Danke. This should easily be fine for anyone who’s slightly-to-moderately interested; some of the nitty-gritty details like hyperlinks to the edit diffs are excluded from this copy–paste for those who really know their stuff and want to learn more.

Oh, fuck, this is going to be interesting to read about. Just to clarify: it seems like this wasn’t just Wikipedia but Wikimedia generally. So that’s also e.g. Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, etc.

Edit: Decided to check Reddit, and someone posted an ostensibly good summary on /r/wikipedia.

You mean like BBC News: “Live updates: Trump replaces Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem”

It’s a basic English sentence that you just couldn’t and didn’t try to understand and then shamelessly blamed anyone but yourself for. Cry harder.

It isn’t; you just really fucking suck at reading and want to blame that on professional writers. Not just reading as a skill but reading as a casual interest, given you again intentionally didn’t even check the article.

If your takeaway from that headline, given what I will afford you are two technically semantically correct options, is that the POTUS, for literally the first time in history, is acting as a member of their own cabinet and not just that they’re replacing a member thereof, it’s not incumbent on the Associated Press to account for that. I’m consistently baffled at how much people will blame news headlines for their own functional illiteracy and then refuse to even peek into the article for five seconds to check.

To read the title that way at first is a brain fart; to still be confused after stopping and thinking for a second is stupidity. To not check the article afterward is willful ignorance.

It certainly is not, unless you also think “I’m going to make you a pie” is me literally threatening to turn you into a pastry.

For general context, the opinion piece was published April 2014. Bezos owned The WaPo at the time and had since 2013. Author is Stanford historian and archaeologist Ian Morris.

deleted by creator

Some people argue this line was one of Bateman’s hallucinations and that he really said “I’m Paul outta options here.”

Wouldn’t you want to use “vegan” to describe the diet and “veganist” to describe the ideology, then?

No; “veganism” is the ideology, and a “vegan” is someone who practices it. Having “vegan” and “veganist” solves nothing and would be vastly more confusing. The Vegan Society correctly appends the “dietary” part as an afterthought.

Having a word for “non-us” doesn’t really prevent the word from being used rhetorically in an “us vs. them” way, though…

Not the point I was making. The point is that giving it a name (“carnism”) positions it as an ideology (which it is) instead of just some inherently baseline, default position.

It’s kind of like when you stroll into a philosophy or politics discussion and your brain balks at all the lingo.

If you want to compare it to politics, this is something akin to how an anarcho-communist would use the term e.g. “liberal” instead of “non-communist”. Plenty of people in the US, for example, will confuse “liberal” with “hippie-dippie progressive”, but that doesn’t stop anarchists from using the term descriptively (and sometimes as an insult).

that terminology isn’t widely understood outside of vegan circles

The “vegan” versus “plant-based” thing is an original sin; it came from the original Vegan Society definition that was pretty quickly amended long before veganism had mainstream relevance. But vegans aren’t going to completely shed a collective label they’ve used for decades; they’ll continue to push for an understanding of veganism as an ethical stance, which I think they’ve been doing a fine job of. It’s not going to cause enough problems to totally change brand, because inside vegan circles everyone knows, and outside of them, the vast majority of interactions are going to be regarding food. Any amount that “plant-based = vegan” dilutes the brand is going to be much less harmful than “let’s jump ship to another brand (even one that’s near-identical enough to be more confusing)”.

As for “carnism”, okay? That’s just something you can look up; there’s a Wikipedia article breaking it down in as much depth as one wants. If someone leaves an interaction with an ancom thinking that they got called a bleeding-heart progressive for supporting capitalism, okay. I’ll go over to the ancom community and tell them to stop using “liberal” because some people are confused.

