“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift
Danke. This should easily be fine for anyone who’s slightly-to-moderately interested; some of the nitty-gritty details like hyperlinks to the edit diffs are excluded from this copy–paste for those who really know their stuff and want to learn more.
Oh, fuck, this is going to be interesting to read about. Just to clarify: it seems like this wasn’t just Wikipedia but Wikimedia generally. So that’s also e.g. Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, etc.
Edit: Decided to check Reddit, and someone posted an ostensibly good summary on /r/wikipedia.
Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?
No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.
Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…
Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.
It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.
If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).
that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles
The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.
As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.
But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.
it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same
Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don’t use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.
“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.
* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.
Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):
The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).
By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.
It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.
Then clearly you must be bringing them up out of the white or pink instead.
I think “patriot” is one of those titles that should only be given, and that ideally happens to someone who’s done something especially heroic or monumental for their country. I think of myself as patriotic, because I care a lot about my country despite its enormous, gangrenous flaws. I want to help it realize its potential. But to say “I’m a patriot” these days – I agree with you – really only connotes blind nationalism.
Greene became politically engaged in 2016 when Trump’s isolationist, white supremacist campaign message resonated with her (two years later in 2018, she moderated a white supremacist conspiracy group on Facebook whose acronym was “FAP”; not relevant, just bringing it up); there’s not a chance in hell her rhetoric wasn’t also inspired by Carlson’s around that time (Trump’s messaging surely was).
I don’t even think it’s (predominantly) her antisemitism that’s causing this, because she definitely also (probably moreso) hates Muslims; it’s her backwater isolationist mentality that the US should never help anybody but ourselves (totally ignoring how much helping others disproportionately helps us). I wrote a very large portion of Greene’s article on Wikipedia in 2021, and one of the biggest throughlines for her support for Donald Trump in 2020 was isolationism (“America First”).
It’s also why Greene was outspoken against the US’ invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro. An ardent anti-interventionalist is bound to occasionally be correct when the one intervening is an impulsive, reckless, bigoted, selfish imperialist.
You’ve got it reversed. Switching to Teams greatly hastened development, as the team’s newfound vitriol and frustration could be channeled toward the end user in a neverending feedback loop.
Bleak but interesting interpretation of Antarctica circa 2065.
I think you’re in the same boat I am where I fucking haaaaaaate the culture on link aggregators (and probably other social media) where people will bitch and moan to no end that their preferred format (publicly reacting to disconnected headlines whose articles they haven’t read) isn’t giving them literally all the information they need to form a cogent opinion.
They genuinely think that the article body should be effectively superfluous to the headline – not just to have a basic gist of but to discuss and debate current events, which is insane. It reminds me of people who think they can learn math and physics by passively watching somebody else do it – which is true only to an utterly incosequential extent.
Speaking as someone who’s read thousands of articles for research, I feel confident saying that reading the article is an insane force multiplier to understanding. Any time you spent reacting to the headline would’ve been 3x as effective put into reading even just part of an article. This doesn’t just apply to current events, and even I haven’t thoroughly learned this lesson; so many times I’ve been editing Wikipedia and arrived at a point where reading one goddamn article for three minutes would’ve saved me half an hour of fucking around (“two hours of debugging can save you five minutes of reading the documentation”).
This is my way of pleading with you (you, the non-CombatWombat reader): it’s enriching once you can steel yourself and work through the initial dopamine drought, and it quickly becomes enjoyable. It’s not your fault it’s so hard psychologically; this was done to you by formats that value engagement with the platform over engagement with the material.
But if you don’t, please at least accept that headlines cannot always contain everything you want.
Yeah, there’s no fucking way “Well Grok told me these are the prompts they used” would be admissible as evidence of any kind.
Okay, fuck, he got me, that’s really funny. Good job. Now please submit to The Hague, confess everything, and spend the rest of your life in prison.
I will inform you that this excerpt is correct English. There needn’t be an article like “a” or “the” before “possibility”. It reads awkwardly in everyday language, but that really is just innocent “legalese” phrasing.
No, beyond the legalese. For example, the comma placement in:
which, unknown to them threatens,
The comma should go after “them”, because “unknown to them” constitutes the entire aside.
If you delete the aside in this, it reads “which national security”, whereas it should read “which threatens national security”.
This is just the first one I found; I didn’t go hunting for them. It’s one of those grammatical mistakes that actively ruins the cadence of the sentence as you read it in your head.
deleted by creator
Is the issue that there are people paying for YouTube Premium?
Every article I read about Intel makes me more thankful that I got a Ryzen 1700 in 2017 and never looked back.
And Trump’s impulsive string of invasions a second generation. Both for no adequate fucking reason to boot.