It's a first world hill to die on, and many of the people who espouse veganism are only able to do so because of their own privilege.
It's a combination of smugness and "I'm better than you" and the lack of awareness that everyone had and continues to benefit from a world that has always used animal products. The Industrial Revolution basically ran on steam engines and leather belts, for example.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that using fewer animal products and eating less meat is a good idea. I also recognize that feeding the world's growing population is probably going to involve insects being more widely used as a food source.
Maybe they mean privilege wrt education? As i understand it, it takes a non-zero amount of knowledge about nutrition to substitute meat completely and not be deficient in something. But I'm a life-long omnivore so I may be wrong
There's also the privilege of living in a location where vegan alternatives are readily and frequently available, vast swaths of the US are in what's known as "food deserts", locations where "residents’ access to affordable, healthy food options (especially fresh fruits and vegetables) is restricted or nonexistent due to the absence of grocery stores within convenient traveling distance" (https://foodispower.org/access-health/food-deserts/) these locations also tend to have high obesity or diabetes rates due to the fact that the only food easily and cheaply available is high in sugar. Add in things like the increased price for even simple vegan foods (like rice and beans) and you might be starting to see the picture, as much as some people would LIKE to be vegan it is literally not possible for them without either taking on substantial additional costs or completely upending their life.
A lot of the reason people who are otherwise pro-vegan (like myself) tend to dislike online vegans is that they will, consistently and smugly, while in a location and economic position where its easier to get vegan options, berate people for eating animal products without ever considering the possibility that its MUCH harder to get non-animal product based foods in certain areas
A lot of people online will also point to food deserts in other parts of the country as a reason they, living within 20 minutes of 5 different grocery stores, personally won't make any changes.
Food deserts aren't just places where there aren't grocery stores, they also include places where there are abundant stores but fruits, veggies, and other vegan or healthy options cost drastically more, for example, there are parts of New York City considered to be food deserts because all the healthy options are too expensive for someone on a low income to reliably afford, forcing them to go for unhealthy, but cheaper options. This is something that, to the credit of whoever is in charge of the NYC health department, the city has been working on solving, doing things such as incentivizing "Green Carts", food carts with affordable healthy options like vegetables and fruits.
Also consider, you don't know too much about that person's life, maybe they live in a non-food desert location but have to travel frequently via car through food deserts, maybe they have to move a food desert in the future, maybe they have a dietary restriction preventing them from accessing several of those healthy vegan options, so they have to supplement their diet by using animal products.
Also, in my experience, most 'anti-vegans' tend to have no idea what a food desert is, the normal excuse is nutrients or iron intake, most of the non-vegans I've talked to that even know about food deserts have either tried to go vegan and found it too hard to do while also keeping up with their health and finances or work in an industry directly combating food deserts, just something to consider.
Those aren't the vegans that most people are talking about. Being poor and having to eat vegan is different from being vegan because you want to stand out from everyone else with your vegan black bean soy burger with vegan cheese on a vegan sprouted whole wheat bun. If you can afford the overpriced "vegan" versions of typically non-vegan foods, and complain about your struggles being vegan, that's privilege.
When you're poor, you don't advertise the fact that you're eating vegan. You just make rice and beans because it's the absolute cheapest food available. You'll take meat and non-vegan when it's available. But at the very least, you'll survive on rice and beans. It's generally not something that people are proud of.
You just make rice and beans because it's the absolute cheapest food available. You'll take meat and non-vegan when it's available. But at the very least, you'll survive on rice and beans.
This. When I was poor af and regularly using the food bank they'd give venison periodically, and that was my favorite part of the boxes. That and this rice and seasoning meals went together amazingly and would last me like a week of meals.
You're making a big assumption here by saying that all vegans are buying vegan substitutes like Beyond Burgers. And I mean very big, since all the vegans I know don't eat that stuff or buy it occasionally as a treat, or at a restaurant. Most of my meals are simple with rice, noodles, curry paste, and some vegetables. They can even be frozen or canned to reduce preparation time.
The implication is that this is common. I don't think even one vegan is vegan just to show off some kind of privelege. This is just a childish and unrealistic caricature that does not exist in reality.
I didn't say that. I said if you're buying the vegan substitutes and advertising that fact, that makes you privileged. I've seen it many times. There are even some in this post. People that eat vegan because they have limited choices don't advertise it. People that want to feel superior over others will express how much of a vegan they are.
