It is a protest. Some Americans may ultimately remain on "Little Red Book" but the main purpose of making it the #1 app in the US was to spite the government. It's a much more restrictive app than Tiktok, but people are enjoying talking to foreign nationals both ways.
Kwakigra
Because of the nature of the algorithm, it absolutely is this for plenty of people. It's also not the case for plenty of people. I doubt there are many right-wingers going on to join a Chinese app called "Little Red Book" which has rules that require the promotion of Chinese socialism. It's the most popular app in the US now because of this ban.
"Contrary to popular belief..."
I had a really good dialogue about this a while ago. Here's a transcription, if you're interested in a detailed answer to this:
Factory farming is terrible. I completely respect anyone who is vegan because they oppose the abuse or exploitation of animals.
The issue with stuff like this is that it indicates some equivalency of human women and animals. I remember when PETA did a "holocaust on your plate" campaign which was fairly critisized for indicating that the murder of millions of men, women, and children was the same as eating meat.
I don't think the meat industry is ok and I agree that what it now considered normal in that industry is morally wrong. I also think it's a separate issue from human social trends. Minorities being compared to animals is never a good thing.
Two points on that.
There were multiple holocaust survivors that went vegan, citing the similarities between the their experiences and that of animal agriculture;
This is because what the holocaust was, in essence, was treating people like animals. Jewish people were loaded onto cattle cars on trains, sent to what were effectively slaughterhouses, and gassed in chambers - where I live (UK) almost all pigs are killed in gas chambers.
You can make the argument that animals deserve no moral consideration if you want, but a lot of the worst things that humans have ever done to other humans is what humans do to animals all the time.
It isn't the act of eating meat that is compared by animals rights groups to the holocaust, its all the stuff that came before it. Because it was essentially the same process.
I actually stated multiple times that I do believe animals deserve moral consideration. Once again, I think the norms of the meat industry are clearly immoral. Where we disagree I think is that I believe human considerations are fundamentally different from considerations of other animals, and putting people on the same level as animals in argumentation is more harmful than productive for a variety of factors.
I'm not saying that humans should have the same considerations as non-human animals, I'm saying that the holocaus analogy isn't innacurate, as the same acts were/are committed. Do you disagree?
As far as the animals are concerned, what they go through is the holocaust (obviously they aren't sapient, but you get my point).
Before saying anything else, I want to be clear that I would like to see a future free of animal meat from the practice of slaughter. I strongly disagree that these two things are comparable in any way other than they both involve the act of killing at high rates.
I’m not going to argue that our ancestral nature is morally correct, because in many ways we understand that many our instinctive impulses and wants are morally wrong. This being the case, the most available source of sufficient protein necessary to power our brains and bodies has come from meat, and this has been the case until very recently with advancement in our understanding of nutrition. Humans and our ancestors have killed other animals to eat them since before we even assumed our present taxonomy. There is an almost universal instinctual and cultural reason that people kill animals to eat them. I think we agree that it would be best to progress past this draconian practice, but there is no malice or de-humanizing campaign of extermination here whatsoever.
Compare this to the Holocaust. There is no way whatsoever that it could ever possibly be justified in any way. It was the result of reactionary politics coming into power and leading an entire society through the use of propaganda and terror to despise a group of sapient people for reasons that were entirely and demonstrably untrue. Sapience is a major factor. Although livestock can definitely understand when they’re being abused, they can’t comprehend the scope of what is happening beyond their immediate experience. The people in the camps lived every day with a full understanding that they were being tortured and murdered en masse as a political scapegoat at best and pure sadism at worst. They suffered their abuse and suffered the understanding of why it was happening and how little they could do about it. They weren’t being harvested, they were being murdered in a premeditated fashion in massive numbers exclusively for reasons of prejudice and intentional malice. The motives and suffering caused from this evil I think are significantly greater.
Complicating it further, there is a social imperative to de-humanize a person before they can be abused, exploited, or murdered. There is a common understanding that some creatures exist to be beasts of burden, some are dangerous predators to repelled, and some are invasive pests to be exterminated. There are life-forms such as actual cockroaches in which this understanding is completely justified. De-humanizing is taking a person who has agency and cognition and framing them as if they are an unthinking creature to be managed in some way for the “good” of the perpetrator.
Like I said above, the only similarity between these two evils is superficial. I believe they are fundamentally different.
I have to admit I had very low hopes for Lower Decks after that first teaser featuring a drunk Mariner being reckless with a bat'leth. It looked like it was going to be just another "adult cartoon" cash-in like the dozens on Netflix. Very happy that my initial impression was totally wrong.
Lower Decks was an effective Star Trek show as well as an effective comedy. While I also wouldn't trust this idea with just anyone, as long as there are people working on it who understand why Star Trek is important and how the themes are more important than being dismissive, I welcome another comfy optimistic comedy about a better world.
Classic empire strategy. Go to places where there are no possible consequences for inflicting any kind of terror onto innocent people, record what is the most effective to keep people in line there, import those strategies back home to keep the working class in line.
Great Depression Core
Superman rules. He's all the way relevant again. He was introduced in an era when people understood very well the oppressive nature of their establishment, so the idea that a Superman could stand up to the bullies and save honest people from being victimized by their greed and selfishness made him very popular very quickly. Lex Luthor is essentially an abstraction of all the evils of capitalism although he's typically framed as a corruptive influence rather than a product of his environment. Despite this framing, these days the audience might interpret the conflict between Lex and Superman a little differently than they would have twenty years ago. Timely reintroduction of a beloved character to mainstream audiences.
It's complicated. Some of the AfD define white supremacy only on the basis of skin color, while more conservative members of the AfD continue to consider Jewish people as the racial other regardless of their phenotype. They all agree that the Palestinians are the wrong color to deserve support, but there is controversy over whether Isrealis are white enough to deserve support regardless of who they are committing genocide against.
The tagline is “Tasked with protecting the United Federation of Planets, she also must face the sins of her past.” In Section 31? She wasn't specifically recruited because her morals are aligned to Section 31? She won't be engaging in the mission of Section 31?
Racism is an extreme form of Classism which is caste-based.
Social class distinctions can vary by time and place and has been an issue among humans at least since the advent of agriculture. Social class may be determined by wealth, pedigree, politics, appearance, language, and likely hundreds of other variables depending on the social constructs of the given society.
Racism is derived from 17th-century European pseudoscience which proposed that there are "races" of humans which determine their intelligence, values, and appearance. According to the philosophy of racism which has been completely debunked as science for over a century, "White" people, the dominant caste, do not have inherent racialized characteristics while all other racialized groups (which are different over place and time) are born with certain characteristics that may or may not be tolerated depending on how liberal the racist is. I can't describe here the rules of why a person may be labeled a given race because it's as complicated as the entire field of sociology and unique to time and place.
Personally, I don't think any kind of classism is legitimate. That being said the majority of people throughout the world believe that at least some forms of classism are legitimate so it's not a question of allowing it, rather choosing how to deal with people who may discriminate against you for arbitrary and typically non-sensical reasons.
Yes, it is a Tiktok meme. A few may actually remain on Xiaohongshu but probably most will migrate to whatever logical replacement pops up.