u/LensFlareObjector

I know many vegans online but none in person. Kind of crazy. My non-vegan friends also tell me I'm the only vegan they know, and they know a lot more people than me 😂. A few vegetarians here and there. A few alleged vegans I don't know very well. Thats it.

Does the Billie Eilish event feel like a significant step for the animal rights movement? Will it shift the Overton window into allowing more space for and encouraging discussion about how humans relate to and treat other sentient beings?

I don't know if I recall a celebrity ever speaking out for animals like this before and it having this much of an impact on the social consciousness and topical conversations. There was Joaquin Phoenix's Oscar win speech, which exposed the "dairy" industry's treatment of cows and calves, but I don't think it got as much mainstream attention as this.

And it seems especially notable and significant considering it's specifically highlighting the animals themselves and the human-animal relationship, and advocating for not contributing to animals' exploitation and slaughter, or at least not "eating" them - which is one of multiple actions which cause those things to happen to animals.

Usually a celebrity if anything might say something about "meat" being bad for the environment, or a plant-based diet being healthier – or crediting it for their own health improvement.

E.g. comments by James Cameron, who is apparently vegan and making a documentary about Billie Eilish's concert where she had fully plant-based catering, and often publically speaks about the impact of animal products on the environment and health.

Or the plant-based rapper/actor Common, who has on multiple occasions attributed a plant-based diet to his health and youthfulness, but unfortunately allegedly wears cow leather on the show Silo, despite saying he's "vegan" as most people have a different understanding of the word and think it's just a diet rather than an ethical stance for animals' rights and against their exploitation – as well as the abundance of vegan leather alternatives, which are more rather than less environmentally sustainable, whether synthetic or even more so if plant-based, not to mention any kind of leather being an unnecessary product for humans to begin.

And that is all still incredibly important and valuable, and will ultimately probably help animals even if unintentionally or indirectly or for reasons other than for their benefit, but it still leaves the non-human animals out of the equation. Public discussion and understanding around the impact of "animal products" is minimal to begin with, but when it does happen it's usually limited to how those products affect humans rather than the other species of sentient beings involved in their production and use.

That can include other crucial topics but which don't centre the animals and their interests in the discussion, like impact of animal products on human health, on the environment/climate (primarily as it pertains to how it affects humans rather than other animals), zoonotic diseases and pandemics, or other humanitarian considerations like its link to food insecurity/famine, poverty, displacement of indigenous human populations (ironic given some of the reactions to Billie's comments, right?), and the treatment and experiences of humans who work in slaughterhouses and animal farms.

And it's worth mentioning Billie Eilish herself has also spoken quite extensively as of late about the impact of animal farming on the environment. But I also don't think any of those topics have, at least so far, gotten people talking about humans' consumption of animal products quite as much as this - even if it's somewhat removed from the resulting actions to living animals, or focused on what someone in particular has said about it and who they are as an individual and their speech and actions.

The thing that really gets people focused on animal products right now seems to be things that cause them to become outraged by what a vegan has said about them – and specifically what they do to animals, or the actions and values of humans who choose to consume them. Maybe shaming people does have some positive effect on increasing discussion about humans' exploitation of animals and consumption of animal products after all – I believe Chris Bryant, PhD has shared research showing it does.

That might sound unfortunate given the unpleasantness of everyone being angry at vegans and making such bad-faith arguments to either attack veganism or justify animal exploitation, but there's actually a few silver linings to it.

One silver lining is that because the thing that really causes a reaction and kicks up a stir is getting people to think about and focus on something that usually doesn't get much light of day and is almost a taboo subject, which is the impact on animals of using and killing them for food and other products and how consumers are responsible for it, this indicates what psychological studies have revealed:

Most humans genuinely do have some level of empathy and care toward other animals, and may genuinely "love" (in some way) some or even all animals, but they are deeply uncomfortable with the moral and emotional contradiction, and resulting cognitive dissonnance, between having those feelings while simultaneously continuing to take part in actions which cause significant harm to animals, despite the option to not use those products and not contribute to those violent and cruel actions to beings they claim to love or respect. Since the hypocrisy and contradiction is there, as well as underlying positive values that are essentially corrupted and distorted, that is an unstable state which inevitably must be resolved, and that real sense of care for animals simply must be teased out in order to convert the value-action gap into aligned actions and values.

