jerkface

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago

b/c they can't go burning the flag every time a kid fucks up but they can't bring themselves to totally abandon a ritual that has become a superstition

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

It's really disturbing how everyone sees this practice through the lens of (mis)trust. Can you really think of no other reasons? Absurd.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Don't forget public meetings, as grown-ass adults.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not really a meaningful distinction. And if it were, I think it's entirely rational, as emotions go.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Never been fully disappointed by MJ

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I'm shocked at how little I have heard about this gay-targeted murder.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

The caption is incorrect. In this episode, the characters are saying "Yankovich."

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's not exactly my implication. Not every homophobe is a closet case. My dad was SUPER concerned with always projecting masculinity and never doing anything that might appear effeminate (for a very broad definition) or especially not gay. I knew my dad was a fragile bigot, and I tried hard to reject his racism and shit. But I didn't understand about sexuality. I didn't understand that when he called me a "foo-fee", he was attacking my sexuality. And a lot of that shit got into me. I too was super concerned with knowing where the line between gay and not gay is.

But I got better.

It's hard to be confronted with your past self embodied in someone else. On one hand, there is still the residual shame of appearing gay. But on the other hand, there is the fierce shame of having cared about that bullshit for so long.

Just let it go.

Ha ha, I just realized. Maybe I was a closet case after all?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

And yet, he's less straight than he previously imagined he was. You are taking a binary perspective that doesn't allow that.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I disagree with your pronouncement that it is definitively gay to suck a trans woman's cock. I also disagree with the prior pronouncement that it is straight.

I bet you thought...

No, I didn't, I thought it was funny. I thought it would be recognized as a cheap rhetorical tactic. Any other source I had used would have said something similar, and it would still have been a cheap shot.

The real point was just to point out that your thinking is painfully binary. It comes across as being super concerned with knowing where the line between gay and not gay is. Conclusion left to reader.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Tongue in cheek of course but it still makes a point. The facts-over-feelings crowd has to show that the benefit of firearms outweigh the very observable negative consequences, and they cannot. So they are arguing feelings, not facts.

3
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by jerkface@lemmy.ca to c/veganism@lemmy.ca
 

Toward Indigenous Veganism: Kinship, Personhood, and the Ethics of Harm

Veganism is often caricatured as a recent, Western movement, disconnected from Indigenous realities and at odds with cultural survival. Yet a serious examination of Indigenous philosophies—especially those emphasizing kinship, reciprocity, and the personhood of animals—reveals that Indigenous veganism is not only possible but, for some, a natural extension of the most profound Indigenous values. This essay argues that Indigenous veganism offers a way to honor both animal and human persons, to reckon honestly with harm, and to answer the call for moral consistency in the wake of colonial disruption.


Personhood and the Ethics of Kinship

Many Indigenous worldviews recognize non-human animals, plants, and even landscapes as persons—beings with agency, interests, and an ability to enter into relationships. In these traditions, the world is a web of kinship, not a hierarchy of value. If this recognition is more than metaphor, then the moral imperative to avoid harming other persons extends beyond the human. To kill and consume an animal is, by this light, not categorically different from doing so to a human; both acts are a rupture in the web of kinship.

The usual distinction made between eating animals and eating humans is not rooted in a difference of vulnerability or moral worth, but rather in custom, taboo, and role assignment. Yet these boundaries, when examined critically, do not withstand moral scrutiny: if personhood is the ground of kinship and respect, then killing a person—human or otherwise—for food, pleasure, or ritual is an act of exploitation. To maintain that killing a non-human animal can be justified by ritual or gratitude, while killing a human cannot, is to reveal an unexamined speciesism within the relational framework itself.


Tradition, Colonialism, and Moral Responsibility

The legacy of colonialism in Indigenous communities is inseparable from food systems. Forced displacement, criminalization of traditional foods, and environmental devastation have produced real barriers to plant-based diets. For many, reclaiming hunting and fishing is a means of cultural resurgence and survival. However, tradition cannot serve as an absolute shield against ethical evolution. Human societies have always adapted to new moral insights—whether in rejecting patriarchy, ending slavery, or expanding the circle of concern to new groups.

Veganism is not a practice of perfection, but an ethic of minimizing harm where “practicable and practical.” The presence of Indigenous vegans demonstrates that, at least for some, it is feasible to align food choices with the value of respecting all persons. To claim that it is universally impossible, or that abstention from animal use is always a colonial imposition, erases the agency of those Indigenous individuals who, motivated by kinship and justice, choose veganism. Indeed, refusing to extend kinship to non-human animals—when survival no longer demands their consumption—amounts to a retrenchment, not a revitalization, of Indigenous values.


Ritual, Respect, and Moral Consolation

Rituals of gratitude and ceremony, performed after killing an animal, are often said to transform a bad act into a good one. Psychological research, however, shows that such rituals primarily help the killer manage guilt, cognitive dissonance, and maintain a positive self-image. The animal does not benefit from the ritual; the harm remains. Honesty demands acknowledgment that these practices meet the needs of the human participant, not the victim. Genuine respect for animal personhood would demand abstaining from harm wherever possible, not simply dressing harm in the language of respect.


The Path Forward: Indigenous Veganism as Continuity and Growth

Indigenous veganism does not reject tradition, kinship, or cultural sovereignty; it deepens and radicalizes them. It asks: If we are committed to living in respectful relationship with all our relatives, should we not extend that respect to the fullest degree possible, especially when survival does not require killing? Indigenous veganism offers an ethic of solidarity, both with vulnerable animals and with human communities still healing from trauma and dispossession. It is not an erasure of identity, but a call to expand the circle of kinship and compassion, in a spirit of justice, humility, and courage.

In this light, the adoption of veganism by Indigenous individuals and communities is not a betrayal of Indigenous philosophy, but its most courageous and consistent fulfillment. It is, in truth, a reclamation of the highest Indigenous values—a commitment to minimize harm, honor all persons, and repair the web of kinship wherever it has been broken.

 

Eglinton Crosstown LRT Science Centre Station Renamed to the Don Valley Station in Toronto. The video discusses the closing of the Ontario Science Centre and how much it would have costed to fix the roof vs. the cost of renaming the Eglinton LRT station from the Science Centre to the Don Valley Station at Don Mills and Eglinton Ave. in North York Toronto.

 

Article contains significant errors. MEC was never owned by its members. If it were, we would have had a say when it was sold, voting on whether to accept the offer, and receiving a share of the payout. MEC was never actually a cooperative. I think there should be consequences for this deception. I also think there need to be more consumer cooperatives than there are. Please mention any you know below.

 

I'm interested in spending like 3-7 days sometime before mid June. Would anyone like to recommend or offer budget accommodations for two? We'll need a basic kitchen at the least.

Tangentially related, there was a death at the Golden Eagle at the end of last season, and even before that the owner Helen seemed conflicted about whether to keep the place. Does anyone know if they will be opening this season? I hope they are doing well.

-7
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by jerkface@lemmy.ca to c/veganism@lemmy.ca
 

Heartbreaking. What happened?? Randy was one of my "safe" sources of entertainment, where I knew I would not be confronted with vystopia.

 

He's 101 years old, a WW2 veteran, and a fascinating interview.

view more: next ›