ive seen more people complain about vegans than i have met vegans. the vegans i have met are usually chill, unless its on the internet specifically.
anti-veganism seems like a touch grass moment imo
There is no way they were the first vegans in 2016. There have been 100+ ascents per year for decades, should have been around 6000 in total as of 2016.
Considering the mountain is in a part of the world where significant parts of the population are de-facto vegans without identifying as such, I highly doubt that no one among the 6k people before them was living on a plant based diet
Yeah and like half of the climbers I know are vegan or at least vegetarian. There is a huge overlap in those groups.
Also the Sherpas serve oatmeal to the climbers anyways
There is no way they were the first vegans in 2016. There have been 100+ ascents per year
After her death a vegan among them would have spoken out. Could be that they all tried Yak butter and can’t claim the title anymore.
Half of India is vegan
Vegetarian. They put butter in everything.
Ghee, specifically. Although there are plenty of vegan substitutes
can you support this?
Their statement is probably incorrect. This says that 39% of India’s population is “vegetarian” (with the definition left to the respondent): https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/08/eight-in-ten-indians-limit-meat-in-their-diets-and-four-in-ten-consider-themselves-vegetarian/
I see claims that 9% of the population is vegan, but can’t find the source of that figure (on brief examination).
Four in ten people in India follow either a vegetarian or a vegan diet, according to data by a Statista Consumer Insights survey. In all other countries polled, the figure is far lower, ranging between just five percent in Mexico and 11 percent in South Africa. In the United States, six percent of respondents said that they were vegetarian and four percent said that they were vegan.
They all died.
Not vegan, but hate the idea that they’re made fun of for trying to spread awareness. I’m not including the militant vegans here. They do more damage than they fix.
I’m sure some people do it from a high horse but vegans are far from the only type of people that do that. And the message is absolutely important, besides the cruelty part, eating animals is a huge part of the climate change problem.
Being “militant” means that you don’t curb your ethical viewpoint to accommodate the feelings of those who behave unethically, according to your viewpoint.
An easy-going person who is anti-trafficking, maybe they will stay chummy with Epstein, let things slide, keep pleasant relations, be pragmatic, avoid abrasive confrontations, and all-around keeping social situations smooth, even when things don’t adhere to their sense of morality. Maybe they will speak up when trafficking hits to close to home or in extreme cases, but will defer to the general vibe in situations where the audience is less receptive.
Meanwhile, a militant anti-trafficker like Norman Finkelstein is going to behave differently: he will shamelessly bash Dershowitz, Epstein for their trafficking, social etiquette be damned. Harsh words hurl from his mouth and his abrasive sentiments disrupt what could have been a polite, pleasant interaction. He might even reject substantial material benefits ($$$) to castigate his hopeful associates.
If you grew up, lived, and were were cultivated into one of the many historical societies where trafficking perpetrated by powerful elite was normalized, even celebrated (Genghis Kahn’s empire, aristocratic society in Ancient Greece, …) you might be the anti-trafficker minority in a pro-trafficking society. And you would, most likely, shut the fuck up and just let things slide: why make your own life hellish and unpleasant to make but a small dent in a sea of immorality? Are you going to tell off your local warlord over his harem of war-captured slaves?
At the end of the day, you have to decide: are you trying to “spread awareness” of trafficking, or are you trying to end it? Temper it, or wholly eliminate it from the face of the Earth?
“It’s offensive to compare noble, beneficial trafficking in Ancient Greece with the horrible exploitative trafficking of the modern day.” – Plato’s Ghost
“How dare you compare the life of a precious American troop with a dirty terrorist” – Donald Rumsfeld, probably
“My brain shuts off when people start talking mumbo-jumbo about o-rings” – NASA administrators, presumably
There is no evidence open sores on the skin of a chicken, pig, cow, dog, or cat feel less painful to them because they aren’t human. No evidence being confined in metal warehouses for months feels more rewarding to those who lack opposable thumbs. At this moment, 34,000,000,000 land animals are experiencing such a life, brought into existence through human-controlled breeding, designed to produce unnaturally ripe bodies for the slaughterhouse, flesh for the human palate. The sheer scale of this massive project to exploit animal bodies has meant only 4% of mammalian biomass today is wild animals, while a staggering 62% of that biomass is in the bodies of the creatures we breed to exploit.