Another silver lining can be summarized in 2 similar quotes, one from Arthur Schopenhauer, and one popularly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who was vegetarian, but which potentially in fact originated with socialist labor union advocate Nicholas Klein.

Arthur Schopenhauer:

"**All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."**

Popularly shared "Gandhi" quote (disputed):

**“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."**

Nicholas Klein:

**"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."**

It's inevitable that when the animal rights movement becomes more mainstream or gets more media attention, it will cause a significant reactionary backlash, which is the case if you look at every other progressive or rights-based movement especially at the beginning but also right now. Traditionally the resistance to progressive movements has come from the right, and it's very notable that this backlash is coming mostly from the left in the case of Billie Eilish's apparently millions of outraged fans as well as many other people who have an opinion on it.

There's an extreme tension between the usually progressive stances of the political left, and the reactionary anti-progressive stance of opposing vegan/animal rights advocacy as well as plant-based environmental messaging (even if framed as misguided progressive arguments against it in this case, since a progressive ideology here is the existing moral framework which contains the inconsistent elements being challenged). This indicates a strong likelihood that it's only a matter of time before this becomes an issue and cause that more leftists embrace or take seriously and address, and is then reworked into the existing leftist political ideology and piled onto the array of other causes that the left advocates for – and will probably still continue to receive pushback from the right, unless miraculously they also start agreeing with animal rights as we have surprisingly seen some of recently as well.

The label says "small victories", but I think even though it might not feel like it right now especially to the people who oppose animal rights or criticize Billie Eilish's statements and approach, in my opinion we can probably consider this a considerable win and potentially even a historical milestone for animals and the animal movement – perhaps the first time a highly prominent and respected celebrity truly broke form and abandoned social etiquette and expectations to conform and not criticize the consumer's choice to exploit animals, at significant cost to their own public perception and career, but wholly worthwhile for a crucial cause.

Hopefully it triggers a ripple or domino effect of other people with a wide reach and influence feeling empowered to speak out themselves, or take action to help animals and urge a transition into alternatives and into granting them meaningful legal rights and no longer using them for human purposes.

I have a little bit of a complex personal situation that is related to Fairphone in some ways..

Firstly, I would greatly appreciate if anyone can recommend a subreddit that is based around phone ethics in general or the ethics of consumer technology.

I would also love it if anyone can recommend "ethical" phones aside from Fairphone (hard to verify any of them as vegan apparently due to difficulty tracing all the parts that might have animal sourced ingredients, although they probably mostly all are animal free today, but with at least relatively more sustainably sourced materials, fair trade, etc - basically the same kinds of standards and measures that Fairphone takes).

I know this is the Fairphone community which is why I asked for other more neutral communities to avoid bias, since when I've asked these types of questions before on Fairphone forums on a few different platforms I've just gotten defensive responses trying to convince me to use Fairphone. I hope that prefacing this in this way reduces the likelihood of that.....

I should inform you that it's a lost cause trying to convince me to use Fairphone, for multiple reasons it doesn't work for me. And Fairphone as a company could do something about them, but that's not my point. I just want personal solutions so I can make the most ethical smartphone choice given Fairphones are not viable for me. I'll briefly go into those reasons because I know people will want to know.

- I live in Australia and it doesn't work on networks here. From my limited understanding, there is a legal abolishment of all 3G networks, and 4G or 5G are only allowed when the company has specifically engaged with the country's local networks to ensure that Emergency Calls still work even if 5G drops out. Something like that. Fairphone doesnt have business presence in Australia so it's blocked. I believe USA also has different more decentralized networks and laws which is why it works there despite them having similar bans to ensure Emergency Calls work in all cases.

- The headphone jack issue. I'd really rather not talk about this one because it seems to make people very angry and argumentative. I have investigated and tried all solutions you can think of where applicable and they all don't work for me for one reason or another. My reasons are varied and complex. But I will note that, beyond other reasons why I need a headphone jack separate from the USB C port, my situation is unusual because I have a medical ear condition that requires me to use specialized headphones that don't touch the ears at all, and these are so far always wired 3.5mm headphones (would be open to recommendations for headphones that are compatible with my condition, but they are very rare), never wireless and never USB C, though USB C ones also don't work for my use case for other reasons unless there are 2 USB C ports on the phone which there isnt. So yeah. Headphone jack is literally a dealbreaker for me, among other things.

