Well, shit....that would explain it, my bad.

I mean the reason they implied you were being obtuse is clearly they are not talking about people in poverty or people who have no other choices.

That is in no way clearly understood from that single absolutist statement or the context around it.

They additionally went on to reply with

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

That's not a reply (either literally or in context) that is considering poverty.

It's not quite a "let them eat cake", but it's in the same general vicinity.

Regardless, i suspected it wasn't as absolutist as it seemed, which is why my reply was prefaced with "If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context),"

My issue, as i very explicitly explained, is that using such absolutist statements gives the impression of mental inflexibility which subsequently weakens the perception of any surrounding statements (for me at least).

If I’m having a conversation about science with someone and they opened with "The world is flat" I’m for damn sure going to scrutinise everything else they say after that, even if it sounds reasonable.

About 70% of people in the US have the option to eat at least 5x less meat, if any at all, yet look for any excuse they can get to not do it. I grew up with people on very low incomes who were vegan, and this was 18 years ago when vegan options were far less available than they are now.

Sure, I’m not arguing against any of that, it sounds plausible.

I'd argue there's a conversation about the difference between "vegan options" and the general availability and accessibility of food that qualifies as vegan (and how that has changed over nearly 20 years) but that's a different subject.

They were not “privileged” by any stretch yet they saw it as a moral wrong and sacrificed to follow their morality.

Privilege is relative , people scraping by on 3 full-time jobs just to get food and pay rent aren't rich or affluent but (subjectively) they are more privileged than the unassisted mentally ill person living on the streets.

I assume the people you knew made their choices after weighing their options and that's all anybody can ask.

If they subsequently harmed themselves or their loved ones in the short or long term then that's their sacrifice to make.

However, judging someone else for feeding their family with the food the can afford rather than taking the "moral" high ground isn't something i can get behind.

And "You live near a walmart" isn't an argument made by someone who's considering their relative privilege.

So the issue you have is with the wording, not the sentiment ?

Then let's get those words in a form you'll understand.

"so many other good tools out there that don’t actively and routinely introduce "features" and "options" that increase the potential surface area for attacks and bugs, often to introduce anti-consumer functionality to the detriment of user experience."

To avoid confusion, i'm talking about Microsoft as a whole, their ecosystem in general and the list of easily findable examples of them doing sketchy shit to push ads, data collection and other anti-consumer nonsense.

The only correct amount of ram is the amount that covers your work load. Full stop.

Incorrect, as you immediately point out in the second half of the sentence.

Yes windows could use less ideally.

The correct amount of RAM is the amount that covers your workload and the baseline overhead of supporting components, in this case, an OS.

As a general rule, windows uses significantly more RAM for baseline.

But we can’t keep pretending that 8 gigs of ram is remotely fucking acceptable for ever.

Agreed, but we can push back on them pretending that it has nothing to do with their (subjectively shitty) choices.

The problem you're having is that your looking for a logical answer without considering the mindset of the other side.

They aren’t trying to build a reason based/lawful way to defend themselves.

They are using bad faith and/or weaponised ignorance to be cruel dicks, that's the point.

They can then build on top of this to be even greater dicks to a larger variety of people.

There are potentially other motivations in the bigger picture, but at this level it's just "how can i weaponise my truly astonishing levels of crippling insecurity to hurt the 'other'" because that's how they pretend they have control/power enough to enjoy life.

They're the self-appointed Gender HOA, giving out citations because they have nothing else in their life.

significant white space to it's classist and racist

Hope this helps <3

It does and your points are valid, but i'll respond to a couple if you don't mind.

Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised.

As would i (outside of the sociopath possibility you also mention) , i was thinking more along the lines of people who fully understand and then accept it as something they can live with.

The comparisons of the meat industry to electronics i mostly agree with, except for this last part, not because it's incorrect as such, i just didn't provide enough context.

Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.

I mentioned electronics because it's easy for people to at least shallowly understand how much they use them, what's not so obvious is the horrors of how they are produced, in a similar way to how people as a whole don't really understand how the meat industry is run.

Long before the metal pouring and assembly you have the rare earth elements industry that uses horrific limb-removing slave work camps to extract these minerals. it's not all of them, but it's significantly more than zero.

There are also cartel like warlords involved in some of the extraction sites.

Think of it as a similar situation to conflict diamonds, but more entrenched and critical to nation state interests.

I mentioned cobalt because it's the easiest to find credible documentaries, reports and discussions about, but it's not just cobalt.

Honestly a lot of the big industries are supported by modern day slavery and inhumane conditions or experimentation, i would also assume that extends to the non-human animals as well but i can't honestly speak to that.

Textiles (clothes, shoes, trainers), agriculture (avocado's have cartels because of course they do, coffee), pharmaceuticals, non-meat food (chocolate for example).

I keep coming back to the phrase "There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism" which aligns with your stance on the abolition of capitalism, but i tend to think of it as there is no ethical consumerism in general (at least right now) because i can't think of a way we could ethically overcome the sheer density of population using the level of logistical technology we have available and that's not even taking into account the (subjective) apparent nature of how human's deal with such large populations.

But me not being able to see how we make the jump from now to a post scarcity, fully equitable society is almost certainly just a failure of my imagination.

My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado's are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.

I understand that not all of those things are equal and battles need to be picked but it doesn't seem like the subjective severity is the deciding factor and how are the battles picked.

I think they will care about complaints of convicted human traffickers.

I would lay money on them not giving a single solitary fuck unless it affects their bottom line somehow.

i wasn't the person who replied to your first post.

The sentiment might have been somewhat clear, but the language indicated a misunderstanding of how much reliance there is upon society, which is what was called out (again, not by me).

You asked a question, i answered with my opinion also i look fabulous in my pointdexter pants, i even have the matching pocket protector.

Not an adherent of the six I's i see

Or has Situs Inversus

I think it did a reasonable job of responding by pointing out a bias that I also think is evident. There was a choice to use certain phrases in the way they were used.

I just think the level of bias in that direction isn't as large as it seemed because he is a politician, speaking about a situation with politics in mind. As such , details that potentially add context to the politics of the situation are relevant, that's not necessarily bias as much as relevant context.

I don't personally think him being a failed presidential candidate has much bearing past the possible bitterness he might be bringing to proceedings but actively choosing to appear with what could be considered an extremist group, for me, absolutely speaks to political and personal character, for good or ill ( a negative to me personally ).

The additions only serve to further alienate the reader from DeSantis and DeSantis supporters. It's clearly biased against him.

Potentially, but that doesn't make them inherently bias, for some that probably looks like a show of power.

That you personally think it's a negative speaks more to your own bias than the inclusion of the details. That goes for me as well.

Choosing not to include those details could just as easily be considered bias.

If a person can't see how that article is biased it says a lot about them.

If you mean me specifically then I'd answer that I do in fact think there's a bias, i wasn't arguing for the absence of bias,i was arguing that the specific bias you mentioned wasn't the only possible kind that should be considered and that in light of the additional kinds it might move the needle of where the bias might be falling.

I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that you think that the included details can only be taken negatively, what does that say about your own bias?