“Climate change” could never hope to do a even a fraction of the damage we are already doing on an annual basis, to cause the amount of unmitigated suffering we are causing as par for the course. That’s the truth, and any serious vegan who sugar coats it is doing so strategically, not because they “respect different perspectives on the issue”.
I get it, I really do. I’ve read Peter Singer. I’ve gone through the arguments, the logic.
You’re not wrong…ish, in my opinion. The scope of harm is horrific. What is done to animals in industrial agriculure is indefensible.
That being said, I find a lot of things indefensible. It’s impossible to avoid being a hypocrite in any way at all times. So I’m a hypocrite. I eat meat, way way less than average but I do. I’m aware it makes me a hypocrite. But I’ll never buy that it makes me a monster.
And if it does make me a monster? Then Schindler was a monster for not saving every Jew? Or is a better way to look at it that he did the best he could and he saved a lot of lives, certainly more than the average person.
I appreciate that vegans feel extremely strongly about animal rights. That’s good, we need passionate people in lots of different areas, advocating for the right things. But you cannot expect everyone to apply the same weights to every part of the picture.
You, in your specific circumstances, your environment, your socioeconomic status, your childhood trauma or lack thereof…YOU have taken all of the information you’ve received in your life and run it through your circumstances and the result is a vegan.
Someone else gets more of certain types of information, less of others, different circumstances, and you get a Greenpeace activist. A black panther. A doctor without borders.
Throw all that away…at the end of the day, the cold hard logic your view relies on also makes something else clear: an individual aggressive/militant vegan likely causes more animal suffering than the average meat eater. By communicating in one dimensional extremes, you’re basically guaranteed to alienate more people than you successfully convert. How many more plant based meals might some people have eaten if the vegan stereotype wasn’t what it is?
Think it through.
Every single militant vegan has thought it through, that’s why they do what they do.
A lot of melanin-deficient people today think, “Malcolm X was too extreme and alienated people, MLK Jr. was inspirational and gentle, and that’s why he succeeded.” But this is a historical anachronism. MLK Jr. was the “militant activist”. During his life MLK Jr. was one of the most hated men alive, whose tactics specifically were criticized as alienating the public.
A major interfaith council released a “Call to Unity” saying racism was important address, but publicly shaming MLK Jr. on his tactics:
…we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. … we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.
MLK Jr. specifically responded to such criticism in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, where he specifically defends his “militancy” and defends a theory on which the unpleasant tension it creates is in fact necessary strategically to justice to be achieved:
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham …
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. …
indeed, his most intense criticism is lobbied towards the “moderate” who “agrees with you in the goal you seek”:
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Fundamentally, if vegans do not actively challenge this perverse system which normalizes immense violence, they are implicitly normalizing it. When people see injustice and cooly ignore it, suppressing their outrage, saving it perhaps for their deathbed or another century, the general public continues as normal, perceiving nothing wrong, and maintaining their blindspots as no gadfly dares disturb their peace.
When grave injustice exists, people must act as if it is so. When Timmy is stuck in the well, do you saunter on your way, talk in a mild tone, and bother not the passersby? Do you dine with the fiend who pushed him in?
As a matter of fact, people hem and haw and raise stinks and chaos about things 1/100th as consequential as par for the course. A verbal slight using slurs can justify shunning and cancelling. A person who removes someone from their wedding party may likely lose a friend for life. People get in fights over sports teams, and while we view it as idiocy, we still “understand”. Burn an American flag and you are liable to be fired from your job or clocked in the face. A career can end from kneeling during the national anthem. Casually throw a plastic bottle on the ground, and raise the intense ire of many of those leftists who happily chomp on bodies. Let’s not even get into religious “blasphemy” which can lead to consequences up to and including death.
“Have you hurr’d and durr’d and considered why you don’t donate all your money to starving children? We all hurr and durr and cause negative things to happen. Can’t end all harm? Then we’re not really obligated to end any harm! C’est la vie, you do you champ, and I’ll do me. I’ll hit my toddler one less time this week to placate you, so you can focus your energy elsewhere. We all have our pet causes, let’s give each other due consideration.”
