The original Anarchist Cookbook was incredibly scary to the feds. It was filled with mostly useless and dangerous (mostly to the “Anarchist”), but the name and the feelings at the end of the Vietnam war captured the public’s attention.
It was passed around mostly by Xerox machine or fax copies. By the time I saw a version in the late 80’s the one I ran into was a blurry and unreadable mess. The original author is on record saying that he had no idea what he was doing when he wrote it and that no one should follow any of the bomb making bits because he’d never made one himself.
Even with all of that, it holds a serious impact on our communal memory and social ideas. The name alone is going to live forever, even if the original text is lost to time.
It’s a neat idea, and the name is so good. I even saw on an .onion site that had it told in plain text, and the visuals were ASCII recreations.
There is a (conspiracy) theory that the writer was actually working for a government since a lot of the instructions don’t work, or would potentially kill the person making it. Thus anyone who tried to follow it would not get results or die from making a project at home.
Seeing as it was published in 1971, and the FBI’s COINTELPRO ended that year, it’s not impossible. They hated anarchists and anyone too “un-american”.
That said, zero proof. Hence the conspiracy in conspiracy theory.
Conspiracies are real, and they happen all the time. A conspiracy is just a group of people colluding in secret. It has nothing to do with proof.
The problem I have with the term “conspiracy theory” isn’t the word “conspiracy”; it’s the word “theory”. These aren’t theories. They’re bullshit. “Conspiracy bullshit” sounds much better.
There’s a book called Recipes For Disaster by Crimethinc, which is an actual Anarchist Cookbook, has less bombs and stuff, but there’s a lot of neat stuff that will actually work.
With a little knowledge, it’s not very hard to make your own messaging app and share it with those you know. And there’s plenty projects online that give you what you need without having to write the code yourself. Alternatively, there’s just plenty dark web and under the radar apps already that won’t bend to this ruling.
What it is, though, is very inconvenient and annoying to do so.
But if you’re an actual criminal, then there is this solution here that can never be subject to this ruling.
So what this clearly means is that the EU will violate the privacy of all the everyday people that don’t handle that inconvenience, pushing the serious criminals to dark channels.
But if you’re an actual criminal, then there is this solution here that can never be subject to this ruling.
To be fair, AFAIK criminals often use insecure means of communication already so my guess is that this will result in more criminals not putting in the effort to set up/use an encrypted communication network.
However this is 1. probably not something any person who made that law knew 2. a bullshit excuse anyway.
This law has nothing to do with CSAM or child abuse prevention. “Think of the Children” is just an effective rallying point because, of course, no one wants to come out against it publicly. The Surveillance State grows.
Yeah I don’t get the whole “replace meat with a vegan steak” idea. Just prepare a delicious Dahl, the recipe of which has been around for hundreds of years!
They’re not made for people like us who have been veggie or vegan for years and have learned to cook with pulses, legumes, etc. They’re designed for people who want to cut back or give up meat but have to break the cultural training that every meal needs meat. Also they allow casual food places that don’t have professional chefs like pubs, cafes, etc to have quick and easy veggie options on the menu.
I think there’s a more commercial aspect to it. It’s cheap processed food, and in fact it’s often cheaper than meat-based processed foods. The real offense is that they charge more for it.
As someone who has seen both made, I think the prices are what you’d expect against materials and work involed. Plant-based meats require more ingredients, with more sourcing, and more processing. And then fewer are made and sold overall (economics of scale).
And people don’t realize, the subsidies hurt a lot of the manufacturing chains that are pricemakers for the meat. Ranchers have to pay the infamous feed tax when they sell their meat, which funds one of the biggest subsidies in the farming world, only paid out to the largest factory farms. Because mega-factory-farms can’t actually afford to charge the prices that ranchers charge, what after all those massive bonuses the top couple people make.
Plant-based meats require more ingredients, with more sourcing, and more processing.
You’re just using an animal to perform the processing instead. I wonder why poultry or beef isn’t required to list all of the antibiotics that those animals were fed as an included ingredient.
You’re just using an animal to perform the processing instead
Which they do efficiently. There’s no grass in the resulting meat, or feed, or sunlight. That’s why they’re not on the ingredient list. And water is in everything.
I wonder why poultry or beef isn’t required to list all of the antibiotics or growth horomones that those animals were fed as included ingredients.
Per the Iowa Farm Bureau, because there ARE NO antibiotics or residue in the resultant meat. An ingredient is something actually in the product. Nobody says there’s gasoline in your food vegetables because of the harvester, or insects in your vegetables because… well there actually are!
As for growth hormones… nobody has to say there’s growth hormones in it because they’re everywhere. Beef from a hormone-treated cow has thousands (to millions) of times less growth hormonesthan many plant-based products like peanuts or soy flour. Nobody has to list Estrogen on soy milk.
They produce meat more efficiently than any artifical process, especially any process line using nuclear medicine.
And for what it’s worth, there is no other mechanism that converts indigestible starches into highly digestible proteins.
It’s not like everything put into an animal is converted into edible flesh, not even a tenth of it is.
The typical chicken caloric conversion rate is 2-5x. That means 10000 calories of feed produces 5000 total calories that are higher quality than the feed was, about 2000 of those calories is meat, where the remaining 3000 is used for other purposes, like creating broths. This is incredibly, miraculously efficient.
Real-world numbers seem a bit better. 100-320kcal/day (more in winter and as they grow) per day in feed, and produce 2500 of straight meat after 40 days. That looks like more like 4x conversion than 5x.
