All social media is filled with animal cruelty.
There's so many pictures and videos of cut up animal corpses with people going "yum" in the comments..
I don't get how I never see that on regular Twitter.
The content moderation is more active I guess. People post stuff like that all the time on Facebook and Instagram too. Not sure if they have an algorithm or whatever to trigger removal but a good amount are still manually removed by workers, some who quit because of the psychological repercussions
Yeah, I did listen to a podcast about content moderators at Facebook having breakdowns from dealing with having to see that kind of shit day in, day out.
Fuck. That. Noise.
You've never seen any posts containing meat?
You know, I really wish you were clearer in your OP so I wasn't dragged in to a vegans discussion
Oh no you had to think about what happens to the animals you eat for a few seconds!
Eating animals isn't the problem, necessarily. It's how the animals are grown and raised like crops is the problem. I have a weird stance on this that looks very contradicting. Humans are animals, and we are engineered to include meat in our diets. However, I don't agree with how the majority of us access that meat.
I'm a strong believer in hunting for food, not sport. If you're going to eat an animal, you should work for it. And be thankful. Doesn't matter what beliefs you hold, you owe thanks to what the animal has provided you.
Meat farms are disgusting. But there's no way they will ever go away. They're much too profitable for companies to give up.
How do you humanely kill an animal who doesn't need or want to die?
How does thanking someone after you needlessly kill them help anything?
Why not just eat plants when we can easily thrive on a plant based diet?
We aren't "engineered" at all, we're omnivores which means we can do just fine both with and without meat.
You hunt it. Not as a sport. Give the animal a fair chance, and even then it's not a fair fight, so be thankful for what's been provided
Killing when we don't have to is cruel, doing it in the forest doesn't make it better, we can just eat plants.
There's nothing fair about needless killing, nothing is provided to you, you're taking it be force.
We are animals engineered to eat meat. It is natural for humans to do so. Killing an animal has nothing to do with morality. How it's done does
Humans aren't engineered at all.
We are animals who happened to mutate to be able to thrive with and without meat, we're omnivores.
If we are animals and killing animals has nothing to do with morality I can kill you with no consequences and without feeling bad yeah?
Like I said, why you do it and how it's done matters. What's your reason for killing me? For this discussion of course.
Let's say I thought your corpse would taste good and provide me with sustenance for a while and I killed you painfree and instantly.
You are trolling at this point. You simply can't compare killing for food to murder.
We are predators by nature, and there is no way you can deny it. The human intelligence has helped us evolve better tools for both hunting and farming.
We have mutated to be better hunters and predators, apart from being also better at not being one. But the first part will always remain.
It's a too bad that you weren't more clear than your first post, people almost took you serious
The "people going “yum” in the comments" made it so extremely obvious its about OP not wanting to see pieces of cooked meat in beef ramen videos
Why wouldn't it be serious?
Meat is cut up animal corpses.
Humans can easily thrive without meat so it's clearly abusive to kill for profit/taste.
Could you reactionary fucks think about the subject for more than 2 seconds before you get angry and downvote?
Come on, guy, are you farming for an argument? You aren't helping your case by being abrasive
With respect, this approach does nothing to convince people to reduce their meat consumption, and in fact alienates people who might otherwise be on the fence about reducing their meat intake.
We get told this literally no matter how we approach the subject lol.
Which approach is it you think I'm using here and why is it ineffective?
It's not like I've been especially rude or anything?
Which approach worked on you?
You've been hostile ("reactionary fucks") and you've hijacked the broader discussion referenced in the article (Musk's Twitter showing terrible videos including human death, animal cruelty, etc) to make a point about meat consumption generally versus videos on Twitter showing the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain on animals for pleasure.
My meat consumption is down quite a bit. Information on substitutes, good recipes, studies on the intelligence of (for example) squid and such have shifted me into eating less meat. While I'm sure you'd prefer people not eat meat at all, convincing 5 people to cut their meat consumption 50% is better than convincing 0 people to cut their meat consumption 100% , no?