The problem with this style of argument is that it ignores a vast asymmetry. Vegans do not travel en masse to help Koni capture new child soldiers. They generally do not travel to Uganda and convince people to put gay people to death. They do not generally own ExxonMobil and dump millions of gallons of oil into the ocean. Vegans are (with rare exceptions) not actively contributing to the harm which other movements are trying to address.
White vegans do not generally go to anti-racist activists and glowingly brag about how they have “reduced” the number of racial slurs they use, nor do male vegans generally go to feminists and gloat about how they “seek consent most of the time”.
Meanwhile, members of these other movements frequently contribute personally in immense ways to the suffering vegans are trying to address, prioritizing their own convenience, taste pleasure, and habits over the lives and bodies of others. For Christ’s sake, the ASPCA, of all organizations, has held “BBQ Fundraisers”, paying for some animals to endure miserable lives and have their throats cut, so that other animals can find someone to cuddle and care for them.
Everyone is hypocritical to some degree, but Lord Buddha man take the log out of your own eye before you shoot the spec of dust out of the other man’s eye with your arrow of criticism. The situation is not the same.
And moreover, unlike other issues, such as “peace in the middle east”, there are not really legitimate competing strategies to achieve it. People argue over one-state, two-state, this strategy over than strategy, get Saudi Arabia involved or not, etc. Gradual disarming, or peace through strength? Maybe you have good arguments for and against some of these strategies, but reasonable people who are not trying to annihilate other side and desire peaceful and prosperous coexistence have competing views.
For veganism, there is no such legitimate competing view. “I’ll rip the wings off of half as many chickens in the coming year” is instantly met with, “Why not rip the wings off of zero chickens in the coming year?” People who argue for military build up, such as Sun Tzu, say: one can avoid death and destruction of war through a quick, decisive victory through overwhelming strength. More guns and soldiers = less death and destruction? Apparently it may be so, according to very smart and seasoned people. An argument about the morality of actions in war is bound to encounter complexity pulling you in opposing directions. Should the U.S. stop sending arms to Ukraine, end the war, end the slaughter, concede the fight, save hundreds of thousands of lives at the expense of independence? You will never find any such argument for ripping the wings off of a large number of chickens.
Thus, while anyone arguing for or against arms shipments to Ukraine (or similar international politics / war issues) must humble themselves that the greatest and most insightful minds have all gotten such issues wrong in hindsight, vegans need not worry that, in hindsight, perhaps those animals’ bodies really did need to be cut up, and those baby cows really did need to be taken from their mothers for your celebratory dinner. It’s not a serious concern. This gives vegans a sense of moral clarity on their issue, which most other issues lack. This allows, justifies, and in fact requires “absolutism”, because it is not a “zero sum game”, it is not a “balance of compelling and competing interests and strategies”, it is a clear as day black-and-white issue with almost no complications in ordinary practice.
You bring up Peter Singer, but only a small minority of vegans adopt his utilitarian view. Peter Singer does not properly address the epistemic uncertainty concerns, such as “What if I give food aid, and then the local farmers go out of business destabilizing their food system, and their are more starving children a decade from now?” Or other concerns about societal organization, “What if my internationalist aid intervention disrupts natural community development, creating a lopsided dependency in which American hegemony becomes necessary for basic needs, enabling kleptocratic political systems?” Many people can and do criticize people building schools and hospitals (if those people are missionaries). Libertarians, while often myopic and wrong, at least believe themselves that suffering would be reduced overall by cutting social programs. It is impossible to make such a case in favor of the way humans interact with non-human animals.
it’s not because they are trying to spread awareness. now obviously not all blah blah blah., but they have a tendency to be highly sanctimonious and abrasive, they accept no partial measures and treat it like like a cult would in the eve of the coolaid tasting party.
kind hard to see their point of view in the other end of a carnist label spat at you.
Have you tried not doing exactly what you’re accusing them of doing?
Everybody needs to move away from the extremes, both sides, all of us.
