SeahorseTreble

From the montage at the end when it cuts between lots of different scenes from various games

Is your trivial pleasure indulgence more important than the lives and freedom taken away from animals? It's one thing to think your life is more important than theirs (speciesism), but it's quite another to believe your pleasure matters more than their lives. This is an inbalanced consideration of interests - their interests to not have those things done to them by humans are more important to them than your addiction/habit and greedy desire to have very specific, privileged and unnecessary products for which you have plenty of alternatives. I'm presuming you don't think pleasure is a justification for victimizing humans or dogs, so there's still a double standard of discrimination happening based on species - despite them all being sentient beings with similar foundational interests (e.g. to live, be free, be happy, be with loved ones, avoid danger, not be harmed or exploited or killed, etc). Heck, they want pleasure too. Why does their pleasure not matter? And what you take from them is much more fundamental and valued than any kind of pleasure.

Moreover, do you think you can't experience pleasure without consuming animals & their secretions? Beyond all the other non-food-related ways of entertaining yourself, there are plenty of tasty plant based foods, much of animal flesh is seasoned with plants anyway (which we can use to season other plant based foods), and there are products designed to replicate the same exact experiences of consuming animal products. It's simply a lie to think that being vegan means giving up pleasure - many vegans can attest that vegan food is not only tasty, it's tastier (and makes you feel better health wise, and in terms of happiness and lifting the burden of guilt toward animals and the environment off your conscience), and it inspires you to expand your culinary horizons and experience many more foods than you did before, since there are so many more plants and plant based foods/recipes than the few dead animal species and their secretions that most humans eat. "It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal." - Joaquin Phoenix, actor and vegan / animal rights and environmental advocate. However it should be noted that pleasure never justifies victimization anyway, and also that veganism is not a diet but an ethical stance against animal exploitation (beyond animal-derived food, including avoiding supporting/contributing to/participating in animal-derived clothing, any other commodity made from animals, or other industries, services or activities that involve animal exploitation).

Anti vegans are aggressively against the idea of veganism in general, not just opposed to going vegan themself (which is probably most people, who aren't necessarily "anti vegan" - though perhaps anti-animal rights, if they knew what it means). So, not personally wanting to go vegan doesn't really explain being anti vegan, unless it's an extreme reaction and psychological coping mechanism to feel the need to reactionarily lash out at the people who make you feel guilty over exploiting animals (the "meat paradox" in psychology).

Vegans are not trying to take away anyone's pleasure - we aren't puritans or asceticists (inherently, of course a vegan could be separately). Veganism as a philosophy is in favor of respecting animals, not against experiencing pleasure - generally, even the same kinds of pleasure that come from consuming or using animals, which is why we often recommend plant-based replication/substitution products that aim to provide the same experience as animal products (for people who desire them, as an alternative means of persuading them to stop using real animals - they of course aren't necessary and many vegans don't have them).

Also, some vegans don't even do activism or advocate for animals/veganism, they're just vegan, so it would make more sense if anything to be anti-animal rights activism, but even then, activists aren't trying to (and have no ability to) take anything away from you, including the animal products you consume - only attempting to reason with you and inspire you to stop doing it. Even if someone screamed in your face and told you that you were a murderer and rapist and enslaver of animals (referencing contributing indirectly to animal slaughter, exploitation, and forceful impregnation/artificial insemination) and that you need to stop (while much of activism is less confrontational), let me know when they're actually stealing animal products away from you. They don't and they can't, and they almost never are violent either, so it's just words and emotion directed at the issue you partake in. It's valid freedom of speech, expression and protest, and if anything anti-vegans are trying to take away those rights when they argue people like Tash Peterson should be prosecuted or jailed just for yelling in McDonalds stores dressed as a cow, or agree with the massive fine she received for criticizing a veterinarian for being a hypocrite by eating animals (which has been contested under free speech protections).

Are there actually "vegan subtitles"? I can only see regular language captions

I'd argue it's potentially the most ethically bad form of animal exploitation there is, due to the "small body problem". It holds far more sentient (yes, insects are sentient and some are seemingly quite intelligent) victims than other forms of animal exploitation/farming. There's a vegan activist who focuses on this topic, his name is Dre and his Instagram is @banbugfarms

This feels like a roundabout rubegoldbergian conclusion. I'll take it. However, what if you want to phrase it like a noun in the form of "The possible possibility" or "The maybe-not necessity/not necessarily necessary necessity/uncertain necessity"? Can't say "The maybe possibility" or "The maybe necessity" now can you? And what about as an adjective? "It's maybe possible"? It's maybe not necessary"? These are too either boggled or clunky.

Oh my god, the fifth episode is one of the most insane things I've ever seen, so out of nowhere, and I'm not even talking about the ending..