Egg-laying chickens have a ramp up (where you feed them but they don’t produce eggs), but then produce an egg almost daily. That’s 80 calories in eggs for 260-340 calories in feed. (so almost 100% return on the extra cals). And yes, you can still eat the chicken when she’s too old to lay eggs. She’ll just be a bit more tough.
So if you’re comparing the production of meat to burning gasoline, then no chicken is not as efficient. If you’re comparing it to any food-related process (or hell, many mechanical processes), it’s downright jawdroppingly good.
Compare to corn. Only 10% of the calories in a typical grain crop are edible by humans. You’ll never guess what we use most of the other 90% for.
Nuclear medicine? Are you talking about meat grown in fermentation chambers? Do you think that’s the only alternative to animal flesh? Those things don’t even exist on a mass production scale yet and plenty of people avoid animal products somehow. I don’t know why you think I’m advocating for such a process.
It’s also a myth that we feed animals only things that are inedible to us, edible soy and grain is very pervasive in animal agriculture. You’re also conveniently leaving out additional land, water, and energy use as inputs, as well as negative outputs (though tbf I only mentioned inputs). I’m also curious about your 90-10 ratio, I’d be incredibly surprised if in reality 90% of net energy in animal feed came from inedible crop, especially when you include pasture feeding and silage in the mix. I thought experts agreed that we could free up a significant amount of land by removing animals from our food system while still feeding the same amount of people, this wouldn’t be true if animals made our existing croplands more efficient or were at the very least neutral.
Nuclear medicine? Are you talking about meat grown in fermentation chambers?
Yeah. The topic is efficiency. I was covering all the bases.
Do you think that’s the only alternative to animal flesh?
No. There are no alternatives to animal flesh.
Those things don’t even exist on a mass production scale yet and plenty of people avoid animal products somehow
And I know people who commute grandfathered trucks that get single-digit miles per gallon. I didn’t say it was strictly impossible, just inefficient.
You’re also conveniently leaving out additional land, water, and energy use as inputs, as well as negative outputs (though tbf I only mentioned inputs).
No I’m not. Go check out all my past debates or cited references on this topic because I’m not rehashing that shit again on a work day.
It’s also a myth that we feed animals only things that are inedible to us, edible soy and grain is very pervasive in animal agriculture
I didn’t actually argue that here. The strict statistic is 86% of cattle feed is human inedible (and much of what’s human edible is provided at the end to “fatten the cow up” so we get the maximum number of people fed by that one cow having to die). A large percent of chicken and turkey feed is technically human edible (it’s low-grade millet) but not particularly nutritious.
I’m also curious about your 90-10 ratio, I’d be incredibly surprised if in reality 90% of net energy in animal feed came from inedible crop, especially when you include pasture feeding and silage in the mix
Do me a favor and reread my comment when you calm down. That’s not what I said. I said that 90% of crops like corn are human inedible. And that they go to feed. Not that 90% of what animals eat is crops like corn. You’re absolutely right that much of it absolutely comes from cover crops in pasture and silage. Thanks for defending my side.
I thought experts agreed that we could free up a significant amount of land by removing animals from our food system while still feeding the same amount of people
No. Some experts say that. Experts agree that we could free up significant amounts of land by reducing meat intake, but every expert I’ve read does not think it’s some linear thing where zero meat is the ideal. The largest part and problem is the symbiotic relationship between agriculture and horticulture. 67% of TOTAL agricultural land use is in what’s called “marginal land”, land that cannot be used to grow crops or forested. It can ONLY be used for livestock or nothing.
The problem only starts when livestock need more land than the marginal land that’s being used. Until that point, from a land point of view, livestock like cattle are overall increasing the efficiency of the land by producing food where it couldn’t be produced otherwise, largely consuming calories that could not be used otherwise.
this wouldn’t be true if animals made our existing croplands more efficient or were at the very least neutral.
That’s because it’s not true. A lot of local farmers only survive because they have livestock. Let me ask you a question . Why would a farmer have a milk cow if the milk sold for less than the cost to feed the cow? Because that’s the situation right now in my local farms, and nobody’s selling their cows.
And in case you don’t know the answer, because they’re saving cow manure instead of buying chemical fertilizers. And they’re saving some money on feed by using their crop waste. Ultimately, they’re able to reduce their cost so the milk price is a breakeven, and then the fertilizer is a slight profit. If they got rid of that cow (ok, cows plural. Often 3 or 4 at the farms I’m thinking of), they would go out of business.^___^
important question
Let me ask you a question. What matters to you? Do you really care about what’s good for the environment, or do you just care about people not eating animals? Because if you’re arguing about the environment because you ethically oppose the eating of animals, that’s a tainted argument even if it has facts smattered in, and you have to admit it to yourself.
It’s only worth us having this discussion if you can tell me to my face that the only reason you’re arguing for veganism is environmental. That you don’t have an ethical problem with eating meat and you’re not convinced that meat is unhealthy.
Performing voir dire on someone you are having a discussion is odd. I don’t ask people I’m debating vegan adjacent topics with if they eat meat, that can be statistically presumed. I also don’t assume they can’t say anything true because they have an objective of wanting to continue to eat meat, and that’s often laid bare during or even at the start of discussion. Facts exist separately from the people stating them. Hypocrites can be right. People with biases can be right, and everyone has biases.
