JubilantJaguar

Oh relax. It was all but a victimless crime and the culprits were pursued by the law for a decade. Ah Americans! Always this obsession to punish! punish! punish! End of rant.

it's not the same taste? In my experience it is, pretty much. Certainly as soon you put any ketchup or sauce on it, which basically everyone does. Nuggets are the second junkiest of all of all junk food, just above hotdogs. Nobody is eating this stuff to have a gastronomic experience.

y’all’s

I for one am not even vegan. But if, at basically no cost in taste or money, I get to avoid causing terrible suffering and environmental degradation, then I will choose to do so. Speaking purely for myself, of course.

to try and trick people

There's no trickery. It's labelled clearly.

Did it come installed or did you need to complete a 27-step process involving cables and obscure commands and fiddly key combinations and the risk of bricking the thing?

Picture a field of soybeans. Now picture a hellish scene of thousands of miserable bedraggled chickens crammed together in a dark hangar.

The taste is exactly the same.

I think progress on this one is going to be faster than people imagine.

Sure. That's certainly my case. But I don't think choosing "individually" is very common, in general. For most humans food is a part of shared culture: they just eat what the people around them eat. And so it inevitably becomes it becomes a pillar of identity, and to question it is to attack that identity. You know all this already, of course.

PS. Wasn't me who downvoted your polite and inoffensive comment. I wish whoever did would take their petty resentments elsewhere.

Airplane mode here! Blocks all tracking and saves battery too.

Unpopular opinion: Federated or not, life is better without social media in your pocket.

Interesting anecdote. Though to judge by your username, it seems you may have an agenda yourself.

So you end up having situations where companies hire agencies to improve their image by changing the wikipedia article about them and their products, same thing for celebrities

This is a major problem that takes up a lot of time for the editors. It explains some of their trigger-happiness.

That said, you have a valid point. I once tried to water down what I considered to be excessively POV language in an article about diet. This earned me an official warning for "extremism" or "conspiracism" or whatever. My impressive account pedigree also counted for nothing. So there's definitely a bit of the political bias, the power-tripping and gatekeeping that you see in any online community. But it's a bit of a conundrum too, because they are fighting an uphill battle against people with strong incentives and sometimes money too.

Article literally debunks the Napoleon theory.

LHT-RHT is a classic case of a subject where everyone has their pet overarching theory but which is in fact pretty complex.

There's an obvious reason for that. Wikipedia is owned by a nonprofit foundation and does not accept advertising.

Sensible argument.

In any form of activism there's a solid case to be made for the good-cop bad-cop approach. Take the environmental movement. Without direct action, many issues would never have made it onto the political agenda. But it takes lobbying by the establishment mass-membership groups to translate that energy into laws. The latter worries that the former is playing with fire, while the former disdains the latter as bourgeois sell-outs. In reality, it's the combination of both that's powerful.

As someone who is vegan-adjacent, I do worry about overreach by the "direct" vegans. For quite a lot of normies, veganism is now seen as something of a religious cult, an annoyance. Worse, it's been politicized onto the left-right spectrum, just like the climate issue was. Yes, that's all completely unfair, but it's also a perilous situation. Alienating such a hefty chunk of the population is not the way to achieve the goals of veganism.

So yes, the only way to start rolling this back is with a better effort at tolerance and understanding. Tolerance of different approaches to activism, and also just tolerance in general, including of non-vegans who may not be fully aware of the issues or who may already be taking small steps in the right direction.

when I was vegetarian for example, I was majorly concerned over the healthfulness of a fully plant-based diet; after stumbling down a rabbit hole and looking through meta-analysis after systematic review, however, I began seeing veganism not only as just “not unhealthy” but as actively healthier than what I was eating.

If this is a factual claim that veganism is, all else being equal, healthier than vegetarianism, then it is unsubstantiated. Sorry, but we must stick to the evidence. If you are only saying that it was healthier than your vegetarian diet, then sure. Most vegans are doubtless healthier than most omnivores, but that's mainly a function of the awfulness of the junky Western diet.

I’m sure there are unicorns out there for whom this article could actually be the final straw, but I at least agree those people are somewhat rare (albeit a vegan community is likely to have a higher concentration of omnivores thinking of pulling the trigger than the general population)

Conversely, there are those like myself (mostly vegan but I'm not absolutist and will eat meat if there's nothing else on offer) for whom it won't make any difference. Because they know the facts already.

one major point that I think your comment is overlooking is that more vegans being educated is unto itself a good thing for the quality of activism. When vegans have actual, credible information ready to go when someone makes an anti-vegan talking point

Absolutely true and I overlooked it. Ultimately that was surely the purpose of the article.