I just checked it out. Seems that The Spiffing Brit is trying to break youtube or something and is having people open as many tabs of his livestream as they can to get as many views as they can.
I just checked it out. And to test, I opened 15 tabs in firefox and refreshed. Just fine lol. Not sure what problem that person has besides maybe too many firefox extensions.
I did the same and RAM usage on went up 20% for me. Using flatpak Firefox if that makes a difference. It's still responsive though as I type this comment.
Firefox Ram usage just kept going up during that stream for some reason. It was using 6GB of 8GB ram. Edge stayed at 2GB. The stream got boring after a while tho
Title: Comparative Analysis of Flatulence Incidents Involving Horses and Dogs: An Examination of Fart Exposure Rates
**Abstract:**This comprehensive study investigates the fascinating phenomenon of fart exposure rates among various animal species, focusing primarily on horses and dogs as the principal subjects of interest. Through meticulous data collection and analysis, we present compelling evidence that supports the assertion that horses experience a disproportionately higher frequency of fart exposure compared to other animals, including their closest competitors: dogs. Our findings shed light on the intricate interplay between anatomical factors, environmental conditions, and social dynamics that contribute to these variations in fart exposure rates.
**Introduction:**While the topic of flatulence has often been approached with humor, this study endeavors to provide a scientific lens through which to examine the prevalence of fart exposure among animals. Horses and dogs, due to their widespread domestication and close interaction with humans, emerge as ideal subjects for this investigation. By comparing their fart exposure rates, we aim to identify potential factors that contribute to the observed differences, thereby unraveling the complexities of this underexplored facet of interspecies interactions.
**Methodology:**To comprehensively analyze fart exposure rates among horses, dogs, and other animals, we employed an innovative cross-sectional survey approach. Data were collected through surveys administered to veterinarians, pet owners, and animal caregivers, supplemented by direct observations of animal behavior. Participants were asked to recall and document instances of fart exposure involving various animals over a specified timeframe. The collected data were then subjected to rigorous statistical analysis to determine patterns and correlations.
**Results:**Our study yielded compelling evidence indicating that horses indeed experience a higher frequency of fart exposure compared to other animals, including dogs. Statistical analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in fart exposure rates between horses and dogs (p < 0.05). Horses were found to be subjected to fart exposure at a rate approximately 1.5 times higher than dogs, solidifying their position as the primary recipients of this phenomenon.
**Discussion:**The disparities in fart exposure rates between horses and dogs can be attributed to a combination of anatomical, physiological, and environmental factors. The distinct digestive systems of horses, characterized by their large gut fermenters status, likely contribute to their higher propensity for gas production. Additionally, the size and social dynamics of equine groups, along with their frequent human interaction, may heighten the likelihood of fart exposure incidents.
**Conclusion:**In this pioneering study, we have successfully demonstrated that horses indeed receive a greater share of fart exposure compared to dogs and other animals. The implications of these findings extend beyond humor, revealing the intricate web of factors that shape interspecies interactions and contribute to the dissemination of gaseous emissions. As we continue to unravel the mysteries of animal behavior and anatomy, a deeper understanding of fart exposure rates among different species may pave the way for more nuanced perspectives on animal welfare, social dynamics, and digestive physiology.
Not even close. Mites are animals. Between your ass hair, clothing, and the square inch of horse fur, each time you fart on a horse you fart on half a million mites. And everyone who doesn’t ride horses, 99.999 percent of the population, farts on mites every time they flatulate.
This is correct, they like to shit when you’re near the back end as well, nervous poops. Also this lady is clearly scared shitless on this horse, poor bastards face is being pulled on so much his damn chin is touching his neck.
Looks like she is holding them all crunched up and leaning forwards on the horse. There is no saddle so there isn’t a way to tighten the reins without her holding them.
It doesn’t look like she’s holding them crunched up to me, her hand is open and flat and there’s no dark pixels under it to show the rein there, it looks like it’s just a tight harness, possibly designed to get the horse’s head to pose this way. I mean I could be wrong of course, that’s just how it looks to me.
For real though, you don’t plant your own tomatoes to save money, you plant your own tomatoes because your crop is going to taste so good that you’ll be chasing that flavor any time you’re stuck buying them from the store. Just so far beyond storebought.
It’s the one crop I keep coming back to every year - the effort is worth it.
It’s the same in that most fruits and vegetables you can buy at the store have been bred for quantity and shipping. Home gardeners can grow varieties that are bred for flavor. So my Nebraska Wedding Tomatoes may not survive a trip across the country with UPS, but they taste amazing. And my Double Gold raspberries don’t produce bushels, but they’re the best I’ve ever eaten. I do think I’m probably saving money growing garlic. Very low maintenance plant, and I grow enough to save what I need to plant for the next year. So some crops are pretty cost effective, but some are really for the flavor.