I am a vegan but I had been arguing against livestock use from an environmental perspective for many years before becoming a vegan or even a reductionist. In my mind eating animals was something like using disposable plastic. I participated in the use of animals and plastics but thought the only recourse was a legal one. Arguments of animal ethics are what ultimately brought me around to the idea that a personal boycott was ethically obligatory, because the harm to individuals from individuals was easier to see. Though after learning some ideas from utilitarianism related to statistics and commutative events as well as ideas from virtue ethics about modeling behavior and living heterodoxy my stance on boycotts or at least reduction in other areas has changed as well.
I’ll avoid responding to your arguments on the main subject because it would pressure you to respond when you’ve made it clear that you don’t want to continue having the discussion based on who I am. But I’m hoping I’ve answered your important question and given you something to think about on the topic of intellectual honesty.
I don’t ask people I’m debating vegan adjacent topics with if they eat meat
I didn’t ask if you were a vegan. I was asking why you’re repeating arguments I’ve rebutted a dozen times in lemmy. We’re deep enough that no random person is going to read this, so if you’re just arguing for veganism, it can stop now. I need to know if this is foundational to you before I waste time repeating stuff I’ve said plenty of times elsewhere, knowing you’ll be the only person to read it.
To be honest, I’ve dealt with the classic 3-leg gishgallop of this topic (environment, health, ethics) enough that I’m learning to disengage fast. I just need to be sure there’s value in the conversation before it just turns into that. That’s not about voir dire. It’s about Street Epistemology. If we’re discussing something non-foundational to you, the conversation is frankly meaningless.
And frankly, I had to ask the question because you are bringing up infamous objections (like “land use” in full ignorance or negligence of marginal land) that are as much a staple of the vegan-missionary movement as… well, anything I hear out of pro-life arguments.
I am a vegan but I had been arguing against livestock use from an environmental perspective for many years before becoming a vegan or even a reductionist
Interesting. Are you of the position that there is no world where even a single livestock animal being consumed is *ever environmentally better than that same animal NOT being consumed? Do you have well-conceived answers to the symbiosis problem and animal population problem? I mean, is it a goal for the Western World’s carbon impact to dip below pre-industrial levels, and do you genuinely think fossil fuel climate change can be circumvented by terraforming our methane footprint artificially?
Though after learning some ideas from utilitarianism related to statistics and commutative events as well as ideas from virtue ethics about modeling behavior and living heterodoxy my stance on boycotts or at least reduction in other areas has changed as well.
Peter Singer, I presume? This is actually a separate topic I have some experience discussing. I, too, am largely Utilitarian in my ethical foundation. But I do strongly reject his argument on many grounds. A rejection I don’t want to intermingle with an environmental discussion, if you get my point above about how easily these discussions can turn into a 3-legged stool of constantly rotating complex discussions.
I’ll avoid responding to your arguments on the main subject because it would pressure you to respond when you’ve made it clear that you don’t want to continue having the discussion based on who I am
Sorry to steal your decision to use court terminology, but I object. I simply don’t want to respond if you aren’t arguing for the environment because it matters to you. I need to understand whether you being convinced that consuming some animals is good for the environment would CYV on anything at all, or if you’d just lean on “but I think it’s wrong to consume animals”.
No, I’m a case study of “I actually grew up in a farming community, had enough vegan friends, and came up with my own conclusions” See, I see zealous vegans the same way I see dirty cops or post-1/6 Trump fans. Best-case is deluded, worst case is bad-faith.
One common trend is how much vegans will double- and triple-down on the idea that because they feel veganism is morally superior, it’s actually magically better in every other way, from health to the environment. When you discuss with someone whose “spoke” arguments are based upon what they consider a moral imperative, the truth doesn’t matter.
There’s something wrong with the health/environment/morals tripod of veganism. Everything that is real has pros and cons, and everything that doesn’t have cons is a fiction or exaggeration. The way these moral vegans come out swinging, their description of the vegan reality is indefensible. Eating vegetables is alleged to be tastier, better for the environment, healthier, easier, cheaper, faster, more ethical. Then come the contradictions… people, even experts, who eat meat as part of their healthy diet, farmers that keep livestock (despite having to PAY the government more in taxes, not getting subsidies) because it’s more sustainable for them. The list goes on, until you’re picking the battles based on the things the other side won’t immediately see as willful ignorance.
There’s no element of physical addiction to meat-eating. The supermajority of humans eat animal products because it is the right choice for them, for their health, based upon their morals, and in many cases for their sustainability.
So sorry if “knowing what I’m fucking talking about” is antivegan rhetoric. Have a nice day, I don’t expect a reply.
If you wanted to be honest, it would be “look, I know it’s going to fuck up your ecosystem and local sustainability, but animal lives are important to me” or “look, I know it’s harder to eat healthy and requires more research and supplements, but we can figure it out”. Those are positions I’d respect, if disagree with (because my ethical position, a fairly well-established one, considers eating meat to be perfectly fine)
You’re fine to believe all that, it just comes across as though you’re assuming everyone who eats meat has done the due diligence in finding out what happens behind closed doors. That’s not the case, and it’s too obvious you’re wrapped up in your own views to ever change based on what one guy tells you on the Internet. You have to do the work yourself, but only if you want to, which by now, you can’t.
Which is OK, people who care are putting in the work, and the world will be better for it.
I hope you find compassion one day, because I’m certainly not telling you why you should be.