In terms of what's airing weekly right now:

The Chair Company, Pluribus, It: Welcome to Derry, The Morning Show

Starting in a few days: The Creep Tapes season 2

In terms of recent things that came out:

Coldwater, Obituary season 2, The Vince Staples Show season 2, The Witcher season 4

To bring it back to language and the word meat and what people mean by it, I have no idea why people use the phrasing they do. Some people told me things like gelatin and rennet aren't vegetarian (even though many dairy products contain it, meaning I was never really vegetarian), and a lot of people say fish aren't meat. Not much rhyme or reason lol, at least it seems inconsistent across different people who use the words. I'm sure some people are generalizing all animal products when they say "meat", while others probably just mean animal flesh, and others still would mean the flesh of land animals, excluding marine animals.

Definitely agree it can stem from insecurity and feelings of guilt about animals and the environment, though maybe other or more complex motivations at times.

And for all intents and purposes, people are criticizing our diet, because that's what most people believe veganism is, even though it's really an ethical stance against animal use/exploitation that extends to all products and actions beyond food. They're really attacking/lashing out/criticizing our animal-free/plant-based diet or lifestyle, even if they do out of their own moral beliefs. Someone doesn't even have to say anything, the existence of vegans is enough sometimes to make people feel like they're on trial and need to defend their actions to animals, & disparage the choice to avoid them. That's how it feels anyway. And tbh, it makes sense to feel insecure about it because it's pretty horrific what we do to animals, but responding to the notion that we don't have to do this or some people are against it, in an aggressive & unproductive way seems irrational to me. We just need to work on controlling our emotions better as humans I think.

The religious analogy is SO accurate too. It really feels like people are having their worldview and belief system challenged by people with a different one that appears to be rooted in ethics and sympathy for animals, something everyone can relate to. I think there were studies showing people who cared more about animals were more likely to hate vegans, which is really enlightening. The more that people share our values, the more they seem to want to fight against us because it forces them to comfront uncomfortable parts of themselves. This is also why so many leftists are anti vegan, imo. And I say this as a leftist, basically. Even though leftist ideas are usually about human rights principles, it's not too much of a leap to extend it to other sentient species, and the environment. So it can create this feeling of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance, often termed as the "meat paradox" in psychological research

Also funny and coincidental, vegans often eat seitan (a product made from gluten/wheat protein), and we basically are like a satanic force that needs to be cleared out in the eyes of a lot of people. 😆While some Christians argue veganism is entailed by their religion (maybe after watching Christspiracy), others have literally called us satanic and demonic lol. And the same was said of abolitionists too, I guess justice and respect is super scary and evil to whomever is tasked with defending their antitheses:

He said, with an exasperated demeanor, that when vegans make certain arguments against animal exploitation, it makes him want to eat a whole bucket of chicken(s). This knee-jerk response is very interesting and should be the subject of psychological research if it isn't already - carnism in general has been, and concepts like the meat paradox, so maybe. We could see in real time his worldview unraveling and devolving into basal emotional instincts rather than logic, reason or empathy. Interestingly, the other person in the video said they didn't have that reaction, and Ben quickly walked back his comment and seemingly felt guilty for it.

He chooses action, a bad action, instead of nonaction in relation to those bad actions. In that case, nonaction is actually preferable. Veganism is opting out of animal exploitation - often described as a non-action.

I understand the intent of calling it an action to stop exploiting animals, because ceasing an action feels like an action in itself, especially if resultingly, it's replaced by other actions. It's a change, which is an action of sorts. I use that language too because it's effective.

But I think it's interesting that we humans always frame issues related to impacting upon animals and the environment as if we're "helping" and "taking action" by simply stopping doing something bad/harmful or reducing our harm.

When we talk about becoming vegan, we often say things like "save hundreds of animals a year through reduced supply/demand", when really we mean more like spare them from the consequences of our own actions. And meanwhile, we never use the language of "saving" someone when a person decides not to kill someone they were considering killing - in the human context. So it feels maybe like we're still untangling speciesist bias and devaluing or de-individualizing other animals in subtle ways. Where for example, respecting an animal is seen as a virtuous, heroic action, rather than basic moral decency.

For the environment, it's the same, except less about individuals and more about feeling maybe like we're so entitled with our human egocentrism/anthropocentrism to use/"harvest"/damage the planet as we please, that deciding to reduce our harm to it is a "supererogatory" action deserving of praise, or that it's an encouraged option, rather than a moral obligation & duty. Same with animals more or less, except animals are sentient beings so it's arguably worse.

Thanks for this info! I wasn't aware of this technology. However I still am not sure if I really understand it or what you mean, though I might. As far as I can understand, DACs are a converter from digital to analog sound. In the context of 3.5mm headphones and USB C, it would involve plugging the 3.5mm cable of the headphone into the converter, and plugging a cable on the other end of the converter into your USB C port such as on a smartphone. Is that correct?