The "reactionary fucks" was in response to hostility. Hijacking broader topic? I'm sure you're on reddit complaining about John Oliver taking over the broader topic that is generally on r/pics. I'll let you ruminate on that until you see the obvious point.
I'm sure in history some abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery all together, but just minimizing the number of slaves is better than nothing right so they shouldn't have been so absolutist. At least according to your own argument unless you admit to being hypocritical or simply not understanding the argument of those you're responding to. You can't be neither though.
You're putting forth either bad faith arguments or extremely toxic ones, under the guise of polite society. It's kind of sickening if you aren't actually intentionally doing it.
("reactionary fucks")
After my comments were downvoted to hell lol.
I've not hijacked anything, I contributed to the conversation and everyone lost their minds because they don't wanna think about the animal abuse they support every day.
Would I prefer that 5 people free half of their slaves versus no one freeing any slaves? Of course, why would I want everyone to stay enslaved if I could free some and continue to work to free others? Would you prefer that everyone who is currently a slave remain enslaved until we convince the entire world to free their slaves?
I think they more prefer to focus on the issue (the state of Twitter) in a post about Twitter, versus going off on tangents that would otherwise make for interesting conversation.
Would you prefer people advocate for freeing all slaves or "slave free monday"?
I think it's really a difference about whether you approach meat consumption as a moral issue or an environmental and social one.
I tend to agree with @Melpomene that any improvement is a good thing, maybe a better analogy would be in CO2 emissions. If we can convince 10% of people to bike to work one day a week then that'll make meaningful difference, and it's exactly the same from an emissions standpoint as taking X cars off the road.
Convincing someone, at least in the USA, to do without a car is fundamentally difficult, but convincing them to use it less is a significantly more accessible proposition.
I just don't see reduction as enough or what should be advocated when it comes to something so serious as billions of animals getting needlessly killed.
That you literally made this argument is sad and gross. You just argued that people shouldn't fight to free all slaves. What the actual fuck? You literally made an argument to not fight against slavery because it's hard
This is kind of funny, cause it's the same approach the toxic right takes against progressives. "Be nice to us cause pointing out the things you do makes us get angry instead and won't convince us." It'd be ridiculously hilarious if it weren't so sad at the same time. This is the most subtly toxic response you could have had.
Do people post much food content on Twitter? I never really used Twitter other than when news stories included tweets so I have no idea what's popular out there.
Its become mostly far-right wing spam.
Think if 4chan trolls and stormfront trolls had a bastard child.
This is not the mental image I wanted before I finished my coffee this morning.
A lot of people actually do post a lot of food. At least within the art community on Twitter there are so many food posts on the timelines of artists. Saying this as I only use Twitter for specifically them.
Yes there's no difference between a picture of a steak and fries on a plate, and a kitten being tortured then burned alive. Absolutely the same thing.
Not to vegans, they're clinically insane.
Whoa - I’ve been reading this discussion and I went to look at what community it federated from, and I was really surprised to find it was Beehaw. I think this discussion has gotten very heated on both sides (which I understand, I’m vegan myself), but name calling doesn’t move the conversation forward. I notice you’re coming from kbin.social too - this is just a gentle reminder from a fellow kbin visitor to keep Beehaw’s community guidelines in mind as you’re visiting, and participate in debate with respect. I love the content and community here, and I would hate for our instance to be defederated from Beehaw because we’re not practicing awareness of the community we’re participating in and their guidelines.
Why is it better to kill a cow for profit/taste?
Both scenarios are needless killing of animals which is obviously terrible abuse.
Is caring about animal abuse insane?
Whoa - I’ve been reading this discussion and I went to look at what community it federated from, and I was really surprised to find it was Beehaw. I’m sorry you are encountering this here, but I notice that it’s largely not Beehaw users who are continuing interactions that do not meaningfully engage in this conversation. I think this discussion has gotten very heated on both sides (which I understand, I’m vegan myself). I notice you’re coming from kbin.social too - this is just a gentle reminder from a fellow kbin visitor to keep Beehaw’s community guidelines in mind as you’re visiting, and participate in debate with respect. Although you make awesome points, they aren’t being heard right now, except by folks in Beehaw, since they have community guidelines that promote this type of discussion in a respectful manner. It may be better to call this off and restart the conversation in our instance, or choose to respond only to folks who are practicing respectful debate.
