I am not sold on nuclear in EU…

France has had the capabilities to do it with blood-uranium from former colonies and also built up proper logistical lines to produce them at scale. This requires multi-year state-lead investments, organizing and backing - judging by how it looks in my country, this is not happening. My government are happy to throw a lot of money at their friends who all suddenly have companies building modular reactors and bla bla bla. A lot of talk about how the “free-market” will build and solve the energy crisis. So in the case of my country, I would not stand on the side of those who want nuclear at the moment.

If someone actually proposed a plan that isn’t just pissing away money on short-term projects then maybe I’ll consider it, but capitalist liberal-democracy isn’t good at things like this.

I am in northern Europe and we have it really warm but it is still somewhat doable without AC. I was in Spain for 2 weeks just now and would not have survived if the hotels and shops didn’t have AC, so it seems to be a thing in Spain at least. My work (regions largest hospital) is fully climate controlled, always cool and nice.

I think the effects of this will rapidly accelerate the European decline but noone seems to talk about it or understand this… We do not produce enough energy to keep whatever little industrial base we have left running, and the productivity of this industrial base will be further diminished by the extreme weather events. My guess is that when it leads to larger impacts on agriculture in southern Euope the circus really will start.

I debate, discuss and talk to my coursemates at University etc and noone thinks about this or even bats an eye. It is like I am living in an opposite world, and then I go to the local (trot) org and they spend hours talking about the ebil see see pee and how Putin is the reinkarnation of Stalins big spoon instead - just insane stuff.

And dont get me started on the military bs, well at least I am happy that allying with the US is a additional deadsend of accelerated austerity and degradation of the MIC base.

What is the modern form of “social democracy” even? Are the Greens in the UK social democrat? Are the swedes Socialdemokraterna social democrat or the danish, etc…

Or are we mostly talking about existance of a welfare state or not? If it is the latter it is true that it will come crashing down, otherwise there is little about the mentioned organizations that I feel signifies “social democracy”, for the last 3 decades they have turned rightward with an insane pace - and are still accelerating.

We are approaching troubling times when it comes to Finland. It is almost as if their leadership themselves want to open a front to Russia, from the vote on allowing US nuclear arms on their soil to constant provocations officially. With the current bleak outlook of their economy I hope the finnish masses can organize push back against this.

both Israeli and Lebanese negotiators are frustrated by the inclusion of a Lebanon-related clause in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding

The Lebanese puppet government would rather negotiate with 0 leverage.

“self-defense”

New strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut. Everyone seems to be holding their breath and wondering how a possible retaliation from Hezbollah/Iran could look. This has been one of Irans red lines in the so called “negotiations” with the US regime, but I have seen nothing officially yet.

Trump has reportedly called for more “surgical strikes” against Hezbollah so no condemnation from that sicko.

You should not make stock investments with money you can’t afford to lose. You need to read up on private economics and yourself decide what your preferred risk-profile is, but all investments come with a risk. If you currently dont have a lot of money and no stable income, I would strongly advice you to not put money into the stock market. The shorter the time-span the higher the “risk” (= the more gambling it is), which is why you should first get your esssentials in order: a roof over your head and a sustainable income. Stock market gains are never sustainable income due to the inherent risk of the investments and the amount of capital required to sustain a lifestyle by the passive yields.

Once the essentials are in order then you can start working on your risk-profile and potentially look to invest whatever leftover money is there at the end of the month to protect it from inflation.

The first step is thus to always try to identify where you can find work, upskill, try to use public resources like libraries or public education institutions which sometimes run programs for skilled employment - and only after start thinking about investments and the like.

Investing in the stockmarket is to be viewed as a way to potentially grow a portion of your leftover money that you can afford to lose, not as a way to get that money in the first place.

I am forever grateful that we have a media landscape that showcases such resiliance against their 1900s-style atrocity propaganda. Just 30 years ago everyone would eat this shit up in the west (hell Iraq was only 20 years ago), meanwhile nowadays with the more ridiculous narratives (like the Uyghurs, or Venezuelan narco-terrorists) I can simply laugh people in the face and say “You really believe this shit?” and not recieve as much pushback as previously. There is now in the mind of every liberal a tiny tiny little voice which whispers “maybe we are not the good guys” and “maybe the narratives of my government arent reality” - which atleast gives them some shame when being ridiculed.

Say what you will about accelerationists - but for this depreciation of the liberal world order (and the complete mocking of its institutions) I thank president Trump immensely.

Ah, I must’ve just missed them then. A bit sad to hear.

