No technology is inherently good or evil. All technology is a tool, and the morality of a tool lies in it’s wielder. If technology appears to be evil, it is an indicator that those using the tools in our society are being evil.

Towards a Liberatory Technology - Lewis Herber (Murray Bookchin)

This is how I didn’t know I’d visited Bosnia & Herzegovina until afterward. My friends and I were not paying attention and assumed the customs booths were toll booths. We probably looked like we were trying to bribe them but they were very kind regardless.

No, Archer.

Does all British food look like literal diarrhea or only the British food that gets photographed?

That is a good point, I guess what seems disrespectful about telling someone they’re gay is that it seems to ignore that distinction.

I mean calling someone gay when they identify as straight isn’t the most respectful thing to do, then again neither are the things I get the urge to do with a skinny little twink every now and then soooo

That makes sense, I always just assumed that most christians took it literally, ie humans physically looking like their god, a sort of patriarchal egoism. Thus paintings of god in the form of a human man.

Richard Dawkins is a schmuck but that one time he dissected a giraffe on TV was pretty fucking cool.

Well then what the fuck is meant by that

Walt Gisney

As a cis man with two herniated discs in his spine from years of people singling me out to lift their dumb heavy shit, this is a powerful angle on the dilemma I’d never considered. Take a Two Strongmen Shaking Hands meme and several head pats from me.

This seems like a relatively low priority thing to get upset over. Godspeed you, upside down truck cap boat man.

RIP Trevor Moore

My supermarket has double decker versions of the small cart. Doubles the capacity in exchange for a slight ding to speed.

A straw man.

It’s called millenarianism. Originally in reference to christians like those described who anticipated Christ’s return in 1000 and then 2000 AD. A millenarian outlook is an ultimately narcissistic assumption that one is living at the cusp of the end of history. When really, it’s usually just because we lack the ability to imagine what life will be like beyond the present historical moment.

Not usually, though I’ve been in situations where I’m at a bar and that’s literally the only vegan option on the menu. I’ve joked in the past that bean burgers are such a crumbly disasater that they fail to replicate the aesthetics of meat entirely, whereas impossible patties do it so well that I’m paranoid and examining the pattie over and over again and asking the barkeep if he’s sure this is the vegan one. Either way they’re not my idea of fun.

Fair points all around in your first paragraph. But the question remains… Why would we want to maintain a herd of large, non-native, probably ecologically destructive, post-domesticated animals in the wild? Seems like a very poor choice, and a treatment we’ve repeatedly failed to extend to most native species.

I must say, I don’t like lab grown meat in the future being the reason why omnivores don’t give a fair shake to already-existing vegan meat replacements today. Forever being out there on the time horizon can be misused as a long term excuse for not cutting down on animal exploitation.

What part bewilders you? The “sexual politics of meat” part, or that fact that they chose a conservative stereotype to demonstrate an example? Because their theory is absolutely a thing in our society, meat is unarguably and demonstrably tied into masculinity for a lot of men as the result of advertising and social conditioning. If their example is what bewilders you though I think I can empathize, because this phenomenon is not at all something exclusive to conservatives or the right. Maybe just more pronounced on that side of culture. Plenty of liberal men conflate meat eating with masculinity, to degrees.