Resonosity
@Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Tesla sales plunge 40% in Europe as Chinese EV rival BYD's triple 6 hours ago:
and don’t want the democracy
and don’t feel that their government is democratic
I read the Harvard source too, and nowhere were populations asked about democracy in their country. The researchers wanted to look at general satisfaction, and broke that down into surveys about the economy, government corruption, and environment.
Based on the Harvard study alone, neither you nor the Original Commenter (OC) can make claims about perceptions and desires about democracy in China.
However, OC did share the Democracy Perception Index. Looking at the 2024 report alone, Chinese people scored China at >75% democratic, and responded that democracy is >85% important to them. >50% of people believed that China had the right amount of democracy. Based on the data alone, we would believe that the majority of Chinese people 1) want democracy, 2) think China is democratic, and 3) don’t think the amount of democracy needs to change.
We can debate over whether this data is trustworthy. DPI researchers asked surveyees over the internet, which automatically rules out more rural and poorer groups in each society. But this was done for each country, so you might be able to say that the entire survey is moot. Internet surveys are much more susceptible to censorship too, which is why the Harvard study that involved face-to-face interviews is better imo.
Nonetheless, these are the sources that OC presented to support their claim. The majority of Chinese people want democracy, think they live in a democracy, and are satisfied with whatever government they live under, democracy or not.
The original point that OC responded to was whether Chinese people feel coerced by their government. I think the corruption part in the Harvard study and the government accountability part in the DPI reports clearly imply that this is not the case.
What evidence do you have to make the opposite case?
- Comment on Framework unveils a second-generation Framework Laptop 16 with a swappable Nvidia RTX 5070 GPU, an industry first, shipping in November 2025 1 day ago:
Just picked up my first Framework 13. Moves like this are why I’m increasingly trusting of their mission and vision.
Hopefully they stay private, or better yet, change their corporate charter into a cooperative. Never go public.
- Comment on Microsoft's latest Windows 11 24H2 update breaks SSDs/HDDs, may corrupt your data 1 week ago:
This is the first Windows update that has significantly altered how my daily driver laptop works (read: for the worse).
It’s too inconvenient to use a Windows computer anymore. I’m switching to Linux
- Comment on Report: Microsoft's latest Windows 11 24H2 update breaks SSDs/HDDs, may corrupt your data 1 week ago:
That update made me buy my first Framework laptop! Fuck Microsoft!!
- Comment on New idea 1 week ago:
What do you mean by informed?
- Comment on New idea 1 week ago:
Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.
I want to say pretty much all of the research I’ve presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don’t consent males literally cannot fuck them.
The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.
You’re restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn’t a good argument
- Comment on New idea 1 week ago:
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
I didn’t push away people, jackass. Just you!
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
All I can say is that you have a super naive idea of the veganism movement, and your prescriptions for doing “good” activism can go paint my taint.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
We all have to pitch in sometimes!
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
You aren’t shutting down the conversation. I never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, idiot.
You want me to voice my opinion in ways that are more palatable to your sensibilities. Ain’t doin’ shit for you bro.
Good! Maybe you should date more vegans. Hell, even make more vegan friends. You’ll get over this hump of having your feelings hurt
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
They aren’t my farmers. I’m vegan.
I sure do want them to stop their industrialized, subsidized rape work though
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Sure thing, bud
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the racists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them to they show less resistance to our violations.
Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
…do you hear yourself? You’re abetting an industry that commits the most violence on Earth. How fucking gross
If you can’t see how fascism applies to animal abuse today, then I really am speaking with idiots
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Hey idiot, note how I started that sentence with the word “seems”, as in how your comments looked to me. You’re welcome to correct that perception! I don’t see you pushing back on this though.
Artificial insemination is not rape
It is.
I’ve never claimed that animals cannot be raped.
You actively are by denying that artificial insemination isn’t rape
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
From humans they can’t. From other animals of their species, yes they can.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
If you can’t see how domesticating animals is a form of fascism, just applied to non-humans, then I can’t save you. You’re reinforcing your pre-existing beliefs by insulating yourself with lies. Do me and all rape victims a favor: learn about the evil and corrupt animal ag industry, and its effects on both humans and animals. You’ll come back with a stronger sense of morality than whatever flimsy shit you call yours now
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Factually incorrect
Nope, I’m right. Rape is the non-consensual penetration of another animal’s vaginal, anal, or oral orifices. Applies to humans, cows, or any other animal.
things are different in different situations and contexts.
But humans and animals are the same in their capacity to experience pain and pleasure (i.e. to be sentient). That capacity may vary according to species, but your lack of recognition for that once again proves to me how egocentric you are. How fucking dull.
actual rape victims
You mean cows right? And women? And any other member of a species that experiences rape? You cannot gatekeep this to just humans. Seems to me that you’re the one disrespecting rape victims here by denying how other species can experience the same.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
I’m perfectly keen on continuing to argue my position. You haven’t shown me how I’ve committed any fallacies, and yes I’m very much signalling my moral superiority to you! I hope that came across at some point!
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Whether someone reads both of comments is not up to us. There are likely many non-vocal lurkers on this post and on Lemmy in general that have their opinions swayed by the users that are vocal.