Please don’t take the downvotes seriously, especially in Beehaw. Beehaw has downvotes disabled, so what we’re effectively having here is a kbin conversation following kbin rules in Beehaw. If you want to engage with folks who are downvoting you, I think it’s best to do that in our instance or elsewhere to be respectful of Beehaw’s guidelines.
I love the content and community here, and I would hate for our instance to be defederated from Beehaw because we’re not practicing awareness of the community we’re participating in.
Ah well, I am not big on veganism so I've no comment on this topic further.
They're both clearly abuse, the steak used to be a living being who was tortured and killed for profit/taste.
Why are you people downvoting me? Do you think steaks don't come from living cows?
Don't play dumb, people are downvoting you because you pretend that seeing a picture of a steak evokes the same feelings as seeing a video of a kitten being tortured to death.
For people who aren't hypocritical or suffering from cognitive dissonance, it is kind of the same. Sure it's somewhat different, it's just the after picture of torture and not active torture. There's a reason laws prevent videotaping inside slaughterhouses. Cause it would turn off so. many. people. "How the sausage is made" is a phrase for a reason. Having statistically increased suicide rates in the industry speaks volumes.
Sure it's somewhat different, it's just the after picture of torture and not active torture
Ok so it's different, got it. For a second I was concerned that ya'll were really getting distressed when exposed to a picture of a meal, in the same way a video of an actively tortured animal would distress most people.
So you know they're different, and yet pretend they're the same to give yourself a moral high ground. Kinda hypocritical. Or do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
A steak is literally the cut up corpse of a cow
Right. And do you have the same emotional response when seeing a picture of a steak and when seeing a video of a kitten being tortured and then burned alive?
Folks, there is important, valid discussion to be had about meat eating both from ethical an environmental perspectives. I'm not sure that !Technology is the place to have that discussion, however.
More importantly, this thread was not the way to discuss these issues, particularly on Beehaw. The behavior in this thread was not nice, and is not the way that these types (or any type) of discussion should be conducted.
I just made a comment about animal cruelty on social media, in a thread about animal cruelty on social media.
Sadly speaking up for the animals provokes angry responses in many people.
I'm not saying that you are solely at fault for the thread getting out of hand, but I hope we can agree that when things devolve to the point that we're talking about murdering other users and eating their corpses that the discussion has probably gotten out of hand.
I think there are ways of discussing even controversial topics without the conversation spinning out of control, but I know that this topic in particular touches a nerve with a lot of folks. Just please try to be mindful of whether you're escalating or deescalating the argument in the future.
It's of course hypothetical, and I think, totally within reason, it's a thread about animal abuse.
It's one of the problems we run into when speaking up against animal abuse, people call us extreme when we are really just being up front about what happens in reality.
I try to keep it civil and respond matter of fact and explain but it can be hard when you get so much toxicity thrown back at you, all because you stand up against animal cruelty.
It’s of course hypothetical, and I think, totally within reason, it’s a thread about animal abuse.
Hypothetical or not, I'm telling you that it's not acceptable for this instance.
I understand you want to keep it civil here and think it's a great goal but what you're saying would keep us from discussing serious subjects.
When there's context which explains why something that sounds extreme is brought up you should look at the context, not just react to what you think is extreme.
I don't think disallowing thought experiments/hypotheticals is positive.
I don't want to continue to derail this post with offtopic comments. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to DM me.
This is definitely a problem that's going to get worse, fast. Federated communities+feed that draws from a pile of them without particular reference+larger userbase...
This is certainly an issue that we're aware of and discussing.
All social media is filled with animal cruelty.