Not all, but most. I don’t notice much of a difference with peppers or carrots, but strawberries especially are incredible when grown from a garden and pretty tasteless when bought from a store. Tomatoes don’t have quite as significant of a difference, but they’re still much better. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten fresh beets from anywhere but a farmer’s market or my garden, so I’m not sure about them.
More noticeable in Tomatoes, but everything is more flavourful. Potatoes are more Potatoey, leafy greens are more intense flavour, some people finding home grown romaine too strongly flavoured because they are used to it tasting like nothing
Since that flag tried storming the capital building. I actually like the original meaning of the flag, but it got cooped by meat heads. I do like the pride and women’s rights versions of the gadsen flag.
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but flags are inanimate objects that lack the ability to make conscious decisions like “storm the capitol.” People make those decisions, and people can carry whatever flag they so choose while doing so whether they embody the meaning of that flag or not, as evidenced by much of those same people also carrying conflicting thin blue line or maga gear. They could have chosen to storm the capitol carrying antifa flags, and besides the fact that you’d likely be cheering them on rather than admonishing them for the same behavior exhibited by your percieved enemy, the flag waved would largely be inconsequential to anything other than “your support.” In fact, you’d likely point out that ~1,003 have been charged from the incident which is not only a small percentage of the total supporters of either side, but is a small percentage of the crowd that was even at the rally that started it, meaning more people who fly either of those respective flags didn’t “do it” than did.
Of course, that isn’t propaganda-y enough for most, or is too propaganda-y because I’m only supposed to talk bad about one side not both. Oh well, c’est la pipe.
Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,” because her works are the most significant factor in the shaping of those beliefs, but in her day libertarians were anarchists just beginning the ideological split into today’s actual libertarians and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
Her views are 100% bog standard modern “libertarian,”
Wrong. She praises monopolies, hierarchical systems with hereditary aristocracy, money bending rights, some people being more human than others etc. She’s rather very roughly Darwinist, with the idea that the less you try to compensate for strength disparity, the better, and at the same time she’s rather centralist. Almost fascist.
Basically she’s an inverted Bolshevik, which is not surprising considering her family history. A Bolshevik from capitalists, if you like. Not even similar to libertarianism. Her ideas have simply nothing to do with liberty. She was sufficiently honest to explain these things herself.
and anarcho-capitalists/“libertarians”/racist and pedophilic liberals and fascists lying about their real goals to useful idiots.
I’m ancap (rather distributist as in Chesterton’s views, but that’s harder to explain), so this BS you can leave to yourself.
I’d generalize this as anarchist ideologies attracting people who’d like to get rid of certain limitations most others would consider sane. Like fucking children, stealing, killing etc. This is, sadly, a real tendency, but I’ve met such leftist anarchists too.
Rothbard, famous racist, slave desiring, apartheid supporting, pedophile ideological founder of anarcho-capitalism, who has quite a lot of suspiciously pro-fascism quotes, technically started the process in the 40’s, but it didn’t gain steam or co-opt the term libertarian until the populatization of “libertarianism” thanks to Rand’s works.
You forgot to say that he also kinda liked USSR, at least in his book, “For a new liberty” or something, a very interesting person surely.
Also Rothbard’s and Rand’s followers were always very different people. I’ve never met a person who’d like both. It’s a bit like tankies think that “liberal” and “fascist” are synonyms, completely removed from the reality. If you want to have some idea about libertarians, you should talk to them and not your leftist friends.
So yes, everything you just said is technically correct, but is still deliberately misleading in modern context.
It’s especially important in modern context. Ayn Rand is basically a spoiler for libertarianism, a strawman which every leftist uses against people whose ideology has nothing in common with her. And in reality she was just, like I said earlier, for capitalism what Bolsheviks were for leftist ideologies. Rather economically misguided and too impractical.
I mean, you can just read the sources, Rothbard’s most known books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas and other stuff, and make your own opinion. The only common thing between them is disdain for state regulation and leftism. But the root of Rothbard’s ideology is simply incompatible with the root of Rand’s ideology.
The former builds on natural right and non-aggression. The latter builds on people not being equal, and some being shit under the boot of others, better and more useful. These are in direct conflict.
I mean, explaining something to a tankie is similar to trying to teach a pig fly.
I have read, much, much more of Rothbard than I like, which is why I despise him personally with an incandescent fury, the lying hypocrite and diseased builder of a rotten foundation.
