DragonWasabi

And not an ethical or philosophical discussion obviously - I mean they're talking about which animal flesh they like more, which dishes "need it", how they like to cook "it", etc.

Are you silent and just wait for the conversation to move onto something else? Do you offer a comment on the topic? Do you say something entirely different to try to change the subject? Do you do something else to distract yourself or because you're bored or annoyed/upset/disturbed by it? Do you go into another room or leave if you can?

In these moments it can be incredibly awkward, I would imagine even if you aren't an ethical vegan, maybe even vegetarians who just don't like flesh by taste preference or are grossed out by it. There's nothing to add (presuming you don't want to go against the grain of the group and accidentally start an argument and trigger everyone by making a comment expressing your own choices or views or anything).

It's kind of like if everyone is talking about their favorite hockey players when you have no knowledge or interest in hockey, except if the hockey players were also all convicted sex offenders and the conversation disturbed you immensely.

We're socially expected to be silent about our views on animal exploitation (or flesh consumption) and not even state our "preferences" or choices too loudly, but then everyone else is socially accepted to say whatever they want about the subject at any time and in any manner (including defending animal exploitation and criticizing vegans). This creates an untenable imbalance where we just have to shut up and hold our tongue when people are talking about things that make us uncomfortable or even offended.

But in those settings, but it must be awkward for them too, I imagine (unless they're trying deliberately to make the vegan uncomfortable, which does happen a lot - but most people probably don't want to, I think). It's weird for everyone. What do you do?

Anyone noticed this? Do people only want to listen to people who are hypocritical like them because it makes them feel less insecure or judged?

Not sure if he's reading way more into it than the writer/director intended, but it's a cool take anyway. Sorry for the political element, not sure if it's appropriate here

Not sure if he's reading way more into it than the writer/director intended, but it's a cool take anyway. Sorry for the political element, not sure if it's appropriate here

Sorry if this is controversial, but I've heard some people saying (title) and that it's ironic that after the American government tried so hard to ban the little red book of the cultural revolution from being in everyone's pockets, now it is in everyone's pockets again in the form of an app on their phones.

I'm sure the first thing people will say is, it's a social media app similar to TikTok, which is why Americans are flocking to it in the wake of (and in anticipation of) TikTok's ban for reasons related to CCP interference. It's not literally the writings of Mao Zedong, in any way. But I think it's more of a symbolic idea of what it represents. It's also very interesting that the first choice of an app to replace TikTok was one that seems even more closely associated with China than TikTok is; I wonder if Red Note actually takes off in America that it will be banned as well otherwise it may have just replaced the perceived problem with another one.

It seems like if the statement is literal, then it's self-disproving, since the person cares enough to say that, and the person who they were saying that to cared enough to say whatever they said or did prior. Also the likelihood of no one (as in, no human I guess?) caring about what they had to say seems very low, and chances are a large number of other people probably would care, too.

If the statement isn't literal but more rhetorical, then I'm not sure what it means, but I suspect it basically just means "I don't care" (as in the person who says "No one cares" doesn't care themself and wants to express this in a way that seeks to hold more weight by asserting that all other people feel the same sentiment as them, even though arguably they demonstrably care somewhat if they went out of their way to say that, I guess depending on effort required, or perhaps didn't care originally but then developed some degree of care as a result of the annoyance they felt at being exposed to something)... or maybe it just means "I don't like what you said/did" or "I'm annoyed by you"... alternatively it could mean "I think you're stupid/worthless", "I disagree with you" or "I don't want you to speak/speak about this again", or similar.

Anyhow, what is the most appropriate way to respond to this? It seems like an emotionally charged statement that warrants, perhaps being completely ignored, or maybe a measured response seeking to find some understanding or common ground, though a witty retort could be appropriate if respectful (I don't believe 2 wrongs make a right, unless the first wrong somewhat necessitates the second, if that makes sense). That said, I'm open to hearing any kind of replies that might be given, regardless of how cordial/civil (or not) they are.

Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but I'm just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.

As in, is any law that restricts people's freedom to do something (yes, even if it's done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave owner's freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, it's only a small section of people that are still wanting to do those things and forcibly having their legal ability to do them revoked?

Or would it only be considered authoritarian if a large part of society had their ability to do a particular thing taken away from them forcibly?

Have we really become so unempathetic as a society that the act of putting yourself in others' shoes is unbelievable to the point that people assume you must be part of the group you're defending? So I often see people being unfairly discriminatory and mean to certain types, attributes or qualities of people, which I know some would be offended and hurt by. But whenever I stick up for them, I get comments like this: "Tell me you're x without telling me you're x". "F*** off, x". A good example is gay people or trans people. I get heavily criticised for defending them and people immediately assume that I'm gay or trans just because I'm expressing that I empathise with how they're treated in society and think people should be kinder toward them. There are lots of other examples but I'm worried I'll be antagonised here just by saying them, so I picked some slightly more socially acceptable ones (yes there are some far less socially acceptable things than LGBT these days, in my experience, despite the rampant LGBTphobia).

They're also both very witty shows, and sort of a "joke a second" rather than joke a minute.. constantly hilarious and with so many little funny details packed in everywhere. Missing a show like this.

The word can have swearing but not genderisation which might be offensive (mother) nor allusions to sexual dominance (motherfucker). Nor, other possibly offensive connotations. It seems that the word is commonplace and people won't stop using it, so an alternative to the word may be useful. But the problem with alternatives, is that people might not use them unless they carry a meaning that's attention grabbing in some way, and when it comes to this word it needs to be able to be used in either a serious (non-funny) or comedic way.