What are you trying to achieve with this pointless aggression?

Some people in the tech community just seem to have this weird superiority complex for some reason. They think they’re smarter than everyone else and look down on the normies, meaning they come off… Like this guy. It’s like they put all of their skill points into INT and none of them into WIS.

How do these people function in their daily lives? Do they have service dogs or something who bark every time someone makes a joke?

The USA is a union of states. The House of Representatives is where the people are represented proportionally. The reason why we have the Senate is so that the smaller states don’t get fucked over by the more populous ones, because again, the states are legally equal under the union. I do think FPTP and the electoral college are stupid though.

Who are you to say he is a bad role model?

Andrew Tate’s entire schtick is being a misogynistic chimpanzee wearing the skin of a man and bragging about how wealthy and sexually successful he is. Anybody who believes this manchild to be a good role model ought to be treated as a laughingstock, much like the man himself. Andrew Tate and people like him capturing the minds of the youth, or young people living a meaningless and depressive existence with no role models or aspirations at all, has direct negative effects on society, and therefore me as well. Therefore, I will continue to tell people to stop following shitty role models like him and to get good ones, because I wanna live in a society where people actually have standards for how they conduct themselves, instead of a society dominated by people like Andrew Tate.

If men have no positive role models and no framework through which to interact with their emotions and their place in the world, they will find horrible role models like Andrew Tate and come up with crude and self-serving frameworks through which to view the world. Since people find religion cringe for some reason nowadays, personal philosophy and virtue ethics are now our only good option.

Microplastics are the new lead, and screens are the new tobacco, in my opinion. Overuse of sugar in processed foods is the new version of how they’d cut food with inedible stuff like sawdust back in the day.

It’s not just a numbers game. In the 1800s around farming communities it was not uncommon for a man to marry and have children with a woman due solely to the size of her father. Because stronger kids meant better workers. Very similar to how we bred cattle dogs to be better workers.

This is true, and it is true that the standards change depending on what type of society you’re in. For example, in pastoralist societies women went after men who were strong and displayed risk-taking behavior because that kind of behavior is what got you ahead in a pastoralist society, while in parts of Asia, some genes which are known to correlate with ADHD (commonly known to cause greater impulsivity and risk taking behavior) are exceedingly rare because rice cultivating societies do not mesh well with impulsive risk-takers, so those people just never got laid.

That being said, I don’t believe the rate of biological adaptation as a result of sexual selection was ever really fast enough for modern humans to qualify as truly adapted for the societies they lived in. All the stuff we just talked about above is barely just the beginning of the adaptations we’d need to be suited for an agricultural society, let alone an industrial or digital one. The main adaptations were in the form of social constructs like etiquette and religion, as well as technologies designed to make things more comfortable, and of course, drugs, all of which made people more easily capable of coping with their unnatural habitats.

short snouts are dumb

we in agreement here

Also I’m glad we can joke and actually have a conversation about this without things getting angry. It’s a world of difference from Reddit.

Depends on which community, the politics community on whichever instance it was is just as not worth using as it was on Reddit

Can’t you think of examples of views that were fringe but became the moral baseline?

Yes, I can, but I can’t think of any that were extreme despite being the most widely held views in a given society, because that’s an oxymoron. Once something becomes a widely held view it is no longer extreme.

The former, by definition, because the vast majority of society does the latter. Extremists always try to reframe themselves as the moderate ones and say mainstream society are the extremists instead, so I’m not surprised you’re saying this.

Achsjullllyallyyyyiu, humans also do a form of Selective breeding voluntarily and it’s why families that tend to live in a more rural farming type communities tend to naturally be larger. We breed for what our families job is going to be.

This is not really what I’m talking about, making more people so you can make them work on the fields is kinda different from breeding dogs with inhumanely short snouts for aesthetic purposes, or making gargantuan dogs capable of 1v1ing a tiger so they’ll protect your livestock

All I’m saying is the Human race is very adaptable and we have changed a lot since drawing on cave walls.

Culturally, yes, physically, a little bit, psychologically, no. Our minds are still optimized for the savannah, and not the office, factory, or farm. Cultural adaptations, in the form of religion and etiquette, which we patch in after birth are what fill the gaps and make us actually capable of thriving in such a foreign environment to what our biology is made for.

Achsjulllyally, dogs and cats changed quickly on account of selective breeding. Natural selection, especially in cases where flaws in biology won’t immediately lead to someone losing reproductive fitness, operates on much longer timespans.

