this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
1234 points (99.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

11542 readers
2229 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 197 points 15 hours ago (36 children)

To anyone wondering, no, rice is not hurting the climate. Unlike many water-intense crops, people are not trying to grow rice in the middle of the American desert.

[–] Novocirab@feddit.org 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Water use and climate impact are two distinct issues (their connections notwithstanding). Californian almond farming is a catastrophe for regional water systems, but its greenhouse gas emissions aren't much of a concern. Conversely, rice farming on flooded fields has substantial greenhouse gas emissions despite its being rather unproblematic for regional water systems.

[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

Substantial is severely overstated as any crop you would replace rice with where rice is grown in water would objectively destroy all local water cycles if not the entire local ecosystem. That would have a much greater impact on climate change than if rice accounted for 100% of all calories eaten globally.

A) Rice paddies are generally in wetlands and swamps, protecting these areas, any other grain you would grow here would destroy that wetland biome. Corn especially would essentially render the entire area sterile because

B) Domesticated rice grown in water does not use any pesticides or herbicides whatsoever. There's no need for it. Occasionally, in specific areas, you'll need scare crows, frequent human activity, or crabs/ducks depending on the exact pest you're getting rid of, but you don't need glyphosate. This has massive knock on effects for climate, fewer herbicides and pesticides means more carbon being sequestered. Fewer herbicides and pesticides in water means more microorganisms turning CO2 back into oxygen and sequestering the carbon in tasty tasty microscopic corpses. Which brings us to

C) Methane and the GHG cycle: While methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, it also has practically no shelf life in the atmosphere. It is a natural part of the GHG cycle and even if all grains everywhere were converted to rice, we could not generate enough methane to effect the climate. It would decay to hydrogen within ten years in the upper atmosphere (versus 50 or more for CO2) but more importantly every single type of forest sequesters it more efficiently than CO2. Saying a natural source of CH4 that is easily accounted for by growing it upwind of a forest, like it almost always is, is a serious driver of climate change or even a risk for it is silly doomerism.

The truth is climate change is 100% a matter of fossil fuels. If we stop using fossil fuels, we will immediately stall climate change. Nothing else we can realistically do except burning fossil fuels will cause climate change, and even if we go full net zero on every other thing we do, without stopping fossil fuels, we will not make any progress whatsoever. Even if we used 100% ethanol fuel in ICE vehicles, we would stop climate change. Because we would not be introducing ancient sequestered energy back into the system, we would be taking energy from the system one year, and putting it back in the next.

Rice is the same. All methane renewed by growing rice will be sequestered or decayed in less time than it will take for properly dried and stored rice to decay, and none of whats generated would effect the total amount of methane circulating in the system.

[–] teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

We're talking about the Earth, not some fictional hellscape of drop bears, made up plants like Eucalyptus, and giant flamethrower wielding spiders.

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 21 points 13 hours ago

Preach. It's a far cry from almonds lol

I would love to see how this sort of online propaganda goes over in the East Asian part of the world. Or just Eastern part of the world in general.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 7 hours ago

Alfalfa has entered the chat

[–] schmorpel@slrpnk.net 50 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

...unless there's a profit to be made. Hype rice into the next superfood and watch people grow it in the desert.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 34 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 3 points 8 hours ago

People (by which I mean extremely large agro-businesses) are growing soybeans and corn in the desert because it's the highest economic yield per acre grown. Almost nothing competes with it. So it's not just that a profit has to be made, but also that a larger profit than corn or soybeans has to be made. Which is unlikely, given how much bio-engineering and infrastructure capital has gone into both of those crops.

[–] suxen_tsihcrana@anarchist.nexus 5 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

If Americans ever embrace rice I'll eat 4 pairs of vintage high top Doc Martens

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 1 points 2 hours ago

What until you hear what they used slaves to vote in South Carolina.

[–] Ithral@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Murican's eat a lot of rice, and beans, at least in the southwest

[–] suxen_tsihcrana@anarchist.nexus 1 points 2 hours ago

Maybe it's a regional thing.. in my area the supermarkets put rice in the "ethnic" aisle 🤦

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (11 children)

US produces something like 7 million tonnes of rice every year, mostly for internal consumption. It's not anywhere near China or India, but the US does already eat a shitload of rice.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] MrKoyun@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

"Millions of lifelong rice-eaters suffer from starvation as rice prices skyrocket to unbelieveable historic highs as the US decides on its new micro-hyper-trend."

load more comments (31 replies)