All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

  • 3 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: October 20th, 2023
  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyz•Acorns!English
    1·
    10 days ago

    It’s not a phobia […]

    For the sake of argument, Merriam-Webster defines the “phobia” suffix as:

    intolerance or aversion for [1]

    as well as

    exaggerated fear of [1]

    That being said, one can define a words however they wish — imo, all that matters is that those engaged in a conversation together all use the same definitions. If you would like to reserve the “phobia” suffix to represent only “exaggerated fear of”, what would you propose in its stead to represent “intolerance or aversion for”?

    References
    1. Type: Definition. Title: “-phobia”. Publisher: “Merriam-Webster”. Accessed: 2025-07-19T23:36Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.workstoYou Should Know@lemmy.world•YSK that apart from not having a car and voting, the single greatest thing you can do for the climate is simply eating less red meat.English
    0·
    20 days ago

    What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.