Not all vegans are militant. Not all meat eaters are blood lusting demons.
sure? but i am not arguing for the benefits of the KFC double down with bacon. i already acknowledged that not all vegans are like that, but you are being dishonest if you are claiming my critique of the vegan spaces being dominated by the loudest and most brash of the extremes, is unwarranted. in lemmy it’s usually directed at randoms who wander in from /all. and it’s an all or nothing situation, where vegetarians are branded with the same iron as people who advocate for animal harm.
i prefaced with understanding that a community is not just its loudest and obnoxious people, but nonetheless they set the tone
I’m my experience it’s about a ten to one ratio of people who shit on vegans because they “never shut up about it” vs vegans who actually never shut up about it. So a vegan wanted to show she could climb Mt Everest. She did it, then she died of acute altitude sickness during the descent, something completely unrelated to her diet. Her husband, also vegan, lived. She became one of hundreds of people who have died in that climb, all of whom wanted to prove they could do it. Just let people live their life how they want to. Heaping scorn on someone who died trying to prove themselves isn’t cool.
It’s like right wingers always claiming that gay /trans people are “shoving it down their throat” because they make TV shows for gay people.
Like for one, no they aren’t. And two, that’s interesting phrasing you’ve chosen.
I’m a vegan and I am annoying about it. Like, I’d hope if you sincerely believe in some cause you will be outspoken about it
I’m my experience it’s about a ten to one ratio of people who shit on vegans because they “never shut up about it” vs vegans who actually never shut up about it.
A true testament to how many people they annoy.
Just let people live their life how they want to
I’d rather have them not climb the damn mountain though. It’s become a sort of tourist trap -thing (literally), there’s people selling commercial climbings and all. It’s extremely wasteful and them littering the place with all their trash (like extra oxygen tanks) and then with their corpses is disgusting and kind of insulting considering Sagarmatha has some religious significance to locals as well
I used to own an ice cream shop, and we had vegan ice cream, and a pretty good following for it. I got so I could recognize them as they were walking from their car.
One quiet day, I saw this older couple start getting out of their car, and I said to my assistant “They’re vegan.” She asked how I knew, and I said “Just look at them, they’re obviously vegan.” She said “But they’re so old.” “You’ll see,” I said.
They walked in, and the first thing the old guy said was “We hear you have vegan ice cream, we’re vegans!” and I could sense my assistant’s head swivel to look at me in my peripheral vision.
As I made his ice cream, he went on to tell me how his wife makes vegan steaks so good, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Yes, I could.
The secret is adding beef to the vegan steak.
Cool, I’ll take mine minus the vegan.
There are a lot of vegans and vegetarians who don’t make it their raison d’etre, so I’m sure there have been some who climbed Everest in the past, even if we don’t know about it.
Sir, this is a shitpost.
Of course it’s a joke but jokes normalize ideas. I would never attack it but having a discussion about the underlying message is harmless.
I’d like to have the kids menu, please… Err what?
Her husband, also a vegan, did it.
So they have a 50% success rate. Pretty decent.
Is he now eating meat?
Not true. This woman was the first vegetarian to climb this mountain located in Nepal and Tibet.
that joke is 1000 more annoying then vegans atp
I have repurposed it for Trump supporters, who ABSOLUTELY NEVER shut the fuck up about being Trump supporters and also are a genuine menace to others where vegans really are not.
atp
- Association of Tennis Professionals
- Adenosine Triphosphate
- Advanced Threat Protection
- Access to Patients
- Adult Treatment Panel
- Available To Promise
- Area to Protect
- Airline Transport Pilot
- Army Techniques Publication
- Ambient Temperature and Pressure
- Automatic Train Protection
- Ask the Professor
- Army Training Program
- Acceptance Test Procedure
- Authorized to Proceed
- Australian Technology Park
- Advanced Travel Partner
- Antitachycardia Pacing
- All Tomorrow’s Parties
- Authorization to Proceed
- Alternative Transients Program
- Advanced Technology Program
- Automated Theorem Proving
- After Tax Profit
- ⁝
Thank you, and the ‘why’ reply makes it more special
Stop using acronyms… at least establish the acronym first. If your comment is too short to establish the acronym, don’t bother using it.
IT’S CC
(common courtesy)
why
we shouldn’t make fun of people dying just because they’re vegan. That’s tastelsss.
I thought vegans liked tasteless?
That’s the joke, man.
I get the joke, but it’s kind of a shitty joke.
“Haha, you’ve decided morals are more important than flavour”
I mean, yeah. It’s an ethical trade-off?