You’re fine to believe all that, it just comes across as though you’re assuming everyone who eats meat has done the due diligence in finding out what happens behind closed doors
Not really. Actions speak. People who are choosing to eat meat are choosing to do so for some reason. If vegan food is really better than meat in every possible way, nobody would choose to eat meat for any reason.
Someone doesn’t need to be as educated on the meat/vegetable discussion as I am to make those decisions. Obviously I feel the same way about most vegans as you do about meat eaters. I’ve literally had unprepared vegans tell me that it’s better to let overpopulation wrack an area than to hunt and eat deer.
That’s not the case, and it’s too obvious you’re wrapped up in your own views to ever change based on what one guy tells you on the Internet
There comes a point where one is educated enough on an issue that it’s not easy to get them to flip-flop in the opposite direction of all the evidence and their conclusions. That is not the same as closedmindedness or zeal. But more importantly, the “ecology, health, ethics” gishgallop often used in vegan debate is ineffective at doing anything but guilt someone too ignorant to see it happening (which is the whole point I was making tot hat person, who was shifting the topic). Or did you mention ignorance above because it’s about converting those who don’t know better?
Which is OK, people who care are putting in the work, and the world will be better for it.
With all due respect, it’s bad faith to accuse everyone with the opposite view as yours of being uneducated. I have discovered myself to be more educated and prepared than most militant vegans, put in more work, and make the world a better place than they do. The reason is that ultimately, veganism stems from a singular ethical position… not unlike the “single issue voters” so common in modern Democracy. If all you’re seeing is “right and wrong”, you can convince yourself on every other issue. I like to also point out how many good-faith religious folks are convinced homosexuality is harmful because they think it is immoral. Unfortunately, that’s where I see vegans on these topics.
I hope you find compassion one day, because I’m certainly not telling you why you should be.
I think you are exemplifying this remark. You are so zealously and irrationally convinced of this “one and only right morality” that any human who would eat meat has no compassion. Ironically, I used to (and occasionally still do) feel the same way about vegans, since the only workable veganism involved agricultural anti-natalism. You note how above I said I’m more educated on topics than most vegans? The ones I’m not “more educated than” are the real problem here. They’re the ones that, eventually, will admit that their vision of utopia involves preventing farm animals from being born as a better outcome than those animals living a better-than-nature life that happens to end on a dinner plate. I cannot get over the fact that position is the one more lacking of compassion.
So I guess this is the part where I hope YOU find the compassion one day to overcome your squeamishness and do your part to hunt a deer, keep some chickens, or just go to a local butcher to help the entire ecosystem.
True, actions speak. So I do what I can. You probably don’t but that’s an assumption I admit.
You’ve got a lot of assumptions, but that’s OK. Like people choosing to eat meat. I don’t think that, as I say, you’re fine to believe the assumptions you make are fact. Even if they’re anecdotal. Like people don’t need to be educated. I disagree. And it’s proven by the rhetoric used in discussing PETA.
Your “most vegans” argument is moot when as a vegan, the discussions surrounding rewilding are far more common than your slice of a piece of what I’ve talked about with them. As I reinstate, it’s simply anti vegan rhetoric that you’re so on board with, your world view is rocked, and can’t see the forest from the trees.
For clarity, I don’t think you’re an idiot or uneducated, just misguided and have been misinformed for so long, your very core is against the idea, and you’re smart enough to justify why you feel like that.
At the end of the day, you are against veganism, that’s cool imo, but I do hope one day people like yourself can see the fight against oppression doesn’t stop at humans.
True, actions speak. So I do what I can. You probably don’t but that’s an assumption I admit
And this right here is the problem. But you know that and I’m not sure you care.
You’ve got a lot of assumptions, but that’s OK
I’m not the one judging the supermajority of people as “unworthy” and “uneducated”. I make very few assumptions, and even fewer judgements. Look in the mirror.
Even if they’re anecdotal. Like people don’t need to be educated. I disagree.
People don’t need to be propagandized. I’m all about education. I encourage education. For most problems, education is the way out. Listening to someone take their morals and convince you of some hokey pseudo-scientific claim of fact is not education.
As I reinstate, it’s simply anti vegan rhetoric that you’re so on board with
Would you listen to yourself? If someone says something that doesn’t match this clearly fictional view about a meatless-utopia is “rhetoric”. Like I’m reading some “how to screw with perfect people, by Mr. Satan” pamphlets? How about this counter. The vegan side simply doesn’t hold water. Period. That’s it. My so-called rhetoric is just “calling bullshit”.
For clarity, I don’t think you’re an idiot or uneducated, just misguided and have been misinformed for so long, your very core is against the idea, and you’re smart enough to justify why you feel like that.
Why? Because I disagree with vegans? All I see is trollish behavior and downvotes from people who demonstrably show lack of knowledge. When I grew up, my friends were becoming environmental engineers and farmers, and my family struggles have made me acutely aware of the complex nutritional questions that exist. I’m “misinformed” because I’ve been surrounded by experts in the various fields. But I suppose you would tell a PhD in nutrition that they’re misinformed on the health side if they don’t agree with you, and would tell a PhD in Environmental Engineering the same. I bet you would tell a small-time farmer that they’re misinformed about how their negative-margin milk cow (since the strike price of milk is down) is still necessary because it’s the only way their plant crops are profitable.
We’re alllll just misinformed. But the vegans, oh boy, just like the Christians, those vegans know the right of it. And they’ll save my soul if I just let them.
