AfD: "refugee children should be shot at the border"

Also AfD: "The problem is that Hitler is depicted as absolute evil"

AfD supporters: "just because they defend nazis, and talk like nazis, and use slogans from nazis, that doesn't mean they are nazis. LOL"

The NSDAP had no issues working with Russia, as long as it was in their interest.

BP and Shell only have that much power exacly because people buy fossil fuels from them. If demand would drop, their profits and political power would drop accordingly. As long as we don't even hold the biggest financiers of these companies responsible, how can anything change? Demand drives supply.

It's like saying "As long as hitmans exist, I won't give a shit about the people who pay hitmans, all consumption under capitalism is unethical anyways so anything goes." As long as we ignore those who actually fund the problem, we won't be able to fix anything.

Seems like they haven't gained traction since the reddit exodus. I wonder how the other alternatives are doing. Lemmy has a decent amount of activity at least, although I still wish more people would use it.

Those Russian speaking separatists got heavily influenced by Russian disinformation and propaganda for years in preparation of the invasion, and supported by the Russian armed forces, precisely to have this justification. This is like saying Putin got 88% in the election, so clearly that's the will of the people. Assuming that authoritarian regimes lead by secret service agents play by the rules of democracy is dangerous.

Imo it's remarkable how successful they are at spreading their twisted narratives, even in western countries.

I don't know if media coverage and public awareness about the atrocities are high enough in India to make that judgement.

To me that's more ethical than killing of billions of animals, and the latter is considered ethical.

I think most people would actually consider factory farming unethical, they just put the blame on the producers for treating animals like shit. And the producers are locked into a race to the bottom for competitive prices, so they'd blame the customers/market conditions.

Even if they managed to recover all chip factories after a full scale invasion (which the Taiwanese could easily sabotage), the production is based on a lot of western technology, which they couldn't replicate for decades. So the factories would be of little use.

Chinas economy is also very reliant on exports to western countries (US, Japan, Europe), if they invaded Taiwan that would plunge the world economy into the worst crisis ever seen that would hit China especially hard. They're already struggling with serious demographic and other economic issues that will put them into a difficult spot in the next decades. Invading Taiwan would be very, very terrible for basically everyone, and suicide for the CCP.

It's a volunteer project which was never tested with nearly as many users as they have now, of course there are a few issues. We should give them a few weeks to sort everything out.

Yeah, I don't fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war

Of course Russia had nothing to do with the war. They would never fund and support the separatists, or spread anti Ukrainian propaganda amongst the Russian speaking population, because Putin loves democracy and just wants the best for everyone, of course. /s

Admittedly I don't know much about her as a person, but how can someone who uses a private jet in 2024 be considered a decent person by any stretch?

Having such a ludicrously unsustainable lifestyle in a climate emergency that will kill millions and displace hundreds of millions in just a few decades is a crime against humanity, change my mind.

I guess we should start barbequing pet dogs then. At least that's less cruel than factory farms, fwiw.

You said you "don't fully agree" with Russia intervening in the civil war (by shelling kyiv I guess, because theres definitely civil war there). As if they didn't provoke it in the first place to justify their invasion.

I also wouldn't expect people who are criticial of war to say that they "don't fully agree" with Russia waging a war of aggression and commiting mass murder and war crimes in Ukraine, I would expect some actual condemnation of such atrocities.

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering

I don't know, life before the industrial revolution was pretty shit for regular people too.

I'd rather not have to worry about my family (and friends) starving to death during the next famine. 40-60% of children in medival europe died before adulthood. I can't even imagine the psychological suffering caused by this alone. Then there was frequent war and disease outbreaks, basically no healthcare, and so on...

I'm not saying that everything's great nowadays, we urgently need to fix many issues. But many things were way, way worse before modern civilization.

The average Joe has some say in it. When people buy factory farmed milk, they directly financially support the treatment of animals at these places. Imo people should learn in schools (or look for themselves) at footage from factory farms and slaughterhouses from their country to be informed about living conditions so they can make an informed choice if that's worth it.

the "quality of life" question is rather meaningless, animals that exist in the food supply chain were literally born so they could be turned into food.

And if someone bred humans to be slaves, these would be meant to be slaves, so it would actually be moral to keep them as slaves.

Solid logic. Abolishion was a mistake, guys!

What makes you think that processing food through an animal is healthier than through a factory?

You have to compare the actual nutrients contained in the product to draw any conclusion about health effects, and the macros are fairly similar for the plant-based versions compared to a given meat product.

The average person (in developed countries) eats significantly more meat than the recommended upper limit by nutrition organizations.

If you just go by the naturalistic argument, you'd conclude that processed drinking water is worse than untreated water, and that vaccines are worse than "perfectly natural" diseases. It's a common logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

True. Soy and oat milk can be very good, depending on the brand.

You wrote vegans, not peta. Most vegans have nothing to do with Peta.

My favorite oat milk is Oatly Barista, the best soy milk I've tried is from Joya, but I haven't seen it outside of Austria yet. Alpro is quite good and more widely available (at least in Europe). In North America, Silk seems to be great from what I've heard. Store brand soy milks tend to taste pretty bad from my experience here in Germany, but some of them might have improved since I tried them years ago.