People aren't vegan through limited choice. It's a conscious decision. You might eat a plant-based diet because you can't afford meat, but that doesn't make you the same as someone who is choosing not to eat meat on purpose. You're comparing someone who wants to be vegan with someone who doesn't and saying one is superior/less annoying. They're two different people.
Congratulations, you're finally getting it. They are two different people. There are people that eat vegan because they have no choice. Those people are not privileged. There are people that call themselves vegan and make sure everyone knows they are vegan. Those are the vegans the original comment was talking about, which someone took offense to. That's why I pointed out the difference.
It took a little effort, but at least you got there.
Am I privileged if I can afford to eat Beyond Burgers every night but I eat rice and beans instead? What if I can't afford those things, still eat rice and beans, but I tell people I'm vegan to avoid awkward social interactions? You're making up a caricature of vegans in your head, comparing them to poor people who happen to not be able to afford meat, and then saying the latter is somehow a better person.
The option you presented is a poor non-vegan person vs. a wealthier vegan person. There are people in between these two things.
What if I can’t afford those things, still eat rice and beans, but I tell people I’m vegan to avoid awkward social interactions?
But would you? Would you really turn down free food simply because you're vegan? Would you really tell people you're vegan to avoid an "awkward social interaction" when offered free food? If so, that makes you privileged. Being able to pick and choose food makes you privileged, whether it's vegan or not. That's the difference.
Everyone is more privileged than someone. It's obviously more privileged to be able to eat fresh vegetables vs. people having to eat bark in occupied countries. But most serious vegans will also tell you that if you're on a desert island and your only way to survive is to kill and eat a pig (as ridiculous as the scenario is), you should do it, because we acknowledge self-preservation is real and valid.
Wow...so you've been so poor that you can only afford rice and beans, and you've been offered free food that you turned down because it wasn't vegan? Really? See, that's the kind of smugness OP was talking about. You put your veganism above securing food, and you're proud of it. You willingly sacrificed your self-preservation for your principles. And now you're advertising it.
You literally asked me the question and are now chastising me for my answer. This is the "how do you know someone is vegan" joke. I pointed out self-preservation to point out that vegans don't go around attacking poor people and don't expect people to keep their principles in those situations. I made a choice I don't expect other people to make. I point my criticisms at the people I know in real life who shop at the exact same stores I do and make similar amounts of money, but still use poor people as an excuse not to change their own behavior.
You literally asked me the question and are now chastising me for my answer.
Yes, because you claim to be poor yet still call being vegan a lifestyle choice. And you chastise others in your position for not making that choice. Poor people don't get to make those choices. Poor people do whatever it takes to survive. Poor people live on that desert island every single day and have to make difficult decisions. Poor take whatever they can get and are greatful for it. Poor people don't have the privilege to turn down food.
Maybe begin to recognize your own privilege before telling other people what to do.
I think you are a deeply unserious person who idolizes poverty by saying vegans making the choice are bad and people forced into are good. I also think, based on this conversation, that you hold no strong convictions that can't be shaken out of you with a little bit of hardship and can't contextualize any amount of self-sacrifice because of your obsession with veganism being a privileged position. I already told you that people who have no other option are not a target of criticism, but people like you who who use others as a scapegoat certainly are. I'm blocking you now though because this is going nowhere.
I pointed out self-preservation to point out that vegans don’t go around attacking poor people and don’t expect people to keep their principles in those situations. I made a choice I don’t expect other people to make.
Then literally the very next sentence, you contradict yourself.
I point my criticisms at the people I know in real life who shop at the exact same stores I do and make similar amounts of money, but still use poor people as an excuse not to change their own behavior.
You claim to be poor, claim to not attack people who are poor, then chastise people who are poor for not making the same choices that you do. You are a hypocrite. Have a nice day.
Vegan: no animal products. No butter, no eggs, having to be well-informed (as others have stated) and know about the content of every bit of everything you buy, and making choices on that basis instead of on cost.
Even then, how many of the products you buy and use every day have depended on animal products for their manufacture? I'm willing to bet that a fair amount of human labor consumes and uses animal products to sustain themselves, even if there are no animal products in the thing you're buying. I don't think it's fair to compartmentalize that away from purchasing decisions. The people who put your flat pack MDF furniture in a box, did they have a chicken sandwich on their lunch break? The people who are paving the roads and maintain the rails on which the products you ultimately buy, are they wearing leather boots?