His only enjoyable work was The Betrayal of the American Right, because I enjoy watching a fool recount the way the people who would become the neoliberals ate his stupid face, the way actual libertarians had warned him would happen from the start.
You know, using the word “neoliberals” just spoils your message due to this word meaning technically literally nothing. Empirically the least fuzzy description of it is “something that leftists don’t like”. It’s literally leftist slang.
I don’t think there’s anything more “actually libertarian” than Rothbard, but one can disagree with any particular thing (and I do with many). It seems you are pushing your ancoms from an unexpected orifice again.
But, of course, Chesterton’s and others’ distributism is even better, but one just can’t agree on such a thing with people without a certain cultural component.
Tankies aren’t communists, they’re authoritarians with the red aesthetics. They agree with fascists on every valuable part of their worldview, and only disagree on which historical genocidal dictator was totally innocent actually
How do you define “democratic?” Would North Korea be democratic if there were two candidates instead, where they fought in a pretend culture war, but one of them really just deferred to the other if they won? North Korea has different parties too, you know.
Anybody who screeches about authoritarian regimes exposes themselves as being intellectually bankrupt, and can be safely ignored. A great explanation of why this is a nonsensical narrative peddled by western pseudoleft cym.ie/…/left-anti-communism-the-unkindest-cut-by…
Because anyone can call anything what they want. Is the Patriot Act very patriotic? Call something what it isn’t and mock people who call it out. It’s a form of double talk.
I would not. They’re trying to erase the cultures of any non-Han Chinese and suppressing any lgbt groups. How does that support the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” creed?
Reducing all the nuance of Marxism, socialism, and communism to
“from each according to his ability to each according to his need”
is problematic.
It’s not going to lead to much explanation and it ignores the hundreds of thousands of other words that Marxists have written.
This is in addition to the problem that “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is the goal of communism and you’re arguing with someone who (rightly) says communism hasn’t been reached.
LGBT rights in China are admittedly at a frustratingly slow speed. Other comrades more familiar than I am with Chinese politics have suggested that the democratic centralism means that as they do advance, it will be collectively, and without a conservative backlash as we see in the US
This is like really basic geopolitics my dude, China is a thoroughly capitalist economy by any definition that isn’t being massaged specifically to exclude them.
… is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha? Did I commit a whoopsie by using the term geopolitics to refer to how one of the top 3 global superpowers runs its markets?
You did not " not share my exact thoughts", you did not even grasp the topic. In the former there is some overlap and some deviation. In the latter there is no overlap.
No, because MLs aren’t necessarily tankies. And I do consider tankies a subset of Communists. Just not the very bright subset.
“Tankie” means someone who’s more interested in following a communist team rather then a communist ideal. Even if the team leader is just a grifter.
If you acknowledge the short comings of certain states that don’t really follow the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, you’re not a tankie.
Anarchists follow their team too; they’re opposed to any state whatsoever, no matter what the character of that state is and no matter the achievements of that state. Their team is the abolition of the state and anything that works towards that goal, no matter who it comes from, is considered by anarchists to be anarchist(ic). By this definition they would be tankies too.
As to lemm.ee: Here’s the policy. Long story short: Tankies don’t go harassing lemm.ee communities and aren’t doing illegal shit, spam, suchlike, elsewhere so they get a pass.
Failing to acknowledge that authoritative measures arise not through ideology, but through material conditions, is anti-Marxist, anti-dialectical, and idealist.
Nah, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out that they are either a supporter of capitalism (or reactionary politics) or they support revolutionary/evolutionary socialism, all of which are inherently authoritarian in their own ways.
The material conditions that give rise to authoritarianism is a different question altogether. I was specific in my choice of words for a reason.
Do you mean libertarians, or “libertarians” as per Murray Rothbard’s quote:
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”
Capitalism was extreme as well when compared to the feudal order. But eventually they fought, they won, and now we get to wake up every day at 6 and drive 45 minutes to work.
“I like capitalism with minor concessions (won by communists) that will continually be rolled back over time.”
Fuck dude, add some god damn spice to your politics. Milk toast is better with chili powder. Maybe read some books and come up with your own opinion via critical thinking too.
Won by communists? Bruh. My country has climbed the ranks as one of the best countries in terms of HDI, happiness, etc. All the communists ever did was threaten and spy on us.
Pure communism will never happen and will never function. Humans are human and don’t want equality, we need something to thrive for.
No it’s not, because that literally has never happened. The propaganda of “under communism everyone will eat dry bread and live in grey cubes” is both not rooted in actual examples. In those times and states there were both still a privileged elite and the majority of world superpowers were not only not participating in the sharing of resources, they were actively attacking it either indirectly through political pressure or directly through literally killing people.
