“please shut up!” // -the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable
“Shut up” is also the sensible answer of adults when Christian zealots, nationalists and racists soapbox their shit.
Lvxferre
This account is being kept for the posterity, but it won’t see further activity past February.
If you want to contact me, I’m at /u/[email protected]
- 1 Post
- 18 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: April 9th, 2021
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
OP, you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The issue is with the medium, not the discourses being conveyed through the medium.
The issue isn’t people defending LGBTQ+ issues, or criticising capitalism, or criticising cars, or proposing environmental issues. The issue is the megaphone itself, the fact that everyone in social media thinks that one’s own views are so important, so holy OH SO PRECIOUS that we need to broadcast them.
And by “we” I’m including myself and likely you.
TL;DR
Fourth bullet point.
but jaguars dont have moral agency. People do
First bullet point.
Sorry for the huge wall of text. It’s a bit of a complex theme.
At its core I think that my ethic stance is best described as anti-realism. There’s no intrinsic value; value is assigned by the subject. In turn, each individual (incl. me) assigns values due to a bunch of different factors: defending one’s own interests, instinct (kin selection), culture/ideology, Realpolitik, or even on a whim.
Thus moral premises (or their absence - moral nihilism) are individual and arbitrary. I personally picked “weighted selfishness” and kin selection as two of mine. This leads to some sort of “rank”, like: myself > my close relatives > other humans > other primates > other vertebrates > other animals > other living beings. Some individuals are sub-ranked higher due to their effect on individuals on higher ranks (e.g. someone’s pet dog is above a stray dog, my lemon tree is above other non-animal living beings, etc.)
Beyond that it works like a “weighted utilitarianism” where life, general well-being and happiness of a higher category are more important than the ones of lower categories. It works symmetrically though - for example a jaguar hunting a human being is still moral, even if the jaguar was somehow intelligent. (And so is the self-defence of the potential human. Or of a pig against a human.)
Based on that: battery farm is for me less moral than free range, but still within acceptable morality - because it benefits beings high in my priority (humans) by a lot.
Animal lives matter a bit. Animals closer to us matter more. I’m not sure however if their simple existence has a positive “happiness” value, it’s just referring to the life itself.
As I said in the other reply, you got to choose between the serious and memes-friendly reply. You had ~3h to do so, and you’re showing activity, so you picked neither = both.
c/memes friendly answer: Serial killer? Come on, I don’t put ketchup on pizza, sauce on ribs or hard cheese on seafood!
Serious answer. Spoilers for the sake of other users.
First off. I will cut you some slack, but keep in mind that “serial killer” is generally understood as “one who periodically kills humans”, so what you’re doing is libel. Others might not cut you the same slack, so get a bit more insightful with your insults.
Secondly. I also understand that “I shouldn’t soapbox in a meme comm” is a bit too complex of an idea for nationalists, vegans, racists, and Christian zealots. And given that you belong to at least one of those groups, this should be really hard for you, o poor thing.
Final and more importantly:
You wouldn’t call a jaguar piercing the necks of capybaras “serial killing”, even if they periodically do so. Or orcas hunting seals, even if they can get really “playful” (cruel) towards their prey, also periodically. Or chickens eating bugs alive, so they die either crushed or dissolved in hydrochloric acid, even if they don’t need it to survive. Or chimps hunting termites and teaching their children how to do so, even if there’s a cultural factor in this.
And yet you refer to a human being killing a member of another species [ipsis ungulis] “serial killer” Why, even if by the above we know that you don’t give a fuck about periodicity, cruelty, necessity, or culture? Why?
Because you want to pretend that you’re part of a very, very special snowflake species, “holier and above all those filthy irrationals”, above them. As if you were better, more moral, more deserving of The Kingdom of God than those “poor things”.
Cut off the bullshit. You and me are catarrhines with a weird hair pattern. We are animals; acknowledge you as such, instead of wallowing in wishful belief. The morality behind our acts is the same as the morality of the same acts of other species. If eating flesh is immoral for us, so is for both other omnivorous species and the carnivorous ones. You can claim that eating flesh is moral, or immoral, but you need to do it for both sides.
If you claim that it’s immoral, go grab your shotgun and kill every fucking jaguar, orca, chimp, and chicken out there. (Except battery farm chickens, those cause less death of precious animals than you’d like to admit.) Or even better, go ramble at the jaguar, he’ll totally listen to you and stop eating capybaras. (He’ll probably eat something dumber than a capybara then. You.)
If you claim that it’s moral, I rest my case.
You’re also putting animal lifes in a weird altar over the lives of everything else. Every fucking living thing thrives off the death of something else; even plants, bacteria and funghi. Why is this weird altar even there? Because you’re an animal and put your own group over the others, in detriment of those.
I’ll pre-emptively rebuke some really stupid counter-arguments that you perhaps might utter:
- Any reasoning trying to pretend that humans are “speshul”, such as intelligence - refer the paragraph starting with “Cut off”.
- “Dis is appoeal to narurr! [nature]” - nope. I’m highlighting that your standards are arbitrary and, if consistently applied, would go completely against what you probably claim to defend (“poor crirrurrs” [critters])
- Something about tone - deal with it. You brought this to yourself.
