Fuckface is going to have a really bad time when he realizes that bombs don’t work against climate change.

Forced expulsion aside (yes, I know that’s a huge fucking asterisk): Of all the places … South Sudan? Really?

Or it at least requires awareness

The U.S. won’t be of much help to them when climate change comes tapping at their back door.

Nature bats last

Note that this is not the same person as “Dave Grossman”, the asshole that does the warrior cop training.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Of course this is by design.

I use the “plant-based” label because people get weird about the v-word, and quite frankly I’m only super-strict about meat and egg so don’t think I’ve really earned the title. I avoid dairy, but it shows up in a lot of unexpected places so I give myself some leeway with micro-ingredients. Why? Because it’s more effort than I’m willing to put in. I know that won’t be a satisfactory answer to diehards, but it is an honest one.

Or perhaps you are asking if it is only about food? I don’t use non-food animal products either (e.g. leather, wool, down).

My last paragraph is really more rhetorical because it’s a very predictable “whatabout.” While not wanting to bother with the effort certainly is true (in-line with my attitude on dairy micro-ingredients), having easier availability to small local farms wouldn’t change anything in this regard. I’d still stick to a plant-based lifestyle. If anything, it’s something I might have used as a crutch while phasing out animal products. But I am past that now.

like some fucked up torture treadmill

Welcome to industrial animal agriculture. I stopped eating animal products 7 years ago. My only regret is not making this change earlier.

And before someone says “just buy from small local farms”: I live in an urban area. Unless I burn gas driving all over fuck, the industrial animal ag products are what is in the stores. Easier for me to just go plant-based.

I didn’t imply any connotations.

Imply? You straight up said, and I quote “violating the consent of the members of that community.”

People signed up for the content the community described. This post is not that.

Social media is never going to be 100% the content that is described in the sidebar or forum description. There’s always going to be some deviation, some off-topic, and some marginal content. I didn’t sign up for meta debate about whether the act of posting non-conforming content is violating people’s consent or not, yet here we are.

Just because I could take various actions to prevent it in the future, doesn’t make the original action ok.

The stakes on this are super low such that actions to prevent it in the future, and the options that you have available to you, are good enough. The original action may be dubious, but it frankly isn’t that big of a deal. OP didn’t post something that is abusive, misinformation, or otherwise harmful. Nor have they been spamming posts here. You are spending more time worrying about it than it would have taken you to simply ignore the post and move on.

If this is truly an issue for you, you should stick to more tightly-moderated segments of social media. That may admittedly be difficult to find on Lemmy due to the lower user base; another commenter pointed out that there is only 1 active mod for this sub. You may find that the modding on some of the larger Reddit subs to be more to your liking.

Anyhow, I’ve said my piece and I’m moving on.

Wow, 1 active mod for a sub with this level of activity? I actually don’t know what would be considered typical, but gut instinct tells me more than 1.

Where it will quickly get removed?

Apparently not that quickly. OP is shown as “15 hours ago,” as of right now.

By breaking the rules of a community you are essentially violating the consent of the members of that community.

Boards like these are public or at least quasi public spaces. No one is actually forcing you to read or engage with any specific post or comment.

I would say that significant deviation from the intended content of the community is one thing. Personal attacks, intentional misinformation, arguing in bad faith, harassment, etc has no place. But claiming that OP “violated people’s consent” has a serious connotation, and I think it is a real stretch to apply that here.

If the post bothers you enough, you can always report it and then simply ignore the post. Even block the OP, especially if they have a pattern of behavior that your find inappropriate.

Translation: how can we con men into supporting our platform, as opposed to changing our platform to be more appealing to men and younger voters in general?

Our society is so incredibly two-faced when it comes to this.

Make parenting and absolute ballbuster, but also grief people for opting out. We went the wrong direction on both ends. We need to help parents but also be more accepting of childfree.

I think the issue is the very foundation of religion leads to an “us vs them” mentality.

Can also be repeated with LGBTQ. People will pontificate about these cultures oppressing them even as rights are eroding here in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Doesn’t split it by gender. Obviously there are much worse places (looking at you, Caribbean), but the U.S. needs to look in the mirror.

The extreme level wealth disparity is an inexcusable failure of our species.

FFS, people still doing this? Some people will deny regardless of how much evidence is presented, how many different sources corroborate, or how easily verifiable the claims are.

It is a disgusting tactic, but I would also note that Russia does not have a monopoly on it.