When my kids were little, they received plenty of gifts that were battery operated and noisy. We left them all at grandma and grandpas house so that the kids would have toys when they visited. A bit cruel perhaps. Perhaps they deserved it. My dad once bought them a little stuffed ball decorated like a dog, and the gimmick was that whenever it rolled, it would make noises - woof woof. Bark bark. He plopped it in the trunk for a 2 hr drive to visit us and deliver. Apparently he could hear it through the trunk to the passenger compartment the entire way
I love that this option exists. Anyone who has studied factory farms in the US understands it is universally bad in every way - for the animals, for the eaters, for the environment. And the low cost is being subsidized by all the unquantifiables, or the costs people don’t pay at the grocery. So if there are any # of people who eat these burgers instead of factory farm beef burgers, even some of the time, this will reduce the demand on and therefore the supply of factory beef. Win win win.
Yes @Sasha. I won’t go too much off-topic to avoid getting admonished. But words like “woke” and “cancel culture” when used against liberals makes me .
Same here. Progress, adaptation, learning and growing, becoming or trying to become better than we are or used to be. All 4 letter words among a large contingent. It makes me alternately sad and angry. In the meanwhile, I love all the different options there are out there for different eaters. You can get multiple cuisines, multiple dietary accomodations. It’s wonderful. The only thing I can’t abide by, having an actual anaphylactic kid, is people who are “allergic” to x when actually they just don’t want or like it. It undermines the credibility of the entire group. I would imagine the same is true of folks who are “gluten free” as opposed to those with celiac, etc.
True, true… and true! Lol.
Thanks for sharing!
In the UK, “woke” is fast replacing “politically correct” as the unthinking gratuitous insult of choice to be tossed in the direction of anyone on the political left of one’s own views. It’s a bit similar to tossing the insult of “fascist” in the direction of those on your political right without thought - often they are not fascists but actually nazis.
Hmm. I use woke as people who denigrate anyone, personally, who disagrees with them as opposed to talking about ideas. I don’t use ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ because I know what those words mean.
In my humble opinion, don’t use “woke” at all. It is literally not a nice word by anyone to anyone. It is either an insult that you are too PC, or not PC enough by someone who tells you they are, and you aren’t. Also, I believe the particular situation you’re alluding to, the correct way to describe it is an ad hominem argument, and that’s what I use. When someone attacks someone else on their personhood rather than engaging with their ideas or evidence.
With great respect, I think you’re offbase. See the history here:
One end of the political spectrum, indeed a niche of that end, started to use “woke.” It became a rallying cry. The other end of the political spectrum picked up the usage and the first end (everyone keeping up? grin) became offended at the “appropriation” and now object. Since I am not at either end of the spectrum and indeed maintain that I am somewhat orthogonal to the conventional vocabulary I feel I can use the word as I please.
I suggest that people to whom “woke” applies and who, having invented the usage, are now offended by it, are much like vegans (back on thread) who not only want the option of eating what they choose but also lambast those with different views. If you haven’t seen a vegan hold forth on why you are a bad person for not making the same food choices as they you are indeed fortunate.
Now “get off my lawn!” grin
I support consistency. If the opinion of a vegan matters then the opinion of an omnivore matters also JUST AS MUCH. From a market point of view 0.4% of the US population should not feel entitled to tell 96.6% of the population what they should eat. “Woke.”
Well, I think we’re not too far apart. My H works at a university - one of these liberal enclaves… And the employees are pretty homogenous as far as race/background. Yet everyone is trying to “out-woke” everyone else, all the way to the top. Much of it is virtue signaling, and this is coming from someone who actually wants a better world as opposed to people just talking about it. So I guess I just put a lot more value in seeing that people are willing to take some actions, as opposed to how “woke” they are and all the talking they do.
Oh jeepers. I’m with you (I think) on virtue signaling by both the “woke” and “non-woke.”
I think what is most missing, particularly among those who talk about “conversations,” is civil discourse with those who don’t agree with the narrative of the party of the first part. grin This is particularly the case in my observation in the academic community, which saddens me greatly.
