Lol now I know you’re trolling. Have a good life.

Dude, vegans can and do eat fruits. For people who can’t afford seasonal fresh fruit, we have fortified foods like bread, pasta, rice, and cereals, most of which are also vegan. I specified rice and beans (and everything else you conveniently ignored, lol) because they make a complete protein, which is usually the only thing you need to monitor closely if you are vegan on a budget. Anything else and you are best off getting a multivitamin for best bang for your buck.

Also, you saying none of us have been hungry and then lecturing us about not getting both fruits AND vegetables when fresh fruit is one of the most expensive things in a grocery store, outside of meat that is? You clearly have never been poor enough that you have been needing to have your ‘fruit’ be the cheapest jar of grape jelly you can find, or the cans of frozen ‘orange drink concentrate’.

Fruits are also available but usually tend to be more expensive and are usually considered a treat for people on limited budgets. Me not listing them was part of keeping to the usual budget shopping lists recommend for people with limited income. Unless you are further being a pedant and insisting that tomatoes are fruits and not vegetables.

And while I am fortunate enough to live in the continental US, I mostly buy what is in season and local and therefore on sale for relatively cheap. And anywhere where that isn’t available, frozen veggies are available, often for even cheaper and with no difference in nutritional value or content. If you don’t have a fridge/freezer, dried veggies are also available in most markets (dried peppers especially) and canned goods are far better for you now than they ever have been, with only marginal decreases in nutritional value.

Where do you live that absolutely no vegetables are available in any form for a dollar a can or five dollars for a family pack that would make a couple dozen meals for a family of four?

(Edit: Or, if not in the US, where you can’t even buy local produce, unless you are in an area where there is famine. In which case you may object to the fact that almost half our farmable land is used to grow crops to feed to animals instead of being used to grow more food for humans.)

And yet rice, beans/lentils, pasta, vegetables, and spices are all vegan, and are all the staples for low-cost meals in grocery stores the world over. Where do you live where that isn’t the case?

Disturbed’s cover of Sound of Silence is not only awful, it is an antithesis of the meaning of the song. Anyone who likes that version better than S&G’s arguably doesn’t understand the point of the song, and the fact that everyone holds it up as the gold standard of “covers better than the original” is even worse.

A close second is Postmodern Jukebox and their horrendous tendencies to take tempos to an opposite extreme instead of finding more meaningful ways of changing the genre of a song. I like some of their stuff, but the number of people who love their cover of Welcome to the Jungle is mind-boggling to me.

There are plenty of songs that I prefer the cover of to the original (Whitney Houston’s ‘I Will Always Love You’), or ones that just give the original a modern coat of paint without changing much else (Smash Mouth’s ‘I’m a Believer’), but these songs in particular are just awful imo.

If I am reading correctly, they are just pointing out that people regret all kinds of decisions that have lasting impact on life. To try to say that trans people in particular need to be “protected” from transition because of possible regret is acting as though that regret is uniquely bad, which isn’t the case. Hence why it would be gaslighting.

Hey, just as an FYI, bell hooks specifically asked that her name not be capitalized. Takes a bit of getting used to, but wanted to pop a message in so that people knew the spelling on the cover shown here is deliberate.

Obviously this is a joke, but there used to be an important reason we kept the flags wrinkled like that: it meant that you never knew who had bought a flag at a Pride event and who brought one they owned.

This meant that people who were ‘caught’ at an event by friends or family they weren’t out to, they could say they just bought the flag to support the cause. It also meant there was no way to tell who had been there longer than others.

Can we not use a super abelist rendition of mental struggles as our meme, thanks?

This is correct, and it isn’t just associated with acids. It’s because of an effect called ‘freezing point depression’, which is the same reason salt lowers the freezing point of water while raising its boiling point.

There are a few explanations as to why this happens, with the easiest being this: if you add something that can’t freeze to something that can, then the whole thing will need to lose more energy to allow the whole mass to solidify because the un-freezing stuff physically interferes with the attempts of the freezing stuff to bind together.

However, there is also the additional aspect of vapor pressure, which comes into play when adding things that can freeze to another thing that also freezes, but at a different temperature. I don’t really understand that at all, so I will pull from the Wikipedia article on it:

The freezing point is the temperature at which the liquid solvent and solid solvent are at equilibrium, so that their vapor pressures are equal. When a non-volatile solute is added to a volatile liquid solvent, the solution vapour pressure will be lower than that of the pure solvent. As a result, the solid will reach equilibrium with the solution at a lower temperature than with the pure solvent. This explanation in terms of vapor pressure is equivalent to the argument based on chemical potential, since the chemical potential of a vapor is logarithmically related to pressure. All of the colligative properties result from a lowering of the chemical potential of the solvent in the presence of a solute. This lowering is an entropy effect. The greater randomness of the solution (as compared to the pure solvent) acts in opposition to freezing, so that a lower temperature must be reached, over a broader range, before equilibrium between the liquid solution and solid solution phases is achieved. Melting point determinations are commonly exploited in organic chemistry to aid in identifying substances and to ascertain their purity.

So, TL;DR is that chemistry is weird, things react weird at the molecular level because of energy states, and that is what allows us to make ice cream!

Avocados and peppers to make guacamole 😋

Update just dropped. For users with SMAPI installed, don’t forget to run the game once after installing the update so that SMAPI 4.0.0 can install properly. Currently waiting for that to drop, as they confirmed that it would be released alongside the 1.6 game update.