Ackshyually, we’ve had millions of years to get used to fire, about 200,000 to get used to being sentient, 20,000 to get used to agriculture, about 150 to get used to industrial society, and about 30 to get used to computers. We have just barely figured out how to cope with knowledge of our own deaths by making up supernatural stuff about it and we have not gotten used to any of that other stuff at all.

So when flowers rub their gametes on passing animals in the hopes that those animals transmit them to other flowers, it’s fine, but when I do it, everyone loses their minds???

Why would you specifically use the sentient robots for your grunt work and why would an artificial intelligence have problems with the same things humans do? Especially if an AI was made for the specific purpose of doing work. The reason humans don’t like doing work is because evolution naturally selected for us to be good at things like

-hunting gazelles

-gathering berries

-making finger paintings on cave walls

-sitting around a campfire making ape noises

and not working at a corporation. For an AI, it’d presumably be the opposite, meaning that AIs would be about as content with their lives as humans are in their natural environment.

Ah, the good ole “circle of death” a.k.a appeal to nature fallacy.

Something being natural makes it more sustainable.

We have to feed the animal mass, hence the double impact on environment. Your argument is actually in favor of veganism, not against it.

Depending on how much meat you’re producing, you can do it in a manner which isn’t that damaging to the environment. Chickens don’t require that much food but they produce enough to feed a family, and cows can live off of grass if you don’t try and produce too many of them.

To live and be dead at the same time? That sure sounds logical. Veganism is about reducing harm done to animals as much as is practically possible.

Killing ourselves would be a great way to do that, yes. Humanity is the world’s single most prolific and destructive invasive species.

Some people choose even closer point than you in how evil they’re willing to be. Without going into gory examples, I guess you’d just be content with it? I mean even if it’s not illegal doesn’t mean it’s right, right?

Well yes, obviously, if I was less moralistic then I’d be able to be content with much more evil in this world, however, some evil can be greatly reduced without inconveniencing civilization very much (unlike removing meat from the human diet), so there’s no need to be content with it.

Yes, exactly like lions. “When humans eat flesh, we don’t actually tear it with our cuspids. Instead, we soften meat with cooking and then pre-tear it with utensils before grinding it down with our flattened molars, which are particularly well-suited for chewing vegetation.” Source

This does not disprove my main point that humans evolved to eat meat.

You buying your meat at the store, nicely vacuumed has nothing to do with nature. Despite any lion fantasies.

Yes, that’s why I wish to go hunt deer or something. The meat will probably taste better and procurement will be much more fulfilling than your average grocery trip because the thrill of the hunt is what our minds and bodies long for.

This is an example of the laziness I was talking about in the earlier comment.

It is the biological imperative of all living creatures to be as lazy as possible.

Now this is not lazy. It’s 4D chess or something. Anyway I’ve lost the plot already.

The point is to show that your logic on who it is and isn’t ok to make fun of are easy to distort.

You could try that at a comedy club. (A place not run by Nazis ofc.)

The reason why you’d be removed from the premises is because the audience doesn’t like your joke, which is what I’m proposing we use as the arbiter of comedy here instead of what direction you’re punching in. And if you did somehow make a funny joke about Jews, which I’ve seen examples of, then people will probably laugh at it.

Yes, that’s unfortunate. Hope they get the treatment they deserve.

Then why do we still make fun of them? According to your logic, it’d be considered punching down, since non-offending pedophiles objectively do no harm and are a marginalized group. The answer, of course, is because they can be a source of good jokes, and because you don’t hear them complaining about it, or anyone complaining on their behalf.

Factory farming has a goal alright. It’s to destroy the global ecosystem and bring profit to multi national corporations while doing it.

I don’t think corporations care about the first part, and the way they actually get the second part is by feeding people.

In fact, if most of the population went plant based, the soil would be used to grow stuff that could be utilized straight by humans, thus removing the animal from the equation.

We don’t need to remove the animal entirely from the equation in order to have a good-enough supply chain.

Also, there would be enough of food to easily feed the whole world population.

There already is, the fact that anyone starves is a failure of logistics, not the fact that we eat meat.

As a vegan, no offense taken even if I don’t find your lines especially funny.

That’s fine by me. I’m not out specifically to offend anyone, I’m just making fun of the dumb argument that’s cropping up in the comment section of the meme community. When I saw a meat-eater also being dumb in this comment section I made fun of him just the same.

But by proxy, I’m taking offense on behalf of the “farm animals”, because if I don’t, who else would?

I suppose I can respect that even though I don’t agree with most of your viewpoints.

I’m just always baffled by how easily carnists turn a blind eye to animal cruelty. Or turn it into a “comedy show” like in this case. Ofc, part of it is the whitewashing and propaganda spouted by the meat and dairy industry. Another part is that people don’t want to think about it because it would compel them to re-think their consuming habits (and people tend to be lazy, myself included).