Everyone depends, to some degree or another, on the use of animal products, either as food or for some other purpose. Even vegans.
Edit: Like I said above, reducing dependence on animal products is probably a good idea, but people who believe they have eliminated their dependence on animal products are patting themselves on the back for something they simply cannot accomplish.
Being Vegan is a choice for yourself so it's a fallacy to argue that others are not Vegan, and saying it doesn't help to try to make a difference unless everybody does it is also a fallacy.
So the argument is based on no less than 2 obvious fallacies. This should be pretty obvious, so question is if you are just a troll?
I'll say that this reaction does nothing to make me think you are approaching this with any objectivity.
The argument, to me, seems to be that it's impossible in the modern world as things stand to actually totally avoid animal products. That would seem like an issue that Veganism should be concerned with.
I see your point, I think, about it being an individual choice. But though I have heard of things like vegan shoes, I can see how saying those are vegan when you may not control all the inputs seems problematic.
Regardless, your response was so unpleasant that I don't think I'm much interested in continuing.
Yeah no reason to go to the moon if we can't visit other planets yet. That's the kind of logic you are arguing.
The vegan argument is to not contribute to animal suffering, you can't control what other people do.
And avoiding suffering doesn't help because there will still be suffering is about as stupid as it gets.
Because its not within any one vegans control whether a random factory worker has chicken for lunch. If there were businesses that only hired vegans and sold vegan products (there are, but very few), then vegans would obviously be buying things from there instead. If someone who isn't vegan themselves uses this impossible purity test as an excuse not to make changes themselves, then they weren't genuine about making any attempt in the first place.
Why is it reasonable to expect me to have any control over what a factory worker is eating? There are entirely vegan businesses, but its setting up a ridiculous goal post to claim vegans are somehow hypocritical by not having a 100% vegan production chain as a consumer, which is literally impossible in the current world. If we could, we absolutely would. But if you want to argue that vegans should handcraft and grow literally everything they use as an excuse not make any changes yourself, I don't know what to say.
Veganism is not about completely eliminating every use of animal products no matter what. It's about reducing animal suffering and their exploitation as long as it's possible and practicable.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
The privilege is being able to choose to eat that way out of a sense of morality or fashion rather for the reason that it's literally all there is to eat. The privilege is being able to turn your nose up at perfectly edible food for no other reason than that it's got a bit of egg, honey, or butter in it without having to worry about starving to death. The privilege is also having access to such an abundance and variety of food that you can maintain a vegan diet year round and not have to fear that you won't meet all the calorie, protein, and vitamin requirements you need to stay alive and healthy while much of the world is in a constant struggle to scrape together enough calories of any kind to stay alive.
that's great, but most vegans you speak to will tell you that we aren't telling the people who lack the privilege we have to go vegan. we're asking our neighbors, our bosses, our friends - people in similar if not the very same life circumstances as us - to walk a couple aisles over from where they buy the meat in the grocery store and buy some beans instead.
people love to bring up the privilege thing, but i would argue that it is entirely irrelevant. the entire point of veganism is to do what is reasonably possible and practicable. not to tell people who don't have the privilege to be so discerning about their diet that they are going to hell or something.
Well, that's getting into the difference between veganism and vegetarianism.
That aside, although meat is expensive from a cost and input perspective, it is a very efficient and dense source of calories and protein.
Outside of a first world or industrial agricultural setting, they also have the advantage of being able to convert food sources humans cannot eat into one we can, while to a great degree being able to tend to themselves.
Goats, sheep and chickens can have large numbers managed by a few children with sticks, and also produce non-vegan animal byproducts which can be sold for cash.
This is also before hunting is considered.
While vegetarianism and veganism can be practiced outside of a first world context, and indeed have been for thousands of years, they do come with sacrifices that are significantly easier to make with more money or in a post agricultural region.
Eschewing cheese, eggs and honey is not a difficult thing to do for me if I wanted, but there are places where that's just leaving good food uneaten, or money unearned.
That's I believe what's being referred to when it's called a privilege.
Except meat is the least efficient protein source. You need land to grow animal feed, which largely could be used to grow crops to feed humans. You put in like 100 calories to get 1 calorie out.
