Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or selling you products Impossible burgers Tofu. It's like a coordinated agenda to stigmatize the internal combustion engine and promote renewable energy sources like solar and wind. You might just be in the prime demographics for both but a majority of the population isn't.
Nobody has stigmatized engines, people are trying to reduce emissions because the greatest body of knowledge we have access to (science) suggests we should.
George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
401–410 of 429 posts
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not yet, but if you watch early Carlin it is the same pattern: 1. initially safe,sanitized corporate friendly jokes 2. some commercial success 3. ? 4. jokes increasingly become a social commentary and are less and less 'friendly'
Carlin and safe, sanitized corporate friendly jokes never happened. If anything he became less intentionally rude over time.
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Euphemisms are not particular to academia. Euphemisms for sex and death are as old as language.
Sure but it's especially bad in academia recently. "You cannot be racist against white people. If it's against white people it's not racist" kind of language. Or you know. Whites not need apply. This program is for every race except Caucasian
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely speaking this is part of the ruling classes "divide and conquer" strategy. Ensuring that people think that some "other" body of people are against them (right, left, woke, trumpists etc) is a strong tactic to keep people putting there energy into fighting each other and not making a big deal about the people in control of things like the media or government- which we're all too tired to fight and sort of qu…
> It sounds like a conspiracy theory, except it's basically well known and nobody really cares it seems, we're too easily baited. (including myself here). No, it sounds like a conspiracy theory because it is. It has nothing to do with some shady cabal of elites ("the ruling class"). It's just American culture.
Sure, some people are radicalised, but a large part of that radicalisation is a reaction to a perceived equal radicalisation on the $otherSide.
You'll notice that people get divided on things that just "become political" out of nowhere.
Wearing a mask for a really recent example, there was a very small window of time before any politician or media outlet said anything other than "we don't know everything" about the pandemic. In that time window it was pretty clear that most people just do what is needed.
You don't need a formal conspiracy when incentives align though, so as much as you paint it as a "shadowy elite" it's probably just a few people who know that they need to stoke a culture war and a lot of people who will get rich off of outrage bait and creating a cultural moat that makes them the voice of a cultural "side" are more opportunistic and don't particularly care all that much about furthering a particular agenda.
If you actually have time to have a conversation with someone you deeply disagree with you tend to find out pretty quickly that there's a seriously large amount in common and it's the distance to each other culturally that causes a larger rift than anything innate.
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Euphemisms are not particular to academia. Euphemisms for sex and death are as old as language.
Sure but it's especially bad in academia recently. "You cannot be racist against white people. If it's against white people it's not racist" kind of language. Or you know. Whites not need apply. This program is for every race except Caucasian
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you lost the thread. The claim was factory farming doesn’t change the volume of meat consumption and production, only the geographic location of it. It is economically not viable for every American family to produce and kill their own 2lb of (currently, on average) consumed meat per day. That is why we have factory farming and why it dominates our food supply: economies of scale. The lack of these economies i…
I'm sorry -- how expensive do you think chickens are? In fact, if everyone had them, they'd most likely be freely shared. You seem very out of touch with your own species.
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, propaganda happens. Doesn't make them not accidents.
Ah, you agree with the car industry propaganda push to use the term "accident" instead of, say, motor killing. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident "Crash" is a wider term. If someone deliberately drives into a building, that is not an accident. It is still a crash. Do you also say plane accident instead of plane crash?
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can argue whether it's negligence, but negligence doesn't make it not an accident.
Accident is a deeply misleading work to assign to negligence. And I'd argue that there's circular logic at play since the dictionary definition is based on the problematic usage.
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, "hit by a car" is the perfect example of fetishization, the attribution of agency to inanimate objects. Note to that it will be the cyclist that will hit the old lady, never the bicycle. The bicycle, even though as old as the car, has resisted this fetishization. It's really curious, which objects cast the spell, and which don't.
I've definitely heard people talk about getting hit by bikes. I think the distinction, to the extent it exists, might have a lot to do with what constitutes the majority of mass. If you get hit by an 18 pound bike with a 160 pound rider, you really got hit more by the rider than the bike. But if you get hit by a 3000 pound car with a 160 pound driver, you definitely got hit more by the car than the driver. However, d…
Re: George Carlin's "Soft Language" (2019)
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, price and timing are important. I have a simple question: Do you think industrial meat factory are needed to feed us comfortably and affordably. And by us I mean humanity. Not the US, not the west. All of us on this rock.
I don’t know. But I do know that the food supply chain is not something you mess around with lightly because if you screw it up literally tens of millions of people could die in a famine. So, before anyone decides we need to implement some “small change” the burden is on them to prove that it won’t kill everyone. The burden is not on me to prove that the thing that’s currently feeding us all is the only conceivable w…
Of course the debate over the need for industrial meat farming is ongoing, and it involves complex trade-offs between efficiency, ethics, and environmental sustainability.
The latter is the kicker for me. I do care that we're building horror slaughterhouses for animals. But honestly not that much. I could live with that. What irks me it that it does not seems sustainable on the long run.
On a personal level I don't eat much meat. Like a handful of time a month? Mostly when I'm out. I don't buy meat when grocery shopping. And when I do eat meat I either :
- kill the beat myself and then skin it. That happen less than once a year so it's anecdotal.
- Or it's hippie dippie meat raised close to where I live. You know, "pasture", "grass-fed" and all that shit.
I do use milk that is probably produce in detrimental ways to the cows and the environment. Maybe a gallon/month? To cook. I would love a better plug for milk.
I produce my own eggs, I'm blessed by a large yard and their is no city code. I think I could raise pigs nobody would care?
But that's just me. At least I'm kinda opt-out of industrial meat? Still standing! But agreed: I'm a rich guy in a rich country, with too much time on my hands.
--
To your point:
I can't find any data on the percentage of industrial meat in the US diet, compared to "hippie-dippie" meat. It's probably a staggering 90 to 10%. But I would love to find that data. So, agreed. It looks scary to mess with that.
That being said: I do think the way we were growing meat until ww2 is a decent way to do it. And that having less meat around would be just fine. I get my protein from mostly plants. Yes it takes place to grow that too. But pigs, beef and chicken needs similar plants to be feed as well.
But correct. I can't prove that, it's anecdotal. And I know nothing about those subject for real :)
--
> If you think you have a more humane technique that will produce meat just as efficiently, by all means, open a farm and use it.
Introducing Temple Grandin! She did it so much better than I could ever do. I'm a software guy, I can barely keep up with a food garden :)
Grandin produced lot of work geared toward exactly that,from within the industrial meat complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin She deserve some recognition. She proved that you can be less of a dick to your meat and actually have better yield
Her work is not theoretical, she consulted for Hormel, Cargill and Tyson. Those 3 might represent like, idk, 80% of meat production in the US? They were happy to adopt her recommendation.
--
But the above is animal welfare. Again, I would be OK with immense suffering of tons of animals. ( really) I guess I'm not an emphat!
What I'm not ok in my personal book, is the risk that those concentration bring us. For our health, germ-wise, land-use wise, and all that jazz! It seems wise to tame it down. Eat more lentils, chickpeas and soy. That's all I'm saying.