hjek wrote (edited )

Non-exclusive club ftw! Laissez-faire woo! Bring in the advertisers and the spam bots and the islamophobes: everyone welcome! And you're free to create 20 accounts to spew downvotes at people you disagree with, which will either make them think that everyone hates them or make them realise that the voting system is rigged. Yay! Let's pat ourselves on the shoulders for that.


hjek wrote

"People with light skin AND identified as white"

I think that would still make the "No Eastern Europeans" sign count as an instance of racism against a group that includes some white people.

Not that it really matters, and the article is just a rant, but my intention here is not to excuse racism. Sometimes I just try to examine doubious arguments for things I otherwise agree with, not to make anyone change their minds, but because the real arguments matter! For example, it pisses me off when someone argues that we should all be vegetarian because it isn't "natural" for humans to eat non-human animals.


hjek wrote (edited )

From that definition, the meaning of the title is People, who don't experience racism, don't experience racism. News at 11: Water is wet.

On the other hand, People with light skin don't experience racism would actually have a meaning, and there's evidence in the article to suggest that this is what the author means:

Think about it- you spend a day in the sun, your skin turns red and starts falling off.


Your skin color is a cancer.

To me that makes it clear that the author is talking about skin colour, because ... well... that's literally what it says there, isn't it?


hjek wrote (edited )

It's dictated by cultural norms and what the in & out groups are.

If we accept your definition of whiteness as being part of a group that's "in", can we then not imagine that which groups are "in" and which are "out" would be different in one place than in another? Would it then not be imaginable that someone who is part of an "in" group in one place, would be part of an "out" group in another place?

As a less abstract example, take this sign from the UK saying: "No Eastern Europeans". How do we understand this then? Do we correct our theory that it's impossible for white people to experience racism? Or do we argue that previously white Poles cease to be white in the instant they cross the English Channel?

If we define whiteness as belonging to a group that doesn't experience racism, isn't it then a tautology to state that it's impossible to be racist to white people?


hjek wrote (edited )

Bear arms belong to the bears.

Joking aside: In a capitalist world the arms industry has economic incitement for people to shoot each other. I don't think it's sensible to deregulate an industry that lives off hate and murder.

Some "anarchists" might have an idealised vision of armed militias, but a gun is an instrument of power, and it gives power to the manufacturers of guns and ammunition.

I get that some situations are more extreme and require people to take part in armed struggle, but in those cases the law/right to bear arms don't matter anyway.

In US the right to bear arms has historically been justified as a form of "protection" from slaves.


hjek wrote

This is no sensationalist "pizzagate" conspiracy nonsense; the article mainly relies on Hillary Clinton's own writings. The article is not making any extraordinary claims, just picking apart our conditioned ethical blindness.

Thanks for posting.


hjek wrote

You could do it in a less privacy-intrusive way by asking existing users to vouch for a new user, and then perhaps not counting their votes until vouched by a few other users.

If a sockpuppet account is discovered, it'd be easier to tell who vouched for them.

Lobsters are doing something similar, except that you need an invite to create a profile at all, which may be considered too restrictive.


hjek wrote

If everyone just buying likes, upvotes, and downvotes, no one uses them to express their own feelings, that would be totally pointless.

That's true. Raddle/Postmill could benefit from better sockpuppet detection. Perhaps it would make sense to think of a vetting procedure for ensure that a profile is legitimate before it's votes are counted.

I'm not sure that the problems you are describing necessarily are unfixable.


hjek wrote

Some facts:

  • Livestock + byproducts account for 51% of our greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of Amazon deforestation
  • Livestock covers 45% of the Earth's total land

In fact, any mass agricultural consumption at all is destroying the planet, resulting

Livestock accounts for a disproportionately big part of mass agricultural consumption: It takes up 83% of the Earth's farmland.

Going vegan or agitating for vegan lifestyles is not sufficient for confronting the ecological crisis

Even though I don't believe it to be true (as argued above), let us just assume it is anyway: If it is used as an excuse to fail to act, then it's clearly just a bad excuse, because the same can be said about any individual issue contributing to the ecological crisis: That acting against that isn't going to solve everything. On the other hand, if it is used as an argument for taking additional action, that's great!