Yea, but at least where I am it is not as wide-spread and abused as in the US. From what I’ve heard from people there, it is almost rare to have a non-adjunct/TA the first year when studying. I have been to a few universities in Europe and I have met a total of 1 adjunct ever, and that was a rich software developer who exited tech because she thought it was fun teaching after her career in industry. Now it might be a bit field dependent though, I am in STEM + medicine so maybe it is more widespread in the humanities?

And as for the sports stuff I think I’ve seen some numbers which suggests football is a net-positive for US universities money wise.

The whole video is about the American system - so yea it is bad. Now getting tenure is not easy even outside america, but the adjunct stuff, the dean and board of directors and football teams are all just american frivolities.

this exact meme popped into my head when I read that title lol

They have said this thoughout the war though, this and threates to the read sea - at most we have gotten a few rockets here and there but nothing substantial. Not that I blame them in the slightest, they are a warrior people but they also need time to build civilly and militarily before they join battle again.

What I think is most interesting are the reports of Hamas having started building fiberoptic drones. If they can learn from Hezbollah, there could be a more asymmetry on the Palestinian front. So when shit breaks loose, hopefully it will be too ouch for the Zionists, but we’ll see.

I think you’re still arguing against a position I don’t hold.

Nobody is claiming that people facing food insecurity should prioritize veganism over feeding themselves. The existence of poverty, famine and scarcity is not in dispute. What I’m disputing is the claim that meat eating is therefore primarily explained by survival.

The vast majority of meat consumption in wealthy societies is not occurring under conditions where the choice is “eat meat or starve.” It is occurring under conditions where people have multiple available options and make choices shaped by habit, culture, identity, tradition, convenience, and social norms. That is why people have strong feelings about eating dogs but not pigs, horses but not cows, why meat is associated with masculinity in some cultures, why serving meat is associated with hospitality in others, and why rising incomes are often accompanied by rising meat consumption. None of that is explained by survival.

I also think you’re shifting the discussion from morality to effectiveness.

You ask whether veganism is “moving the needle.” But that is a different question from whether the position itself is coherent. If I refuse to buy products produced through some form of exploitation, I am not doing so because I believe my individual purchase will dismantle the entire system. I am doing so because I do not want to participate in it.

And frankly, I don’t think you’d apply that standard elsewhere. If there were products on the shelf that you knew were produced through the direct exploitation of Palestinians, would your response really be “well, refusing to buy them isn’t moving the needle”? Or would you refuse to buy them because you think participation in that exploitation is wrong, regardless of whether your individual action transforms the system? (I notice you didn’t touch on this parallell in your previous answer)

That is the distinction I’m trying to make. Individual ethical refusal is not a substitute for structural change, but it is not rendered meaningless simply because structural change is also necessary.

As for cuisine arising from available ingredients: of course it does. But that is not a rebuttal to my point, it is part of it. Material conditions influence culture. They do not eliminate culture. The fact that diets develop around available resources does not explain why different societies draw radically different moral boundaries around which animals are food, which are companions, and which are untouchable. Those boundaries are cultural.

I believe non-human animals are people on the same level as a human and should have the same rights as humans. Eating a deer is cannibalism because it’s consumption of a person’s flesh.

In this very thread. You can speak on what you believe, but you can’t tell me all representations of veganism are saying what you say as if I’m making up positions that aren’t there - when I was just replying to one earlier.

Lol, I will not base my arguments around reactionaries. Just as I scoff at people who point to some fringe reactionary marxist-in-name-only organization and say: “You can speak what you belive but you can’t tell me all representations of marxism are saying what you say…”, lets be serious. Just as there is little moral and logical consistency in eating meat, the same can be said of 1) attributing the equal moral value to humans as other animals and 2) thus enforcing the same judical rights for them.

Calling vegan ethics “like religion” is backwards.

Someone in this thread pointed out that veganism has had ties to buddhism going back a while. Which is a religion…

Now it I am starting to feel you are not arguing in good faith.

You are shifting between two different things: historical religious dietary rules and modern vegan ethics. The fact that some Buddhist traditions or other spiritual systems arrived at similar conclusions does not make veganism itself religious. It only shows that different moral traditions can converge on similar practices.

And yes, that is not strange at all. Philosophical and theological systems often overlap on certain conclusions by coincidence or through shared moral intuitions. That does not mean they have the same basis. Modern veganism can be grounded in secular ethics even though some older religious traditions happened to reach similar dietary practices.

Pointing to Buddhism does not prove that vegan ethics are “like religion.” It proves only that some religious traditions restricted animal use. That is not an argument against veganism, just a historical parallel.

Modern Western veganism is a reaction to factory farming.

Veganism has existed for millennia. (X)

Therefore vegan ethics are like religion.