Plants don't produce cholesterol, only animals. Coconut oil is high in saturated fat that seems to be bad for blood cholesterol levels, but coconut milk (for drinking, in cartons) has hardly any fat in it. The one I looked up has half of the saturated fat compared to 3,5% fat cows milk.

A land rover isn't nearly as polluting and doesn't drive nearly as far. More importantly, the heart surgeon isn't a role model in terms of lifestyle aspirations for literally hundreds of millions of followers.

People shouldn't be judged on a single data point.

It's not like we're talking about stealing some sweets from children or something. Climate change just gets worse and worse and worse until we reach net zero co2 emissions. As long as it's culturally accepted to cause massive amounts of completely unnecessary emissions, we don't have the slightest chance of fixing this.

The only way a decent person could be doing this is if they were completely uneducated about climate change and their impact as a role model.

It doesn't make much sense, but conservatives are already losing their minds over the 25g we're allowed to carry "nooo, we're enabling drug dealers with those massive quantities". If they went for 500g at home, there would've been a lot more negative press I imagine and it might not have gone through. Maybe it will be adjusted a few years down the line.

You said that they are a reactionary government, but you also implied that their reactionary justification to invade is legitimate.

Who kills a shitload of dogs? I think you replied to the wrong comment.

Would you also consider it preachy when people criticize other cases of animal harm, like bullfighting or dog beating, or is it just the financing of factory farming that can't be criticized? If not, what's the difference? It's troublesome that people enforce a social stigma that you can't talk about what we do to farm animals without suffering social consequences.

Among the cereals, the most prominent as a source of energy is corn. Between 70% and 80% of its production is used as a feed ingredient worldwide.

https://www.veterinariadigital.com/en/articulos/importance-of-corn-in-animal-production/

"We need animal agriculture because we need to grow the feed plants to grow more feed plants for animal agriculture"

We've come full circle.

Good to know that it's already implemented on kbin, thanks!

Congratulations

If the rest of the plant would be wasted, it would be more economical to just grow another plant that's more efficient for oil production (canola, sunflower), not soybeans which are incidentally the crop highest in protein.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/area-per-tonne-oil

It's not grown in such quantities because it's essential but simply because there's demand for the extra protein from factory farms right now.

Damn it

There's always a supplier and a consumer. The pollution of these 100 corporations is caused on behalf of their customers who fund them in exchange for fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. They are both responsible, it's 2 sides of the same coin.

Of course, much of this pollution isn't really avoidable at this point. We can't have 100% renewable power and electric cars tomorrow. Some really polluting industries will take decades to decarbonize, like steel and cement production. But this makes it even more urgent to adress the low hanging fruit asap, i.e. big sources of pollution that can easily be cut. Private jets are a prime example.

You could say just a few private jet flights or chopping down one single forest won't make a dent in global carbon emissions, but that doesn't mean that thousands around the world can keep on doing it indefinitely without consequences for all of us. Especially if they are idols for millions of people, normalizing harm to society that we can't afford.

in order to extract that much oil, we must press about 85% of the global crop of soybeans. the vast majority if the soy fed to livestock is the industrial waste from that process.

I've already told you that we can produce plant-based meat or soy protein for other uses from that, which you conceded, and you still call it "industrial waste". Why are you knowingly spreading misinformation?

I'd be surprised if any country responded militarily. It's not in the interest of anyone to risk WW3 over Taiwan, and China knows this. In contrast to Russia, they are probably competent enough to take Taiwan in a day or two before anyone can send significant aid.

There would be massive economic implications though. The most effective deterrence that western countries have are sanctions, and they can't let China invade without consequences to keep the deterrence effective (also for other countries), so they'd have to be used. Investment in China would probably be banned for decades to reduce reliance.

If hundreds of millions of Chinese fall back into poverty due to the invasion, that would be a serious threat for political stability in China.

Tomayto tomahto. The grocery store bought the milk from factory farms with the money they get from their customers. At the end of the day the money from milk consumers still funds the animal abuse.

I agree that many urban areas need a lot more and better public transport, which is a systemic solution.

In rural regions it's not practical to build enough infrastructure to replace private transport though. Electric cars are a good solution there and will also get more affordable in the next years (over the lifetime they are already roughly as cheap as gas cars).

It would take away breeding ground for human transmittable mutations. With literally billions of animals, mainly in filthy conditions, we just keep rolling the dice every day for a strain that starts a pandemic. We can either try to abolish factory farming, or just hope that the next pandemic won't be much worse than covid.

This one isn't human to human transmittable. It jumped to one human, but can't infect other humans from there, so unless it mutates in a bad way it won't start a pandemic. That's very unlikely with one infection, but there will be more if it stays on animal farms.

You're really the personification of the word pedantic. I changed my poorly formulated sentence.

It's your argument put in another way

soybeans are grown for nutrient fixation in rotation with corn. they're more of a soil crop than an oil crop.