Additionally, not all vegans are vegans from a purely environmental stand point. In my view arguing that we shouldn't do factory farms because they pollute is like arguing that we should do kz camps because of the harmful smoke from the ovens. Both arguments are valid, but they're not accounting for the pain and suffering inflicted on the imprisoned.

i'm a vegan who is sick and tired of these expensive vegan cafes doing shit-all for the houseless people who live in destitution all around them.

You should be sick and tired of that! Those cafes should help the homeless. Where I live, fortunately the few vegan shops and cafes are good at that. But then we also have the Homeless Hotdog project, which is helping the homeless by providing them with tortured animal carcasses to ingest.

I think you make an important point that one kind of activism should not exclude another kind, e.g. that caring about animal welfare shouldn't permit you to not give a shit about the homeless, and I couldn't agree more!


hjek wrote (edited )

You are wrongly assuming that veganism and activism towards ending animal exploitation are mutually exclusive. In fact, it might be the other way around: Not shoving their carcasses into our mouths is a necessary first step towards carrying out further activism.

But I agree that veganism is not enough. Everyone who are upset about this ongoing mass murder should take the liberation pledge.

Also, I refuse to take advice from carnivores telling me that what I do is "not effective". It's their dishonest way of wriggling out the cognitive dissonance they experience, when thinking of themselves as friendly while endorsing mass murder.


hjek wrote (edited )

all they said was that vegans take more sick days and visit their doctor more often.

And it's dubious whether The Sun even got that right.

How other papers describe that "study", it's more that of the 1000 people asked, those, who were vegan, had more sick days than they themselves did last year:

And while the reasons for the high sick-day count are unclear, two-thirds of vegans admitted to taking more time off work due to minor illness in 2018 than in previous years.

In contrast, just half of their meat-eating colleagues reported that they took the same amount of time off as the year before, while one in three said they took less.

Why is it even considered acceptable to post this kind of pseudo-science on Raddle?


hjek wrote

Part of their 2019 Commitments is this shit:

2. Work to ensure all of our beef is sustainable.

We joined the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB). We know, U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is a mouth full. Simply put, USRSB is a network of beef experts that are working to improve the sustainability of U.S. grown beef so that it’s better for our environment, the animals and you.

Reminds of a line of California Uber Alles: "Die on organic poison gas"


hjek wrote (edited )

They're quoting The Sun which get their data from here:

The study of 1,000 office workers was part of the Fisherman’s Friend annual cold and flu survey.

I can't find the poll (oh, excuse me: "study") on Fisherman's Friend website, but Daily Mail, Metro et al all have similar articles from the same "study".

Worth noting is the two videos included in The Sun article:

Piers Morgan is in hospital and fans think it was caused by the vegan sausage roll he ate on Good Morning Britain


Veganism is widely seen as very trendy

I doubt they're accounting for demographics as this phrase reveals:

The survey also revealed that millennial workers take three times more time off work than those aged 55 and over.

I'll post a link to the poll itself if I can find it, but none of the articles, claiming to rely on that poll, actually link to it.


hjek wrote (edited )

The downvote(and karma) system is a thing to threatening people:

What do you see as a replacement for this kind of system? Should threads / comments just be sorted by most recent?

Have you seen the voting system on lobste.rs (no relation to JP) where you have to provide a reason for downvoting? Any opinion on that design?

What about HN-style flag/vouch? (which they in that case have in addition to a voting system)

I also see some problems with voting, BUT at least users can participate in post filtering, and the alternative to this is s a strictly hierarchical system where a special class of users (mods) have the power to censor everyone else's posts. I know Raddle already has this class-based system, but it's in combination with this more egalitarian voting system.

Do you think the problem is with the voting system as such, or just how people use it here?

What would be an anarchist way of sorting / moderating forum posts? What would be the best analogue to how you conduct meetings IRL? (i.e. what is the process for who/when to tell annoying people to be quiet or leave, etc)