left of the average IRL (Reddit, other than some select (mostly American-based) subreddits also leans left of average, but not as far as Lemmy) so it’s very much an echo chamber.

That is a non sequitur.

It has more to do with the respective moderation teams than the respective cities, I think.

/r/waterloo was good and /r/kitchener was a fascist spawning ground.

On that subreddit, racist shit was okay but calling something racist was not.

The world in microcosm

decades I think

Kovarex got the last dollar he will see out of me. What a horrid person.

You are being hateful towards religion. That is very different than rationally opposing religious oppression and persecution, which obviously is a thing that does exist and needs to be opposed, but which does not define religion. You can’t make things better with hate. Figure your shit out.

Is it your poorly stated, smug, so-ironic-no-one-knows-what-you-are-talking-about point that all religions promote oppression based on sexuality and gender, of the poor, and of children? Because that sounds an awful lot like American conservatism, not religion. But since you won’t come right out and state your points clearly in a way that can be directly refuted, how about you just fuck off.

Are you certain it is a “cartoon” and not just art?

It’s a bit tortured, I think. Tourist is visiting a scenic vista which we might call reality, and chooses to take a photograph of a photograph of that same vista, preferring the curated and potentially slanted view that it presents.

I mean, you can deny the premise all day long, but it will never win you an argument.

Removed by mod

Ah, the golden age. I dunno, I was running FreeBSD. It was awesome. It still is.

“Ethical” does not mean “good”, “moral”, or “right”, it means something more like, “consistent with an explicit set of ethical axioms.” It’s meaningless to say something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.

Carnism says that it is sometimes acceptable or even good to be cruel and violent to animals. Veganism says that it only is in cases of absolute necessity. A researcher or scientist for a cosmetics company might follow all the ethical requirements of their profession, and yet by any other standard, do unforgivable harm both to animals they experiment on and to the humans they mean to exploit with their research.

“There’s nothing wrong with you. Shut up or I’ll give you something to complain about.”

50% grow out of it by mid thirties.

The Internet atheism movement of the late 90s was extremely liberating and enlightening to many people. But, it has gradually become hateful and I think it has long since run out its useful lifetime. We can’t just stop there, we need to collectively develop a more informed, nuanced and compassionate view. Today’s threat isn’t baptist fundamentalism, it’s fucking fascism. You can’t hate yourself out of that, you only sink deeper.

The idea that eliminating meat reduces your standard of living is a preconceived bias. It is not an accident you believe that. You are being manipulated. If you investigate you will find that people who do it report improvements in their standard of living, not reduction. Meat is simply a way of refining cheap, sustainable, healthy plants into scarce, expensive, toxic and addictive processed food, by abusing the bodies and minds of sentient creatures. It is literally killing you and everyone you know. The more meat you eat, the younger you die and the more diseases you experience. Nearly all the top ten killers of humans on Earth today, and especially in the Western world, is caused by an animal-based diet: heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and more. Heart disease, diabetes, AND RECENTLY ALZHEIMER’S have all been reversed in massive clinical trials, by doing little more than eliminating toxic animal products from the diet.

??? I couldn’t so I eliminated it. It can be hard given how available and addictive the drug is, but I cope much better without it.

there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism

What is the source for this quote? I most often hear it used to argue in a fatalistic way in favour of continuing to do whatever harmful thing it is a person wants to continue doing. I don’t think it is true, certainly not for those who are struggling for survival. Ethical doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no harm. It means that the harms have been considered and a meaningful attempt at balancing those harms according to some ethical framework has been made.

Yeah, it EMOTIONALLY supports them. Dude. It’s okay. It also supports the users who get value out of it in actual material ways.