At the end of the day, you are against veganism
Correction. I’m against preachy, militant, veganism. More specifically, I’m against all proselytization, but that from veganism is the worst I’ve seen of late. I have vegans in my family, and I have no problem with them.
but I do hope one day people like yourself can see the fight against oppression doesn’t stop at humans
I already don’t. While you’re fighting to get everyone to stop eating meat, I do my part to fight against Big Ag (meat and plant). I support free range laws that are actually animals getting to live their best lives. I’m against anti-natalism (like PETA and anti-farm initiatives) because that is oppression, too. I fight against preachy vegans because they are oppressing animals in their own way.
Whatever beef… you have with veganism, I don’t need to combat you. There are people that do know the middle way, and live it as much as possible, without needing to be taught. And there are people who will find it and learn from it. You may be one of them, but the energy you put into this back and forth isn’t worth the time, honestly.
You should REALLY write a book, because there is nothing but anguish on your part to gain while messaging me, just as I realised there was nothing more to say 3 weeks ago. It’s quite a shame you haven’t noticed I checked out a while ago upon catching your anecdotal rhetoric, what if I just don’t believe you, you’ve given no evidence to support your claims, and they’re BOLD claims.
I’ve felt no need to explain myself, and if you feel morally inferior, that’s on you. I’m not morally superior, but I strive to be better than I was. There’s the difference.
I wish you the best in your life, even while contributing to unnecessary suffering while using a fantastic brain to justify it.
Things like Impossible Burgers, absolutely. I tried one once and it was so much like an actual meat burger it grossed me out. But I will make a seitan corned beef to put in a Reuben sandwich just because it’s an awesome sandwich.
Hmm I was 27 years a meat eater, advocating for meat consumption in the face of a vegan mate. Saying thi gs like “we need a little bit of meat in our diets…they’re killed humanely…etc”
Took me one moment of realisation, then I dunno, I just tried, not even that hard, vegan 7 years now.
I can see that the transitional foods are a good stepping stone, but imo, the second you see inside the animal agriculture industry without any blinders on, you’ll choose to act within your life, if you have the compassion/empathy to.
If someone sees the reality of what goes on behind closed doors and continues to consume meat in much the same way, it says more about that persons internal morality than anything else.
I’m vegetarian. Western food is so focused on meat that people often have no idea how to make a meal that doesn’t contain it. My mother once asked me how to make a vegetarian version of Chicken Parmesan. So keep the tomato sauce, cheese, and spices, but swap out the chicken with pasta. Congrats you’ve made vegetarian Chicken Parmesan. I like to call it Spaghetti.
and people get so pissy about like ‘where is muh serving of protein??’ like just because you saw an infograph as a child doesn’t mean you have to have a hunk of a living creature every meal
You know what has protein? Every whole plant food. You don’t need a dedicated part of a meal that is high in protein when the whole meal contains protein.
Different plants have different macros. Ofc there are plants with high macros but don’t go around spouting carrots and fruit are a balanced diet. You need beans, legumes, nuts, etc.
There’s nothing childish about paying attention to macros. If you’ve ever spent time doing any programmed exercising that includes making linear progress, you know the difference protein can make. And it’s hard to achieve even when you’re not extremely limited in ingredients.
I’m not knocking vegan or vegetarian diets. Just saying it’s not at all easy, and that protein matters a lot.
Also most vegetarian Indian food is absolutely loaded with butter/ghee. It’s not “healthy.”
I think the poverty and lack of access to healthcare in some areas might be a bigger drag on life expectancy than cooking with butter, especially when a fair number of Italian dishes also include butter.
I think that speaks to OP’s point: instead of thinking in terms of trying to replicate the meat dish without meat, think in terms of making a vegetable dish that satisfies the same mood.
It’s just funny that someone was looking for a meatless chicken parm because the original recipe was eggplant parm, just someone thought it would be better with meat.
And there’s a lot of alternatives for many different prices. I remember how people used to berate me for being vegetarian while growing up, telling me I’d die and whatnot.
At least in my own bubble, many did switch to Mastodon. Those that didn’t are looking at other options, because the whole federation idea and things like home instances didn’t appeal to them or were simply too complicated (they want a service that at least hides its decentralized nature).
There are a ton of reasons not to like it and they’re evident on Lemmy pretty notably, let alone other platforms. The entire idea of being able to defederate and federate at will is a big feature of these platforms but they’re also the part that people like the least. If the server you’re on defederates from another server you like, you have no choice but to start all the way from the beginning if you need to choose another instance to join. At the same time, each instance gets its own version of every single community. If you join an instance that federates with lots of other instances, you’re very likely to see the exact same posts multiple times since each community is completely unique and separate (again, a feature for some, a boon for others).
Federation is great for a few reasons and really horrible for others. It’s not the single answer that works for everyone.
One thing genuinely confusing is having people reply to a comment I made from a federated instance, and when I try to reply to their comment, I get taken to the reply in the context of the lemmy instance they commented in, not the one I commented in. For example, if I’m on Beehaw and someone from lemmy.ca replies to my comment, and I want to respond to them, what I’ll typically do is click on the button below the comment that shows the context of the conversation, because I comment a lot and don’t always know what comment I made that someone is replying to. When I do that, it takes me to lemmy.ca, which I can’t reply from, because I’m not on lemmy.ca. This is confusing, because this routine thing pulls you into other parts of the fediverse that your reply might exist in, and which other people can see, but you can’t comment on that instance because you don’t have an account there. But if you go back to your own instance and find your comment through your profile, you can navigate to a reply someone from another instance made and reply to them as long as you’re still on your instance. This is both cumbersome and, to a new user, terribly disorienting.