If we had actual true global equality everyone would be doing better than you’re probably doing right now.
Any concessions capitalists have given the working class in your country are likely due to their fear of a proletariat uprising in your own country because a socialist country was on your doorstep. Turns out when people see that other people are able to seize back the power in their country and don’t have to lick boots they start to think, “huh, maybe we could do that here too.”
This scared the shit out of those in power, so they gave social concessions. After the fall of nearby socialist states, you’ll see those concessions slowly erode as capitalism begins eating its own ass again and they “need” more profits at the expense of your social welfare. If it hasn’t happened yet, just wait until your country can no longer export the levels of exploitation they need for unlimited growth.
Go read a history book and think critically before posting such stupid shit online again. It was the capitalist countries who began shit with the communist countries and that continues to be true to this very day. Ask yourself, how many foreign communist military bases were there? Sure sounds like they were the aggressor compared to capitalists in this regard.
We need to stop differentiating between liberal and fascist tendendcies. Anyone who aligns with NATO ideals is a fascist, period, regardless of what label you claim.
He is right though. It isn’t a fallacy, the usage of the word tankie is so far removed from content that it is a bad term and more thought terminating than anything.
Tankies were originally a small subset of some Western and some, mostly East European, socialists and communists which were in favour of a (para-)military response to the revolt in Hungary in 1956. It was a complex situation and even people not on the side of Nagy within Hungary were in favour of the Soviet action.
The term now was used, and amplified by intelligence agencies and Western media, to decry the Soviet action and more importantly de-legitimize several communist groups. In that sense the functional usage of the term is similar, but the question is where would the slur hit actually?
In principle it would hit a small sub section of MLs who followed Khrushchev’s decision. Many people within the pact did see the de-Stalinisation and how it was communicated as problematic, as it enabled opposition forces to claim ground in countries. Nagy tried to do introduce reforms, the most far reaching: “Hungary to leave the Warsaw Pact and declare neutrality in the Cold War.”
Countries thinking about leaving the dominant two powers spheres of influence during the Cold War were often met with violence. See the Jakarta Method for more information about that (i.e. Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, the whole of South America). During that time colonialism was also still relevant and colonial powers did use excessive violence, this is another part of the book.
Now what you and others do is labeling people who are to the left of the Soviets at that point as Tankies. Which is doubly wrong and cynical. What is interesting is that the slur can be traced back for the last 6 years to the US and there to more right wing places. It wasn’t primarily a phrase that was used by leftists. However after the heating chamber of the alt right online people used it to label even people who are democratic socialists at best.
In that sense it is a continuity to the Red Scare, to not have to engage with content.
Bullshit. Everyone’s a tankie. My dog is a tankie. Tankie doesn’t mean shit, in the four years it’s been revived, nobody has ever been able to give me a universal definition. It literally just means “people I don’t like”.
I’ve seen anarchists get called tankies. I myself am a Marxist-Leninist but because I may be better at conveying my thoughts and opinions I don’t get called a tankie, while other MLs do. I literally have the same opinions they do, but anarchists sometimes think I’m cool with them lol.
tl:dr “Tankie” means someone who’s more interested in following a communist team rather then a communist ideal. Even if the team leader is just a grifter.
If you acknowledge the short comings of certain states that don’t really follow the “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”, you’re not a tankie.
By your definition, every community is a tankie because every communist rejects idealism. If these are the only two options, the only option left is to choose a team. But that can’t be right because you imply that some communists aren’t tankies.
Further, does it count as a definition if other people use the term in different ways?
If so, how do you know who is a communist and who is a tankie without asking them how they decided to show (critical) support for XYZ?
By your definition, you must first know whether someone has strong reasons to support XYZ before being able to decide that they really decided because XYZ was on the right team. That would be exhausting and fraught with the problem that nobody is going to say they didn’t do the reading; if they give an argument, how do you determine whether it’s valid or a cover for ‘choosing by reference to team’?
I’m unsure if it’s possible to define ‘tankie’ by reference to ‘communist’ without also defining the latter and showing how they’re different.
ah, you think I don’t have definitions of those words?
“Woke” as we’re using it today start around the 1920’s America and the was by the black community to refer to white people who were aware of and sympathetic to social injustices committed against the black community. It’s sense evolved to include anyone belong to a majority group aware of and sympathetic to an oppressed group.
“Tankie” refers to people who profess their love of communism, but pick allies not on action, but on team affiliation. Any short coming of their favorite communist™ state isn’t an internal fault, but something the evil “west” has committed against them. Which, to be fair, the CIA loves fucking around in South America,
The tankie isn’t at all much different from the “patriotic” Maga head. A Maga head will scream about how free America is, but defending it whenever the county, or more specifically, their team, starts restricting personal freedoms of lgbt individuals, minority rights, or women’s and particularly women’s reproductive rights.
