While the civil rights movement was largely “peaceful” (loaded word with little meaning), it was also incredibly disruptive. People in the movement were very rude to moderates who advocated in favor of negative peace while reaffirming their appreciation of the status-quo.

MLK’s position here was not that the people within the civil rights movement needed to be more respectful to white moderates. His position was that the moderates were the issue. The people who consistently advocated for negative peace were the issue.

The leaders of vegan movements also don’t generally go around attacking the moderates of our time who appreciate the status-quo and advocate for negative peace. There are individuals that do attack moderates, just like there were individuals in the civil rights movement who literally physically assaulted white moderates (much worse than calling someone a cheese-breather and having their feelings get a bit hurt). Again, MLK did not draw attention to these fringe cases because the actual issue were the moderates themselves. Some might even say the racists deserved to be beaten, and that’s not even something I would necessarily argue against.

Veganism is the same. The issue is not the people who are a bit rude online to bloodmouths/carnists. The issue is the moderates themselves, their constant advocacy for negative peace in place of positive peace needs to be shut down unequivocally.

MLK said it best, so I’ll just quote him directly:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

When moderates advocate for “kindness” or “civility”, they’re advocating for negative peace; the absence of tension. Vegans advocate for positive peace; the presence of justice. When activists advocate for positive peace, in the face of those who deny said justice, tensions rise and moderates fall back to this common trope.

Your mistake here was saying “puppies” too early. You have to lead with a couple paragraphs of how you’re a flexitarian who has a farm and humanely raised animals like pets and then slaughters and feed them to your family.

Then list off the animals you exploit, cows, pigs, dogs, chickens, cats and ducks. Then their brain gets hit with the dissonance of “wait why did I support this and then stop the second they said ‘dog’?” That jarring experience can work for the intellectually honest type.

Saying it too early means they can categorize your post as satire easily and not engage with it at all mentally.

Yup this is the real world take IME. Code should be self documenting, really the only exception ever is “why” because code explains how, as you said.

Now there are sometimes less-than-ideal environments. Like at my last job we were doing Scala development, and that language is expressive enough to allow you to truly have self-documenting code. Python cannot match this, and so you need comments at times (in earlier versions of Python type annotations were specially formatted literal comments, now they’re glorified comments because they look like real annotations but actually do nothing).

Glad someone said this, it bothers me even with human ages. Like there’s this perception that as you get older you simply gain knowledge, wisdom, world experience, etc. Not a lot of people account for biological limits for knowledge/memory, nor degradation from aging.

If some young intern decided to try to have sex with Biden, I think there’s genuinely a conversation to be had about if that’s statutory rape. I think you’d need a healthcare professional to rule on if Biden has the mental capacity to fully consent. Similar to a drunk person. They’re still obviously a person able to think/engage with the world, but they’re heavily impaired and unable to fully consent as a result. Age impairs cognition too.

Holocaust was a word before the Jewish holocaust you twat. Yes, you support animal abuse in the only way that matters, financially. You’re the same as people who pay to watch dogs fight or animal rapists.

What is happening to animals is definitionally a holocaust, it has nothing to do with the Jewish one.

Congrats on being a moderate lib, it shows. Have fun eating the tortured animal carcass, hope it makes you feel better. I’ll go have some plants because I don’t need to abuse animals to feel better about myself like fuckwit carnists.

There’s no world where every person goes vegan “before lunch” today, you were arguing about a fantasy because that’s the only way you could make an almost coherent point.

In your fantasy world where literally every person wakes up, realizes that paying for animal abuse because of taste preference is a moral abomination, then yeah we wouldn’t have enough vegan food easily accessible, but as all the vegan food would be perpetually out of stock, production would ramp up.

In reality however, people in the first world have incredibly easy and consistent access to vegan food. Essentially if you get your food from a grocery store you have incredibly easy access to cheap vegan food. If you live in a place where food is more scarce, then your diet is already primarily vegetarian or vegan because that food is way, way cheaper to come by.

Meat is becoming political whether you like it or not. This is how politics have historically worked, people aren’t born conservative, they’re born, things are normalized and go unquestioned until you’re older and society changes enough.

In Europe there are (left-leaning) political parties entirely devoted to the cause of eliminating the animal holocaust.

