
And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?
It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn't even a word for that kind of phobia if it's actually a phobia in the usual sense.
Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.
Unhinged conspiracy theorist Francis E. Dec, who essentially originated the concept of gangstalking and targeted individuals and gained notoriety for ranting about his theories of the "Gangster Computer God", passed away 15 days after his 70th birthday. But how did he die?
"Age 70 - According to Dec, the critical age at which the Computer God has determined that all people should either be "dead or useless". Presumably this policy would only apply to the plebian masses and not to the Playboy scum-on-top. Should you be "lucky" enough to live to age 70 and be rendered useless, you can also expect to have many diseases, a raspy, aged voice and a wrinkled ugly gargoylic clown-booze face with bulldog hanging cheeks and jowls."
Did he kill himself after he turned 70 or was it just a coincidence?
Don't want to endorse Christianity necessarily but hard to get around saying the word Christmas or Xmas, so is Xmas more rebellious? Is there an even more rebellious or irreverent name for it?
Also, should I not even celebrate Christmas? What's an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year but in a way that isn't tied in any way to religion (and ideally doesn't involve killing turkeys)?
Question inspired by the image (see attached)
Is there a law preventing me from for example selling a baseball hat for $20,000?
Someone asked this on Quora: "I learn very quickly by asking questions. Is it acceptable to interrupt someone during a conversation to gain more clarity on a topic?" Which I relate to a lot.
Someone answered this: "Yes , it is very rude to do because maybe on a little further into conversation your question may be answered and if not then , make a mental note of it and as soon as you see an opening in the conversation - circle back to the point in the where your question fits in and ask it . Interupting someon while they are talking can cause that person to lose sight of they were want say and what thier point was going to be ."
But this doesn't seem to always work for me, and I must say it depends on the person you're talking to and the situation.
- Sometimes if someone misunderstands something you said or that has happened or gets a fact wrong, they can end up going on a pointless/misguided tangent in the conversation and even can start getting progressively angrier on their own without you even saying anything, whereas if you interrupt and clarify the misunderstanding that can help to calm them down in certain cases, and to course-correct the conversation to make it more productive and reasonable.
- Sometimes they never allow you a chance to speak at all, talk for ages on their own, and then simply exit the conversation before you would have any ability to respond to specific things they said earlier.
- If they say so many things you want to respond to, it can add up to a lot, and you may not be able to ever get through them if you can't respond to them as they come up.
- Making a mental note is often impossible for me, I frequently forget and need to address something immediately in order to remember it, unless I can pause the conversation to make a physical or digital note (can't focus on what they're saying while writing it) which people would probably find even more rude either way.
I've also seen lots of debaters, journalists and interviewers interrupting people as their standard method or style of dialogue, and it seems to work for them (sometimes people get annoyed at them, sometimes they don't and often do the same thing), so I don't know.
I would appreciate if anyone has any literature on why it may be acceptable to interrupt sometimes or perhaps a recognised style of communication that allows this, as well as any speakers who defend this practice and debates about the topic itself.
Thanks
HELLO amazing helpful Lemmitors (Lemmians... Lemurs. Whatever). I hope I can explain this clearly. I desire a pair (2) of PlayStation 2 controllers which work wirelessly via the SAME wireless dongle stuck into BOTH PS2 controller ports at the same time. This allows me to turn one off while my friend on the other side of the room turns theirs on in order to switch who's controlling player 1 for taking turns in single player games without having to throw one controller back and forth across the room. You may laugh but I have managed to find and purchase a controller that does exactly this off eBay, which is a ProGamer (brand) PS2 wireless 2-controller set with a single dongle that splits into 2 wires and plugs into both controller ports simultaneously and does exactly what I described. The problem is one of the controllers has a faulty analog stick that doesn't activate when going left, and I can't find this brand or this type of controller or anything like it to replace this set up. If you have any thoughts or solutions I would much appreciate it. Thank you 💚
And I should note that I'm unconcerned about the quality of the controller since my main requirement is for it to simply function properly and work in the ways I described. Thanks
Examples:
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (the book)
And before you say "alternate title", since these supposed alternate titles are included in the full version of the main title (even if it's usually not listed in full), how does this differ from "true" alternate titles that replace the entire main title?
Example:
Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey vs Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn
Into the Deep vs Yakamoz S-245
And then there's the standard sub-titles, for example:
Captain America: The First Avenger
(Sorry for my lazy title choices but I couldn't think of any others)
It seems like we have 3 things here: an "or" title in the name (alternate title which is included in the full version of the main title), a completely different alternate title that replaces the main one, and a subtitle following a colon after the main title. Are there different names to distinguish these different types of titles??
Also can we talk about how sub-title is used to mean closed captions as well as "sub-name" (sub-title used in this context)? It makes it impossible to search about because most people understand subtitle to mean closed captions, I think.
humane having or showing compassion or benevolence.