“Haha, you donated $1 to pay for mosquito nets in third world countries. You’ve decided lives are more important than money”
mosquito nets in third world countries
oooohhh…yeah…about those…
turns out the mosquito nets are devastating local fish populations, because people use them to fish, since they get them as a finished product instead of having to knit nets themselves. and starvation being a bigger immediate threat, they prioritize that over malaria.
the nets are also laced with toxic chemicals (against the mosquitoes), which are extremely toxic to fish.
they also have much smaller holes, so they catch the young offspring as well, leading to rapid depletion of stocks.
so, yeah…good idea in theory, but didn’t turn out so great…
It’s a good idea on its own, but the overall issues are more complex and nuanced. Maybe sending some non-toxic fishing nets could help? (Hopefully they’ve thought of this already)
Bro, its a joke. It works too because its clever and subtle. Its meant to make people laugh, not spawn a debate on vegan politics.
I will say, as a vegan, I thought it was a fantastic joke.
Really? Well don’t I have tofu on my face…
If this is the same story I’m thinking of, she and her partner wanted to be the first vegans to climb to the top, to show the world that vegans can do it. Coincidentally, another vegan actually did it like 1-2 days before their attempt.
Ah, I sincerely hope someone told her during her last dying breaths that she wasn’t the first vegan to climb Mount-Whatever and therefore she didn’t actually need to do it.
I sincerely hope that you won’t get the same amount of cruelty in live that you wish upon others in death.
Please eat some makeup.
You seem ugly on the inside.
Downvotes pair delightfully with the actual negative karma your post is generating for your spirit. Grow the fuck up.
bro vegans are so dumb they’re depriving themselves of key nutrients and become weak and constantly tired.
that’s wrong, let me prove it to you by climbing the fucking everest
bro vegans are so annoying and why won’t they shut the fuck up about it
the carnist intellectuals have come out in force I see
It’s crazy how mad people get every time a Vegan exists
It really challenges a certain type of persons ego. I don’t really get it.
weirdly defensive too, your conscience nagging again bud 🤔
The problem are not the vegans. The problem is that those people have to tell everyone that the are vegans and try to “sell” to others. Just be a vegan and don’t bother other people with it.
people have to tell everyone that the are vegans
I never see these people IRL.
But they must be deeply traumatizing, because I see people who complain about them everywhere.
Vocal minority explains it.
Then you are lucky.
bot account 🤨
first interaction by account 🤨Don’t have to really, our existence is already deeply upsetting lol. But even if, how are you going to change society if you keep it to yourself
For every one person who tells me they’re vegan about 10 brag they’re not
People are proud of who they are, I guess.
I think her dying trying is an important part of the point here.
I don’t agree with it. I’m sure there’s a more nuanced cause of death, but that’s between step 2 and 3.
Right I went with the most charitable reading.
lol stupid vegan dies because we were right about veganism causing malnutrition get owned
is of course the interpretation that seems the most obvious
Vegans call themselves vegans and they get to call others “carnists”? I’ve been hearing them calling others “meateaters” too. It’s so reductive of people who don’t agree with their ideas.
Huh? What would you call someone who cares about animal exploitation, and what should we call those that don’t?
I don’t go over my day calling people names. It’s not hard for me to call them as they want them to be called, and if I don’t know that, they are just people like me.
Carnist is a description of someone who has a meat-inclusive diet, other descriptions of people by what they can or cannot eat are e.g. vegan, lactose intolerant, celiac… It’s not a “name” you call someone, it’s a description of someone using a certain aspect of them relevant to the discussion.
A “name”, as in, something used to insult would be e.g. corpsemuncher, bloodmouth, cheesebreth &c.
It’s used as a pejorative. It’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
I mean in the same way as “terf” I guess
So, some nonvegan people?
Edit: Also, that wasn’t the point. Vegans call themselves vegans, nobody is asking them to call others by any name, proper or improper, in vegans’ point of view.
The point behind not using “nonvegan” is that it frames carnists as "the normal"s and the “vegans” as the one who have “something special” going on. This is true with celiac and nonceliac, lactose intolerant and not lactose intolerant. But we argue that veganism, i.e. not killing if unnecessary, is the normal thing to do. That the only reason it doesn’t seem that way is because it got normalized through repetition and how widespread it is.
