@anthropoid@101010.pl
I guess it depends on whether reasons are “ideological”, “cultural”, “managerial”, “scientific”, etc.
I mentioned [a few examples of food that is usually not served today at canteens at public places, mostly for good reasons](https://qoto.org/@tripu/109740582893499652). In principle, the reason “we as a society/government/country/prison prefer not to support industrial farming and slaughterhouses, minimise animal suffering, and significantly reduce carbon emissions, to the extent that we can still serve nutritious and tasty food” seems equally valid to me. I would almost argue that the onus is on whoever says “no, but we _need_ to have chicken served” to prove their position…
@anthropoid@101010.pl
As long as someone has to decide what to offer, it makes sense to have more or less objective criteria to design menus.
Today, economic criteria forbid caviar, truffle, wild salmon, oysters, etc. at public institutions — and we understand that. Medical criteria often forbid nuts and seafood because of allergies, and that's OK. Doctors also may veto sugary drinks, fried chicken, donuts, sugar-coated cereal, etc. and nobody is outraged. In the west, canteens and catering don't serve dog or snake for cultural and PR reasons (although those may be perfectly reasonable dishes elsewhere) and we don't give that a second thought.
…and so, if there were good economic, environmental and ethical criteria to avoid meat, fish, eggs and/or dairy at schools, prisons or hospitals, why not do it? Why are those criteria any less important?
(I _do_ think there are good economic, environmental and ethical criteria.)
@anthropoid@101010.pl
There are more than two or three major types of diet, not to mention the weird ones. I don't see a qualitative difference between saying “pick between beef and vegetable stew”, “pick between salmon sandwich, kosher lasagna or creamed leeks”, or any other tuple of options. In all cases someone high above made a political decision about what exactly to offer.
If all two or three options available happen not to have any fish or meat as ingredients, so what? We vegetarians are very used to being offered non-#vegetarian options only.
@anthropoid@101010.pl
Do you? I think it depends on the country, state, type of institution, whether menus are prepared internally or outsourced, policy at the particular institution, etc.
In any case, my point is: even if they always gave you two options, you are still “forced”, because you're denied all the other myriad possible foods one could want.
tripu
boosted
@anthropoid@101010.pl
But, how is the government NOT forcing food on people who eat at state-run institutions now? I mean, it's not like those are restaurants with an open menu or you can ask the chef for variations…
Adult human males discussing in all seriousness whether some soccer player is very good or not so good after all, whether he got the minutes he deserved last night or not, each one so sure about his ideas and about the importance of his ideas.
tripu
boosted
It seemed natural for #genuary17 to render some rotating nested square grids. It's a little annoying to get this to render nicely; I ended up computing explicit quad intersections using polybooljs (https://github.com/velipso/polybooljs), which is a bit slow (and there's still some shimmer in the thin lines). #genuary https://editor.p5js.org/isohedral/sketches/uh3twEzz4
Probably, yes. I haven't reviewed the graph in detail. I just liked the way to present relations and at least some of the subgraphs seemed obviously true to me.
Actors who play their part in a film about X and suddenly become experts and advocates for X 😒
Oh, so that's why everything's broken!
[Source](http://www.ecosystematic.com/2020/04/29/the-ecosystem-of-wicked-problems/)
#TIL about [Yuri Bezmenov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov) and found this illuminating video (from 198x!):
@anthropoid@101010.pl
I imagined :)
Definitely, we see things very differently! 🙂
I interpret **“of yours”** in this context differently. My demonym, my sexual orientation, my religion… those things are “mine” only in the same way the street where I live is “my street”: I say “mine” to indicate attachment or preference — but everybody else is free to use it too, and I can't claim any special rights over it.
**Culture** matters to me as well. But I want cultures to grow and combine as people see best. I want all cultures to be available to everyone. That to me is the truly progressive, enlightened approach. (Almost?) every restriction seems arbitrary or conservative to me.
wrt **feelings**: in political and moral matters, I think we should leave feelings out of the public conversation whenever possible. Feelings muddle reason. When feelings clash, there's little room for compromise or for rational argumentation: it's either the strongest side wins, or eternal conflict. There's a reason legal codes strive to be objective and to define transgressions accurately, instead of appealing to feelings and other subjective factors.
No need to keep on arguing if you don't feel like it, of course. I want to put my thoughts in writing — for my future self, if nothing else :)
(Yes, we have some special, narrow types of “culture” and “identity” that can be owned, and that property is protected by the law: patents, brands, trademarks, copyright, etc. But none of that applies here, right?)
**“Heritage”**: we use it to refer to [two very different types of things](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heritage): stuff that is physical and scarce (property), and cultural items (tradition, folklore). We all agree that property can be unjustly appropriated. But since the #ASF clearly has not “stolen” anything physical or scarce from the Apache, by “heritage” here we mean the latter class of things. But then again, culture, memes, tradition… all that can be copied infinitely without causing damage to anyone. Those things aren't owned by anybody.
I think I bite the bullet: yes, “we can use anything of yours we want”.
I honestly don't know what you could “use” from “my” culture(s) that would offend me or affect me negatively. In fact, in most situations I can imagine, I would see normal usage (as opposed to mockery) as a sign of appreciation.