There's so many pictures and videos of cut up animal corpses with people going "yum" in the comments..
I don't get how I never see that on regular Twitter.
The content moderation is more active I guess. People post stuff like that all the time on Facebook and Instagram too. Not sure if they have an algorithm or whatever to trigger removal but a good amount are still manually removed by workers, some who quit because of the psychological repercussions
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
Yeah, I did listen to a podcast about content moderators at Facebook having breakdowns from dealing with having to see that kind of shit day in, day out.
Fuck. That. Noise.
You've never seen any posts containing meat?
You know, I really wish you were clearer in your OP so I wasn't dragged in to a vegans discussion
Oh no you had to think about what happens to the animals you eat for a few seconds!
Eating animals isn't the problem, necessarily. It's how the animals are grown and raised like crops is the problem. I have a weird stance on this that looks very contradicting. Humans are animals, and we are engineered to include meat in our diets. However, I don't agree with how the majority of us access that meat.
I'm a strong believer in hunting for food, not sport. If you're going to eat an animal, you should work for it. And be thankful. Doesn't matter what beliefs you hold, you owe thanks to what the animal has provided you.
Meat farms are disgusting. But there's no way they will ever go away. They're much too profitable for companies to give up.
How do you humanely kill an animal who doesn't need or want to die?
How does thanking someone after you needlessly kill them help anything?
Why not just eat plants when we can easily thrive on a plant based diet?
We aren't "engineered" at all, we're omnivores which means we can do just fine both with and without meat.
You hunt it. Not as a sport. Give the animal a fair chance, and even then it's not a fair fight, so be thankful for what's been provided
Killing when we don't have to is cruel, doing it in the forest doesn't make it better, we can just eat plants.
There's nothing fair about needless killing, nothing is provided to you, you're taking it be force.
We are animals engineered to eat meat. It is natural for humans to do so. Killing an animal has nothing to do with morality. How it's done does
Humans aren't engineered at all.
We are animals who happened to mutate to be able to thrive with and without meat, we're omnivores.
If we are animals and killing animals has nothing to do with morality I can kill you with no consequences and without feeling bad yeah?
Like I said, why you do it and how it's done matters. What's your reason for killing me? For this discussion of course.
Let's say I thought your corpse would taste good and provide me with sustenance for a while and I killed you painfree and instantly.
You are trolling at this point. You simply can't compare killing for food to murder.
We are predators by nature, and there is no way you can deny it. The human intelligence has helped us evolve better tools for both hunting and farming.
We have mutated to be better hunters and predators, apart from being also better at not being one. But the first part will always remain.
I didn't say I eat animals, chief.
Oh no you had to think about what happens to the animals
youother people eat for a few seconds!It's a too bad that you weren't more clear than your first post, people almost took you serious
The "people going “yum” in the comments" made it so extremely obvious its about OP not wanting to see pieces of cooked meat in beef ramen videos
Why wouldn't it be serious?
Meat is cut up animal corpses.
Humans can easily thrive without meat so it's clearly abusive to kill for profit/taste.
Could you reactionary fucks think about the subject for more than 2 seconds before you get angry and downvote?
Come on, guy, are you farming for an argument? You aren't helping your case by being abrasive
With respect, this approach does nothing to convince people to reduce their meat consumption, and in fact alienates people who might otherwise be on the fence about reducing their meat intake.
We get told this literally no matter how we approach the subject lol.
Which approach is it you think I'm using here and why is it ineffective?
It's not like I've been especially rude or anything?
Which approach worked on you?
You've been hostile ("reactionary fucks") and you've hijacked the broader discussion referenced in the article (Musk's Twitter showing terrible videos including human death, animal cruelty, etc) to make a point about meat consumption generally versus videos on Twitter showing the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain on animals for pleasure.
My meat consumption is down quite a bit. Information on substitutes, good recipes, studies on the intelligence of (for example) squid and such have shifted me into eating less meat. While I'm sure you'd prefer people not eat meat at all, convincing 5 people to cut their meat consumption 50% is better than convincing 0 people to cut their meat consumption 100% , no?
