Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TH
Posts
9
Comments
7,421
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I mean, just because people are watching it on Tubi doesn't mean they were going to pay HBO Max subscription fees to watch it there. Tubi is mostly ad supported and targets an entirely different demographic. Zaslav is a douche canoe and a moron, but this isn't the smoking gun the author seems to think it is.

  • The fucked up part is that this bill permits the bypass of existing regulations. Wilderness protections already included a process to receive exemptions for critical infrastructure, including security-related improvements. The new bill simply removes the review process and creates a rubber stamp they can use to do whatever they want under the guise of border security, with zero review, oversight, or accountability for abuses.

  • That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, these gravy seals are armed to the teeth and itching to fulfill a lifelong dream to "justifiably" murder somebody. If they can't manage to arrest someone without their pants falling down, they're just going to start blasting.

  • For years, I had my own headcanon for the Labyrinth movie. In the scene, the young Sarah correctly solves the riddle, passes through the correct door, says "This is a piece of cake!" and then she immediately falls down a pit of doom. This confused me, because she got the answer right. So I reasoned that the guards were both liars, and because they both participated in explaining the rules, they were lying about the rules.

    It was only a few years ago that I read in an interview that the Labyrinth (or Jareth) dropped her down the hole because she said it was a piece of cake. It was her arrogance that set her back, not that she got the riddle wrong.

    But now it still bothers me that the liar, whichever one he is, helps explain the rules of the scenario. If he always lies, then she can't trust that either of them ever tells the truth. The rules have to be described separately, like on a sign or by a disinterested third party. Or you could phrase it differently, like "One of us will answer your question truthfully, and one of us will answer your question dishonestly." That way you avoid saying that they always lie, and specify that the lie will only be in response to the one question.

    Fuck, I've had too much coffee. How the fuck did I get up on this soapbox? Why are you still reading? Go do something productive.

  • Most table sugar is not vegan because it is refined with bone char, although the end product (white sugar) does not contain any animal product. The ethics of consuming this sugar is debatable among vegans and vegetarians, because the bone char is considered a byproduct of the meat industry rather than a primary driver of animal suffering, and you're not consuming the bones.

    Some vegans feel strongly about avoiding any products created with animals , others are OK with sugar.

    I mentioned it because it is a good example of something seemingly innocuous that many people aren't yet aware is made is animal products. Even the people who are aware of it don't necessarily agree on how strict we should be. Plenty of alternatives exist, but sugar pops up in a lot of unexpected foods that you might otherwise assume are vegan.

  • I'm not suggesting we do nothing. I'm saying we shouldn't expect information to drive action. If you want real change, you need to be political and you need to be proactive. Without regulations, we would still have children changing bowling pins 12 hours a day while smoking unfiltered cigarettes and drinking polluted water. If you want to reduce animal suffering, you need legislation to regulate factory farming. Any change would need to be gradual regardless, but any positive change is a reason to celebrate.

  • I don't think that premise is true. I think most people who eat meat have at least a vague idea of how animals suffer to become food. Most probably don't know the specifics, and few will want to watch the videos showing conditions and procedures in factory farming, but it's not the knowledge that fosters empathy for animals. Humans are really good at disconnecting conflicting ideas becauseconflict makes us uncomfortable. They will say they prefer that animals suffer as little as possible to become food (or leather or sugar or pharmaceuticals, etc) but most humans won't change their behavior to match that stated preference.

    It's the same way we feel about sweatshops or slave labor or child labor or the general exploitation of workers. The vast majority of humans don't want other humans to suffer, and most humans are at least aware that a child died to bring them that chocolate bar. That doesn't stop people from buying chocolate or fast fashion or bacon cheeseburgers.

  • Rant @lemmy.sdf.org

    Nobody Has Ever Wanted Your Website to Do This

    Lemmy Shitpost @lemmy.world

    Can anyone relate? No? Me neither, then.

    Rant @lemmy.sdf.org

    The US Lottery is state-sanctioned fraud.

    Dad Jokes @lemmy.world

    This place is dead

    News @lemmy.world

    Missouri executes a man for the 1998 killing of a woman despite her family’s calls to spare his life

    Showerthoughts @lemmy.world

    A "Healthy Amount of Cheese" is always an Unhealthy Amount of Cheese.

    Philadelphia Eagles @lemmy.world

    Hulu sucks. How are you watching the game?

    No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world

    Can flies recognize that I'm holding a flyswatter?