If you insist on being serious here, I’ll throw you a bone and engage with this one in good faith. I certainly think factory farming is unethical (I wish to put a stop to it, even) and that killing animals is bad. And I’ll admit that I’m biased because I do not work in agriculture and I find meat tasty.

My take on the subject is that if you’re going to eat meat, go ahead, just be knowledgeable about where your meat is coming from. The fact that something had to die in order for me to get my daily sustenance is a fact of life and has been a fact of life ever since the first animal appeared and decided to take a bite out of the first photosynthetic plants. Factory farming is horrible for the environment and is a travesty of consumerism which does harm to everyone involved in it except whoever owns the factory, but the way we produce protein plants is bad for the environment as well, especially if farmed at the level needed to sustain a civilization. There are other theoretical methods which utilize modern technology, but once those become viable, we’re probably also close to the point where we can just grow meat in a test tube, so there’s no point in discussing those unless we bring that into it as well.

If you’re worried about speciesism, which I’m not but you seem to be, there’s also the fact that by saying you’d prefer to eat plants instead of animals, you’re putting plants lower on the totem pole than animals. Logically, if we wanna live as ethically as possible, we should just kill ourselves so that we don’t have to eat anything, or synthesize all of our nutrients and put it in a smoothie like those people from WALL-E.

Either that or we could subsist entirely off of fruit, like some type of bat, because fruit evolved for the purpose of being eaten. Not really possible right now and I’m not gonna stop you once it is, but at some point you have to make compromises. I’m simply willing to compromise at a closer point than you are in how evil I’m willing to be. Eliminating evil from the world is impossible, so you must be able to be content with a harsh and cruel world or you will not be very mentally healthy.

Humans were also built to eat meat. Maybe not as much as we do these days, but meat is still a natural part of our diet. The reason we have sharp teeth and front-facing eyes is because meat eating is what we evolved for. Human beings are still apart of nature even as far as we’ve come today, and throughout history, attempts to completely shut out our nature have usually come back to bite us in the ass.

There’s also the fact that there are so many things I’d rate higher on the totem pole of evil (I can list some of them if you want) in modern society, and things I simply need to deal with with much more urgency, that I and many others ain’t got time to worry about farm animals.

Speciesism much?

Yes I’m incredibly speciesist.

You’ve got it all backwards, man. Veganism is about reducing harm, not increasing it (compared to what pedos and Nazis do).

From Nazis’ perspective, they’re simply making the world a better place by getting rid of their, you guessed it, oppressors. Making fun of Jews would be punching up if you go by their logic. Meanwhile, making fun of pedophiles also implicates those who are simply unfortunate enough to be stuck with the illness and don’t actually cause any harm.

How do we decide who’s perspective is better when we declare who we can and can’t make fun of? If we go by popular opinion, then clearly we’re allowed to make fun of farm animals, and if we do what I do and ignore whatever power structures people have made up and internalized, we can just judge jokes by whether they’re funny or not.

Funnily you bring up the topic of Nazis into this, as we, as the oppressors, are the stronger opponent and there’s a Holocaust 2.0 ongoing, only it’s nicely hidden from the public view.

I wouldn’t put factory farming on the same level as the Holocaust. Despite using similar technologies and methods, factory farming has an actual goal, that being to ensure that people get fed and that civilization doesn’t, y’know, collapse due to famine. Meanwhile, the Holocaust was motivated purely by hatred and a desire to remove an entire ethnic group from the face of the Earth because the perpetrators made up a conspiracy theory about them.

it doesn’t justify joking about factory farming

yes it does

especially when “hitting from above” and siding with the stronger opponent.

Firstly, punching down doesn’t make something unfunny, it just usually is unfunny. When I do it, I find it very funny, and so do a lot of people in the audience. Secondly, I’m making fun of vegans, the farm animals are just collateral damage. Thirdly, they don’t count because they aren’t human beings. Fourthly, there is nothing wrong with siding with the strong, otherwise we wouldn’t be allowed to make jokes at the expense of people like pedophiles and Nazis, who are on the fringes of civilized society and reviled by all.

Out of curiosity what illness do you have that makes you unable to eat plants

Soil muncher doesn’t sound very cool and it doesn’t roll off the tongue very well. Dirtmuncher just sounds superior. You could also go sexual style and call them “spermophages” for eating fruit but I’d advise against it as we wouldn’t want your mother to think you’re asking for her.

Why would anyone be pissed off by that word?