Preface: I know veganism is a broad ethical/justice stance against any animal exploitation that extends beyond food, but food is the most common way that humans contribute to the exploitation of nonhuman animals by far, usually 3 times a day or more - and it's something that they love to talk about and do as well. We could include buying clothes to a degree, but fewer clothes people buy are made from animals, and that topic doesn't seem to come up as much.

Do you avoid talking about, looking at, or being around food when with non-vegans (which is most people, meaning really any situation unless you're exclusively with people you know are vegan) because the reminder of what they're causing to happen to animals right in front of you and that most people don't share your views/actions on animals is too upsetting (possibly especially when it's people you know)?

Also because it can turn into an argument that you don't want, either because you feel obligated to briefly comment on it/state

This has never happened to me before, but I was scrolling Uber Eats (even though I can't afford to get anything) and I saw a vegan Biscoff cheesecake and immediately smelled the sweet scent of Biscoff for a second. It wasn't like I just imagined how it smells like, I actually (at least mentally) "smelled" it as if it was there, and it made me consider if I was genuinely smelling something real (physically present) at the same time coincidentally but that makes no sense. The smell is very specific and I haven't had anything with Biscoff for quite a while and there is nothing around that would smell like it. I've never thought I had synesthesia (blending of senses/experiencing one sense as another) before but could this be a form of it?

I've read that olfactory response (smelling) sense memory is one of the strongest forms of sense memories, deeply ingrained in our subconscious. Smelling something familiar can trigger powerful memories and bring up emotions or even forgotten parts of yo

All PS2 games look really blurry on Panasonic Viera TV.

For comparison, when I play the Jak trilogy on PS5 (which is just the PS2 ports), it has a sharp and crisp image. But the same games on an actual PS2 are much lower quality. This leads me to think there's some scaling issue that the PS5 automatically fixes since I don't think they remastered it or anything. And the same applies to every PS2 game.

It's currently connected via RCA component cables, and I tried messing with the game mode settings on the TV but it didn't really do anything noticeable. I'm wondering if I should buy a PS2 to HDMI converter or if that might be even worse than the current set up. I don't have much money I can spend but if I need to I will, just whatever it takes to get it looking good. It looks like sh*

If a topic is in any way controversial, there's a good chance it will get removed, when I'm sure the same content wouldn't get removed on Reddit. I know it depends on subs and instances but I mean more generally, and for example AskLemmy vs AskReddit. Reddit seems to have more leeway for things, whereas Lemmy doesn't and seems harder on censorship. Not only that but they remove things even when they're not controversial such as when I just asked a question about savory fruit and sweet vegetables that got removed. They also give no reason at all for why things get removed nor any notice of its removal until you realise later. It happens so frequently that I wonder if this post will get removed too for some reason.

Please don't ask for examples thanks, the question is intended as general :)

For example (forgive my lack of details or possible inaccuracy but it's mainly to describe the concept anyway):

At one point in time in Australia, the Greens party pushed for strong climate regulation. But it was knocked down and a half-measure was proposed instead. Rather than accepting this half-measure, the Greens rejected it in favor of pursuing their original goals which they determined to be too crucial to abandon. As a result, there was no change implemented at all and it arguably impeded progress.

The Greens were accused of "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good". But as Greta Thunberg said, "'The good' in climate terms is not safe and is closer to black comedy than reality."

Whether or not they made the right decision with the gamble at the time since they didn't have the benefit of retrospect that it wouldn't work out the way they hoped, could it be that in a dire situation, there is an argument for risking causing an even worse outcome in order to attempt to pu

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn't there a distinction?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their ow

Is there a word that means "a hatred of gay people", rather than "a fear of or aversion to gay people"?

And similarly, why do we have words like "arachnophobia" which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn't necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but "homophobia" is used to mean "hatred of homosexuality" rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?

It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (and being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since "homophobia" would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for

Keep in mind they're sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don't know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I'm pro-LGBT.

Unhinged conspiracy theorist Francis E. Dec, who essentially originated the concept of gangstalking and targeted individuals and gained notoriety for ranting about his theories of the "Gangster Computer God", passed away 15 days after his 70th birthday. But how did he die?

"Age 70 - According to Dec, the critical age at which the Computer God has determined that all people should either be "dead or useless".  Presumably this policy would only apply to the plebian masses and not to the Playboy scum-on-top. Should you be "lucky" enough to live to age 70 and be rendered useless, you can also expect to have many diseases, a raspy, aged voice and a wrinkled ugly gargoylic clown-booze face with bulldog hanging cheeks and jowls."

Did he kill himself after he turned 70 or was it just a coincidence?

Don't want to endorse Christianity necessarily but hard to get around saying the word Christmas or Xmas, so is Xmas more rebellious? Is there an even more rebellious or irreverent name for it?

Also, should I not even celebrate Christmas? What's an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year but in a way that isn't tied in any way to religion (and ideally doesn't involve killing turkeys)?

Question inspired by the image (see attached)

Is there a law preventing me from for example selling a baseball hat for $20,000?

HELLO amazing helpful Lemmitors (Lemmians... Lemurs. Whatever). I hope I can explain this clearly. I desire a pair (2) of PlayStation 2 controllers which work wirelessly via the SAME wireless dongle stuck into BOTH PS2 controller ports at the same time. This allows me to turn one off while my friend on the other side of the room turns theirs on in order to switch who's controlling player 1 for taking turns in single player games without having to throw one controller back and forth across the room. You may laugh but I have managed to find and purchase a controller that does exactly this off eBay, which is a ProGamer (brand) PS2 wireless 2-controller set with a single dongle that splits into 2 wires and plugs into both controller ports simultaneously and does exactly what I described. The problem is one of the controllers has a faulty analog stick that doesn't activate when going left, and I can't find this brand or this type of controller or anything like it to replace this set up. If

Examples:

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (the book)

And before you say "alternate title", since these supposed alternate titles are included in the full version of the main title (even if it's usually not listed in full), how does this differ from "true" alternate titles that replace the entire main title?

Example:

Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey vs Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn

Into the Deep vs Yakamoz S-245

And then there's the standard sub-titles, for example:

Captain America: The First Avenger

(Sorry for my lazy title choices but I couldn't think of any others)

It seems like we have 3 things here: an "or" title in the name (alternate title which is included in the full version of the main title), a completely different alternate title that replaces the main one, and a subtitle following a colon after th

humane having or showing compassion or benevolence.