While I appreciate this option and the advantages it provides, audio quality isn't my priority (comfort, basic usability, functionality & suitability for my use-cases is), and as far as enabling me to use 3.5mm headphones with USB C ports, I already have more straightforward converters for that (DAC converters I looked at seemed chunky & would add weight, tho could be worthwhile for audio improvement), and while DACs might be better for this, I don't think they would preclude the inherent trickiness and fraughtness (for me) of needing to use a converter, having those converters break/malfunction (though higher quality ones may last longer, but the connection seemed unstable in all the ones I tried, on multiple USB C phones over the years), and not being able to charge or have the phone plugged in while using headphones.

So I think sadly this doesn't solve my problem. Thanks tho!

Lol, it's not virtue signaling if you're actually doing something about the issue you claim to care about, and advocate for the purposes of inspiring others to do the same. That's literally the opposite of virtue signaling, it's aligning one's actions with their values, putting their money where their mouth is, and extolling the virtues of doing so to other people if worthwhile.

Laughs in veganism (and thus taking personal responsibility for changing, non-hypocrisy and non-virtue signalling and non-deflecting)

Tbh I don't really understand how anyone comfortably uses wired USB C headphones since it means you can't charge the phone or have it plugged in to do anything at the same time. If that's the route we're going, I might advocate for 2 USB C ports. But that's not the main reason for me, and I understand my situation/use case doesn't apply to most people. In fact I still have to deal with that problem anyway, on top of others.

I require a specific kind of headphones that don't touch my ears due to a medical condition combined with massive ears. It's very painful and harmful for me otherwise. It's almost impossible to find headphones like that, in fact I haven't been able to, but the only ones I've been able to find that are big enough to be comfortable enough and not cause major issues are all expensive/professional studio wired over ear headphones. If I find one that is either Bluetooth (wireless) or USB C that works for my ears, I would get it.

So my solution has been to use firstly USB C to 3.5mm adapters, which break constantly and surely create more waste than I personally would with a headphone jack part of a phone, and never work well and keep disconnecting, and also don't let me charge etc at the same time. For that problem I tried ones that split a USB C port into another USB C port + a 3.5mm jack, but they worked even worse. Ultimately what I settled on are 3.5mm Bluetooth dongles/adapters that work a little better and don't break as much (though their charging cables do), and still let me charge the phone. However it still creates extra waste (and uses extra energy to charge) and doesn't work well and isn't ideal, and I'd always rather be able to just plug it into the phone directly.

I'm also somewhat into audio editing and music production, and for that purpose I believe that most professional studio headphones and industry standards are still using 3.5mm, but I could be wrong about that and I know it is shifting rapidly toward wireless or USB C, and I also haven't been really prioritizing sound quality since my main priority is comfort/usability.

Hey thanks, I really appreciate this info. I actually forgot that earlier Fairphones used to have the headphone jack. As far as I can tell, Fairphone 3 and 3+ were the last ones to have it, and the 3+ appears to be an upgrade from the Fairphone 3, so I guess if I wanted the most modern one possible I would go for 3+... i am a little confused and worried about operating system compatibility though, e.g. it says it comes with Android 9 and can be upgraded to Android 13, but can reach Android 15 with lineageOS (I don't know how to do that or if I need to get a certain model pre-installed with it), and the latest Android version is 16 so I guess 15 would be ok, would last me a while at least before apps start to become incompatible... Also the difficulty remains of actually obtaining the phone, especially if it needed to be a particular kind.

I will also look into Volla and Shift, hopefully I can find something that works, and if not, well I've been told a lot that the Sony Xperia phones are one of the only ones still using a headphone jack consistently, so I might just have to get a secondhand version of that one and if anyone judges me for it I'll have to ask them to take my word for it that I didn't buy it new 😅

Please dont hate on me, I think my question is reasonable. And I still support Fairphone, and I dont want to debate over why they dont have a headphone jack. And please dont try to convince me to use a phone without a headphone jack, have done so for years and it's terrible for my purposes and leads to many many adapters breaking.

When you buy an animal burger, you are effectively taking away the possibility of healthy nutritious plant based food from starving children. So many calories wasted.

Mahatma Gandhi:

“The earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” “To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.”

In Frances Moore Lappé’s 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet, she wrote that eating animals is “like driving a Cadillac” in terms of waste — a metaphor later rephrased by activists as “eating a hamburger is like stealing bread from the world’s hungry.”

The downvotes should show you just how lost humanity is right now. "I care about food security and climate change and animal cruelty waa waa but i dont want to take any personal responsibility for it or change anything about myself because i like meat/dairy/eggs waa waa"