Not all land is suitable for crop cultivation, which was the point I was making. In subsistence or low tech farming areas, animals forage on land unsuitable for crop production and eat food unsuitable for human consumption. They're not eating feed, they're eating wild weeds and grass we can't. They're eating insects, miscellaneous seeds, small plants and whatever they find.
Do you think that if you're farming to have enough food to feed your family and maybe some leftovers to sell, that you're going to choose to produce something markedly inefficient in comparison to other options?
Subsistence farmers today aren't stupid. They're not wasting 90% of their food because they want a hamburger. They raise goats and chickens because they feed themselves and you let your kid who's too young to do heavy work follow them with a stick to keep them from wandering off. They raise cattle and donkeys because they can forage, and what they can't forage is more than made up for by using them to work the land or as beasts of burden.
There's a reason we domesticated animals. We didn't just immediately start giving them feed corn and locking them in cages.
It's a privilege to be able to ignore a readily available source of food.
It's a privilege to live in a society where we set aside land to grow huge amounts of food to feed our food.
It's a privilege to not have to know specifically where your food is coming from.
It's kind of ignorant to think that people who don't have those privileges must be foolish enough to choose what you think is an inefficient option, and to not consider why they would make that choice.
Found it interesting to discover that the money here in the UK is made from animal parts - I think certain notes contain tallow? Definitely seems like it is impossible to fully exclude animal products from your daily life unless you go off the grid and try to be an entirely self sufficient vegan homesteader, which, while extremely difficult and likely dangerous is still an option open to those preaching a vegan lifestyle. Vegans often do not actually practise their philosophy as far as is practical and possible, they all draw the line somewhere so far as how willing they are to sacrifice their comfort and convenience. Like there are no fully vegan cars - the glue is animal based, even if you opt out of a leather interior. Public transport or taking a job you can walk to are alternatives in the UK if you actually cared about benefitting from animals as little as possible, but few vegans will make sacrifices which are actually inconvenient once you get down to the nitty gritty
Imo being a vegan so far as diet and basic lifestyle changes goes is fairly easy for some people (they don't really like meat to begin with, know how to cook and enjoy it, no real health issues, disposable income) but the real test of how much they actually believe in these ideas is in if they consistently give up more niche forms of animal exploitation wherever they can
I think "the money is made from animal parts and there are no fully vegan cars so you're arbitrarily picking and choosing when to be vegan" misses the point of ideological veganism. I'm not a vegan, but I believe the goal for ideological vegans (in contrast with those who are vegan for medical reasons) is to minimize suffering and exploitation within reason for the specific reasons you said. No one can be 100% free of animal parts unless they become an off-the-grid self-sustained homestead.
Vegans know that. But most come to the conclusion that just because you can't live 100% animal free doesn't mean you can't try to get to 80% because you want to live your life in a manner you consider morally and ethically consistent with your collective ideologies. You get as close as you can within reason depending on the various constraints of your individual circumstances. "I am still a vegetarian, and I try to be a vegan, but I occasionally cheat. If there's a cheese pizza on the band bus, I might sneak a piece," to quote Weird Al Yankovic.
I'd say most people, including vegans, have more than one goal in life. The "lines in the sand" you're referring to are at the intersection of their goal to minimize suffering and their goal to, say, keep living. Like if a vegan were told by their doctor, "If you don't start eating meat, you'll die from this weird disease," the vegan likely wouldn't be like, "Well, I might as well indulge in eggs and milk and all other animal products now since I can't be 100% vegan" and chow down. They'd probably eat just the amount prescribed by their doctor, because they still don't like eating meat because its origins bother them.
I would be totally fine with them drawing their lines wherever if they let other people do the same, but many vegans will take the stance that consuming animal products or meat is always wrong, and never justified, no matter what. Many vegans actually would disagree that it is justified to eat animal products if a doctor recommended it, they'd say there are no nutrients found within those products which can't be found in plants. They'd also be against eating gifted non-vegan food, many are against feeding cats a nonvegan diet too
Um... Ima call bullshit real quick. I don't think you have ever met a single person who is as you've drawn in your cartoon here.
Also, why would a vegan or vegetarian be obligated to eat an animal-based product just because it was a gift? That would be weird as fuck. You don't eat sausage or cheese? Here's a sausage and cheese basket. It's a gift; you have to eat it.
