#shrieker chick

[pupspuppet]

Shrieker and slime mold

[loving-n0t-heyting]

"These “boycotts” are unorganised, unfocused, and indistinguishable from amoral consumer trends."

"I wish cfa served more non-meat options so I could eat there"

Genuine question. How is refusing to eat meat any more organised, focused and distinguishable from amoral consumer trends that refusing to eat at chick-fil-a at all?

Fair question!

I think approaching vegetarianism or veganism as consumer activism in fact doesn’t make much sense. How effective it can be varies a lot from animal to animal (cows very little, chickens much more), but in any event the effects seem small and diffuse enough to have trouble competing with other more direct forms of animal cruelty prevention. So “carnism as murder” has always seemed strange as a slogan to me. Nor does it really track with most vegs’ actual behaviour, i think; aside from some rationalist vegans I’ve known, most vegs seem to put little effort into minimising incentives for animal abuse thru consumer choices

My actual reason, I think, and most other vegetarians’ reasons even if they don’t admit it to themselves, has more to do with respect for the animals killed. Eating their dead bodies is an act of violation, desecration, disrespect—the same reasons soldiers are known to shoot at the corpses of enemy soldiers even when it serves no clear strategic or tactical goal. This has little to do with market incentives, which is why i still would not want to eat dead bodies even if this were not leading to their purchase. (I think this is also why ppl (reasonably) treat consuming beef as a more basic offence than consuming eggs, even as purchasing eggs has a more plausible market effect on meat production: the one is a more intimate violation than the other)

Ofc to some extent this sort of violation is inevitable when wage labour runs the world, but there are degrees of badness and all of us must (and do!) draw the line somewhere. This seems like one of the more defensible such lines to draw.

I also do not believe for a minute that the ppl squealing in outrage about chik fil a or naughty video games are actually motivated by market reasoning either, even if they delude themselves otherwise. What they care about is the cultural significance imputed to these brands, and are objecting to ppl signifying what the brands are newly made to signify. But these systems of signification and respect are considerably more conventional/arbitrary, fragile, and uncertain than those involved in making feasting on corpses desecratory, and the shriekers are as much trying to erect them as interpret ppl in accord with them, so i think you should give much less of a fuck about it. Plus the “queer political culture” of which they are trying to turn CFA/Hp or whatever into an anti-symbol doesn’t really merit that much respect in the first place

Sorry this is all kind of hazy (and even worse: “””deontological”””), but it’s my honest answer

(If you want an even more vivid illustration of the compulsive need to reduce the badness of consumption habits to their imagined market effects, consider csem possession/viewing. I have never encountered any remotely compelling evidence that most ppl to possess such material, let alone to simply view it, are actually paying the manufacturers for the product. And yet, you will routinely encounter ppl explaining the evil here in terms of the market incentives they fantasise the consumers are providing to the producers! Now there is an obvious and perfectly good reason to object to consuming or distributing it, namely that it is an invasion of the victims’ privacy, which is presumably the true reason at which these ppl are blindly groping. But the perceived need to cast all moral questions re: consumption in terms of the democracy of the dollar—that common language of rational creatures, the sovereign congress of we the legislators of the universal Kingdom of Means—is simply too strong to resist. Pure ideology!)

[themountaincrew]

I GOT SO MANY NEW FRIENDS! Dear fog thanks

"Yeah, I got to ride with a few! the shrieker chick, the snake, the wolf cub... I'm looking forward to meeting the rest! :D" (should we vote for what pet we should have for this story run we're doing? I don't have access to polls, or at least I have not found where to add them, so let's use comments for now! :D)

[gildedobsidian]

Easy Tips to Help You Survive the Deep Dark

With the new 1.19 update in Minecraft and the addition of the Deep Dark biome along with the terrifying almost-undestructible Warden that prowls along it, it can seem like a terrifying place to go to. However if you would like a challenge or want to grab some of the rare loot located in the biome, here are some quick tips to help make your journey easier!

1) Bring Wool, Carpets, & Shears

Wool prevents the sculk sensors and shriekers from detecting any sound and noise vibrations that may summon the Warden, so bring as many as you can as a building block, to walk on, and to open loot chests as quietly as you can.

2) Plan a Quick Escape Route

In the unfortunate event that a Warden is summoned, make sure you have a quick escape plan so you can stay safe and away from the Warden as far as possible from its attack range.

3) Bring Arrows, Snowballs, & Eggs

Snowballs are a great tool for distracting the Warden if you are unable to escape in time and also to help you get some distance from it.

Bonus: If baby chickens hatches from the thrown eggs it could further distract the Warden. (unfortunate for the baby chicks i guess but that’s life)

4) Stay at least 15 Blocks Away from Warden

The Warden’s deadly Sonic Boom attack only has an attack range up until 15 blocks, so this is your lucky number for making sure you get out of the Deep Dark alive.

