The difference is that you as the owner are in that case not actively financing an industry that’s slaughtering other animals in order to feed your pet.

That a cat while roaming outside will inevitably kill other animals is not unethical on the cats part. It’s debatable if it’s unethical on the owners part, which is why many people nowadays discuss only keeping cats as indoor pets anyway. It is however a completely separate issue to vegan cat food.

Maybe you think vegans ask for vegan pet food because they want their cat to “be vegan”? Because if so, that’s a misunderstanding. Vegan ethics are always about our own consumption decisions and behavior. Never about those of animals. (Which is why “dO yOu JuDgE LiOnS fOr KiLliNg ZeBrAs As WeLl?” is never a good argument. We don’t.) As caretakers for our pets some of their decisions naturally fall to us. You’re always deciding for them which brand of pet food your cat will get. For example I avoid nestle owned brands, wether my cat supports that decision or not. If he was an outside pet I’m sure he would at least try to murder something occasionally. That has nothing to do with my responsibility to honor the ramifications of my own ethical considerations though. My cat is too dumb for that - literally. It doesn’t release me from the responsibility.

(He gets meat btw, he has chronic digestive problems and needs special food anyway - before anyone here accuses me of murder and torture or something.)

Politely disagree. Saying something (even generalizing, which always tends to be wrong somewhere) about homophobic people doesn’t say anything about non homophobic people. You don’t have to identify with every gay person on earth, and you shouldn’t. There are gay people who just so happen to be assholes, too. Their existence doesn’t say anything about you at all.

It is victim blaming

I don’t think so personally. They are still the oppressor in the situation. “Being secretly gay” is an attempt to explain, not to shift blame to you.

we are not the reason homophobia exists or that people become extremely homophobic

I think it’s useful to seperate a causal explanation and the idea of responsibility. The fact that people are individuals and not unanimous blobs is - purely causally speaking - the reason why animosities based on our differences exists. Does that mean that the victims of hate are to blame? Definitely not. It’s always, always the responsibility of the one who commits discrimination.

It is not oppressed people that cause their own oppression

I agree, but more precisely it is homophobic people, gay or not, who cause the oppression of non homophobic gay people. I think this is true independently if the stereotype is true.

we don’t in some way “deserve” it.

Absolutely agree. Nobody deserves that.

If they do not see themselves as gay, they are not.

The idea is that they kinda see themselves as gay, or are afraid they might be, or subconsciously know they are; and because of extreme toxic masculinity and sexism they get hateful and aggressive.

There surely are non gay homophobic people as well though. After all, some hetero people happen to be assholes as well.

Athletic people tend to say that, but I really doubt it’s true for everyone. I have never enjoyed sport - being out of shape it sucked more, but while maintaining a sensible training regime I really dislike it as well. For me it’s about as enjoyable as doing housework. I do that too, but not for fun.

The only thing that has helped me is to accept that evolution is a bitch and biology is unfair; I will probably never enjoy working out, but I can do it anyway and find a form of exercise that is kinda okay and allows me to listen to good music while I do it.

For some people, “it will be fun one day” just sets a really unrealistic expectation.

Youth corrections staff is still a whole other story than doctors though. A physical examination is probably one of the most vulnerable positions one could be in. These cameras would record people getting naked, multiple orifices being examined, and patients talking about symptoms or things they are unsure and often ashamed about.

The cost would be enormous. I imagine many people would be even more reluctant to go to the doctor than they are now.

And the benefit, in my opinion, would be very slim. Medical malpractice is far more subtle than the examples from the article. As patients we’re rarely worried that our doctor will physically assault us, we’re worried about errors in judgement, delays in care, and prejudices based on gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, and so on. And those aren’t directly observable most of the time. Even if you get the moment on camera where your doctor decides to trivialize your symptoms you mostly wouldn’t be able to prove it happened for discriminatory reasons.

Why doctors? Filming patients would be a nightmare in terms of privacy and data policy.

In my line of work (psychotherapy) it would be equally impossible. People are having a hard enough time as it is opening up to medical professionals, I don’t think that the additional barrier of being actively filmed would help anyone.

It doesn’t seem to work on the German Wikipedia. Super weird decision to tie display settings to a language.

You’re right, but the same must be said for July 23rd. Both are abbreviating “day in the month of july” to a simple mention of the month.

At the end of the day both work, both are equally efficient, and simply come down to habit.

Coming from somewhere with the format the other way around, we do indeed say “23rd July” without all that extra fluff. So exactly the same efficiency wise. We simply count days like we’d count other stuff. For example I definitely didn’t had my coffee fourth just now.

Ironically, behind all this is a misconception that we’re actually constantly working on with our patients. The truth is that the clinics would function better and we could offer better therapy if, for example, we weren’t so overworked and enough staff were employed. But in order to achieve this, we would have to make decisions again and again in specific cases, which are less pleasant for patients in the short term. Specifically: saying no to our employers more often, strikes, and in the worst case resignation. Sensible in the long term, unpleasant in the short term. For our patients. And that’s the crux of it.

Unfortunately it is always easier to discover those mistakes in the thinking of others. I have met dozens of colleagues who avoid fighting for better working conditions for precisely these reasons (while advising their patients to avoid this error in particular). And clinics of course know this and take advantage of it.

So better negotiation skills are really only party of the solution (although also very important). I think in the long term we need better education and more focus on socialist ideas, specifically on how and why employee rights (and the ability to self-care) are such an integral requirement to a job well done.

That’s an interesting one. As a psychotherapist from Germany I can say we’re definitely not low paid, but it is much less than other academic professions, and especially in relation to the time it takes to get qualified (roughly 10 years) and the cost of approbation itself (varies from 30k-160k, and that’s in a country where education usually is free) it’s really not a good fit for someone who is very financially motivated. (Ironically because of the high upfront cost the job tends to attract people from well endowed backgrounds though.)

I think like in many helping professions we have a majority of very idealistic people who don’t negotiate very well. Employers get away with way too much because refusal at our side at first only ever hurts the patients, so we kinda keep up with it. Maybe something similar is happening in the professions that are in my mind actually the most underpaid for their time, and that’s nursing and care work of all sorts.