I could say more but would rather not and those are the main kind of disclaimers I should get out of the way.

So I have investigated some phones that

1. Are fairly ethical

2. Work in Australia, specifically on OPTUS

3. Have a headphone jack.

4. Are a high performance / high quality phone.

And maybe some other filters or requirements / tick boxes.

There arent really options so far from what ive seen. Motorola Moto G Power may not work in Australian networks (unclear). I don't know much about these so would love your thoughts. Teracube and Purism apparently dont work in Australia and/or on OPTUS. Shout out to Framework laptop.

I also am aware of the option of buying second hand, which I would try to do unless I want to support the company. I wanted to support Fairphone for example and hoped that if it took sales away from bigger companies it might influence them to implement more ethical policies. I'm not sure if these other phones are available second hand or if I want to support the companies. Notably there are almost no high end smartphones with a headphone jack in general anymore so I'm kind of screwed even if I was going to compromise on getting an ethically made phone and just buy second hand. Sony Xperia has no official support and has compatibility issues in Australia, and Asus Zenphone and Rogphone are being discontinued and also have potential compatibility issues. Redmagic is unknown, they might lack the LTE bands required but no clear information. My use case just doesn't seem to exist anymore. Btw I am using a very crappy old phone I got second hand that barely works. Any help appreciated.

Thanks and sorry for reading

no need to read this post body unless if you want to, the title is the main point and question.

i'm vegan and left wing btw. im mostly speaking from that point of view but i will try to include the right wing vegans in consideration.

we usually assume that left wing people are more open to either the ethical animal rights message or the (also technically ethically motivated) environmental plant based/animal free message. i think veganism can be arrived at from both left wing and right wing values but does seem to align more with progressive liberal politics and follows naturally from other past rights based and abolitionist movements that began on the left. but the recent Billie Eilish saga (Billie calling out the hypocrisy of most people who claim to love animals and care about the environment while "exploiting animals and destroying the planet" or words to the effect, enraging much of her leftist fans and losing over a million followers) and many experiences have made me question if it could be the opposite - for now, but i think once the left resolve this cognitive dissonance they will support veganism ultimately. im just talking about current reality and how we can approach it. should we communicate the messages differently to the left vs the right, how do we get through to them?

Gary Yourofsky (regardless of what you think of him, he has a lot of experience talking to people of all walks of life about this topic) has said that right wing people are usually easier to talk to and convince to be vegan than left wing people. apparently they resisted less and respected him more (although it can also definitely be other way round sometimes). it could be worth noting that while he embraces most left wing principles himself, and used to promote intersectionality, he has taken some more jaded and controversial stances on human rights issues more recently that many leftists don't agree with. he is the ultimate misanthropist and i feel like he almost doesnt fit into any normal political category (neither do we really, although the leftist moral framework and maybe even the right's could certainly adapt animal rights principles). so maybe he is biased, maybe not. but many more hardline left wing vegan activists have said the same or similar.

theres also the fact left wing vegans can end up feeling more frustration with people who almost get it but wilfully avoid facing the contradiction between their actions and values, compared to people whose values are just so different and alien to us altogether (the right), and produce arguments that are honestly hard to take seriously sometimes if they contain many other beliefs we dont agree with beyond veganism, while the left make arguments that are more in line with our values but then take a "hard right turn" when it comes to animal rights and the environment - and honestly sometimes they sound the same as conservatives when it comes to their attitudes around these issues.

but could the sense of hypocrisy and the tension and instability of worldview in leftists make them even more resistant? a lot of psychological research supports the idea that people who agree with vegan ideals more (caring about animals and the environment, having left leaning attitudes) can react more strongly against it. BiteSizeVegan has a good video about the science of why people hate vegans. PlantGeezer recently made a video also arguing that people who have "pets" are more likely to be anti vegan and triggered by vegans. anecdotally, the furry and pokemon (those games are very pro animal exploitation and anti animal rights and environmentalism btw, we are literally depicted as the villains of Black & White 1 & 2) communities, who idolize animals in some kind of abstract way, also tend to get especially outraged about vegans telling them that the harming, killing, exploitation etc of animals inherent in animal farming and industries that use animals is wrong, because it threatens their sense of identity as an "animal loving" person.