Yeah, if you don’t like it just create and account on a generic big one that let’s you access most content and just go with it. Act as if centralized. People like to create problems for no reason. If other people care about choice and the tech behind it and the new possibilities allowed, let them be happy for it.
It’s literally like email. Most people just have a gmail one and that’s most common. Others care about specific services, prices, choice, privacy features, etc, and the trch allows people to make that choice without compromising the primary purpose which is connecting people.
Everyone should have a federated account just like everyone has a email account for most things that require it. More and more places are starting to have proper integration for example commenting on blogs instead of the other stupid common alternative (discourse or wtv is the name I don’t remember).
From an average outsider perspective is hard to know what is “the big one” in a federated system. And i think links online are what break federated systems. If you get linked to some content from another instance than your own. Then you’ve got do deal with the url bar yourself in a specific way that is never well documented (only passed around via word of mouth) so you can log in and interact with said content. A baked in “instance switch” at the top of such services that would redirect you to the same content on another instance would be the best solution but I’ve not seen anything like that yet.
There are browser extensions that make sure any link opens in the user home instance. And I think there were recent improvements recently to improve the UX in those cases.
There’s always the true known universal way which is get the url and past it in the search box of the home instance. If installing a browser extension is too much for most users.
Because it doesn’t come with instructions and there’s a lot of “buts”. For example, it took me a while to understand that, for example, I can’t log in “Mastodon.world” with my “Mastodon.social” account, I had to go to “Mastodon.social” to log in and THEN I can access to the content in “Mastodon.social”. Also, there’s the problem of instances blocking other instances. I would be pretty salty if I couldn’t access an account I followed, because the admins of the instance in which the account is hosted, decided to block the instance in which my account is in. That’s why the mayority of users go to the biggest instance (Lemmy.world and Mastodon.social for example), because instances blocking the biggest instance is unlikely to happen (you would block a lot of potencial users and therefore, diminished attractiveness of your instance). But everyone doing that defeats the whole point of federalization. Also, there’s the problem of defederalizing of instances. Also, the problem of safety, privacy and security. For example, a massive security fault was recently discovered in Mastodon and a server was raised by the police and all of it’s data captured by the police. In simple words, the fediverse is not the panacea it was sold like, the kinks are not ironed out.
So… what if a news article links to a toot or Lemmy post? They’re most likely to link to the instance that the post was submitted from, and most people aren’t going to understand that they have to go search for the post from their home instance if they want to like, vote, reply, or retoot. Email made sense to people because it is basically all direct messaging, but public linking from articles and such is going to be difficult.
And what is when X decides to ban an account you are interested in? You can’t do anything against it. In your mastodon you could still read it on that instance. Or maybe there is a client where you can add two accounts and show content of both? And do you think X or Bluesky does not cooperate with law enforcement and gives data if the US government wants it?
Facebook users typically skew older, so people that are more likely to have established careers, larger spaces and yards to work on. I feel like a lot of Redditors and Lemmings are young and live with parents or in apartments, and are thus less likely to have a yard to care for.
That being said, anyone with a deck or porch can pot a plant or two to try and help local pollinators.
There are LGBTQ movies from China so this makes no sense. One of my favorites is Lan Yu (藍宇) from 2001. Most of the characters are gay men and the plot is even critical of how the army handled the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident.
Did y’all learn about what China is like from Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons or what
Since this work contained positive depictions of gay men, explicit (by Chinese standards) gay sex scenes, and resurrected the ghost of Tiananmen Square, at the time, no mainland Chinese publisher would have published it, nor would the author be safe from government reprisals. Hence, its anonymous publication on the Internet.
Try fixing that section, which is entirely speculation, and see how quickly it gets reverted and by whom. You’ll quickly run into either a power user with reactionary politics that should’ve been banned ages ago per Wikipedia’s own policies or a series of FirstWordLastWord962578 accounts making reversions with no explanation.
The latter is what lazy government behavior looks like. The former is the larger social structures built around the acceptability and empowerments of reactionary thought and narratives that is inherently anticommunist.
But really, go do it. Remove the section as speculation and show/tell us what happens.
You decided to go out on a limb to defend the Chinese government, make a false implication about it, and when you’re called on it, your answer is “Nothing would ever satisfy you people”.
What did you expect when you lied?
Do you concede the below statement that you replied to? I’ll re-paste it to confirm:
Since this work contained positive depictions of gay men, explicit (by Chinese standards) gay sex scenes, and resurrected the ghost of Tiananmen Square, at the time, no mainland Chinese publisher would have published it, nor would the author be safe from government reprisals. Hence, its anonymous publication on the Internet.
The wiki explains that most of the crew from this movie is from mainland China, however it was made by a Hong Kong director and was filmed without permission from the government.
It explicitly states
at the time, no mainland Chinese publisher would have published it, nor would the author be safe from government reprisals. Hence, its anonymous publication on the Internet.
The film did had a brief showing run in December 2001, at Peking University, where interest by Chinese citizens was quite high, selling out the showings.
The Festival originated from Peking University, and is considered to be “the only community-based non-governmental film festival in China with a special focus on gender and sexuality”
Didnt say it was a government event. Said the governemnt would implicitly have had to allowed it to happen, or it wouldn’t have. Or at least, thats what people who think the Chinese government is an all powerful oppressive force would say. Which is my point.
