That’s because IRL the context of “but” s doesn’t usually go like this when there’s a legitimate argument. The point of the comic is not blindly following trans people.

“I support trans people, but X” tends to have transphobic sentiment, even if X could be valid. In your example, many medicines are animal-derived or tested on animals. Focusing on addressing trans prople on this topic is usually a choice.

If you have these views, the context you would usually express them is not addressing trans people, but your message would probably be “I oppose people taking animal-derived medicines even if it improves their health”.

Another simplified example. Let’s say there’s a grifter, scammer, scummy trans person, Alice. If you want to denounce Alice, you’d say “Alice is a scammer, xyz, don’t use her as positive trans representation” in a forum, discussion, post, etc. You’d probably not start with “I support trans people, but some of them are scammers like Alice”. Imagine how weird that would sound with other minority or opressed groups (women, black, gay, etc).

By the way: I don’t know if you’re vegan, but most vegans don’t share your views on animal-derived or tested medicine (even the Vegan Society definition accepts these medicines). I’d suggest you find another term so you don’t misrepresent veganism, like “ethical” or “[strict] animal rights” beliefs. I don’t want to invalidate or debate your beliefs but calling it veganism is just not accurate.

The Free Software Foundation is actively working on this (reverse-engineering Android proprietary blobs, see Librephone project). It hasn’t even been a year yet since they began, but I’m rooting for them.

When vegans promote a whole food, plant based diet: “I will only switch when there are drop-in meat and dairy replacements”

Ok then I guess we’ll develop drop-in meat replacements: “why emulate meat? So processed!”

It’s amazing if you’re into WFPB, it’s one of the healthier diets out there. You’re just not the target consumer of these meat replacements. But they’re useful for some people to have a better choice. They’re usually not unhealthier than the animal-based product they aim to replace (see meta analysis ).

I have had my mind blown by some Asian tofu dishes, not very often but it’s happened.

My issue with the framing is that it centers extinction as something to avoid. Non-existence by definition is not an issue for anyone. It’s the barbarism and total collapse that could lead to it would be an issue for the billions of people leading to that collapse.

Who gives a f about extinction? We should care about the real human beings that exist and will continue to exist under the inhospitable conditions created by climate change under capitalism, not about the continuity of the human species. Why need to change “socialism or barbarism”?

That’s quite an attractive price for a lifetime subscription, profitable from 15 months of use on.

koofr doesn’t seem to offer lifetime purchases anymore :(

Yes but using it though Molly is more secure

You can also use google maps from the browser

Agree, but I get the live traffic part. It’s pretty much a must in some areas. I think there was a wrapper/API but google killed it

*its

It’s way more sustainable and ethical (and possibly healthier too) to take b12 supplements (even if they’re not sustainably produced) than any amount of animal flesh (other than roadkill I guess).

• b12 deficiency is widespread even among meat eaters
• b12 is generally supplemented in animal feed or the animals themselves are supplemented. Skipping the middle man is clearly more sustainable.
• If the animals are not supplemented, you can’t know if you’re avoiding deficiency. Furthermore a tiny amount of a vitamin (milligram or microgram order of magnitude) takes way fewer resources to produce than 500g of meat/fish.
• no matter how “humanely” they treat the animals they still get killed, unlike with the supplement. For dairy and eggs the slaughter is more indirect but it is still a fact that animals in the industry end up getting killed.
• In terms of sustainability, it doesn’t matter that much if a product is local, the most impactful thing is the mode of production or the product itself (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain)

I agree with your overall point that from a population perspective it’s way more practical and impactful to change as many diets as possible instead of focusing on changing diets to 100% plant-based. And I think we should focus on that, broader society interventions instead of advocating for individuals to change their diets.

But if someone who reads this is facing the choice of taking a supplement versus some animal flesh, there is no ethical or sustainability grounds for choosing the flesh. Also probably no health grounds unless there are compounding issues (eg deficiency + allergies, interacting conditions, etc). I focused on B12 but this applies to many nutrients.

It’s just not true that a tiny amount of animal flesh will spare you deficiency. It’s also not true that deficiencies are “tough to avoid” on a plant-based diet, especially protein deficiency.

The voice is not AI, the video is quite good imo minus the slop pics.