And finally, you are suggesting that vegans kill cats. Cats are obligate carnivores. Vegan cat owners know this. A "vegan cat" will not survive long. Suggesting vegans force cats to be vegans is just an absurd falsehood.
Re: vegan cats, they actually can do well on a properly planned/supplemented vegan diet, although more research is needed. If you're against nutritionally complete vegan kibble, you should be against all kibble
"However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used."
Vegans literally are suggesting solutions to the growing population because in almost every situation, it is much more efficient by land and water use for people to eat plant-based rather than meat. It's only a "first world hill to die on" if you think poor people can't eat plants. Sorry but I don't think this is a very accurate take...
"Meat from herd mammals" is not at all the sum total of use of animal products. Should we all be eating less beef? Sure, I can get behind that. None? I'm okay with that, too. What about eggs, cheese, butter - and that's only referring to things we eat, not things we use for other purposes.
People also continue to benefit from the work of slaves in the past and even present. What's your point? Do you think slavery is ethical? Is someone choosing to avoid products created from slave labour not a more ethical choice?
Let me preface my response by saying: my answer is kbin specific. It might or might not also apply to mbin since they may have changed things (or kept older features that kbin changed) since they forked. I know a few of the differences between them, but I haven't kept up with most of mbin's specifics.
Also, if anyone stumbles into this in the far future: note that this post is from March 2024. If that seems like a long time ago, check for newer information...
Can searches be made more specific? On Lemmy, you could define whether you wanted to search for communities/magazines, threads, comments, users and urls.
You can search for magazines specifically from the magazine page. The general search searches in microblogs, thread text -- but not the thread title(?), and comments/replies, I think. You can search for exact user profiles as well with the "@ user @ instance" syntax -- e.g. searching for @TamperTanuki@fedia.io shows a link to your profile as the result. (That also applies to magazines/communties -- e.g. @kbinMeta@kbin.social will find both a user called "kbinMeta" and this magazine as search results -- but searching for magazines from the magazine page is probably better for most use cases.) You can sometimes also find the local version of a federated thread if you search for the original post URL. Note that searching for a post on another instance may not always work; if you're copying a link to a thread you found in a comment post and someone linked to their instance's local version of a thread and that isn't the original source it probably won't find it. (I've had decent luck with it in practice though. For the latter problematic case, load the post on the instance and then find the fediverse link which should take you to the original source and then search for that to find it on your instance.)
@piotrsikora@ernest -- FYI searching for this thread by the exact title "Multiple questions regarding Kbin" does not find it currently but searching text like "as a new Kbin/Mbin user" will find it. Is that a bug?
@piotrsikora@ernest -- Searching for a URL that is not a thread causes a 50x error.
Lastly, you can change the result order (newest/controversial/oldest).
You can change newest/top/hot/active etc. for the results on kbin by clicking on the tabs above the search results.
To send toots/tweets, do I have to specify a magazine? I seem to be unable to send a toot without specifying a magazine first, although I only try to adress a mastodon user directly.
Unclassified microblogs (e.g. from Mastodon users) usually end up in random, but I'm not sure how to post them intentionally since I don't use the microblog feature much. Hopefully someone else can chime in with an answer for this.
Is this even the right magazine to ask these questions in? Is there a dedicated kbin support magazine?
It's fine for kbin questions but you might get a better response for details about your specific instance (which runs mbin) on a local magazine like /m/fedia@fedia.io maybe? Sorry if that doesn't link correctly; I rarely link anything other than lemmy communities. (EDIT: https://fedia.io/m/fedia )
On Lemmy, users can send each others direct messages. It seems like Kbin/Mbin has no way of displaying those direct messages. Is that correct or is there a way to show direct messages?
DMs do not work between kbin and lemmy as far as I know. I have a lemmy alt linked in my profile in case lemmy users want to DM me.
You should be able to send messages to local users on your instance though by going to a user's profile and clicking "Send Message" on the right side.
Trying to access the send message interface for your account from kbin doesn't work here, so I doubt mbin/kbin DMs work. (@ernest this seems to redirect to login and then immediately to the home view instead of opening the message page or showing an error -- is this a bug?)
Hope that helps!