The "reactionary fucks" was in response to hostility. Hijacking broader topic? I'm sure you're on reddit complaining about John Oliver taking over the broader topic that is generally on r/pics. I'll let you ruminate on that until you see the obvious point.
I'm sure in history some abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery all together, but just minimizing the number of slaves is better than nothing right so they shouldn't have been so absolutist. At least according to your own argument unless you admit to being hypocritical or simply not understanding the argument of those you're responding to. You can't be neither though.
You're putting forth either bad faith arguments or extremely toxic ones, under the guise of polite society. It's kind of sickening if you aren't actually intentionally doing it.
After my comments were downvoted to hell lol.
I've not hijacked anything, I contributed to the conversation and everyone lost their minds because they don't wanna think about the animal abuse they support every day.
Would I prefer that 5 people free half of their slaves versus no one freeing any slaves? Of course, why would I want everyone to stay enslaved if I could free some and continue to work to free others? Would you prefer that everyone who is currently a slave remain enslaved until we convince the entire world to free their slaves?
I think they more prefer to focus on the issue (the state of Twitter) in a post about Twitter, versus going off on tangents that would otherwise make for interesting conversation.
Would you prefer people advocate for freeing all slaves or "slave free monday"?
I think it's really a difference about whether you approach meat consumption as a moral issue or an environmental and social one.
I tend to agree with @Melpomene that any improvement is a good thing, maybe a better analogy would be in CO2 emissions. If we can convince 10% of people to bike to work one day a week then that'll make meaningful difference, and it's exactly the same from an emissions standpoint as taking X cars off the road.
Convincing someone, at least in the USA, to do without a car is fundamentally difficult, but convincing them to use it less is a significantly more accessible proposition.
I just don't see reduction as enough or what should be advocated when it comes to something so serious as billions of animals getting needlessly killed.
That you literally made this argument is sad and gross. You just argued that people shouldn't fight to free all slaves. What the actual fuck? You literally made an argument to not fight against slavery because it's hard
?????
Slavery never ended suddenly, exactly like any other major change in society. Also its extremely off topic.
This is kind of funny, cause it's the same approach the toxic right takes against progressives. "Be nice to us cause pointing out the things you do makes us get angry instead and won't convince us." It'd be ridiculously hilarious if it weren't so sad at the same time. This is the most subtly toxic response you could have had.
No, they're incapable and whingy.
Well if you put it that way, then I guess animal cruelty isn't as bad as we thought.
Do people post much food content on Twitter? I never really used Twitter other than when news stories included tweets so I have no idea what's popular out there.
Its become mostly far-right wing spam.
Think if 4chan trolls and stormfront trolls had a bastard child.
This is not the mental image I wanted before I finished my coffee this morning.
A lot of people actually do post a lot of food. At least within the art community on Twitter there are so many food posts on the timelines of artists. Saying this as I only use Twitter for specifically them.
Yes there's no difference between a picture of a steak and fries on a plate, and a kitten being tortured then burned alive. Absolutely the same thing.
Not to vegans, they're clinically insane.
Whoa - I’ve been reading this discussion and I went to look at what community it federated from, and I was really surprised to find it was Beehaw. I think this discussion has gotten very heated on both sides (which I understand, I’m vegan myself), but name calling doesn’t move the conversation forward. I notice you’re coming from kbin.social too - this is just a gentle reminder from a fellow kbin visitor to keep Beehaw’s community guidelines in mind as you’re visiting, and participate in debate with respect. I love the content and community here, and I would hate for our instance to be defederated from Beehaw because we’re not practicing awareness of the community we’re participating in and their guidelines.
Why is it better to kill a cow for profit/taste?
Both scenarios are needless killing of animals which is obviously terrible abuse.
Is caring about animal abuse insane?