Nobody is asking to stop the torture of dairy cows &c. other than vegans either so I don’t understand why you think the point in your edit matters.The point in demonstrating for societal change is precisely doing stuff others aren’t asking for.
I guess a vegan would see the point in that. Vegans are normal in my book, as in they are people. If they didn’t call themselves vegans, I wouldn’t call them any particular way as a noun. If I needed to describe them, I’d say, “they are people who only eat vegetables”.
I get it, though, it’s a discourse battle derived from their moral views and expected ethics. It’s just they don’t come across as very approachable.
another user said it’s like how christians call non-believers sinners. that makes sense to me.
The actual term is secular. The ones using sinner are the vegans of the Christian world.
So you’re saying the ones who call nonchristians “sinners” are correct?
Most people are apathetic, and a chunk of those are due to ignorance. Calling them carnists likely isn’t helping the cause at all.
This is a shotpost community. I’m not entirely sure I understand your surprise.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, you don’t want me to take this “so serious” everyone here is just pretending to be a stereotypical carnist? I’m not surprised at all, why would I be, it’s like this every time a vegan is mentioned.
I’m not sure either. If it’s everyone, maybe the vegan is the issue. 🤷
Huh? What vegan is causing everyone here to act like a stereotype? The one who climbed everest, or one of the vegans who started commenting after all these carnists had made all the canon jokes already
To be fair, you did start with namecalling. Whether or not the name was malicious the intent clearly is. Perhaps interact with less hate in your heart?
Huh? You sure you got the time line right? Because I’m commenting about the “carnist intellectuals ITT” after they already went off with the standardized DIN-ISO-VegAn-Jokes A1-A4
Well. She did shut the fuck up about it.
Kindest carnist
Only kind of. I am all for veganism if I could afford it. Plus I am more impressed with thr sherpas making this their nob in spite of the obnoxious tourists.
The sherpas don’t have that much choice what with needing money to survive and the nepalese economy being what it is.
I feel like the third panel really captures the essence “I am angry about everything and you’ve shown me something I don’t like, which I guess can exist as long as it hides in the shadows away from my righteous gaze, therefore you are SHOVING it down my THROAT and I am morally justified in attacking those people until they go away”
Reductio ad absurdum
here’s a fun activity: define it
not because I don’t know, but because it’s pretty clear to anyone who’s written a few mathematical proofs that you don’t know
Your names lies, that is… Good :)
You may pass.
i want you to know how happy I am that you bring your snafus to the lemmyverse. /gen
🫡
Lol this is great
Chad looks like orange Epstein
Yo why does the “Chad” in this meme look like Jeffrey Epstein?
This seems like the data from McDonalds Lobby coorperations.
Eww, sourced from rooshvforum.com
I don’t understand the people that make fun of vegans because they “don’t stop talking about it” and then don’t stop talking about how they hate AI and would never use it. You guys are AI vegans, you should understand the passion
edit: before dumbs come at me, I’m not at all supporting AI I’m just comparing the passion os subjects
I’ve said this before, but “AI vegan” is a pretty odd term. It’d imply that using AI is somehow a default, entrenched, normalised thing. That not using AI is going against the status quo.
This makes as much sense as calling Linux users “Windows vegans”. Go on. Go say that to some Linux user’s face, I’m waiting.
You think “AI” isn’t the default, normalised thing?
People rarely click on links in search anymore, they’re happy to use the AI summary, iPhones have small LLM models on them, people use it to write reports, others use it to read those reports. Companies implement policy to mandate AI usage even if it’s objectively worse.
I used to be pretty happy with the little extracts provided under the links in the search results.
Once upon a time, users were united in their hatred of Windows and Microsoft. We worked together, played together, wrote terrible scripts together. But Apple released the iPod and everything changed. Now they’re just another slimy mega corp, other OSs are ignored and we’ve got to love Linux or love a distro. Can’t we just all just unite in our utter loathing again!?
I consider “AI Vegan” as “AI models trained only on public domain works.”
Huh. Apparently a few of them exist. TIL.
I didnt know that either but it makes sense. I had raised this as an “ethical alternative” in the early days before I knew about the environmental impact.
AI vegan. That’s brilliant.
This is so old that you’re just making fun of vegans.
and…?
