Exactly. I’d say this is currently the best everyday example of the phenomenon.

IMO you’re doing it the right way.

If there’s a single indicator to pay attention to, it’s the source of funding. Where does the media outlet get its money from?

Next is professional ethics: does it employ real journalists? Journalism is like medicine, it’s a profession with a code of conduct. In this case, a commitment to factual accuracy, a good-faith search for the truth, fairness in choices about what to cover, transparency about sources, etc.

And if you feel the journalists are doing a bad job, then go back to point 1 and ask: Who is paying them? Are you? The reason for today’s crisis in journalism is not that journalists are lazy or evil, it’s that the internet cratered their business model. More of us need to step up and pay. It’s that simple.

I have a couple of paid subscriptions. If that’s the cost of living in a properly informed society, it’s a great deal.

OK. Not sure how far that recipe gets us in practice, but it’s a respectable argument.

You’re not my audience,

That’s a good point and I work to this principle myself. So my observation was pretty redundant, yes.

I already know you’re anchored in your convictions

To the extent you know anything about me, I also “know” that your own convictions are just as unmovable.

Looked at another way, it’s a good thing to have convictions.

Not reasonable because you’re making a broad generalization

Generalizations are broad by nature, that does not mean they have no value.

But in reality the majority of people who oppose immigration also oppose LGBT+ and freedom of religion so it’s unlikely they’ll use this argument.

Can’t speak for the USA but that is absolutely not the case in Europe.

Otherwise you make some decent points. In any case, IMO discussions like this would benefit if we accepted from the outset that nobody is going to be convincing others to change their opinions. The best that can be hoped for is to understand the opposing side better. That would be an achievement in itself.

These sources don’t prove anything. This is about values. If you want to convince people who are not already on your side then you need to begin there.

That’s a specific case that doesn’t falsify my claim that most people in this discussion, here, are inflating away the meaning of the word Nazi so that it equates to, roughly, “somebody I don’t like who is to the right of me politically”.

This precise argument can also be made to justify a tightening on immigration from countries where religious intolerance is the cultural norm, on the grounds that “if you allow [them] to spread their ideology eventually there will be enough [of them] to be able to take the power by force, and when they do they’ll setback all of the tolerance that was advanced”. Reasonable?

My thoughts are that most people in this discussion have little idea what the word Nazi actually means and that therefore this silly question is a bit of an insult to the victims of Nazism.

Would be interested in an intelligent rebuttal to this seemingly decent argument, if anyone has one.

I’m sure Ferrero understands what their target audience is for this and have accounted for the extremely close-minded omni demographic

Difficult to argue with that.

How would this be alienating to someone who’s not vegan would otherwise try it as a vegan alternative?

The honest answer might be that the V-word is just off-putting to quite a few omnivores.

it feels like you’re overgeneralizing your own niche experience onto everyone else

To be fair, this is a forum where people express opinions, and opinions tend to be based on personal experience.

In this case I agree with them. In northern Europe at least, there are already vegan Nutella clones that are widely available and tastier than Nutella (which is tasty). For instance Nocciolata, which has a “dairy free” variant, i.e. vegan. Very delicious indeed but also quite expensive.

Amusing. This conundrum, exactly as described, has also been bothering me, on and off, for years. Having tried a bunch of solutions, I have recently settled on one that I’m quite pleased with.

A bumbag. AKA waist pack. (AKA another name which sounds both comical and vulgar to British ears.)

You’re not gonna look cool but it works.

From the write-up, this looks like another example in microcosm of the Anglosphere’s culture clash over the issue of speech. Namely, openness vs censoriousness, or safety vs harm, depending on one’s point of view - and probably generation.

I am not (quite) vegan but since I seem to spend my time defending vegans I thought I’d try hanging out with a few and perhaps even sharing polite tips on how to be more convincing with omnivores. Risky plan! But I have not yet been canceled. Seems like that is partly to your credit. So thanks for being so thoughtful and open-minded, it really reflects well on this community.

Hard to argue with that. But from the point of view of convincing others, I do worry about the optics of a diet that requires what looks like a medical supplement.

Personally this is my red line and why I won’t (for now) go completely vegan (I eat eggs). But the yeast approach strikes me as the obvious way of sort-of squaring the circle - i.e. having a diet that consists only of actual food that occurs in nature.

Anyway, this is just pontification in the name of debate. I know that’s a risky proposition in this forum but I’m doing it anyway! Absolutely not a criticism of you or veganism, which I respect very much.

battle between Ubuntu and Fedora with their derivative

Agreed in general. Except that Ubuntu is itself a derivative, of Debian. Technically it’s Debian that’s the peer of Fedora.

Why not yeast? In powder form or whatever. Does that not feel more like eating food than popping a pill? Serious question, not being facetious.

Well this one’s easy: “But you need protein!” My usual response is to point out that there are literally vegan bodybuilders. Mind-blowing stuff.

Indeed. The moral purity issue has always been the Achilles heel of progressive politics. It makes compromise hard and it drives heretics - i.e. the people whose votes you need - crazy.

Great question. Democracy is all about compromise. I am bothered by how few people seem to grasp this fact. Personally, when I hear the phrase “squabbling politicians”, I roll my eyes - to squabble is their job! They’re doing it on our behalf because people have different interests and different values and so we don’t all agree, and that is a good thing. A polity where everybody agrees - well, there are names for that kind of political system and none of them are democracy.

Over here in Europe, I just wish the progressive parties (for whom I vote) would do the obvious deal and sacrifice their dilatory approach to immigration and in particular border security. This issue is undermining all their other policy goals. The obvious allergy of voters to porous borders is not just a result of disinformation, and taking a tougher line on it does not necessarily mean infringing human rights.