In fact, it is easier to criticize exploitation, domination, and suffering as a whole than to take the complicated detour of first restricting who is entitled to empathy and solidarity. So in a way, empathetic people make it easier for themselves. They are simply against injustice in general. And I don’t think that makes anything more complex or energy- and timeconsuming either. For the exact same reason that I have a problem with Nazis, I am also in favor of transgender people being allowed to live freely, of the means of production being socialized, and of the exploitation of animals ending: Because I find injustice and inequality wrong in general. I wonder more how people can manage this intellectual balancing act of cherry-picking here.

On the other hand, they are not alone in this. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, whom we both know today as pioneers of liberalism, made money from the slave trade. George Washington, who spoke of freedom and equality for all, owned slaves himself. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most important philosopher of the Enlightenment, even justified slavery philosophically. Today, this seems hypocritical to us. But back then, it was not particularly unusual, because anyone who was not white was simply one of “the others” to whom none of this applied. The othering of all non-white people was simply part of the unquestioned hegemonic worldview of the time.

But sooner or later, the same thing will happen to animals as happened to non-white people. The othering of animals, which makes the cruelty to them socially legitimate, will no longer be accepted by anyone who is not completely cold-hearted. People of the future will look back on us with horror.

Then they don’t fight for a world without exploitation, domination and socially produced suffering.

This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.

But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.

Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.

Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.

Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.

But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal, natural even. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.

That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.

Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.

For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.

It will get worse. Veganism will continue to gain popularity, especially among young people. This is because, at heart, most people are empathetic toward others and weaker beings. The question of veganism boils down to a simple question: whether or not one prefers personal enjoyment to the suffering of animals. And I am sure that this question will increasingly be answered with a “no.” Animal suffering will then become an increasingly important political issue. As a result, a lot of people who today consider themselves progressive, open-minded, and generally good people will change political sides. They will join those who already convince people on other issues (poverty, deportation, LGBTQ, etc.) that cruelty and suffering are simply part of reality and that they therefore don’t need to feel bad about it.

I don’t think so. In fact, I think most people are very well aware that vegans are essentially right. Inflicting suffering for personal enjoyment is something most people would reject. That’s why indifference towards veganism and vegans isn’t enough. You have to deflect the negative emotions that this would normally trigger in most people. In this respect, it’s only slightly different from MAGAs mocking deported people with Studio Ghibli memes. You turn cruelty into something funny or quirky so that it becomes bearable. This relieves the burden on those who want to cling to it.

But unlike animals, humans have the choice not to be a monster. Some people make use of this choice, but most do not. And I think it’s worth thinking about how our society manages to inflict this suffering on animals, even though most people would refuse to inflict suffering on other beings if you asked them.

It is controlled by google tho

If you are using Firefox:

1. Enter the following in the address bar: about:config
2. Search for: image.webp.enabled
3. Set it to false Websites are delivering JPG/PNG instead of WebP again.

This sounds similar to the debate surrounding meat substitutes. Most people don’t give up meat because they don’t like the taste of it, but because of animal suffering or the environmental impact. The same is likely true here. The problem isn’t the Windows UI, but Microsoft’s behavior as a company. For most people, the purpose of switching is likely to be things like greater freedom, privacy, independence, or a general rejection of proprietary software and big tech. Plus, there’s the large group of people that Microsoft is trying to force into throwing away their perfectly functional PCs. In very few cases are these users likely to think that they dislike Windows itself. If Zorin’s look and feel helps them achieve the switch, then that’s great.

That’s narrow-minded. More users on Linux means greater compatibility. It also means less power for software giants like Microsoft, Apple, and Google. And it means more support for open source overall.

It is not statistically unlikely that this planet is the only inhabited one. We do not know at all how likely it is for life to develop. Therefore, we cannot make any statistical statements about its occurrence. All we have are estimates based on arbitrary assumptions.

Ultimately, whether one assumes the existence of aliens is a question of faith, not statistics.

Idealizing billionaires is cringe. Eat them all. Just because he’s not a complete asshole like all the other parasites doesn’t make him a good person. He’s still a parasite.

It is for 010: red 0, green 1, blue 0 in the RGB cones

Not really a solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eos_(disambiguation)

In 2019, the developers claimed that the name was a “temporary placeholder” and that it would be changed as soon as all “necessary legal formalities” had been clarified. They wrote, “We should be able to announce the name for the OS soon.” Unfortunately, nothing has changed since then. At least they seem to be aware that it’s a bad name.

The FAQ on the website states: “It’s the current project codename, we are planning to introduce a new and more convenient name for our mobile ROM in a few months.” But that has probably been there for a long time as well.

What could these “necessary legal formalities” be that are making it so complicated?

deleted by creator

Haha, my brother, our IT guy, has made it his mission to wipe out Windows in our family.

It wasn’t really a big issue, but it was confusing. I thought that with the same Linux distro version, the highest kernel version offered would also be the same. But upgrading the kernel to a higher version (6.8 to 6.14), rather than just updating it (6.8.0-85 to 6.8.0-87 in my case), doesn’t work via the standard update management UI; you have to go to ‘View’ -> ‘Linux Kernel’.

I have now upgraded to version 6.14 and everything is running smoothly.

Thank you! And it was exactly as you described: I upgraded from 22.1 to 22.2 and she downloaded version 22.2 straight away.