Both tankies and Maga heads will preform mental gymnastics to try and rationalize why the gays can’t be married even though the text of either group doesn’t have any problem with them.
I don’t have any problem with textbook Communist. So long as they can acknowledge the short comings of how it’s been applied so far and how it’s been subverted by people who want to consolidate power and wealth. Same logic goes for Capitalists. In principle, both systems are viable economic models, although textbook communism is the more progressive one. But both, at least as applied by real and would be super powers, are corrupt and dangerous.
Any short coming of their favorite communist™ state isn’t an internal fault, but something the evil “west” has committed against them.
To be fair, as you said, many of these problems are because of the International Community™. As for the rest, maybe all support should be critical, with increasingly less “critical” the less there is to criticize.
Both tankies and Maga heads will preform mental gymnastics to try and rationalize why the gays can’t be married
I haven’t seen anyone on Lemmygrad express that view, and I certainly support our LGBT comrades.
I haven’t seen anyone on Lemmygrad express that view, and I certainly support our LGBT comrades.
I’ve seen it else were. Gonzalo Lira might be a special case though. I mean you have to be a special kind of stupid to spread Russian propaganda while in Ukraine. He’s also complained that women don’t dress up anymore while looking like hobo for his online “debates”.
Point being is that it’s well known that Russian and China aren’t lgbt friendly and supporters of those countries either need to be ok with that or intentionally ignorant of that. I have seen some snide comments on other communist forums towards lgbt people. The rational, if there is any, is that childless people don’t belong in a long term society.
Well, perhaps you’d be relieved to know that on Lemmygrad, we condemned the Russian Federation for its recent anti-LGBT policies then.
Tell me, what should a communist do if they’re a citizen of the U.S. and the US were to make voting mandatory, punishable by death? Should we die rather than vote for someone we disagree with, or should we pick someone we think might be marginally better?
That’s how we feel about Russia — we don’t pretend to think they’re communist, and there are things we disagree with, but they’re still better than the US, so we vote for them.
No that won’t happen. This is a tactic by whatever group that is so butthurt about having left wing views on the internet to try to tone-control Lemmy. If they can get everyone to agree the slur tankie is bad, they can claim anyone that supports a left wing government that imposes a policy that restricts US freedom to exploit that country is a Tankie.
Yes it’s calling them tankies. They currently seem to be keen on framing it as “buzzword” or “undefined culture war slur against the whole left”, while in more or less the same breath of course still stanning for North Korea and calling China communist and ignoring that they’re called out by the collective rest of the left for that. With that exact term.
Which is on brand for them. The original “tankies” were cheering on the Soviets violently crushing uprisings by other communists for attempting to practice the “wrong kind” of communism, AKA “Anything other than complete submission to Soviet oppression.”
That’s the sole identifying mark of a tankie: a desire to crush dissidence of their peers through violence, particularly if their victims share their professed economic ideology. Tankies aren’t communists: they’re fascists cosplaying as communists.
Well I’m not a communist so I’m kinda the wrong guy to ask but you’d be surprised, Lenin is on that list for me. You know the guy who warned everyone that Stalin must under no circumstance be allowed to lead. A lot of good analysis, alas his solutions often had first solution syndrome, meaning they were insufficiently hardened against good ole power dynamics taking over because, as Marx so rightly observed, it’s in a class’ interest to act in its own self-interest and ultimately the nomenklatura is a class as distinct from the proletariat, or even party base, as priests are from believers. I’m pretty sure if the guy had Lenin’s failures to look back at he’d do a lot better, though.
If you want something random to read to learn from I’d recommend the Anarchist Library. And Bookchin in particular.
What’s wrong with you calling ancaps fascist? I mean, they are not more or less fascist than anyone in this pic except for the tankie getting pummeled, and the tankie always has this coming.
ML works just fine if you assume a benevolent dictator with a merciful, honest, and well educated population of party leaders who will listen to agricultural, industrial, and economic experts instead of taking a hard line ideological stance on everything and not try to force the abolition of personal property before society is ready.
Where did you learn that? The school of enlightened centrism? How do you explain the Nazis putting every communist they could find in a concentration camp? They just violently disagreed on the wording of the exact same position?
How do you explain communists exterminating every kulak they found? How about the mass slave labour of the gulags? How about the holodomor and the destruction if the Aral sea?
Different rhetoric, same genocidal, authoritarian bullshit
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.