You’re equating Cambridge Analytica’s targeted psychological manipulation based on secretly harvested personal data with ordinary citizens debating each other. Do you really see no difference between billion-dollar campaigns using Al to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and regular people discussing politics? Who exactly is doing the ‘convincing’ in your version of democracy?

So you’re acknowledging that it’s a problem of wealth extraction but your proposed solution is for left wing parties to adopt a more anti-immigration stance instead of resolving the issue of inequality?

Right wing parties platform on isolationist policies (Brexit) while massively boosting globalization (how there’s now more migration post-Brexit than pre) and using migrants as a scapegoat for people’s economic issues.

Pinning the issue of globalization on migrants is like putting the blame on the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters.

Globalization isn’t bad because it allows people to resettle, escape political and environmental instability in their own countries - but because neoliberal interests specifically funnel away wealth from their local lower classes and destabilize poorer foreign nations to provide cheap labour for their businesses at home.

So instead of saying how great Denmark is for adopting “zero asylum” policies why not spend your energy advocating for wealth redistribution on a global scale? I agree, ideally people wouldn’t need to migrate to richer counties - but I don’t see the same “anti-globalist” parties advocating for paying reparations or providing zero debt aid to poorer nations instead either.

Denmark’s approach seems to prioritize protecting their domestic welfare system rather than addressing the global systems that create inequality. They’ve maintained many of the same neoliberal international policies while building higher walls around their own social safety net - exemplifying a “freedom for me, but not for thee” approach.

Which leads to the real crux of the issue - can a truly progressive approach stop at national borders, or does it require addressing the international systems that create inequality and drive migration in the first place?

Wait, you’re both saying people voted for Brexit out of their own free will but also that advertising doesn’t persuade people? How do you explain Cambridge Analytica literally influencing millions of people to vote for Brexit? (a vote won by 2% margin btw) - like why would the right-wing establishment pay for ads if not to sway public opinion?

Do you really think neoliberals spent millions to inform people why Brexit is good for them actually because that was factual information people couldn’t have found otherwise?

The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens

Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what’s causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say “neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust”?

You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?

denied was implied by comparing musk’s salute to that of the pope waving his arm - but fair, she didn’t outright say it

still the timing is most definitely not coincidental - but I can see how that can seem that way if you didn’t browse xitter when it happened

her tweet was made a day after musk’s salute and consequent “funny” nazi puns - alongside posts denying the salute as sincere, therefore enabling nazi normalization

the issue isn’t if JK is a swastika waving nazi - she most likely isn’t - the issue is she’s siding with fascists because they share the same hateful rhetoric and is willing to defend and normalize their behavior because she sees them as allies and the “woke leftists” as the enemy.

we couldn’t agree on an illustrator. He wanted Eva Braun, but the sample sketches he showed me were shit.

If he wanted Eva Braun to be the illustrator why would he show JK his own sketches and not hers? Why even mention Eva at that point?

Idk but imma head out as I don’t have the energy to dissect a poorly written attempt at a joke by a known nazi apologist…

I mean Eva Braun was a photographer so not sure why her sketches would have been good? But I guess she was trying to shoehorn hitler being a bad artist but just didn’t know how to tie it in?

Call be old-fashioned but I prefer my jokes to be funny because they’re clever not because “haha hitler couldn’t draw amirite”

Also just to note - that “trans” account posting AI slop is actually a terf masquerading as a trans person to “own the libs”

she did retweet a joke minimizing elmo’s salute… - multiple times…

nooo, you don’t understand - she was just saying this a day after the inauguration to defend musk doing his nazi salute - I’m sure all of this has nothing to do with her doing trans Holocaust denial either…

damn snowflakes always getting triggered by lighthearted fun from nazi apologists… 😤😤😤

Thank you as well, have a nice day :)

Sure maybe they came off a bit snobby but I still don’t necessarily agree with your stance either - veganism isn’t “all about eating” - it’s a moral framework that rejects animal commodification - like my earlier example of not wearing leather or going to the zoo.

This extends to all sort of stuff - having pets, keeping bees, sheering sheep, testing on animals, etc.

Just as Islam is “more than diet choices,” veganism is far more than just a diet. The dairy farmer’s use of “vegan” would be like the pig farmer’s use of “Muslim” - both incorrectly reduce comprehensive philosophical/ethical frameworks to just their dietary components.

But yeah w/e sometimes it’s easier to use the wrong term to convey an idea - which is why I still appreciate @jerkface@lemmy.ca’s effort to clarify that here so other people can learn as well.

Tho I see we can continue this argument forever so I’m gonna dip out as I’ve got other stuff to get on with.

Idk to me it seemed like @jerkface@lemmy.ca was just trying to explain the difference between vegan and plant-based - hence “I don’t expect a dairy farmer to know better, but of course he means “plant-based”, not “vegan”. “Plant-based” is a functional description, while “vegan” is a set of moral values and their ethical consequences.”

“Since the farmer is talking about the outcome as opposed to the justification is there anything functionally different between ‘plant-based’ and “vegan” here? As in would the diet of the vegan and someone eating only ‘plant based’ look different in any way?”

So by your logic if he was a pig farmer instead and said “In the future everybody would be Muslim because we wouldn’t be able to grow pigs” - you’d say that’s splitting hairs since the outcome is functionally the same?

I feel you’re intentionally trying to misunderstand the argument.

Veganism is specifically about the moral implications of commodifying animals - plant-based is about consuming plants - so while all vegans are plant-based not all plant-based folk are vegan.

In really simple terms:

Imagine two kids who don’t eat ice cream:

The first kid doesn’t eat ice cream because they really love cows and don’t want them to be used to make milk for ice cream. This kid also won’t wear leather shoes or go to the zoo because they don’t want any animals to be used by people. This is like being vegan.

The second kid doesn’t eat ice cream just because the ice cream store closed down and there’s no ice cream to buy anymore. This kid would still eat ice cream if they could get it, and they’re fine wearing leather shoes or going to the zoo. This is like being plant-based because of economics (what the farmer was talking about).

So even though both kids end up not eating ice cream, they’re doing it for very different reasons. That’s what @jerkface@lemmy.ca was saying - the farmer was talking about a future where people would eat plant-based food because animal products would be too expensive to make, not because everyone suddenly decided to become vegan and care about animals.

Veganism is a moral philosophy that rejects the exploitation and commodification of animals.

Plant-based is a dietary choice defined in terms of high frequency of plants and low frequency of animal food consumption.

Plant-based diets may also be vegan or vegetarian but do not have to be as one may choose to eat plant-based due to personal health concerns and not animal rights ones for example.

So your argument is “people will break the rules so we shouldn’t have any rules because it doesn’t matter”?

This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that “free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups

I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.

I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement so I’ll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.

EDIT: Just FYI this is what you’re defending in this instance

So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of “assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)” - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?

Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?

Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?

What’s gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?

Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?

EDIT: If you’re actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people’s right to self-determination.

This is demonstrably false.

Actually that’s a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it’s not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it’s there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.

However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.

People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that’s where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn’t work to alleviate this - as you can’t therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)

Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.

Hope this helps :)