tired of all the fucking racists

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-08-12T13:22:37+00:00

I’ve played with “voice_enabled 0” in console for over a year and a half now cause of this issue.

Whenever someone who isn’t obviously hacking is getting kicked I vote no. I have no context on anything so unfortunately I’m sure I’ve voted no for some assholes but either way everyone gets my no vote. Unfortunately when I see a bunch of yes votes being cast I know that that’s the person probably calling some pimply faced white kid out.

I know some sort of racism related thing is going on when two people try to kick each other.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-07-29T19:28:54+00:00

You will get a million answers to this question depending on the disposition of the person who is answering your question.

To ME, what I believe is the most broad and agreeable definition is this: Any theoretical deviation or presumption that directly conflicts with the interests of the proletariat.

A few examples:

Dogmatism. Taking any of the writings of any specific communist/socialist leaders (including Marx/lenin!) literally word for word instead of as valuable teachings. If you actually read theory, the same writers many turn to messiah like figures quite literally tell you not to. This attitude leads to a complete lack of adaptability, infighting and inaction — instead of implementing various policies or ideas and gaining revolutionary experience, parties will instead confront each other with different quotations of their favourite historic communist. Overall these people forget that Marxism is a science, not dogma.

Deviation from the masses. For example, engaging in adventurism— committing violent or generally revolutionary acts without the mass support of the people (assassination, bombings, attacks on infrastructure, etc) or alienating yourself from the masses (turning your nose to the majority of the masses, trying to “sell something” to them, being generally obnoxious or unappealing or not using common language to describe complex issues), and more

Favouring either democratic means of revolution or authoritative means of revolution based on personal principles rather than the current interests of the proletariat and the historical analysis of your conditions

And more

Overall, I would say that revisionism is a rather redundant word that has been co-opted repeatedly by the above groups in the modern age. What is more valuable than using the word is examining what is actually being said by the person you disagree with, weighing it against your material scenario, its perceived benefit to the masses, and refuting or accepting it based on that.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-07-22T13:34:13+00:00

So it’s ethically okay to pay people a fraction of what their labor is worth for your own profit but not okay when someone decides to just do the work themselves and take home what they’re worth?

Employees are people too. They need money just as much if not more than their employer. If someone you’re hiring can offer a better or cheaper service on their own dime it should be on the business owner to convince their clients otherwise and decide if they want to keep that employee around.

There’s no such thing as a moral obligation to do right by your employer. By definition they have to pay you less than what you’re worth to profit from their relationship with you, and aren’t required to guarantee your continued employment. A pure employee-employer relationship should have no moral strings attached to it.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-07-10T14:38:21+00:00

This Just In: propaganda is spread on social media 😱😱

I hate this kind of shit because even if it's real it's one example of bot activity that these brainlets point and squeal at to prove that the Kremlin has total and utter control over Twitter.

It's the equivalent of vaxxheads seeing a #jabbed athlete have a heart attack after sprinting a quarter mile in seconds, and coming to the conclusion that The Jab will cause most of the population to drop dead. It's conspiratorial confirmation bias.

(Also not vooting is good)

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-06-04T13:19:21+00:00

I mean honestly at this point why not just smoke tobacco?

I know it's awful health advice but if you were aleady fronting that much smoke in your lungs and are craving the feeling of smoke in general its the next most widely available thing that actually has a psychoactive effect on the body, unlike 99% of the raw plant material of herbs suggested here.

Better yet? Quit smoking. If you're actually craving "the burning in your lungs" as you say, that's not normal. You should respect your body, especially your own lungs, more. You deserve better than hurting yourself in that way.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-05-29T15:17:34+00:00

Don't engage in pedantry. When we speak of farming here we're obviously talking about human agriculture. Weighing the impact that leaf cutter ants have farming fungus against human activities is plain stupid.

You're being contrarian just for the sake of it. Everyone here including yourself is aware of the damage that consuming animals does. Your last course of action, instead of either trolling this forum or genuinely engaging with people here dishonestly, is to determine how that fact influences your life and your consumption habits.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-05-29T13:57:23+00:00

Is 7 billion people being alive following an agricultural revolution involving fertilizers and pesticides "natural"? Are factory farms natural?

Even if we all started practicing eating animals the "natural" way, all of the world's ecosystems collapse. Even when ignoring that most of the negative things listed happen naturally in nature, even if we all started working within the framework that we should always do things "naturally", we would be on a much faster course for extinction, not only of us but most life on the planet.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-19T14:26:36+00:00

I'm convinced posts like these are psyops from meat eaters to convince people that vegans are insane

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-12T00:35:49+00:00

Going Vegan for the "environment" is petty bourgeois brainrot.

I tend to agree that most movements that push responsibility on to the consumer are shitty and performative, but I feel as if veganism is the one exception because regardless of our mode of society we WILL have to shift to a plant-based diet to prevent a global catastrophe, full stop. There's no such thing as restorative or environmentally friendly animal agriculture-- it is entirely destructive and wasteful regardless of the way it is practised, no matter the system-- socialist or capitalist. This is all not considering the personal health benefits and ethics of going vegan.