People who are “left-leaning” in America say in 2010 as a 25 year old will be considered conservative in America in 2050 as a 65 year old, without their politics changing at all. They’ll be pro-Israel, pro animal abuse, pro-capitalism, and complaining how “leftists have gone off the deep end” being against animal abuse, worker abuse, and Palestinian genocide.

Are you unaware of how markets work? You’re pretending like the person you’re responding to is the arbiter of all food production and consumption. Buy vegan, more vegan food gets made. It’s been happening for decades and as the number of vegans climb, the amount of vegan food increases.

There’s really nothing difficult to understand about that. If SO MANY PEOPLE go vegan that you literally go to the store and can’t find ANY vegan food (this won’t happen), then vegan food production will ramp up extremely fast, and this will only be a temporary issue as producers acclimate to new demands.

Bit of a strawman, the initial complaint wasn’t that he didn’t say some words, the initial complaint was the billions in military aid and actual physical support the administration gave Israel.

The only reason words matter is if they have any impact on reality. Israel knows the U.S is giving them a lot of leeway to commit this genocide because that’s what the administration’s actions say, hence they’re two-faced.

If they decide to stop materially supporting genocide, good. They were still wrong to do it at all, and they can’t undo that, so they’re still shit-libs, but better late than never I guess, and all those dead children will just have to stay dead.

I get the appeal of saying something provocative like “EVs are dumb” (which could be initially interpreted as an advocacy for ICE cars), and then clarifying your position. Makes for an interesting comment.

However, it’s a technically incorrect way to phrase it. Buses, for example, can be ICE or electric. It’s not dumb to have public transit electric. You’re (correctly) advocating for public transit over personal vehicles, but you shouldn’t frame it as electric being a negative. In both personal and public transportation, electric tends to be far better. The only exception atm is for longer trips. Even then though, having a 20 minute break to charge every 300 miles isn’t terrible for humans as we get to stretch our legs for a bit, and it’s not so much longer than a 3 minute break every 400 miles.

Overall, no EVs are not dumb, they’re the future of both personal and public transportation. We should lean towards public, but that public should be electric.

There are absolutely scalpers that reduce total supply. They’ll only list a couple of consoles that they scalp at a time even if they buy in massive bulk, and it’s all done on the pretense of a limited supply from the original seller that they’re artificially limiting past what the market would naturally do (by buying a ton of them up). Given a literally infinite supply, scalpers lack an ability to do anything. Put another way, when they can’t restrict supply, it’s not a viable strategy.

It’s not that they refuse to sell some of their supply, it’s a temporary restriction (all supply restrictions can be viewed as temporary because we don’t have total knowledge of future supply). The temporary restriction benefits them because they can start bidding wars over the reduced supply, and get a higher price per unit at the cost of getting the money over a longer period of time.

The exact same thing works for housing, when you have the same company renting out tons of units but also keeping tons of units in the same area off the market. It means the bidding wars for the smaller supply of units results in more money per unit (lower supply, same demand, means higher costs).

The concept of a prisoners dilemma here only works if houses are fungible, but they’re not. There are sometimes very similar units or even houses in a neighborhood in the same location, and these are almost fungible, but even in these contexts those nearly identical units in nearly identical locations are usually owned by a single entity (corporate or otherwise), so again there’s no prisoner’s dillema, they can restrict supply effectively to increase yield.

The time vs value calculation is different for housing too compared to smaller things like groceries. If you’re a grocery store, and your local distributor of apples lowers the price of apples, some of that will likely go to the customer because of local competition pushing prices down, and you have a constant supply tied to a constant demand of these (from a buyer’s perspective) essentially fungible things.

Houses are different because if you see the price of houses in your neighborhood drop by some significant amount, individual actors who may otherwise want to sell will actively choose to not list their house because they know the value will go back up, and so these actors are all incentivized to vastly limit supply if something in some area cuts the prices of houses (like a huge influx of new homes for example). These individual actors could be literal individuals or corporations.

Look to other forms of scalping to see how this works at a smaller scale. Scalping isn’t done through conspiracy, but a bunch of small, self-interested actors reducing supply in the market to inflate prices.

On top of that there are actors that are more coordinated and not as small, like corporations that own hundreds of thousands of homes. These corporations can just coordinate internally (not conspiracy, business) and reduce supply to increase their own returns.