ETA: Like the fact that a festival like that exists AT ALL, in the nation’s capital, proves that the government isnt an evil opressive anti-queer regime that people paint it as.
The movie was filmed without permission, what makes you think it couldn’t have been shown without permission?
Good Chinese folk can find ways around unjust restrictions just like any other country in the world. The first "festival"was held in a library in the University, probably not the type of festival you are imagining.
They didn’t get explicit permission, but they also didnt get shut down.
Also, the “filmed without permission” is weird phrasing anyway. Does every indy movie in other countries get explicit permission from the government to be filmed? A Wiki article for, say, an Australian indy movie about queer people that covers Australian oppression of the indigenous wouldn’t go out of its way to mention “the government didn’t give permission for it to be filmed” because why would it? The government doesn’t need to approve such project. Including the “government didnt give permission” feels like editorializing to make things sound more sinister then they are.
I love how entitled you feel with the white man’s burden, representing all of rest of the world, even though you paleskins are only 12% of the world’s population and have suppressed and looted the rest of the world for centuries. Consider that when white privilege dies, you people will start to become extinct, as is already happening in USA…
What exactly did any of his reply have to do with white people? Or are you defending the persecution of gay people and blaming white people for homosexuality?
Parent comment literally explains that LGBT+ is not persecuted in China. Above reply starts with “dear tankie fuck yourself with broken glass”, even going on to talk on behalf of “rest of the world”, that aligns with China instead of Anglosphere.
He is the whitey perpetrating Sinophobia, which I point out as being typical white person nonsense. And all of you repliers are the defenders of anti-China bigotry.
Parent comment literally explains that LGBT+ is not persecuted in China.
Dishonestly, and they were called on it. Yes. With facts directly related to the movie in question.
Above reply starts with “dear tankie fuck yourself with broken glass”,
While I’ve had some bad run-ins with tankies, that’s more extreme than I would normally have said myself… But
even going on to talk on behalf of “rest of the world”, that aligns with China instead of Anglosphere.
So you are defining “white” as anyone of every ethnicity that isn’t Chinese AND living in China? Seems an odd way to put that word.
He is the whitey perpetrating Sinophobia
The first racist comment in this thread… and it came from you. Do you just hate everyone who isn’t Chinese?
which I point out as being typical white person nonsense
Again. I know Chinese expats who feel this way about China, and black- and brown-skinned people who agree. Are they all “white” by your definition?
And all of you repliers are the defenders of anti-China bigotry.
Ahh yes. Respond by classifying everyone as “you people”. Would you put “you people” up against the wall? How about our children? Would you put a toddler up against the wall? Tell me, do you think everyone who isn’t Chinese or pro-China is less than human and have an opinion that doesn’t matter? That’s about 80% of the world.
Oh, our ancestors were fucking awful humans, and our current ruling class is even worse, but don’t lump us common folk in with them, ya fuckin’ racist.
::sigh:: Again, you’re making it about race, when we hate the rich assholes who did and do that shit just as much as you do. So yeah, that is racism. Ya damn fool.
Yeah, okay buddy. Not like there aren’t already three other comments here calling that initial comment as the bullshit that it is.
Anyone ever told you that you have the reading comprehension of a carrot? Of course, that assumes you actually care about what you’re reading, rather than just blindly supporting totalitarianism and espousing racially-motivated attacks.
Have they maybe said that you’re just genuinely fucking insane? I know that everyone is already telling you how racist you are, so I don’t have to ask that one.
Oh, and btw, if you’re using easily disproven half-truths to (durr this movie even talks about Tiananmen Square!!) to try and lessen the reality of such heinous events, you can fuck yourself with broken glass, regardless of your skin color, you racist prick.
Edit: Oh, you’re that Tankie piece of shit mod from the tech board that’s been recorded deleting everything you can that so much as implies China has ever done anything wrong! People like you don’t deserve even the smallest shadow of power, you fucking scumbag, and I hope your racist rant comes back to bite you.
Edit: Oh, you’re that Tankie piece of shit mod from the tech board that’s been recorded deleting everything you can that so much as implies China has ever done anything wrong!
Can you provide proof I have deleted comments? I will report you to admins if you fail to prove these allegations. Nobody falsely accuses me on my moderation of boards and rooms.
I mean yeah I wish representation were better. Too many regional representatives are boomers stuck in the past. I was in Shenzhen in 2019 though and met a bunch of cool queer folks though.
Americans call the Boston massacre and only 6 people died, just saying that on the level of supposedly horrific state violence that should never be forgotten, so you have any idea how many massacres of the same and larger scale the United States has perpetrated just in the last 30 years?
According to the Chinese Communist Party around 200-300 civilians died, and several thousands were injured. According to most other agencies, the numbers are around 10 times higher, with 1000 to 3000 dead. Either way, it’s a very high number of dead.
Or is this not a massacre? By the way, two wrongs don’t make a right
I do care about wrongdoings of any country. The issues with police violence, racial discrimination and gun violence in the US are not a secret. You are not the first one talking about that. Everyone in the west talks about that, it’s now the first thing most people think of when talking about the US in the west.
