this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
490 points (85.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26822 readers
4047 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to the state to subsidize a plant-based diet instead?

regardless of what would be a good decision for the state, the oxford paper doesn't acknowledge the material conditions of most people.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

oxford paper doesn’t acknowledge the material conditions of most people

It acknowledges the material conditions of production

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

i don't see what your point could possibly be. most people will not find it cheaper to be vegan without significant changes to both their own lifestyle and systemic change. the oxford paper completely ignores anyone who isn't

  • paying
  • full price
  • at the supermarket.
[–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The paper is discussing the cost of the diet, not the safety net programs that are built around the american diet.

A paper that analyses the consumer choices and systemic hurtles to eating a vegan diet it would be a different paper, and it would be making a different point than this one.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

so the headline that is used on the site, and the excerpt used to create the link in this thread both need some heavy caveats. without proper context, both the claims made by them are actually false.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Without reading the paper you could interpret from it anything you wanted, I suppose.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

which seems to be the goal of both beaver and the editorial staff who posted the fluff piece that beaver linked.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe to you.... To me it seems like you're trying to post-rationalize your choice to eat meat and not a vegan diet

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

we haven't said anything about my diet. i'm talking purely about the merits of the paper raised in this context.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No you were talking about what OP seemed to be saying, and I was talking about what you seemed to be saying

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you seemed to be saying

i never made this about myself at all. i'd prefer if you didn't make tihs personal.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not trying to make this about you, i'm just trying to respond to what I think you're trying to argue that you didn't explicitly say

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’m not trying to make this about you,

then kindly leave me out of your analysis.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How can I leave you out of an analysis that is about something you said? You're just being ridiculous now.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

that's what i'm asking you to stop doing. stop making it personal.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago

We can't have a discussion at all if we're not allowed to address the statements and intent of the other.

stop making it personal.

I'd kindly ask you to stop making it about the things I'm doing. You're making it personal.