My motivation to voice my opinion is the same as yours in this matter.
And bud, that ain’t common sense. That’s a reflexive mechanism since people don’t like being told their wrong, bad, or immoral. Doesn’t change the fact that they still are. What IS common sense is recognizing our capacity to do evil in this world, and lessening that. Veganism aims to do just that. Don’t see you providing any alternatives
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
How is genocide different than animal slaughter?
The former involves eradicating the entire ethnic population of a region. The latter involves eradicating a continuously regenerating population of victims, bred for slaughter.
In fact, animal slaughter might be worse than genocide if you think that humans control certain domesticated animals species to be bred to die. With genocide, the idea isn’t to regenerate the ethnic population: it’s to get rid of them for good.
The tactics used to accomplish the two are exactly the same, if only in tone of force used. We don’t use bombs to slaughter animals, but we do cut their throats, shoot them, make them feel fear, kick them, gas them. With genocides, it’s the bombs, bullets, and gas chambers that have historically and contemporarily executed genocide. Between both cases, however, is violence done to helpless populations with no capacity for self defense.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Tell that to the people that voted in far-Right politicians in many of the Western countries in the last few years. Recognizing climate change, or animals rights for that matter, is not a value the Right holds.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, once again you’re IGNORING the reason why I brought up climate change in this context. Why are deliberately misreading my arguments? Makes you seem disingenuous and acting in bad faith.
Our response to climate change will mean we need to change how we power our lives. People in Western countries by and large don’t want to change or be forced to adopt different habits. They want their desires met, whether that means gassing up their cars faster than it takes for EVs to charge, taking flights when rail or road based transit would work, or using more and more Artificial Intelligence to do things for them that they have the ability to do already (driving up grid costs exponentially). When talking about consumption of these things in the economy, trends don’t show decreasing consumption. More people on the planet use more, and this is not to even begin talking about phenomena like the Jevons paradox.
With animals rights, we’re now talking about taking meat, pork, chicken, lamb, fish, etc. off the menu. New alternatives for dishes will need to be found, or existing dishes will need to be converted to use non-animal plant-based foods. People will need to change their habits if alternatives aren’t found, which is the less preferable option. Once again, humans on the whole don’t like change, so there will be a resistance here to changing diets. People will find all the excuses in the world to fend off change.
The behavioral antics humans display in the face of climate change and animal rights, or better put in the face of people’s habits and lifestyles changing as a result of climate change and animal rights (if the latter is ever possible), are the same. The CAUSES that ELICIT the behaviors can be different.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
One is done with a glorified Turkey baster to livestock. The other with your penis to a woman.
Both are non-consensual penetrations of animal vaginas. The actors involved need not be the same species, as in bestiality, and the thing used to penetrate need not be a body part. How would you like it if the women loved ones in your life were vaginally penetrated with Turkey basters instead of penises? Makes no difference because the deed is the same: concent is violated and in a sexual (read: vaginal body parts = sexual body parts) manner.
I’m not comparing women to livestock in the slightest, you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m saying that actions of rape DONE TO BOTH women and animals bear exact similarity. There is no difference between artificial insemination without consent of women as for animals, and there is no difference between vaginal intercourse without consent of animals as for women. Both of these instances constitute rape.
And artificial insemination without consent to a women is absolutely rape. It consists of vaginal penetration without consent. That is literally the definition.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Your application of false equivalency here just cements my idea of you. You’re egocentric and anthropocentrist, and only care about the human species for moral consideration. You’re no different to me than the fascists in power the world over that seek to dominate minority groups.
Cows have a variety of responses to being artificially inseminated. Because of this, farmers have adopted different tactics to force them to submit, whether that’s using drugs, stun guns, cages that don’t allow the cows to flee. Whether cows resist, which is possible, or they submit doesn’t matter. They are still raped at the end of the day.
If YOU know so much about the dairy industry, then you either know the answers to this debate and choose to ignore them because it makes you look bad, or you ignore the reality altogether and tell yourself bedtime stories to cope with your already existing immoral habits.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Artificial insemination is rape. It involves non-consensual penetration of another animal. It can happen by a bull, by a human, or by any other animal (or alien for that matter). Makes no difference for the animal that is on the receiving end.
Your idea of nuance quite conveniently means that the moral caution you afford to humans isn’t afforded to animals, which is anthropocentrist and egocentric. If ever in the future you call yourself empathetic, know that you absolutely aren’t.
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Not so in various parts of the world, which goes to show that humans play fast and loose with rights and morality.
You wanting to uphold those values anyway tells me that you wish for all humans to be treated the same: with dignity and respect. That same belief underpins my desire for animals to have the same, despite many places in the world completely foregoing their rights.
It’s a shame that your anthropocentrism doesn’t afford empathy for non-human animals
- Comment on New idea 2 weeks ago:
Are you actually comparing climate change to animal abuse? Lol
Holy SHIT the reading comprehension in this thread is subzero. I wasn’t COMPARING.
I was saying that HUMANS will ignore the reality in front of them if it means they can uphold their materialistic desires and wants. HUMANS will ignore climate change, genocide, animal abuse and slaughter, homelessness, whatever you want to put here. Many Western countries into today’s age are individualistic and selfish.