Thank you. Again, I know that not everyone will have the same answer, and no single answer will be right for every situation. I already know about a bunch of general ideas surrounding community restitution on various forms, but I know that it is a difficult discussion to have when the topic is a real situation and not a hypothetical.

Removed by mod

Asking for people’s thoughts on a subject is encouraging discussion, not asking for a favor. And why do I need to provide further evidence of having watched the video when, as I have stated before, the contents of the video are secondary to the existence of the video in the first place? This video is exactly like several other videos and articles about the subject, except it is the newest one, and is being posted in a space where (supposedly) people recognize that we have a very flawed legal system.

Given the fact that you have been the one dismissive of me, given that you assumed I hadn’t watched the video based solely on the fact that I disagreed, tells me that you aren’t interested in actually engaging in the discussion around my question. Instead you seem entirely focused on luring me into a discussion around whether the video’s claims are true or not, which, as I said earlier, has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to stick to.

So again, even if everything in the video is 100% correct as stated, I still want to know what people think should be accepted as evidence of change of character. Obviously it is case dependent, but having a guideline will be helpful, especially if we are pushing for something like prison abolition, which a lot of people will see as extreme if there is no example of a replacement. Given that we specifically want a solution that involves reintegration of a person into society, determining what is required for that reintegration is key. Because right now, we are advocating for these policies while currently supporting a pattern of refusing to allow people like Beau to participate in communities based on past actions, even when all actions since are showing someone who is genuine and in no position to repeat past offences.

Why are you looking to change the subject? I already said that my point stands even if the claims in the video were supported by the documents. I am not here for discussion of nitpicks of the video, I am here to see what people have to say about the topic of people with complicated histories being allowed to be active within anarchist spaces. If you agree with the person in the video, then answer my question, instead of trying to deflect.

I did watch the video. I also read the sources at the bottom of the video, and like several other comments noticed, the documents do not support a lot of the claims made in the video. However, even if they were supported by the documents, I still don’t agree with the stance of the video.

The argument is that because he did something bad at one point, people should consider his past actions before any of his current ones, and that this justifies distrust of his current actions. When we live and operate in a world where trust is necessary for cooperation and survival, even suggesting to distrust someone indefinitely for long past actions and ignoring all steps taken to remedy is asking for him to be barred from that society.

It also assumes that the only reason people would support him is if they were unaware of his past actions, and they heavily imply that people who do trust him are unable to make sound decisions, not in the least by doing one of the least anarchist things possible by trusting the words of government entities known for targeting leftists and charging them with exaggerated crimes.

You are right that you can’t institutionalize trust, but I am calling out a pattern that I am recognizing of people who advocate for this particular social model being unwilling to put their money where their mouth is in regards to acknowledging and supporting input from people with convictions or marred histories. The video states nothing new and instead is continuing to repeat this ‘questioning’ without accounting for the fact that this questioning has already taken place and done nothing except draw people away from a community that values direct action and social support.

If his past had anything to do with his current content and actions, I agree more scrutiny would be needed. But my question still stands, what should the guidelines be for deciding that a person no longer deserves to have their participation in society treated as suspect or worthy of excess questioning? At what point do people deserve to be allowed to change and exist without their motive being questioned?

Beau has stated before that he was involved in some awful stuff. But I agree with a commenter on the video: while it is important to not hide past doings, a lot more of society needs to accept that people can, and do, change.

This is someone who very clearly did something wrong, but he also did his time and is now working on further paying back society. It doesn’t make what he did go away, but I also don’t know why suddenly so many people are wanting to ‘expose’ him. He isn’t in any position to repeat his actions, his current actions are inarguably for the betterment of society as a whole, as well as for individuals in need in his own community and others.

Even if you can’t get past what he did, I would ask: what exactly would it take for you to say that he has paid for what he did? Anarchism explicitly calls for the abolition of prisons and our current legal structure, and Beau has (in my opinion) paid for his actions both within the current system and outside of it. After someone has done their time, so to speak, are they barred from society until the end of days? If not, then what would they need to do to be accepted that Beau hasn’t done?

I ask these questions, not as someone who is trying to cause issues or argue, but as someone with a lot of respect for this movement. I ask because I genuinely want to know what people expect from people like Beau through an anarchist lens.

Good thing hormones are only prescribed in a minority of trans kids anyways, even though the vast majority of them do not desist as they get older. In fact, the majority of them continue on to transition as adults, and 99.5 or so percent of trans kids given just puberty blockers, much less hormones, grow to adulthood with no regrets.

Also, before you ask, I can provide sources, but that which is declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, especially when the dismissal is in line with literally every major medical organization, including the World Health Organization, due to the sheer amount of clear evidence that transition is a safe and effective treatment for gender dysphoria at any age.

Nice cherry picking of two examples without sources, while completely ignoring all of the other things Biden did repeal. It also ignores the fact that those things were replaced with better projects that were less susceptible to repeals by future presidents.

Again, I am not saying to vote for all Dems across the board, just not in the Presidential election. I vote third party in my home state for state and local elections because my state (solid blue) is set up in a way that allows for a candidate presented by the third party to run as a Dem as well, allowing people to vote effectively for a party line that makes it clear what actions we want taken while not risking a regressive candidate being elected by a split vote. There are also several blue states that are enacting ranked choice voting, which is also being supported by even most moderate Dems.