Compared to dictators (or wannabe), I get that Macron seems attractive. But he’s proven to be pro-rich (taxes on the rich have been drastically cut under Macron) and anti-democratic (he’s ignored the result of the last election and nominated a plethora of prime ministers from parties who lost).

Macron always has a knack to try to use things popular with younger people to score political gains. Infamously with the ZEvent, for instance.

It is now traditional for them to answer with “Shut your mouth Macron, this isn’t about you”.

The original source of the article is Bild, a German tabloid. I don’t see this story relayed on other reputable news outlets.

Big red flag for me. Let’s see how things are evolving but I’ll be skeptical until then.

Super interesting vid, thanks for the recommendation! And on Nebula, no less.

This has Myst vibes

A moment of normalcy and laughter before the events of the evening unfold.

I don’t deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like “bloodmouth”). In this particular case, “carnist” is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.

Like I said in the other thread, it’s describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. “Omnivorous” was proposed as an alternative, but it’s initially understood as “digesting plant and animal matter” in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.

There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.

Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I’m myself eating meat so I don’t want to draw parallels here.

Okay I had a look and, you’re right. Apparently it’s an academic word in sociology meaning “prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” So it’s not the practice, it’s the way of thinking.

Alright, that’s pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting “plant and animal matter”, but I don’t know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.

Then what word would you like people to use for “person eating meat as part of their alimentation”? I ask in good faith, I’m really curious to know your opinion.

I don’t think that “meat-eater” is necessarily better than “carnist” 😕 Or a negative like “non-vegeterian”? A bit of a mouthful.

“Bloodmouth” is clearly trying to be a slur (although it’s the first time I see the term). “Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.

Words exist to convey meaning, that’s all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that’s for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.

I love to see Meta lose, but I couldn’t care less that “legacy media” lost ad revenue. This money should be paid to the public for being targeted with illegal privacy practices.

I just cheated to have additional resources when needed. Game was more fun after that!

In my country (and in many othets I suspect), the number of pupils per teacher keeps increasing. It’s really hard to individualize teaching when you have 30 pupils :(

Sure sure. But we’re defunding all that under the current administration, so its a moot point.

Just a quick comment that I am not american ;)

If there really were a single dimension axis of smartness, won’t there be a “smartest” and a “least smart” in every classroom? And if they’re in the wrong class and they leave, won’t there be two new pupils at the extremes? This argument of “you’re in the wrong class” always sounded elitist to me.

The important is that the teacher tailors the teaching to the students. Spend more time on the ones who struggle, give extra stuff to do to the quickest (e.g. help teaching to other pupils).

I’ve also always been against separating children by “intelligence”. Having a “smart” class and a “dumb” class is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That being said, there are children who have special needs and who require a teacher who has the proper formation to help them.

Minimalist necromancy.

I feel like this way of understanding sociology can explain highly individualistic behavior, but it’s a stretch to say that evey human interaction is highly individualistic (or rather “in-group” thinking). I’m sure we can agree that SOME human interactions do not fit this pattern and I even think it’s MOST of human interactions.

“Who would be nice or considerate to a person they don’t know and never will meet again?” well actually quite a lot.

I honestly disagree that the best case scenario is to kill three strangers to save a loved one.

Not a parent and no expertise here.

I guess it’s down to predictability. I imagine it is important to children to be able to predict what is going to happen. Might surprises, pranks or practical jokes erode trust?

Then again, I hate surprises so maybe it’s personal haha.