5) Trigger Sculk Shriekers no more than 3 Times

Every individual players are able to trigger sculk shriekers 3 times safely, but the 4th time a Warden will be spawned if there are no nearby Wardens detected. To reset the warning level, do not further activate any shriekers and the warning level will decrease by one every 10 minutes.

All in all, stay safe and happy exploring!

[anthonybialy]

Debate to Not Debate

It's pointless to argue with people who've decided you're a diabolical moron. Well, that's a relief. Understanding what natural rights are is anathema to statist warriors who can't even conceive of voluntary interaction. You terrible fools require constant supervision, note those blessed to be enlightened enough to boss around the rest of us rabble.

Those want something free refuse to debate anyone dumb enough to want price tags. Point out that someone else is covering the bill for every item federally classified as complimentary to be branded heartless. Beg for mercy to have it applied to skin not shown publicly.

The branders have no time for tracking transaction history, as it's not them paying. Sure, that money was taken from someone else, and it could've been used to pay workers more. But they prefer a different type of invisible hand, namely one pickpocketing rich jerks.

It's hard to hear gunfire over the sound of explanations why it should be banned. Continual ringing is why gun control fans never hear explanations of what semiautomatic means or the difference between clips and magazines. Machines that propel bullets are frightening and noisy, as you'd expect weapons of war to be. They all could qualify, technically.

Why do you oppose safety? Every firearm interdiction is based in the notion it must work. Politicians prefer NRA blood-streaked cash to protected kids, as felons never disregard bans. Preening makes it hard to notice how crime has plummeted as the right to own then carry guns has spread. Statistics are mean toward those who think they're the only ones who care.

Every description about the scariness of scary shootie machines notes that they could be used to kill. Isn't there a disclaimer? Those revealing frightening truths about firearm functionality somehow neglect to note bans only prevent the law-abiding from having them. The right to fire back is both implied and explicit.

Pointing out free people's right to fire as they wish scares those who can't imagine the joy of self-defense. You don't owe anyone an explanation, especially not those demanding one without a warrant. Nosy busybodies should focus on noting how the wicked acquire implements in defiance of the law.

I regret to inform you your critics are the only ones in favor of equality, which is why they're not willing to accept anyone who dissents. Refusing to tolerate the intolerant is a moral imperative. It's how they justify flipping off wearers of the president's dumb red hats.

Any outside opinion is toxic to calm souls who've decided there's only one path to righteousness. Take monstrous haters who think weddings involve members of different genders.

Conflating recognition of how marriage had always been defined with homophobia is a sure way to respect disagreement. Anyone who dares point out matrimony was once for the benefit of any children produced undoubtedly had their receptions at a Nazi biker clubhouse.

Don't try selling the most delicious chicken sandwich there is if you're hateful enough to be a Christian. The two toughest things to find are a rude Chick-fil-A employee and a happy Chick-fil-A boycotter. Those sputtering about hate chicken can't find anything like examples of discrimination, but they just know the nicest chain there is teems with intolerance.

A dose of pleasantness and waffle fries would do them a world of good, and their lack of exposure is evident in the meantime. Now, those who can't stop bitching about Israel should notice it's the only Middle Eastern country with pride parades instead of gay bans and hangings.

The unnervingly righteous are guided by an ancient broadcast ritual known as a talk show. Normal Americans forgot about Jimmy Kimmel as easily as they stopped subscribing to newspapers. But the former Ben Stein sidekick remains the perfect liberal model for debate. His show is certainly not for comedy.

Presuming the other side is fine with sick kids is funny in its way. The Thomas Sowell of the left inspires the forces of compassion to think only our dumb and clumsy government can help.

Both philosophical approaches to involving Washington in assistance simply have different approaches to solving. I'm just kidding, dim Hitler. The utterly tolerant never bother to ponder that tweaks to their perfect moral genius are possible. And why would they? There's no reason to give time to those who are worse when they've decided they're better.

There's no way those with different outlooks could merely be misguided. Allegedly closed-minded Ayn Randian zero-government lunatics are relatively calm while coping with ideas that have failed as consistently as those of our pinko friends. If you're unsure who's unaccepting, note which side speaks of cancelling the other in a term for treating a human which is as repulsive as it is telling. Daring to resist opinions shared by frenzied shriekers will get you non-personed.

Sure, those who compare you to a citizen of that naughty Germany may act in bad faith. But at least they're upfront about unwillingness to consider alternatives. Such honesty is refreshing, even if inadvertent. It's a relief to not have to bicker with those who won't acknowledge points of view, plural. There's no reason to even explain why our dumb government might not actually improve life. You demand open-mindedness? You go first.