Skip Navigation

queermunist she/her

@ queermunist @lemmy.ml

Posts
2
Comments
3833
Joined
3 yr. ago

/u/outwrangle before everything went to shit in 2020, /u/emma_lazarus for a while after that, now I’m all queermunist!

  • With egg substitutes, plant milks, and nooch it isn't even hard at this point.

    The cheese substitutes haven't quite caught up yet, but some of them are still pretty good.

    I miss being to buy whatever spicy snacks I want, though. They all have milk solids. 💢

  • And it was still something like 30% detectable as AI. That tells me that every article will still read as samey, even if it's different enough to fool a tool that was trained on the current trends. Authorial voice is lost, replaced by the model's voice.

    It was only when they trained on authors specifically, which cost $81, that it dropped down to 3%. They won't do that.

  • Fine tuning costs money which means they aren't going to do it. I fully expect they'll settle for slop (they already have) and so will everyone else. You might as well get used to it. Everything gets worse forever and nothing ever gets better.

  • The writing style is annoying, though, and essentially eliminates the authorial voice of every writer. Everyone is churning out the same slop, everything sounds the same, all difference is being eliminated. Even writers that don't use the slop machines sound like this, because it's all they read. It's only going to get worse, the internet is fucking ruined.

  • If my cold what? 🤔

  • The Bolsheviks are a good example. They started the revolution with the workers and peasants, because that's the only way to start a revolution, but when the government turns the military on its own people they could then recruit them to the revolution.

  • That's the kind of behavior rewarded by market competition. The ones who aren't evil and fucked up will struggle to properly exploit and superexploit, so they either fall behind their bourgeois peers or willingly leave their bourgeois lifestyles behind for something less stressful and evil. Then there's the people who aren't simply born into their ruling class status, and they can only get there if they're willing to lie and cheat and steal and kill and worse to get to the top.

  • I covered this in my other replies, but there's two elements at play.

    The first is that unequal access to food will create resentment, as poor people are forced to cut back or seek alternatives while rich people are unaffected. Resentment leads to resistance, and before you know it you have food riots. People will fight back, and maybe violently, which leads to the second element: high food prices are one of the major causes for government collapse.

    Messing with access to food is the best way to get people to revolt, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement they're just going to listen to whichever charismatic leader blames the (((NWO globalist agenda))) for taking away meat and uses the nostalgia of "LOOK AT WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU" to whip people into a violent frenzy. If you take away their meat, they'll eat you.

    It has to be fair or it won't be sustainable.

  • It probably is. Hamas wanted hostages, not bodies. I think most unarmed Israelis were killed by the Hannibal Directive.

  • Why not just point out that I made a mistake, instead of making-

    I don’t… buddy.

    -snide comments like that? It was clearly meant to humiliate me for making a mistake.

    You mocked me, so I got hostile.

  • Whelp, I made a mistake, now nothing I say matters and you automatically win the conversation.

    Come on. my point still stands even if I misremembered the exact name of the program. Rationing works, when it's fair.

  • The topic, as presented, was to make meat more expensive so people ate less. I say that's effectively a ban on poor people eating meat. I don't really know what part you disagree with, why you disagree with it, or how you think poor people would be able to eat meat they can't afford. You're going to need to clarify even a tiny little bit or else I don't know how I can even talk to you.

    And I’m still confused about how the hypothetical jewish conspiracy fits into this.

    There's an active conspiracy that global elites want to take away real meat and make everyone eat lab grown meat. Ranchers and business owners in the meat industry are especially fond of spreading these conspiracies to lobby for bans on ban lab grown meat.

  • It was more voluntary during WW1.

    In WW2 there was an explicit food rationing program, and though there were voluntary elements the Red Stamp program allotted a certain number of points for meats/fat/butter. Each person was allowed a certain amount of points weekly in the form of war ration stamps, and the points expired if they weren't used. This was done not only to help feed the war effort, but also to prevent the riots that would have happened if meat became too expensive for poor people to eat.

    1. If meat is too expensive for someone to buy, then they can't buy it.

    2. If someone tries to eat meat they didn't pay for, they get arrested.

    3. Therefore, making meat too expensive for the poor is a ban with extra steps.

    What part of this do you disagree with?

  • Meatless Mondays happened. It's definitely possible to ration meat.

    Now, see my other reply to you for why I think rebates are workable, but complicated.

  • Making meat too expensive for the poor does, in fact, ban poor people specifically from eating meat.

  • We can't make it illegal for poor people specifically to eat meat because they'll be recruited by fascists to overthrow the government. A ban has to be all or nothing, or it will create resentment.

  • Do remember "paycheck-to-paycheck" is a reality for millions and millions of workers. It would need to be a weekly dividend, either directly added to everyone's paychecks or direct deposit or just mailed directly. That didn't happen during COVID, it'd be novel.

    Then it has other problems: that pool of money is vulnerable to things like government shutdowns, every landlord would raise their rent by the exact amount that the meat rebate pays out, and every grocery store would raise the prices of meat alternatives since the demand would increase. You'd need price controls, rent controls, and fund the meat rebate in a way that couldn't just be taken away.

    I don't hate it, but it's more complicated than you're giving credit. If the payout was weekly (and the other concerns were dealt with) it'd effectively be a way to pay people to not eat meat, rather than a way to ban poor people from eating meat. If you didn't deal with those other problems, especially rent and prices, then it would still effectively be a ban on poor people eating meat because the only way they could afford their higher rents and higher prices is if they saved their meat rebate checks. Like I said, complicated.

  • I'm slightly exaggerating, but it would absolutely empower reactionary conspiracy theories and give them ammunition to draw disaffected poor whites into their echo chambers. There's already a persistent conspiracy theory that the (((global elites))) are conspiring to stop white people from eating meat (to make them weaker and less masculine) and this would just empower them.

    Food prices are the #1 way governments collapse. You can't just price poor people out of eating meat and expect it to work. They'll hate you for it. They'll want revenge. It would be a coup lead by the military, or a counterrevolution lead by businesses/ranchers.