It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
Cows eat grass for protein, we can't really skip the middle man and eat grass to get protein.
I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't be unusual for there to be benefit from getting omega 3 from fish rather than algea because of something like this. AFAIK, we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish.
This is orthogonal to the main point which is that just because we are capable of eating something doesn't provide a moral justification for eating something. It is extremely clear from data and example that it's possible and actually easy to live a happy life on a plant-based diet. This means that eating meat is a choice, and many would say it is an overwhelmingly cruel choice.
Morality is a relative and personal thing. It is also very clear from data that you can live a good life while eating quality animal products.
Some may prefer to do it for personal pleasure, but also ease of life, or cost, which allows them to have time for things that they believe are also moral. Such as taking care of their children, working, and so on.
Good spot, thanks for pointing it out. I normally don't like the LLM accusation posts, but two posts from a brand new user in the same minute is a pretty huge red flag for bad behavior.
Their comment got flagged, but looks like they made a new one today and is still active.
That account ('Soerensen') was created in 2024 and dormant until it made a bunch of detailed comments in the past 24-48 hrs. Some of them are multiple paragraph comments posted within 1 minute of each other.
One thing I've noticed is that they seem to be getting posted from old/inactive/never used accounts. Are they buying them? Creating a bunch and waiting months/years before posting?
Either way, both look like they're fooling people here. And getting better at staying under the radar until they slip up in little ways like this.
Some, maybe, but that's just another nice layer of plausible deniability.
The truth is that the internet is both(what's the word for 'both' when you have three(four?) things?) dead, an active cyber- and information- warzone and a dark forest.
I suppose it was fun while it lasted. At least we still have mostly real people in our local offline communities.
Funny, you're definitely right -- I've done it probably just 2 or 3 times over a decade, when I felt like I had two meaningful but completely unrelated things to say. And it always felt super weird, almost as if I was being dishonest or something. Could never quite put my finger on why. Or maybe I was worried it would look like I was trying to hog the conversation?
I don’t know about the particular claim about the new account — if true, based on what people have said, this would be consistent with an LLM bot with high probability … (but not completely out of the question for a person) … I’ll leave that analysis up to the moderators who have a better statistical understanding of server logs, etc.
That said, as a general point, it’s reasonable to make scoped comments in the corresponding parts of the conversation tree. (Is that what happened here?)
About me: I try to pay attention to social conventions, but I rarely consider technology offered to me as some sort of intrinsically correct norm; I tend to view it as some minimally acceptable technological solution that is easy enough to build and attracts a lowest common denominator of traction. But most forums I see tend to pay little attention to broader human patterns around communication; generally speaking, it seems to me that social technology tends to expect people to conform to it rather than the other way around. I think it’s fair to say that the history of online communication has demonstrated a tendency of people to find workarounds to the limitations offered them. (Using punctuation for facial expressions comes to mind.)
One might claim such workarounds are a feature rather than a bug. Maybe sometimes? But I think you’d have to dig into the history more and go case by case. I tend to think of features as conscious choices not lucky accidents.
No, the point is valid. The reason milch is saying "it's only two words what's your problem" isn't because it's only two words, it's because they are expressing a message he finds to be acceptable. The parent poster was attempting to point that out by showing there are "two words" messages he wouldn't support.
Advocating for the removal of an abusive government agency that has been around for only a handful of years is very fucking different from professing white supremacist views.
Trying to compare those because "they're only two words!" is textbook false equivalence.
The poster I replied to made an over exaggerated statement about the prominence of these two words, which I found hilarious, in the same way a teenager saying "I am LITERALLY DYING right now" after the barista spelled their name wrong on their coffee order would be hilarious. This was a very slight inconvenience to the poster's day (at best) that they could have dropped after deciding they don't care about events happening in a country they don't live in.
Be a little more curious then, friend. The author lives in Portland, which has been experiencing federal brutalization for months. Same place where the feds are repeatedly violating standards for warfare by using chemical munitions on civilians and engaging in large-scale misinformation campaigns against immigrants.
It’s almost astonishing how you found his statement “uncalled for”, while neglecting these facts.
may I recommend the 3M 6000 Series Full Face Respirator?
since the feds are using projectiles on random persons, something that is shatter resistant / impact tested for eye protection should be prioritized. pair with some 60926 filters and you should be good to keep resisting.
Real slavery, like what's permitted via the Thirteenth Amendment and propagated by over-policing black communities? Pretty sure the "American Left" is keenly aware of this, even if terminally-online armchair policy analysts engaging in whataboutisms aren't.
This is kinda the whole crux of prison and police reform in the US; you may want to read "The New Jim Crow". Decent primer.
Oh, you don't have to out yourself like that; not here in public! Many people care about black lives and DEI. In fact, I'm willing to bet you probably agree with the most palatable form of DEI - jobs programs and hiring incentives for veterans.
In any case, here's a quote FTA:
>Rather than explicit imprisonment, the compound relied on a system of indentured servitude and debt to control its workers.
Race to the bottom, eh? Why talk about what the situation is in our country and try to improve it when other people in other countries have it much worse?
not saying you’re wrong, but we have to get in the habit of sourcing our claims! whistleblowers testified to Congress about this memo that began circulating around mid-2025.
IMO, the problem is that you must learn what "research" actually entails before attempting it, so that you don't fall into the trap of that fallacy.
Most people… eh. I don't know about the rest of the world, and my experience was in the 90s, but for me GCSE triple science was a list of facts to regurgitate in exams, and although we did also have practical sessions those weren't scored by how well we did Popperian falsification (a thing I didn't even learn about it until my entirely optional chosen-for-fun A-level in Philosophy; I don't know if A-level sciences teaches that).
reply