- “haha didn’t read lmao XD lol” - can’t have your precious, oh precious feelings ( = garbage) being broken, right?
- “B-but the environment!” - the issue with continued sustainability of Earth to keep human life is not the fact that we eat meat. It’s the 1% hoarding resources and making sure that we exploit the shit out of the environment so they can count coins.
- “this dunt maek sense i dun unrurrstand” - it does make sense even if you pretend that it doesn’t.
Get off your high horse.
Note for other vegans that might be reading this, before some assumer starts whining and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: I’m not chewing on this moron because it’s a vegan, but because it showed itself consistently dumb across the thread.
I can give you a serious answer or one suitable for a memes community. Which one shall you pick? [EDIT: picking neither will yield you both.]
I can butcher it if she wants help. It shouldn’t be too different from pigs.
(It’s really precious though. Think on how many kilos of meat it has!)
Yerba mate
- night owl in a morning people world
- grumpy [S. Cone or Syria] | hipster [elsewhere]
- caffeine addict in denial
“Nimium diu, non legit” could work. I wouldn’t use the passive “legitur”, it’s begging for some jerk to reply it with “reuera, ego illud legi!!!” (actually, I read that!) or crap like that.
It’s just that “nimis, neglego” is shorter and alliterative, even if not literal. Plus that “neglego” (I’m indifferent, I neglect) shows the same sort of disdain that you see often in “TL;DR”.
Oh, that reminds me something I wrote in Mastodon, about how some Romans would handle the internet, specially the fediverse. I’ll translate and expand it here.
Cicero wouldn’t ever use Mastodon, he’d say that it’s “too limiting”. Instead he’d be here in Lemmy and write huge walls of text. Nobody would read them right off the bat, but years later people would look and say “this guy was spot on”.
Marcus Antonius would reply Cicero with NN = nimis, neglego (too long, didn’t read) from his Kbin account. Cleopatra would send him some sex NDi = nuntii directi (DMs), but Marcus Antonius would reply to her in the open. “It’s fine, nobody here gets the context, plus we’re talking in Greek!”. Everyone would see the interaction, roll their eyes, know exactly what’s about, and move on.
Catullus would spend 90% of his time in saving and reposting Clodia pics. 10% mocking Caesar. I bet that his poems would be highly upvoted though, they’re fun and nice. He’d do it from Kbin.
Caesar would be astroturfing the shit out of some Mastodon server.
Martialis would be self-hosting his Lemmy, with exactly one user. Eventually some big Lemmy server would get enough of his merdifari (shitpost) and the admins would decide to defederate him, but that would cause some drama because his merdifari was actually fun.
This post assumes that a meaningful amount of defed instances are caused by simple lack of agreement. Often, it’s an orthogonal matter - it boils down to instance A actually understanding something about the userbase of instance B and saying “I’m not dealing with this shit, it’ll make the instance worse for its own users”. For example: the typical user of B might be disingenuous, or preach immoral prescriptions, behave like a chimp, or be a bloody stupid piece of trash that should’ve stayed in Reddit to avoid smearing its stupidity everywhere here.
Are instance admins too eager to pull the trigger for defed? Perhaps, in some cases; specially because it handles groups of users instead of individuals. But those cases are better addressed through actual examples, not through a meme talking on generic grounds.
Got it!
It’s kind of hard to generalise based on one point of data, but I’m surprised at you saying that the content quality went down. I did expect it to happen, but not so quickly. (Also, welcome to Lemmy!)
What’s up with the new wave of people talking about Reddit? Did their admins do some stupid shit again?
(I’m just curious, mind you, it has been months since I don’t browse Reddit.)
Could you please not spam your post every damn where? This is a community about Linux gaming.
The post itself is interesting though, so I’ll discuss it in [email protected], where’s it’s actually fitting.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
For people downvoting the meme: it’s just crude humour. I’ll translate it:
–But did you know she’s underage?
–You didn’t know everything eitherOP himself mentions “Attention, the picture contains fascist people.” (Merdolini and Hitler.)
Nie na zdjęciu: Pedobear prowadził samochód. // not in the picture: Pedobear driving the car.
What’s in the box?
A cat, of course. Why else would boxes exist, if not for cats?
0·1 year agoIt’s a way to share files across seeders/peers of different torrents, as long as the torrents contain at least one identical file. For example, let’s say that:
- you’re downloading torrent1. It shares the files A and B. You got A already, but since the number of seeders dropped considerably, you’re having a really hard time downloading B.
- there’s also torrent2, sharing files B and C. Fairly active, with lots of seeders.
Without swarm merging, you’re stuck waiting for new seeders or peers from torrent1 that have the file B. With swarm merging, your torrent program will get the file B from people sharing torrent2 too.
I recall this feature from Vuze; but apparently BiglyBT also uses it.
That doesn’t surprise me.
Linux users are biased towards higher technical expertise, and they have a different mindset - most of the software that we use is the result of collaborative projects, and we’re often encouraged to help the devs out. And while the collaborative situation might not be true for game development, the mindset leaks out.