@piotrsikora@ernest -- this thread did not show up on other instances (e.g. I couldn't see it from my alt on reddthat.com despite being subscribed to this magazine from there as well) when I found it originally. I upvoted it here on kbin.social and now it shows up on reddthat. Is that a federation bug (either on fedia.io's side or on kbin.social's side)?
@piotrsikora -- FYI: I got a lot of 50x errors trying to edit this comment.
Thanks for taking the time for your long message. I tried searching for this topic on my lemmy alt. This topic did not show up on either my fedia account, nor the kbin magazine at first, but does now. One more oddity I noticed is that the mbin UI did not hotlink your mentions, but the lemmy UI did so correctly.
Unclassified microblogs (e.g. from Mastodon users) usually end up in random, but I'm not sure how to post them intentionally since I don't use the microblog feature much. Hopefully someone else can chime in with an answer for this.
I can answer this, go to your own profile, choose add new post (not thread) and then from the "select a magazine" dropdown choose random. Then just use your @ tag like normal if you want to @ someone in the fediverse.
To answer the question: GrapheneOS and a separate profile would be the safest
I appreciate the suggestion, but maybe I should add that I'd like to not have to change up my phone too much. It's a Fairphone 4 running the OEM Android and my preference would be to keep it that way. Are separate profiles like that a thing on stock Android?
If you are both outside of china there really is zero reason (other than preference) to use that piece of spyware.
She travels back to China sometimes, uses it to contact friends and family back home, and uses it to chat with lots of mainlanders here in Canada. For her it's not weird at all.
In fact, she expressed to me that she's perfectly comfortable with the fact that they use WeChat combined facial recognition technology in China for payment processing. When you get on public transit, you can have them scan your face and it will automatically charge you the bus fare. It really skeeves me out, but it's simply not the hill I want to die on in this relationship. I'm crazy about her in so many ways, it's okay with me if we don't see eye-to-eye on digital privacy.
Personally I'd be way more concerned with using OEM Android in the West than using wechat anywhere but if it's really an issue for you then I'd say insist on trying session or signal.. One of those are probably your best options if you're worried about being spied on..
If she's unwilling to try them or doesn't like them then I guess you have to settle for wechat or traditional SMS (although without RCS I find SMS to be a trip to a previous decade lol)
Shelter is an app that takes advantage of the work profile in android to install apps in that profile and makes shortcuts for the app in the normal profile. So it feels like you're just using an app as usual but the app is pretty much sandboxed away from all your info.
Taking medical advice from random strangers on the internet can be dangerous, sometimes in ways that may not be immediately obvious. I used to have anxiety about a medical condition that I was convinced that I had, and everything I read on the internet just made me more and more anxious.
Eventually, I went to see a doctor, who cleared everything up. But until then, I was a wreck.
The things is, the stakes can be really high, even for something that seems benign. The people who give you medical advice based on a text post really are being irresponsible. Doctors are trained to ask the right questions and do the right tests. Sure, we might like it if we could just crowd source our diagnosis, but it's a really, really bad idea for most things.
There could be so many miracle tips or tricks online that really work
“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.”
― Tim Minchin
I'm not really sure you understand just how complicated being a doctor is and making the correct diagnosis is. Sure, it might be something small if you feel sad in the evenings. It might also be a brain tumor. Home remedies might work in both cases, and they might not.
But you know what will probably work more often that not? A doctor's prescription.
"Talk to you doctor." i love that, like a mic drop. i don't understand people's burning desire to be so ostentatious about this point. yes yes yes obviously that is the best case scenario. congratulations, you posted the most generic answer to any question, take 40 points, awesome. it's just this arbitrary blind faith in authority -- can you imagine how many billions of dollars are spent by health insurance companies in the US to cultivate this exact line of thought in the populace? 100 years ago they only recently discovered you needed to wash your hands, and people act like they're infallible deities.
“You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? - Medicine.”
great, and now it's gatekept to doctors only rather than being accessible to the common populace. W.
And amazingly it’s not a question of intelligence, but rather tenacity. It’s really a lot of time and work but most people could do it if they had the willingness and opportunity.
It's a generic answer because it's the only responsible answer. To give someone medical advice when you have no medical expertise is highly irresponsible because not only are you potentially misleading the person asking, but countless others who read the discussion.
It should only ever be "talk to your doctor" because medical advice is one thing the Internet cannot provide and no one should be enlisting others in helping them treat their health as some kind of horoscope.