That being said, I don’t understand why, when anyone even tries to say “China bad” the answer is always “but America is also bad”. Why does that make it right?
because we’re in a contrived thread that twists over backwards to shit on china, not a thread about the legitimate issues with china. Its frustrating to see, even when I agree that china is pretty bad in a lot of ways, seeing that drumbeat of “enemy state bad” as an army of mindless brainwashed western redditors marches by throwing out half truths and outright lies (its almost never real criticisms, like with north korea its just miles long lists of shit westerners were taught to think like its illegal to not have the kim haircut) it just makes my head pop
What? I was just watching a show the other day with a trans hostess on Chinese national TV. Her name is Jin Xing and she’s very well known and her show draws 100 million viewers regularly
Want to feel sadder? Humanity has existed on Earth in its current form for about 200,000 years.
We’ve only had civilization for about 10,000.
That means humans spent about 180,000 years throwing rocks, sticks, and presumably feces at each other in the dirt before we entertained the idea of working together for mutual benefit. With all of our present senses and capacities at our disposal.
Just incase anyone ever wonders why it’s so difficult for humanity to do what’s best for itself. We only do what’s in our best interests after we’ve fully exhausted all the bad options several times over.
that’s not really true. 10,000 years ago is about when we developed agriculture, stopped roaming as much, and started writing in some form that could survive the millennia, but we’ve been living and working together since long before we were ever recognizably human.
In addition, we keep pushing key invention dates back further and further as we discover more archaeological evidence. It’s quite possible we were doing human things long before we think we did.
This is another thing that seems really weird to me. The explosion of technological development in the last 300 years or so compared to the preceding several thousand is pretty wild.
Pre-agrarian humans had more in common with beasts than with us. We were basically just another migratory animal subject to the migration patterns of our prey and seasonal growth. We have had the misfortune to see what feral humans who survived in isolation behave like.
The larger scale cooperation required for agriculture is when we began to diminish behaving as such.
This is the dumbest “im so smart and edgy” comment I’ve ever seen. what we call a feral human today haa zero relation to life in pre-agrarian societies, also the idea that people …going to places were food will be makes them mindless zombies is so ridiculous thatI don’t even know where to start
20 minutes of looking into archeological sites will show you how complex and cooperative non-agrarian society’s were (I’m saying non here instead of pre because there are many instances of societies developing agriculture and then moving away from it due to various social/environmental factors)
Yeah. People seem to forget that the people in our past are exactly the same as us. They had fun, loved each other, got upset, got happy, worked together. They just didn’t have the advancements we have. Just because they went where food was doesn’t make them any less human. What else were they gonna do? Starve? They needed to eat, and they didn’t know of any alternative reliable way of getting food besides hunting since they didn’t figure out farming yet.
. 10,000 years ago is about when we developed agriculture, stopped roaming as much, and started writing in some form that could survive the millennia
This is bias towards a specific type of societal structure.
Lots of peoples with rich, complex and fascinating cultures continued to live successful nomadic lives for centuries past the introduction of agriculture.
We never stopped throwing feces and I guarantee we were more close to each other in prehistory than we are now. We’ve been waging war for as long as we could record it.
I recently had a pretty crappy experience at a restaurant for a few reasons, the last being their tipping system. You won’t believe how they asked me to tip, it was mad.
There was no menu, I had to Google their name and find their website (which was some obscure subdomain on some obscure food payment site).
Their site didn’t work in Chrome (on any of the phones we had with us), luckily I had a backup browser installed that worked.
I had to order and pay on my phone, unable to use the cash I had budgeted and brought with me for the meal.
It asked me how much I would like to tip, but this is paying DURING MY ORDER, when I had not yet received any service or food. I chose not to tip.
Tipping, here in the UK, is only something you do when you were very happy with the service (and have the extra cash you don’t mind giving away as charity, basically). Our waiters, as with every worker in the country, are paid a real wage that isn’t designed to be subsidised by begging.
So, being asked to tip for the good service BEFORE receiving the service? That’s INSANE.
Due to the various ridiculous issues we had just trying to order food and pay for it, and the audacity of being asked to tip that way, I will not be going back there again.
What’s wrong with the tried and true system of a waiter taking your order, you eat, they take your payment at the table either with a normal wireless chip-and-pin machine or by cash, and then you leave? It’s simple, easy, smooth and fast 🤦♀️
Yeah, that tipping before service idea has to be costing business. There are several places I avoid because they request tip before service. My local Foxtail coffee shop is one of those places, and the lowest tip option is 15%. On the 3 times I have tipped, they still gave me subpar service. Like, they didn’t even do the bare minimum, let alone anything exceptional.
I was assuming that they would have a commitment to earning that tip because of personal integrity and that they would expect to receive more tips in the future when I return.
I understand where you are coming from, but haven’t there been locales in the past where you tipped before service to let your server know you are magnanimous?
I could be wrong, but I swear I read this in a European travel guide from the late 90s.
I wish Amazon didn’t treat their employees so shittily. But I really don’t want to find out which of the stores around me have the thing I want and go there by bus. Even without prime the tickets are more expensive than shipping.
Yeah, and shopping locally is so hit-and-miss. Some smaller stores are great, but there are also plenty that seem to act like serving you is such a fucking inconvenience. Oh I’m sorry you have to get off your phone because I want to buy something. You have to make change from £10? Sorry it’s inconveniencing you that I have to bring fucking cash just because you want to dodge some tax by not taking cards.
Yeah that’s a big thing for me. I hate having to check out 2-3 local stores to find out they don’t have the product I want. A lot of small businesses have such shitty online presence.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.