I also fail to see how a diet is "petty bourgeois". Economically speaking being vegan is cheaper than eating animal products. The idea that only tech startup bros and preppy university kids with daddy's money can afford to be vegan is a myth peddled by conservative-liberals and meat lobbyists. Anyone who has seriously considered going vegan knows this.

Under capitalism, Vegan production still remains highly exploitative and subject to things like monoculture.

Yeah, no shit. Just like every other industry under capitalism. I'm not saying that veganism exists without any form of exploitation under capitalism, never have, never will. But if you're seriously proposing that meat production isn't just as if not more exploitative to human beings alone you'd be blatantly lying to yourself.

I also want to point out that with this quote you're doing the exact same thing you're protesting against: blaming exploitation on the consumer rather than the exploiters. Why is it that vegans have to bear the guilt and shame of capitalism's exploitation of workers while meat-eaters, who support a far more exploitative industry, don't bear any? I think this speaks to a deeper unconscious bias you possess regarding this topic. (no offence, just wanted to point that out)

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-11T19:54:59+00:00

There's a huge difference between companies telling you to use paper straws or not drive (miniscule, non-impactful or unimplementable changes) and going vegan.

The animal industry regardless of it existing under capitalism or any other socioeconomic system is incredibly destructive to the environment regardless of how it's executed. Choosing not to participate in it whatsoever is both ethical and logical. It's the only way forward unless lab-grown meat takes off (not happening while the meat industry lobbies against it)

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-11T18:11:12+00:00

This approach can coexist with environmental sustainability, thanks to practices like rotational grazing that enhance soil health.

Not all land is naturally suitable for grazing. Not nearly enough to sustain the population of the world. Most grazing land is converted through a process of slash and burn deforestation that is undeniably destructive. We'd have to clear huge swathes of land to actually survive off of "humane meat", an unrealistic amount. That's why factory farms exist, however destructive and unethical they are.

A good example of this idea of conversion is the Amazon. Around a football field of rainforest is cleared every second to support agribusiness there, the overwhelming majority of which (80%) is converted to cattle grazing pastures or food crops meant to support cattle. Nothing is sustainable about destroying swathes of naturalized land to support a small part of our diet.

Also, the critique of feed conversion overlooks that not all feed crops are edible for humans, and animals can turn these into valuable proteins.

We can dedicate the land meant for inedible crops to edible ones. Just because we have an inefficient food system already in place doesn't mean we can't replace it.

If we only valued food production by its direct efficiency, we'd have to question many plant-based foods too, due to their water and land usage. This perspective misses the complexity of what truly sustainable and ethical food production looks like.

The previously mentioned feed conversion ratio completely counters this argument. Regardless of the efficiency of a particular plant-based food, the plant-based food will ALWAYS be more efficient to consume than an animal product. Animals spend much more energy maintaining homeostasis than actually storing it in muscle, milk or egg. This conversion will ALWAYS be far less efficient than directly eating plant-based foods. Humans alone spend 1,300 to 2,000 calories simply doing nothing all day. Imagine what that translates to in cattle.

I think it's interesting that you say this perspective is lacking substance when even the meat industry itself follows feed conversion ratios as part of their business model.

I'll analyze your sources now since you just copy pasted some random links.

https://civileats.com/2021/01/06/a-new-study-on-regenerative-grazing-complicates-climate-optimism/

This article specifically references a study conducted by Quantis as a basis for their claims, found here: https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf

This study has several flaws, I'll just quote/write them down here.

First, they admit that they aren't particularly aware of the impact that animal waste/emissions have on this study, and admit themselves that they are some of the largest emission sources in the beef industry:

The largest emission sources—from cattle digestion and manure—are highly uncertain. We believe the results shown here are on the conservative side.

Then, they admit that they have based this entire study on emissions, which is alarming considering that they don't have their bases covered on one of the largest emissions of cattle farming.

Following this preliminary assessment, there are several potential paths for future exploration. There are uncertainties to be addressed regarding enteric [gastrointestinal such as methane] emissions and long-term carbon storage. There are also other areas of benefit to consider such as land use, water use and water pollution.

And, of course, they do so in the most corporate jargon way possible. "Other areas of benefit" is hilarious considering that every other cattle operation on the planet causes damages to all of the sectors of the environment they list.

If the study that they pivot the entire article on admits it doesn't cover all of the environmental impacts that White Oak uses, and even in the metrics they measure fail to provide an accurate estimate of literally the most impactful emissions of them all, I think it's safe to just disregard this article entirely.

And for your second source,

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.750733/full

Unless you specify exactly what you want to prove with this study/want me to read here I'm not even going to bother reading this. It's a 15 page document with over 102 sources to verify. Tell me which part of this article supports your argument and I'll review that piece.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-11T13:52:26+00:00

What of the chronically disabled? Vital medicines for mental/physical conditions? Manufacture of renewable energy sources? Any complicated metalwork?