most vegans are left leaning, so am I. some of us are right leaning. we all agree on the basic idea that animals deserve rights. i think animal rights can become a bipartisan idea eventually, similar to the abolition of slavery. slavery was originally mostly abolished by the progressive and "radical" left even though in the US they were Republicans because Republicans and Democrats had opposite ideologies to what they do today. but the right eventually embraced abolitionism too. i think that the right will embrace animal rights as will the left, but i wonder if it could end up being the opposite group than we expect to do it first.

recently, a lot of right wing politicians and public figures have expressed their vegan, pro animal values and especially have become vocally against animal testing, seemingly more than the left. and im not just talking about the Trump administration's mostly profit incentivized actions to phase out some instances of animal testing. Although Lara Trump did help with freeing the beagles from Ridgland Farms in a way that cost a lot of money. Vivek Ramaswamy is vegetarian and said he thinks animal cruelty will become a big issue for conservatives in the near future, even supporting Wayne Hsiung. Tulsi Gabbard (who was a Democrat turned independent turned Republican) is vegan and has in the past been quite vocal about vegan animal rights advocacy. Ben Shapiro admitted vegans are right, in 100 years people who ate animals will be looked at as barbaric, and that he is a hypocrite. These are just anecdotes but they do represent a growing trend. veganism and pro animal values are rising on the left and the right. but which will come out first? and if, surprisingly, it turns out to be embraced by the right, could that hurt leftists' willingness to engage with the ideas due to binary tribalistic mentality, and increase their reluctance/resistance to it or provide more excuses and solidify their beliefs that vegans are hypocritical or "dont care about humans" as a way to deflect from their own actions that affect both nonhuman animals, humans and the whole planet?

sorry for the ramble but would love your thoughts

By vegan jobs here, I mean jobs related to veganism and the furthering of vegan and plant based/animal free goals for society, animal rights and the planet rather than just a job which doesn't involve animal exploitation - which can also be tough to find to be fair. I know a vegetarian who works for a chicken meat stall and I think he hates it and can't find anything else.

I'd like to be more of an activist for animals and the environment. But activists don't usually get paid anything. I often wonder how people even have the means to do it full time while still supporting their living expenses. If I didn't have to work Id absolutely prefer to use my time focused on helping further this cause (while I see pretty much anything else as pointless or less important when we won't even have a livable planet and maybe don't deserve to with what we're doing to sentient beings) rather than driven primarily by covering myself financially.

When activists do have jobs they usually dont seem related to veganism or "vegan 2.0" (shout out to Chris Bryant PhD), which divides the time they can spend on it. It seems exceedingly rare for vegans to have full time jobs working for animal rights or plant based companies. Working at a vegan restaurant seems like a wholesome option and definitely a crucial part of making tasty vegan options more accessible and discoverable and teaching people that the food is actually good, which is one barrier to entry. But I'd rather be doing something bigger or more direct. Some vegan restaurants do their own activism which is awesome. Others are more in the plant-based culinary or health scene and often aren't vegan in the animal ethics sense, have more of a "live and let live [in a way that doesn't let animals live]" approach, where even some vegans are "pick me" and want everyone to like them and judge people negatively for being against animal cruelty in a vocal way. I don't know.

Or is it irreparable and should be abandoned and forgotten forever?

Yes its poorly made in some areas. Most of us agree on that (especially controls/movement). But could it be salvaged if certain elements were changed? How fundamentally would it need to be altered and at what point would you consider it a good Jak game?

To note, of course this would never happen by any professional gaming studio due to its notoriously poor reception. But there is an argument that bad games deserve remakes or reimaginings more than good ones. One way this could theoretically be achieved is with an OpenGOAL-based ground up recreation of the game. But at that point "remastering" Daxter or doing a completely original campaign like Forgotten Lands or Brume Village might be more worthwhile. What say ye?

View Poll

The way Jak 3 progressed unexpectedly leads you to leaving the planet and fighting a war against aliens on a space station. The threat is not eradicated by the end, only the current wave is staved off, and they still presumably torment other planets, or could come back stronger (like Sky People aka Humans in Avatar 2). Is it possible that the plan was that we would eventually take the fight to and visit the Precursor homeworld or wherever the Dark Makers have made their base of operations? Or maybe liberate a number of other planets from Dark Makers and defeat their scattered colonies around the universe first before thwarting the final threat of Dark Maker leaders in their own home at the end? Or would this direction feel too much like Ratchet & Clank?