I am cautiously in agreement about willingness to take action, although I take great exception to arson, looting, destruction of property, assault, et al being lumped into “action.” What I would really like to see is real discussion. With a lot of listening. Lots and lots of listening. Not fighting, not arguments - listening. One doesn’t need to agree with someone to understand their perspective. With some time and attention opponents may find they agree on goals and not on means. That is in itself a step.
I’d give some examples of listening to people but I’m afraid I’d offend someone. sigh The principle of free speech has a codicil that people have a right to their opinions. I’d add to that: science matters. Someone’s opinion is not fact. Fact is fact. The sky is not purple. The average number of months per year that the Northwest Passage is open to navigation is what it is. The environmental impact of mining for solar panels and batteries is what it is. The costs of transportation in our food supply chain are what they are. We are not starting from scratch and we need to feed people. Cultural norms driven by societal regulation and expectation may well have led to disparities that should be addressed, but carjacking is still a crime (and should be). I’m not real big on looting. I’m tiptoeing here and have surely still managed to offend someone.
More or less on topic, Saturday is my birthday and I’m eating a steak. The potato and broccoli will be vegan. The glazed carrots will be vegetarian. The steak will be a cow.
I’ve posted this before:
Gemini twin! But I’m not sure I agree about facts being facts.
I think there has to be some common set of facts that everyone agrees on for any further conversation to occur on any important topics. That said, I do believe that facts are facts, until we learn more and possibly those facts change. But some people parade opinions around as facts, but they aren’t facts. To Auspicious’ point, I say “liberal enclaves” although I agree with most of your comments. People call them liberal enclaves. And as a moderate liberal, I am watching with chagrin at the evolution of college “culture.” With H having the career he does, we have the benefit not of 4 yrs of being immersed in college, but 30. And I have heard some stories. To the point that certain colleges no longer feel that their primary mission is education, but that it is righting all the wrongs in the world. But only the way in which those colleges define “wrongs.” It is troubling, and again, lots of talking and not lots of action. And certainly not lots of humility. White people coming up with solutions on behalf of other groups is sometimes as bad, as patronizing, and as tone deaf as the problems they contributed to. Now I’m looking for a scolding… I also don’t do or believe in looting. Although I am marginally sympathetic to the idea that if they don’t listen when you whisper, and they don’t listen when you talk and they don’t listen when you yell… what is left to get people’s attention. But generally, hard pass on looting and violence.
Okay. I guess I have been traumatized by people I trusted publishing research outcomes as factual only to find the research was perhaps knowingly manipulated, but I think that’s fair enough for Hungry Onion.
This is what to me is critical to discussion. We can agree (I hope) that people need a certain number of calories to live. That we need some balance of vitamins and minerals to be healthy. We talk around the margins about some elements that are on the fringe of our scientific understanding.
“Don’t eat anything with a face” (my simplistic view of vegetarianism) or no animal products (1. assuming we agree on what an animal is - does yeast count? 2. another simplistic view on my part) are ethical positions with an extremely small fraction of people with medical issues (have you met Joe and Betsy? They’re it.). Ethical positions are opinions. We should be able to talk about opinions. People with different opinions should not (<- warning! opinion alert) be offended by other people who hold different opinions.
I don’t remember our meal plan for the week (that’s why we write it down, but it is upstairs) but I do know I’m eating chicken, pig, cow, and shrimp. I’m happy to talk about those choices and to discuss the nervous systems (with footnotes) of plants. My recollection is that grass likes to be mowed but the blade should be sharp.
Peer review is supposed to flush that out. If people publish without review and call it research I’ll be right next to you with a baseball bat and my late grandfather’s metal cane.
I’ll save that discussion for a different forum.
Sure. But I’m on your side about bad science.
Not so fast. In politics…how much money have the Koch brothers invested to build think tanks and hire scientists who then publish reports which uphold Koch practices. Too many to count. You can buy a scientist. You can buy a pundit. You can buy the science you need to justify the practices you want.
Which is what peer review in serious academic journals is supposed to address. Unfortunately much of the academic community has drifted to political vice apolitical positions (anathema to real science) but given your example that should not be of concern.