I personally don’t think that there is enough text in that comment to accurately decide if it was smug or not, but even if you believe that it was smug, I’m not gonna tell you you’re wrong, but if you agree that the point is correct and you’re only downvoting it because of how it was worded, I think you’re doing more damage to the Lemmy community than you’re doing good, since even if it is a smug comment it is not overtly smug, it is not disrespectful, and the point is valid and very important considering that animal lives are already overlooked and undervalued.

You’re definitely using the word genocide incorrectly here. A genocide would imply that the other commenter wants us to kill all farm animals right now, when in reality what they’re saying is that they want us to stop artificially breeding them, meaning not creating new life. As for the animals that already exist, yeah ideally we’d find some way to help them live their lives out, but realistically this change isn’t gonna happen in one day, it’s gonna take years, and as we reduce artificial insemination these animals will stop existing and so this issue of having all of these animals around won’t be real.

This is the equivalent of using a condom, not the equivalent of shooting someone in the face.

Look, horrible people who understand, accept, and celebrate atrocities always have and always will exist. These are tiny percentages of society. Are you really that horrible of a person? Or maybe you are just so deep in denial that you go for a distraction like childish insults that help you avoid facing reality? Or maybe just a troll?

In any case, I will not engage with you any further. Please reflect on your own views, actions, and words.

What extreme inaccuracy?

You can’t have smugness in such a short and concise comment. I jave no idea what intention was in the writer’s mind and neither do you.

Left field? This situation is a direct result of the animal products industry. Sure this comment is looking at the bigger picture, but it is very much on topic.

And you know what? even if it was smug, while not the best way to make a point, i think that when your point is valid the smugness is negligible.

Seems like it since apparently the international court is a joke.

Before you dislike this comment I want you to consider the objective logic here.

This situation, and literally billions like it are happening every year for one single reason, people enjoy (not need) consuming animal products. As a vegan I am actively trying to stop these situations, if you are not vegan, what are doing for these animals? What are you doing for the billions of others that die each day in horrendous ways?

If you truly care, consider the bigger picture, and consider your own hand in it as a consumer of the product of violence.

These facts might be harsh, and I don’t intend to harm you, I hope you can see that these are just facts, not insults.

Lol, the dislikes are very telling. If you put personal opinions aside this statement is 100% logical, but people can’t help but feel attacked when their hypocrisy is pointed out.

Yes, in a vegan world this would not happen because we wouldn’t be raising billions of farm animals, we wouldn’t treat them like something you ship in the mail, and no one would be buying 12000 chicks.

But people read this and can’t handle the reality that these situations happen because they want (not need) to consume animal products. Not to mention the hypocrisy of caring about these chicks while not caring about the ones being grinded to death every day for them to enjoy eggs and meat.

We need a “thank you for sharing and fuck that!” Option, not just a like and dislike

What do you expect? Half of these decision makers are complete idiots that are just good at making money and think that that means they are smarter than anyone who makes less than them. They then see some new hyped up tech, they chat with ChatGPT and they are dump enough to be floored by it’s “intelligence” and now they think it can replace workers but since it’s still early, they assume that it will quickly surpass the workers. So in their mind, firing ten programmers and saving like two million a year, while only spending maybe a few tens of thousands a year on AI will be a crazy success that will show how smart they are. And as time goes on and the AI gets better, they will save even more money. So why spend more money to help the programmers improve, when you can just fire them and spend a fraction of it on AI?

Man, just for this false hope we should ban all AI forever.

Mark my words, a decade from now vibe coding won’t be a thing because it will literally be calked regular coding and there will like “coding experts” or some shit that would basically be normal programmers that are good at it. And they will be tge only ones that can really solve novel problems.

Or, AI will actually get to a point of being a real programmer and not a (very cool but still just a) tool.

But just to cover my bases, it might also be neither.

Welcome to my TED talk on how to never be wrong!

Next they will try to “prove” to you that all triangles have three inner angles! Pfft, stop the religion of science!

Don’t worry! It’s only for 1 year and then you are done!

The pure nostalgia I just got 😌

Thanks!

Yeah but how would you see that?

4580515834270126 12/31 653

Oh man! How do I pronounce this?

This isn’t even my final form!

sheds penis and grows boobs

Calling steganography “Undetectable” is like a kid making a secret language that is just scrambled English words. Like yeah, it’s hard to decode and it is a secret, but it is detectable and it still needs a base to work (ie an already existing language or in this case actually executed code)

This is not news.