It does seem a bit strange that it’s taken basically as a given that accidentally stumbling upon a picture of people not wearing stuff that didn’t even exist when the species evolved will do some sort of inevitable psychological harm to a kid. Intentional exposure sure, that’s about as sus as it gets, but that’s not what the kid finding something not aimed towards kids entails anyway.

Tbh I feel like cheap chicken nuggets are probably the single meat product that the various meat alternatives come closest to mimicking anyway. Granted, it’s been a couple years since I went to vegetarianism so I could be losing some of the memory of the taste, but I legit cannot tell the difference between quorn nuggets and frozen chicken ones except that the quorn ones are more expensive.

At some level its exactly that though. Conservatism generally seeks to preserve an existing social hierarchy in some way, its most mild forms seeking to slow or moderate change to it, and its most extreme forms seeking to roll back previous changes to implement some previous iteration (or what that previous iteration is perceived to be anyway). The left generally seeks to replace or dismantle that hierarchy in some way, but what exactly it is to be replaced with varies with the person or subgroup within it. (This is I think also why its prone to fighting with itself, just because two people dont like the existing thing doesnt mean that they think eachother’s ideas on what to do instead will work or would be desirable, and in extreme cases the gap could be even worse than between what one wants and the existing thing, but thats another matter.) There are different words out there to describe the different alignments already, but the overarching term still gives some useful description in implying a dissatisfaction with the current order of society.

In the architectural sense?

no I saw it, but what else on that list is someone gonna put the stuff on?

I dont partake in the weed, is there a particular reason one would be putting whipped cream on edibles?

Im not sure that financial literacy can really be called fighting the power structure tbh. Like, sure, certain companies that make money off debt might make less off you, but for a person that isnt rich, the money saved is gonna end up spent on something else at some point, so every other company except the ones selling debt benefit from you not being in it. If anything, citizenry that are so broke that they cant buy things and struggle to survive are less able to contribute to a consumer economy and might require the government either spend more money on social services so that they can keep stable enough to work, or spend more money on policing to deal with the increase in crime that comes with desperation.

Tbh the whole “good people vs bad people” is a bit of an oversimplification when political stuff gets involved I think. It makes some sense when it comes to immediate-scale things; if someone is a jerk that abuses or exploits the people around them, it’s probably not a good idea to associate with them or trust them, and it’s easier to communicate this with “this person is bad” than listing it all out. Similarly, if someone is friendly, helps out etc, it’s easier to just tell people “yeah, they’re a good person” when asked and it gets the point across.

But ideological and political positions, while they certainly have consequences that help and hurt people, those consequences are sometimes harder to see and require getting information from other people. What if you have someone that comes across as kind, would help out a neighbor or befriend a new person at work, etc, but they believe some ideological position that if implemented would hurt many people, or support some politician that promotes the same? What if they do so not really even seeing the contradiction, because the people they for whatever reason trust tell him that this person or position actually helps people, that the reports that it’s harmful are lies, and that the people with other ideas are abhorrent and untrustworthy?

What about the reverse, where someone’s positions would lead to fairly desirable outcomes, but in person the guy is an utter asshole? Obviously not everyone’s personality and views are misaligned like this, but it happens.

At the end of the day, if you’re talking about someone you will never personally interact with, asking if someone is “a good person” or not isn’t super relevant. If you determine that they are, that doesn’t make any harm from their missteps go away, and if they’re not, your condemnation doesn’t do so either. What matters more is if the consequences of the actions they take are desirable, and if not, if you can do anything to mitigate them or influence their future behavior.

I see a trilobite and an ammonite in there, did those guys even leave any evolved descendants before they went extinct?

Mercenary/ “private military contractor”, ICE agent, prison gaurd

Lemmy meme. One of the first lemmy-specific ones that I know of. Someone made an post on an asklemmy community asking for advice on how to avoid shitting for three days, and somehow the “lemmy three day challenge” became a widespread meme on the lemmy network for awhile. Then after that it was memes about beans, and briefly ones about beef stroganoff for some reason.

Funny coincidence, to mention shitholes on a lemmy post that says we only have “3 days”.

Tom Scott has a pretty entertaining trivia podcast, he doesn’t appear to be insane?

But what if what I want to say sometimes resembles the self censorship anyway, because my anxieties make me want to avoid coming off as too “mean” regardless of what some corpo thinks?

Aren’t the tops edible too? I wonder how the little shriveled bean thing on the end became internationally popular but the juicy looking fruit on top isn’t. Like, every cashew harvested has to have the fruity part too, what do they all get used for?

And here I always thought they grew like tiny cabbages

Melt it to soften it up for him and he’d be a modern day Crassus

I would want to see an “ediacaran biota” park, though that one would have to be more like a public aquarium than a park I suppose.

It isnt actually liberalism I dont think, because to implement what I just mentioned, you would at the very least need to seize a lot of what it currently considered to be private property (that stock and business ownership), and distribute it in a way that the person possessing it does not have the ability to freely buy and sell it (else people would just sell it off for one reason or another and ownership would quickly consolidate again). Liberalism, as I understand it, has an emphasis on personal property rights that would find such a policy and later restriction on business ownership objectionable.

When did bidets become politicized, that’s a new one for me