The amount of times I've been online and misdiagnosed myself, man I don't even know. Worst case was I convinced myself I had afib. Knew it, from all of my reading and everything I had all the symptoms.
Except I didn't have them, because since I've never experienced the symptoms I thought I had the symptoms, but I did not.
The knowledge isn't "gatekept", it's not something they hide away in a chest. It takes 10 years of medical school and several more after that of on the job training just to be a junior doctor. Talk about minimizing how complex the human body and all possible ailments are. We go to doctors not for the 15 minutes in the exam room with them, but because of the decades of knowledge they learned so we didn't have to.
You would trust random idiots on the internet to give you medical advice? How fucking stupid. People have died because of bad advice given on the internet, and you want to encourage this?
For every "miracle tip" there's at least 10 fuckwits giving potentially dangerous advice.
So if you get in a horrible accident and lose a limb, make sure to ask the internet for advice as you bleed out. Don't be a sucker for "big surgeon" and bow to authority.
It if your house burns down, ask a bunch of randos to help rebuild it. You don't want to support that multi-billion-dollar construction industry.
Consider for a moment that most doctors actually know what they're doing and the beef you have is with a dystopian society that's figured out how to commodify basic needs to a point where we all need to "earn" our very existence.
This is without a doubt the worst take I have ever read ever. All that knowledge is on the internet in ebooks by the way. Don't want to go to the doctor? Learn.
I really want to like Ska, and I really like nearly the entirety of this album, but whenever I try to branch out from there I come up dry with anything I really enjoy.
What are they doing to stand up to the bullies? They only understand definitive language or actions. If your child is just saying "no, you can't do that," nothing will happen. In the past, "standing up to a bully" generally meant breaking their nose.
EDIT: oh, this is about you as an adult, not your children. Good luck, adult bullies have that behavior ingrained in them from decades of training. Avoid them or get them in legal/job trouble, those are your only realistic options.
Exactly, the adult world has the same authorities you can get them in trouble with. Just call the police, their employer, spouse or mother and tell them how shameful their behavior is.
I love those speeding aggressive work trucks that have the employers phone number right on them.
"I'm sorry to bother you: so who of you employees is currently usingg that van? You might wanna have a talk withe them."
They are trying. AB 2200 aims at laying the groundwork for universal healthcare. Minimum wage just went up to $16 for everyone and $20 for fast food workers. There are experiments going on in several cities with guaranteed income. But everything comes with a cost, and the state is having budget problems. There have been job losses associated with the wage increases. Employers have begun to get very picky about who they hire for even minimum wage jobs. Hours have been cut.
Even Democrats realize one state can't offer free stuff without attracting every freeloader in the country. Someone has to pay for the benefits, and if they tax those folks too heavily, they'll find another place to live. There's a real limit to how many social programs can be offered before they break the piggy bank.
Your conclusion makes no sense. California can’t afford the policies because states don’t print their money, the federal government does. And California doesn’t get much help from the federal government. So it’s constrained by what it can tax locally.
Those policies would work perfectly and cause no budgetary issues if the federal government paid for them by printing money.
The massive printing of money from 2008 to COVID really not make people realise that? We CAN pay for everything. The government just has to print for the money, and use it for that instead of bailing out the capitalists over and over.
Zimbabwe is not sovereign monetarily. The US is the most monetarily sovereign country in the world. They can literally print trillions and it doesn’t do anything to inflation. It has happened multiple times already!! Like why would people deny reality?
Because its not a solution, it just makes the problem worse. It'll just create even more money under 100 people can gobble up.
The money exists! It needs to be liberated from wasteful uses such as arms, billionaires or shareholders. We can also print more money, sure, but without first fixing the underlying spending/allocation/hoarding issue, we'd only be feeding the dragon.
He says that, as a state, California can't afford to do this. Your response is this makes no sense, this would all work if implemented at the federal level.
So even assuming your points are valid, this isn't an option for California.
I think @novibe is oversimplifying by quite a lot, but not completely off base.
The most condensed explanation I’ve found is by Second Thought: Why The Government Has Infinite Money.
The links in the description are great as well, addressing some common questions and counter-arguments.
Our civilization is more than capable, but those who have money and power are unwilling, because that's not something they're interested or invested in.
fedia.io
Hot