Let’s just say that you’re sounding very American.

American culture, and I’m generalising, there are a million sub cultures obviously… Emphasises the individual. The American dream of you working hard to get some payoff, is an example. As such there is a lot of cultural pressure to not correct people when you are in conversation, it’s more polite and acceptable to play along. Their stupid ideas, their problem.

And that’s where Americans (again I’m generalising) are weakest here. Because stupid ideas are everybody’s problem. Because once people go off-the-deep-end there is no easy way of getting them back. And a large amount of people involved in conspiracy fantasy is legitimising it.

So no Americans are not more prone to conspiracy fantasy, but American culture does permit fast growth of ideas. MLMs are another example of this. You can use cultural taboos and cultural elements to sell bullshit.

Look at what the justice Democrats have done. They put highly progressive people in power. It’s not a simple task.

You have to find the right candidates to put the money behind. Cover the expenses and make sure they can put all their time in their campaign.

I hope you’re right. But the ideas of ancaps are going to do the exact opposite of preventing corruption and budget misuse. In fact it’s going to make it much easier. Since the amount of money that the government receives through taxation is not going to go down much, while many programs are being dismantled and privatised. Just textbook neoliberal stuff, the government is going to have to spend more money on privatised infrastructure while social programs, healthcare and education are squeezed. Or worse, privatised and only available when profitable.

Privatisation doesn’t get rid of corruption or budget misuse. It does place it outside of democratic control. If its the rules that need to be changed, there is absolutely no need for ancap ideology. If the rules aren’t helping now, dismantling the government isn’t going to change anything. They either need to be changed or enforced.

Anyway, I think it’s very predictable what policies he will steer towards and since there is an economical crisis, finding support for big austerity measures, isn’t going to be difficult, I assume.

Nah. It’s more about inherenting eating habits than genes. Also it’s much easier to gain weight if you’ve been obese during your youth. Eating is also an unhealthy coping mechanism for a lot of people. Genes is probably on fifth place if not lower.

A good dietician will limit your fat intake, because that is where most of the calories come from and where cholesterol is. Sugar is also problematic but only in refined form, and in fat people. The theory being that it’s fat that limits the response to sugars, I’m oversimplifying but this theory is at the heart of the sugar/fat debate. Dieticians aren’t debating this, mostly health gurus and doctors online are. The research into health versus diet is very clear and very much understood. Less processed food, more whole foods, less animal products, more plants. (fruit, grains, legumes, vegetables, nuts and seeds.)

And yes I do agree that the availability of healthy food is very limited and that understanding how or even what a healthy diet is, especially from consuming social media, is hard. The food industry is a multi billion profit industry, there are a lot of conflicting interests. But heart associations, diabetes association, association of dieticians, world health organisations, and many more are screaming from the rooftops. So it’s also not impossible to figure it out. But if you’re left to the almighty wisdom of ‘the market’ you’re fucked. Yes, it’s hard to stay healthy and skinny.

That’s why we call it a condition though, not a disease. People have a right to make mistakes, right? We can call the consequences of mistakes, conditions. Lung cancer from smoking, a broken arm from mountainbiking, tennis arm from leisure activities. Life choices can lead to conditions, regardless of their perceived healtiness.

Fuck you. Use a reputable source.

Tankie gaslighting in action.

In teresting

Skirting awfully close to a nazi boycott! Luckily the nazis will probably understand it was freeze peach. They know as no other what it means to disavow.

Musk is playing 3d checkers and saves free speech once again.

Inaction. Like everywhere else, a lot of things go wrong but aren’t acted upon for too long because of political impotence or incompetence. Which paves the way for populist sentiment. Netherlands now has a housing crisis, a nitrogen crisis, employment shortage and then there is global warming, inflation and war in Europe.

Things we knew were coming and the sole reason the government didn’t do anything was because of the neoliberal idea that the market will solve all problems through the magic of capitalism. This has been true for the past 3 decennia now.

Our saving grace is the EU and many policies and money coming in has been touted as solutions offered by a lot of populist in the east of the EU. Giving them an air of legitimacy. But of course the EU is also the entity that has been spreading the neoliberal ideals and open markets, a single coin. So easy to paint the EU with negative side effects as a boogeyman. Just don’t mention the positive and don’t offer solutions.

The problem is that far-right populist never have solutions because they see most of the problems coming from within a corruption of culture. So they often ignore fundamental systemic solutions because they are themselves functioning because of the system they are in. Fixing things is directly undermining their right of existence. So a feedback loop is inherently present.

Once you’re in it’s extremely difficult to get out.

Look I share the same frustrations. And true change can only come from political actions. Laws, oversight, fines, taxation, enforcement… Leaving change to the market isn’t a solution to anything. We can’t consume our way out of this problem.

But that’s also not the point of our conversation, I’m trying to make clear that as a consumer you still bare responsibility over what you consume.

The problem is when people throw their hands up and just ‘get what they need’ mindlessly. That’s also a choice.

When we can make choices that are clearly better and more ethical, we should. So it is on us to do the best we can, within the system we find ourselves in. We should strive for systemic (political) change outside of consumption, as well. One doesn’t get nullified by the other.

Okay but this also doesn’t absolve you from your responsibility. At some point you’re going to make a decision about where your personal boundaries in weighing your options are. And if you’re not driving and eating (a lot) less animal products you’re further ahead of the curve than others. But deciding when you find things unsustainable, it is still another decision.

Most people don’t feel or don’t see a positive difference from their choice. So they let go of their responsibilities because of it. If there is no positive impact it doesn’t matter what they do, is their thinking.

While when you look in the supermarket now compared to ten years ago… Meat substitutes, vegan products, plant milks are abundant. So, things are changing, the choices people make are influential. It just isn’t immediate. But even within capitalism the market is responding to changes, from the personal choices of people like you and me. It’s slow and tedious, but things change.

Yes as an overarching critique that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. My problem is that this doesn’t absolve us from our responsibility. If choice A leaves trails of chemicals behind but costs less than B that leaves purity behind. I can definitely critique people who choose to get A.

Mainly because the other option is to choose to not consume. For example veganism doesn’t apply to what you’re saying. It’s a conscious decision based on ethical values. The same thing can be true for people who don’t use cars.

And even if there is a choice between lesser evils, it’s still a choice of consequence.

deleted by creator

That’s a mischaracterization of what it means to argue from ideology. They only have to accept the idea that ownership of the means of production means ownership of the pollution from the means of production.

Which is a. Very common and b. The only explanation through which this research makes sense without attributing malice.

You are the person to set in motion the apparatus necessary to accomplish the task that you wanted to be accomplished.

Yes you live in this late stage capitalist hellscape with the rest of us, but that doesn’t absolve you from being critical and making the best decisions in it.

Okay so you rather think they were doing it on purpose than doing from ideology. I have a bit more regard for people I guess

You think you’re not?