Those do not cleanly follow from each other. At most, Buddhism shows that some religious traditions have long contained food ethics that overlap with vegan or vegetarian ideas. That does not make the modern secular ethical case for veganism “religious".

Especially since you yourself rejected this argument (X):

In any case, the form of veganism I was trying to talk about is the distinctly modern western form of it, one that doesn’t seem to have any noticeable relationship with buddhism.

If the point is specifically about the modern movement, then the relevant question is its actual moral structure now, not whether some older religion had adjacent practices.

Calling vegan ethics “like religion” is backwards. Veganism can be argued from moral principles: consistency, avoidance of unnecessary harm and recognition of animal sentience. By contrast, the idea that animals exist for human use has often been justified through explicit religious and cultural hierarchy, especially in Abrahamic traditions: that animals were created for human use and that human dominion over them is natural or divinely ordained. So if anything, the long-standing normalization of meat eating is closer to a theological worldview than the refusal to exploit animals is.

The idea of animals as property is not some neutral baseline of reason, but deeply tied to theology and cultural inheritance.

Also, comparing animal killing to murder is not a claim that animals are literally human, any more than opposing factory farming is the same as claiming abortion and murder are identical. It is a claim about morally relevant harm, not that species are interchangeable.

That is a hyperbole (and I guess strawman from you), and should not be met seriously. However, I have met many many more meat eaters who would prioritize saving their dogs or cats over other humans - while I have never met one such vegan. So funnily enough this is a position that arises exactly because of the inconsistent moral argument for eating meat.

I attribute moral value to animals, and I attribute more moral value to humans - but since I attribute moral value to animals I refuse to take apart in a system which exploits their very life-essence for the purpose of surplus sustenance. At the same time, I would in 100% of cases prioritize a human over an animal - unlike meat-eaters who (if consistent) view them as private property and thus are willing to kill for their right of continued ownership.

It is primarily logistical and a matter of survival, which is why it’s so normalized throughout history.

I have not been in many countries where eating meat is logistically easier and/or cheaper than not. Something being historically common does not mean it is primarily about survival. In most places and periods, meat was not available in equal measure to everyone, but that still doesnt explain why some animals are treated as food and some as companions, or why meat often is bound up with status, masculinity, tradition, identity, etc etc. Survival may explain why people eat something, but it does not explain the specific moral and cultural rules around what counts as edible.

It’s for this same reason that the boycott element of veganism so often ends up looking like the ivory tower arguments of privileged people, since many in the world are not exactly swimming in food options in the first place.

That is only true in the case of genuine scarcity, and in those cases I dont think anyone is seriously making a moral demand to starve rather then eat animal products. But in ordinary situations, veganism is not a question of survival but a question of what people choose when survival is not at stake. This is why moral arguments matter here.

These are two very different things and veganism as an individualist ideology with moralist arguments largely seems to have spawned as a reaction to factory farming, not as a reaction to subsistence hunting.

And as far as I can tell, it is largely a failure of an ideology that doesn’t seem to do much more than get a fraction of people to boycott eating meat. Which I don’t think is because it’s using moral arguments, but because it’s isolating individualist ideology as a response to collective industrial production.

Here we are in complete agreement, and in terms of the philosophy of the movement I am not “vegan” although my diet is. Factory farming is the central issue, but I would not dismiss individual ethical refusal on those grounds alone. You can reject a harmful system both politically and personally. Refusing to participate is not a substitute for collective change, but not meaningless either. Would you say the same about the BDS movement against Israel for instance? I’d argue than one can both take the consistent moral position as an individual and isolate yourself from such anti-social practices, and also work on dismantling the systemic abuse. Just like I dont think BDS is a means to an end when it comes to ending the explotation of the Palestinians - I am not gonna reject it for not “focusing on dismantling the obvious system of abuse”.

But I would argue it’s largely not a cultural issue, but is instead almost entirely an extension of the need to survive by eating food. Which capital plays into when justifying factory farming.

I disagree. If it were purely survival, then people would not have such strong and inconsistent taboos about which animals are acceptable to eat. Dogs, cats, horses and other animals are treated very differently across cultures despite all of them being edible - once again showing the role of culture. Meat eating is not just “food is food”, it is socially organized, morally coded and culturally inherited. The existance of eating is explained by the matter of survival but the boundaries are explained by culture.

if factory farming was ended, along with matching increase in availability of other proteins to compensate, the price would rise and it would somewhat naturally transform into a luxury item.

I guess your argument is that factory farming will end without our social and cultural conditions ending, I disagree completely. The same way I dont think we first will transform into a socialist economy, and only after have shifts in social and cultural praxis. These transitions are heavily intertwined and most of all socially enforced.

Sad to hear, I am starting to fear for what this meant for Europe the coming years.