This works for smaller actors too though. As long as the number of houses owned is more than a couple, then it’s likely they’d profit from temporarily restricting supply, and locking in renters to leases for more money. They’ll try to slowly sell off their supply without “flooding” the market and hurting the value of their own supply, just like other scalpers.

I’ve talked to literal fascists on the Internet who said the same thing, that my arguing with them “made them look into it” and they ended up “hating trans/Jews/Muslims more”.

Just because you have an inability to correctly process information doesn’t make it my fault you’re going to continue being a piece of shit.

It is torture there’s no argument there. Genocide is always a weird one, people argue that what’s happening to Palestinians isn’t genocide etc.

There are definitions of genocide that it fits, and there are ones that it won’t. If you think systemic mass killing for pleasure doesn’t fall under the definition of genocide, cool. It’s still systemic mass killing for pleasure.

I understand the reasons why people aren’t vegan. I also understand the reason why slaughterhouse workers have far higher rates of violence (domestic and non-domestic). I understand why people do terrible things, people aren’t born evil. Even Nazis weren’t born with some disposition to be evil. It’s not like literally millions of Germans just had some natural predisposition to be unbelievably evil and that went away once they lost WW2.

These are learned behaviors. I understand the reasons. They’re still not an excuse. You’re failing to do what you need to do, and just because I understand why you’re failing doesn’t mean you’re not failing.

Maybe you don’t care, maybe you like animal abuse, maybe you know you’re doing something wrong and see yourself as a failure. No matter your own views, the mass torture/genocide is still happening, and you’re supporting it. Hopefully one day you grow enough as a person to stop.

I went vegan on a random Thursday a few years ago after learning about the ethical reality here, that harming animals for pleasure or convenience is unjustified.

It didn’t happen all in one day (the learning that is), but I didn’t do any meal planning. Didn’t even order vegan food before I decided to go vegan. Next time I went to the store I only bought vegan things. Since then anytime I have the ability to buy vegan goods, I do (which has been 100% of the time because I live in the west in the 21st century).

If you’re homeless in the middle of Palestine being bombed relentlessly by a genocidal state, yeah I’m not going to complain about you eating eggs that were given to you from a homeless shelter. If you’re rich enough to drive to the store and buy groceries yourself in the U.S or Europe, you have no excuse.

Activists don’t need to be one-track minded. They rarely are. I’m a vegan, socialist, anti-fascist who is against the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and for climate justice globally. There’s very strong overlap in these positions. There’s a reason you won’t find a lot of Republican vegans, or pro-Israel socialists.

Yes, sometimes people don’t put in the time to investigate these issues, and I commend you for knowing the limits of your own knowledge, I’ve recommended to people before that it’s better to just say “I don’t know enough about this issue” instead of arriving at an under-researched position. However, it’s not necessary to criticize people who are actually activists, learn about these issues, and go out into the world and advocate for change, so long as they’re advocating for the right thing.

The topic being brought up might ostracize people, but it will also put the topic into people’s minds. People like you might not know what the correct position is here, but you hear the constant pro-Israel propaganda pumped out by the U.S and might arrive at a subconscious conclusion that aligns with the imperial core.

If you hear people speaking out against the apartheid state of Israel, especially people who align with your values, you might be inclined to look into it more, or at the very least not automatically accept U.S propaganda on the issue.

Normative truths are just as foundational as descriptive truths. You use the same logic to get there. I hope you’re intelligent enough to be an epistemological nihilist, so hopefully you know the basis for all scientific and descriptive understanding of the universe is self-evident axioms. The same is true for moral truths. Harm is axiomatically bad in the same way that our senses are accurately able to translate information of an external universe into our brains.

If you disagree with the former, we can’t have moral discussions, and if you disagree with the latter we can’t have scientific discussions. This is how the whole of epistemology functions.

You’re also strawmanning me. Ought implies can, so an animal without an ability to act morally obviously has no moral obligations. I hope you somehow just severely misunderstand the vegan position, and you’re not intentionally spreading misinformation.

Factory farms aren’t us allowing them to sort out their own problems. We spawn billions of sentient creatures into torture boxes every year just to slaughter them when they’re a few months old in brutal and terrifically painful ways.

If you think that’s awesome, keep buying meat, more power to you, you’re just probably a psychopath (though I obviously can’t give you an official diagnosis).

This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.

From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.

As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.

Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).