I know right, like I am literally never going to be vegan and I actually really don't want most people to be vegan because then I couldn't get yummy wholesome bacon. Still, don't people know that unless they fawn over people like me vegans will never convince anyone?
I actually have a whole strategy written out about being minimally visible and confronting if any silly little deluded vegan wants to hear it.
omg you're so fucking cringe. You're so outraged that people you think are wrong and dumb do-gooders wasting time caring about mere things are being rude to you. When all you've done is come into a joke community and told them:
that you're writing pages about how wrong and dumb we are and don't we know how to be less wrong and dumb?
"the worst slurs" just go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw you self important, society-ruining, self-centred, flint-hearted, black-souled, moron. The world does not cater to you, you are not important.
If you cared about helping veganism you would be vegan /shrug
MATLAB is just scipy for people that wear ties.
The... upper middle class....? An income of 400,000 euros? that's 10x the median income.
What tf is rich then?
Holy fuck, seems a bit extreme.
"I'm complicit in the thing I say is cool and good, my view is more valid. Also I know the bees would actually be sadder if I didn't harvest the honey. Mere addition? never heard of it"
You seem really worked up by this to the point you're strawmanning me.
It's culturally part of it, idk what tell you it's just fact. Not authored by the same person, not having the same impact probably (although sometimes works by other authors outstrip the original), probably drivel, but valid all the same.
Any other approach leads to weird inconsistencies. Like who owns a character in a group effort? generally in our legal systems a company. That company can persist beyond the involvement of all the actual authors. It makes no sense to then later exclude work they do in their own time using the same characters or settings, or ones 'legally distinct' but obviously the same.
Even weirder when it's one author who loses copyright but then writes 'invalid' fan work.
Nobody creates original works, all stories are based on other stories. Sure there are degrees of similarity but drawing lines is a messy thing that even in actual law (which is not trying to be logically coherent) it takes teams to arbitrate and only draws conclusions in self-reference.
I act like someone who has no idea what it is like to be a bee and so defaults to respect.
Insects are animals btw, definitionally. They are in the kingdom animalia.
You seem very confident you know what it is like to be a bee. I assume that's because you just enjoy making shit up.
Yep. Bees are automata. They play with balls because it's on their code.
Don't confuse audience reach with validity.
Seriously, why is completely fine for old stories to have multiple versions, some contradictory, with varying degrees of reach and all be considered just as much a part of the thing as any other but not that be the case for modern stories?
What about weird tales? All that wonderful pulpy SFF borrowed from each other and had varying degrees of consistency. We lump all of Lovecraft's tales into a mythos, despite explicit links being rare. We also include those stories making reference to them because they're just as much a part of the telling and retelling which made/makes them culturally significant. We don't add all of Lovecraft's work though as some definitely doesn't feature in that mythos. It's a frame for analysing some culture.
I'm saying that you are one of the people most hostile to veganism and will never be convinced so fawning over you is stupid.
If you wanted vegans to succeed and build a world without cages you would be vegan. you don't, you want us to fail. you don't want to be told what you're doing is wrong and you most certainly don't want to be forced to avoid animal products by law so... why would anyone spend any time on you?