Whoa - I’ve been reading this discussion and I went to look at what community it federated from, and I was really surprised to find it was Beehaw. I’m sorry you are encountering this here, but I notice that it’s largely not Beehaw users who are continuing interactions that do not meaningfully engage in this conversation. I think this discussion has gotten very heated on both sides (which I understand, I’m vegan myself). I notice you’re coming from kbin.social too - this is just a gentle reminder from a fellow kbin visitor to keep Beehaw’s community guidelines in mind as you’re visiting, and participate in debate with respect. Although you make awesome points, they aren’t being heard right now, except by folks in Beehaw, since they have community guidelines that promote this type of discussion in a respectful manner. It may be better to call this off and restart the conversation in our instance, or choose to respond only to folks who are practicing respectful debate.
Please don’t take the downvotes seriously, especially in Beehaw. Beehaw has downvotes disabled, so what we’re effectively having here is a kbin conversation following kbin rules in Beehaw. If you want to engage with folks who are downvoting you, I think it’s best to do that in our instance or elsewhere to be respectful of Beehaw’s guidelines.
I love the content and community here, and I would hate for our instance to be defederated from Beehaw because we’re not practicing awareness of the community we’re participating in.
Ah well, I am not big on veganism so I've no comment on this topic further.
They're both clearly abuse, the steak used to be a living being who was tortured and killed for profit/taste.
Why are you people downvoting me? Do you think steaks don't come from living cows?
Don't play dumb, people are downvoting you because you pretend that seeing a picture of a steak evokes the same feelings as seeing a video of a kitten being tortured to death.
For people who aren't hypocritical or suffering from cognitive dissonance, it is kind of the same. Sure it's somewhat different, it's just the after picture of torture and not active torture. There's a reason laws prevent videotaping inside slaughterhouses. Cause it would turn off so. many. people. "How the sausage is made" is a phrase for a reason. Having statistically increased suicide rates in the industry speaks volumes.
Ok so it's different, got it. For a second I was concerned that ya'll were really getting distressed when exposed to a picture of a meal, in the same way a video of an actively tortured animal would distress most people.
So you know they're different, and yet pretend they're the same to give yourself a moral high ground. Kinda hypocritical. Or do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
A steak is literally the cut up corpse of a cow
Right. And do you have the same emotional response when seeing a picture of a steak and when seeing a video of a kitten being tortured and then burned alive?
Folks, there is important, valid discussion to be had about meat eating both from ethical an environmental perspectives. I'm not sure that !Technology is the place to have that discussion, however.
More importantly, this thread was not the way to discuss these issues, particularly on Beehaw. The behavior in this thread was not nice, and is not the way that these types (or any type) of discussion should be conducted.
I just made a comment about animal cruelty on social media, in a thread about animal cruelty on social media.
Sadly speaking up for the animals provokes angry responses in many people.
I'm not saying that you are solely at fault for the thread getting out of hand, but I hope we can agree that when things devolve to the point that we're talking about murdering other users and eating their corpses that the discussion has probably gotten out of hand.
I think there are ways of discussing even controversial topics without the conversation spinning out of control, but I know that this topic in particular touches a nerve with a lot of folks. Just please try to be mindful of whether you're escalating or deescalating the argument in the future.
It's of course hypothetical, and I think, totally within reason, it's a thread about animal abuse.
It's one of the problems we run into when speaking up against animal abuse, people call us extreme when we are really just being up front about what happens in reality.
I try to keep it civil and respond matter of fact and explain but it can be hard when you get so much toxicity thrown back at you, all because you stand up against animal cruelty.
Hypothetical or not, I'm telling you that it's not acceptable for this instance.
I understand you want to keep it civil here and think it's a great goal but what you're saying would keep us from discussing serious subjects.
When there's context which explains why something that sounds extreme is brought up you should look at the context, not just react to what you think is extreme.
I don't think disallowing thought experiments/hypotheticals is positive.
I don't want to continue to derail this post with offtopic comments. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to DM me.
This is definitely a problem that's going to get worse, fast. Federated communities+feed that draws from a pile of them without particular reference+larger userbase...
This is certainly an issue that we're aware of and discussing.