But realistically, I don’t think Kolanaki was confused; I think they were just salty that their support for animal agriculture was positioned as an ideology at all rather than inherently normal like society otherwise constantly reinforces for them.

it’s both used to describe a diet of non-animal by/products and the broader social movement of advocating against the same

Actually, in circles where “carnist” would be used, “vegan” has a very clear distinction, and it’s the latter. Whether they’ve seen it or not, veganism in those circles will be roughly the Vegan Society’s definition*:

Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms [which we don’t use] it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Somebody who’s solely on a plant-based diet (i.e. abstaining from animal products in their food) would be called just that: “plant-based”. The reason “carnist” is used is, like I said, to denote active support for the ideology and not just passive consumption. Plenty of people will go their entire lives without meaningfully engaging with the ideology behind the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc., which is where the “omnivore” and “carnist” terms come in.

“Carnism” makes veganism a lot easier to discuss, because simply “vegan or non-vegan” places carnism in a position of inherent normalcy. Imagine another movement (especially a minority one) that could only describe anyone in terms of “us or non-us”. Positioning carnism as an ideology (which it objectively is) challenges its otherwise unchallenged position.

* Notably, The Vegan Society is the origin of both meanings.

Mod of /c/vegan@lemmy.world, and we use “carnist” pretty regularly. “Carnist” either means supporting carnism (“carnist rhetoric”) or someone who subscribes to it (“a carnist”), where carnism is (I think Wiktionary summarizes it best):

The human ideology that supports the slaughter of certain animals and the consumption of their meat or other products (leather from skin, etc).

By contrast, a meat-eater is more broadly an “omnivore” or “omni”. This will vary by person, but “carnist” will be used over “omnivore” when the person isn’t just passively participating in the system but actively arguing in support of the ideology behind it.

It’s a term very rarely seen outside vegan circles, so it’s stunning to see on a list like that; I wonder if Kolanaki talked with a vegan, said some stupid shit, got called a “carnist”, and has been big mad ever since.

Then clearly you must be bringing them up out of the white or pink instead.

I think “patriot” is one of those titles that should only be given, and that ideally happens to someone who’s done something especially heroic or monumental for their country. I think of myself as patriotic, because I care a lot about my country despite its enormous, gangrenous flaws. I want to help it realize its potential. But to say “I’m a patriot” these days – I agree with you – really only connotes blind nationalism.

“The Strongest Jedi” definitely isn’t right. At best, he’s evenly matched with Obi-Wan. If you apply stupid “power scaling” rules, then sure, Obi-Wan got ganked by Dooku during their fight while Anakin handily beat him. But at the same time that Dooku pushes Obi-Wan, he easily kicks and downs Anakin who’s behind him; Obi-Wan was just the one he subdued by crushing him, ostensibly seeing him as the greater threat.

We’ve seen Anakin lose to Obi-Wan at the (inherent) height of his combat prowess, and it was his own fault. Windu and Yoda probably also take Anakin one-on-one. (Windu, of course, was totally defenseless when Anakin severed his arm.)

If we’re talking about things like the Force, Yoda is clearly much more powerful. There’s an argument Anakin was the most powerful pilot, but that combined with being very Force-sensitive and a very good duelist doesn’t make him “the most powerful” overall. Most potential? If he could keep his emotions under control, probably.

Also Saddam watching someone make a meme with that line break:

Wow, what elegant timing for AskYourUncle’s video about AC4.

So you just warped the title into whatever sensationalized garbage you wanted. The Streets Blog headline actually reads:

New UCLA Report Looks into the High Cost to Build Parking

And the UCLA Center for Parking Policy Report is titled:

No Such Thing as Free Parking: Construction Costs in 17 U.S. Cities

It’s grossly disrespectful to overeditorialize a report like this that probably had hundreds of hours of work put into it; you’re actively misrepresenting that work and putting words in the author’s mouth. If you’re going to say “study finds”, then you should say what the study finds according to the author(s) who actually painstakingly analyzed the data. If not, then it’s “I read this study [doubt] and drew these conclusions about it”.

My favorite Atari 2600 game.

This is largely true. English takes ‘-ard’ from Old French. MW defines it as:

one that is characterized by performing some action, possessing some quality, or being associated with some thing especially conspicuously or excessively

The main point is that it’s generally just a pejorative suffix.

Citing the Trésor de la langue française informatisé, however, Wiktionary puts forward a surprisingly cogent counterargument and alternative etymology to the “packsaddle” one for “bastard”.