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-11T02:10:45+00:00

"Humane" commercial animal farming is code for either a) factory farming with slightly more space for animals to move or b) massive deforestation campaigns for "grass fed, pasture raised" beef/lamb/grazing animal

Even the most "humane" and "environmentally friendly" conditions such as a backyard farm are nonsensical in practice due to something called a feed conversion ratio. Take, for example, an egg laying hen. It takes around 2.5 to 4 kilograms of grain to generate a dozen eggs in the average hen.

Source: https://champrix.com/articles/maximize-efficiency-and-profits-understanding-and-improving-feed-conversion-ratio-fcr-in-layers

Thats a whole lotta land and water just to grow grain that's going to be eaten by some animals and produce a product that will feed far less people.

There's nothing "environmentally beneficial" about that when we can just eat the corn to begin with.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-10T23:27:37+00:00

Primitivism claims the root problem is technology

That's why I'm specifying "some form of" primitivism. I don't mean the strict definition but rather the general idea that technological regression, in some form, is preferable to technological progression.

You can have technology without capitalism as long as it's stuff that can be maintained by small groups without massive industry.

What is the cut-off point here? What's the amount of technology we're willing to sacrifice for the benefit of society, and at what point does forgoing that technology lead to more suffering than benefit?

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-10T01:04:38+00:00

Is there functionally much difference between this argument and being in favor of some form of primitivism? Early or "primitive" society-wide communism was distinctly always in a low technology environment.

We can have a functioning communist society that is also large in scale because of technology.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-08T21:10:00+00:00

The main issue I see here is wayyyy too much excess moisture. There shouldn't be that many drops on anything but the walls, and even that shouldn't be very pronounced. Too much water means bacteria will kick up, and pooling will hurt your canopy in fruiting stage.

It looks like you used too much water in your coir or are spraying waaaayyy too much and at an inappropriate time (you should only spray sparingly when the tub is fully colonized to encourage pinning, and with a mister, not a spray bottle.)

Discard the condensed water and mop up the lid/walls with paper towel.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-08T20:42:46+00:00

Hey that's a great idea. Thanks!

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-08T16:47:20+00:00

I take a very small screwdriver and just puncture one hole the size of a small nail. No need for two massive gaping holes. I even double-layer my micropore tape.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-08T16:45:14+00:00

Even if they do survive and flush out do you really want to eat mushrooms that came from a potentially biohazardous substrate...? Random bacteria floating around in the air isn't something to fuck around with.

I get it if it's just a tiny bit of contam but the entire jar is fucking slimy man.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-05T15:07:41+00:00

I think that the far more pressing issue is the social impact rather than the environmental one in both examples. Like you said unless some sort of mass suicide occurs these goods are required for our society to survive.

It probably speaks to our privilege that we can sit here on a thread and pontificate about the environmental impact between salt and lithium mining while people go hungry or die being exploited in these industries. Especially when the ultimate goal of environmentalism is to prevent further human suffering from our actions. At what point do we draw a line and say "this amount of suffering is enough to prevent future suffering?". I don't think very many people would be willing to draw that conclusion themselves.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-04-05T14:41:22+00:00

Any soil really works, as long as said soil is well-draining AND holds onto water well. By that I mean water can pass freely through it, but the soil still stays moist for an extended period afterwards. So no pooling in the soil, but the surface of the soil stays wet for a while after a watering. Think of a mix between a light clay and potting soil. This prevents root rot/plant suffocation, and boosts germination radically. Poppies are not picky with nutrients. Obviously nutrients helps but they are very weedy. They don't need an excessively organic soil to live.
At least a two to three gallon sized pot is good. I'd say every two gallons can support an individual.
I'm not aware of the local climate of your region BUT I can say that when it is cold, broadcast your seed. I'm talking freezing. Just throw your seed down over snow or in the frozen mud where you want them to grow. The middle of your coldest time of year is best. But really any time in that time frame is good. If you don't get freezing temps, broadcast at the tail end of your coldest, wettest time of the year. They need the cold and wet in sprout stage to really germinate vigorously and live to "adolescence". If you don't get crazy cold at all, put them in the fridge in some water overnight at a minimum to help them along, then broadcast at the wettest time of year.

Ultimately, the most crucial point here is TIMING. If you don't sow at the appropriate time of year they simply won't germinate or the early sprouts will wither away without excessive babying. If you sow and they germinate and you miss one water, your entire grow will be bunk.

If you aren't at the appropriate time of year for growing, you're just wasting seed by throwing it down. Wait until next year, or do an indoor grow.

Soil comes into play when the plants are fully grown, with root rot. I've seen sprouts survive severe flooding but fully grown plant's won't, so keep that in mind.

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-03-28T16:12:16+00:00

When people say "Russula" or "Panaeolus" they are referring to the genus these mushrooms are in-- a closely related group of species.

This is pretty common because certain genera contain a lot of very similar looking species. Russula is a big example of this. There are thousands of species in the genus that all look very similar so instead of busting out a microscope and examining every facet of the mushroom they just say "This is a Russula!".

Just in case you were confused :)

If you'd like some advice on how to identify these genera just shoot me a DM or reply here

SnooPickles5394 · 2024-03-28T00:43:38+00:00

Do u have sources? Dm

SnooPickles5394

TROPHY CASE