Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]

  • 0 Posts
  • 107 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 29th, 2020

help-circle
  • The first thing to note is that Buddhism is a broad term that contains a lot of different belief systems. It is also plagued by poor translations of terms that don’t translate well into English, especially without looking meanings of the original terms.

    Imo, your friend has distorted and misrepresented Buddhist teachings in order to justify not changing their behavior regarding meat-eating.

    I’d challenge the use of the term “deserved” altogether, and I’d say “caused” might be a more accurate interpretation. Karma is not about an intelligent, all-powerful being passing judgement and smacking you down. It’s sometimes referred to as “the law of cause and effect.” It’s described as a function of the universe, the same way that physical laws makes objects fall to the ground when dropped. The exact way in which this works is up to interpretation. More secular-minded Buddhists might point to logical and observable consequences to explain it, while more spiritually-minded ones might argue that it’s more of an invisible, unexplainable force that carries over between lifetimes.

    To use an example: a child that is fed a hamburger by their parents does not have knowledge of the animal’s suffering that was required to make it, nor do they have agency to control their diet or to prevent the animal from being harmed. But, an animal is still harmed through the process. The intent and agency of the actor are not important in the same way that it doesn’t matter if a ball on top of a slope is pushed or knocked over. It would only really matter if you’re dealing in terms of judgement.

    It is not your responsibility to enforce karma on others. Karma isn’t a positive or negative force, and just because something happens that doesn’t make it good or fair or deserved. Rather, the idea is to navigate the world in such a way that you minimize undesirable consequences. Buddhist precepts are a list of guidelines that are intend to do just that, the precept about nonviolence being the first. The idea is: “Bad things seem to happen a lot when people go around killing living beings so it’s probably better to not do that, generally speaking.”

    You are correct that your friend’s interpretation and worldview is a mess of contradictions that could just as easily be used to justify harm to humans, and that they’re blatantly violating the first precept. But I would argue that they’re not accurately representing Buddhist teachings, and their views shouldn’t be held as representative of the belief system, though admittedly, like I said there are a lot of different traditions and beliefs.





  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoScience Memes@mander.xyzPublic trust
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Exactly. The surgeon general tweeted out, “STOP WEARING MASKS” and CNN was publishing articles with all the anti-masker claims, including that they don’t work and could increase your risk of getting it instead, and people just pretend like it never happened and the anti-maskers came out of thin air.

    It wasn’t just an idiotic ploy to deliberately spread misinfo to trick people into leaving masks for doctors, it was also about the government trying to cover their own ass for having sold off their emergency stockpiles for fast cash.





  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlit's that time of year
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Food has a cultural component tied to its manufacture and identification. And IPAs are food that probably shouldn’t exist and which only does as a byproduct of market capitalism. They’re the Lacanian ‘object a’ - an empty, manufactured falseness. We don’t desire the thing itself, but the thing whose absence it symbolizes. What you’re really consuming when you drink an IPA is its innate mechanical predictability.

    (Thanks to the thread last week arguing about pumpkin spice lattes for giving me a new copypasta to use about anything I personally dislike.)




  • I was raised Catholic and left it at a young age and spent a lot of time uprooting the brainworms so I don’t think there’s much left. However, whenever I can’t find something I really need and start getting stressed, I’ll still recite, “Dear St. Anthony, please come around, my X has been lost and cannot be found.” It’s a useful way to calm down and focus instead of freaking out and panicking.

    Other than that, I still retain a lot of the theology I learned in high school, and I can still sometimes get a little opinionated about various things even though I have no dog in the fight.



  • Years ago I tried my hand gambling on politics on PredictIt, and I didn’t lose all that much, but there were a couple bets I lost that seemed like sure things. Mostly the lesson I learned is that talk is cheap and there’s no real consequences for people saying one thing and doing the other.

    For example, in the 2016 election, there was a market on whether no-name Carly Fiona would qualify for the CNN debate, and by the rules they set she didn’t qualify, but there hadn’t been as many polls in the right timeframe as had been expected. Still, they released a statement days before the debate, saying “rules are rules,” so I took a bet at like 90% odds thinking it was completely safe - then they let her in at the last minute and I lost big. I don’t remember the exact circumstances, but I think I lost a fair bit on a market about Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un, which was a pretty chaotic market. The most chaotic market I ever saw, which I avoided and wanted no part of, was whether Bernie would win Iowa in 2020, and watching it closely in real time made it very obvious that some really shady stuff was going on. Probably the most I ever lost was Biden winning the 2020 primary, which is about when I got out of it.

    I would not recommend gambling like that because if you have money on the line there’s an incentive to be glued to the news in a way that can be really unhealthy. Honestly the stress was worse than the money I lost. It’s more trouble than it’s worth, the fees will get you, also it’s generally more about predicting what the market will think so you can profit off the swings, and personally I think it’s kind of a distasteful way to engage in politics. At the same time, it can be a learning experience - it definitely got me in the habit of asking “And what consequences will this person face if they’re lying off their ass?” every time I see a headline about someone saying something, and of not paying as much attention to statements in general.



  • Have you considered the possibility that some people like the taste of pumpkin spice lattes? Or do you just get to dismiss everything you personally dislike as “The Lacanian ‘object a?’” You could substitute literally any food or drink for PSLs in what you said, it’s completely meaningless.

    It’s just empty words and phrases for you to feel superior to others based on what treats you enjoy or don’t enjoy.



  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.nettoMemes@lemmy.mlCan we please
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    There’s probably a way to link literally any given thing to white supremacy and cis heteronormativity provided you don’t care how tenuous the connection is. Hating mainstream stuff when you don’t have an actual reason is just a way to make yourself feel superior. Hell, I could probably draw a more compelling connection from hating basic stuff to white supremacy and cis heteronormativity than you could for the reverse.

    The infamous Drones are Queer paper is probably a good example of how it’s possible to draw a connection between virtually any two things if you try hard enough. Or just tell Chat GPT to write an explanation on how X and Y are linked for any two things.