That wouldn’t be a problem at all if we had better science journalism. Every psychologist knows that “a study showed” means nothing. Consensus over several repeated studies is how we approximate the truth.

The psychological methodology is absolutely fine as long as you know it’s limitations and how to correctly apply it. In my experience that’s not a problem within the field, but since a lot of people think psychology = common sense, and most people think they excel at that, a lot of laypeople overconfidently interpret scientific resultst which leads a ton of errors.

The replication crisis is mainly a problem of our publications (the journals, how impact factors are calculated, how peer review is done) and the economic reality of academia (namely how your livelihood depends on the publications!), not the methodology. The methods would be perfectly usable for valid replication studies - including falsification of bs results that are currently published en masse in pop science magazines.

HawlSera is generalising feminists, while at the same time critizising them for generalising.

Sorry, thats just not a perspective that deserves to be respected. It deserves to be corrected and criticized.

You seem to have left the conversation about the topic at hand altogether if the only thing you’re willing to talk about is her background.

Now you’ve lost me - should we all be held to the same standard or should OP be exempt from the general rules of decency because of their background?

Because if we’re talking about the standard of “unfair generalisations are unfair, don’t do it” (which is what I’ve been talking about, don’t know about you) then Queen HawlSera clearly failed to meet it.

The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.

But working against feminism is bigoted. I feel sorry if someone acts destructively because they had a horrible childhood - nevertheless, acting destructively in itself shouldn’t be tolerated.

I mean who actually benefits from ruining the reputation of feminism? Probably the very people who hurt Queen HawlSera as a child. We’re not doing kids like her any favors by allowing that.

Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.

Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!

I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.

All feminists?

Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.

And what does that have to do with feminism?

All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.

And now you blame feminists? It’s kinda astounding that your life experiences haven’t taught you what nonsense stereotypes and generalisations are.

…I guess it is kinda in theme with the comic though. Assuming that all trans people would get that would be just as generalising, and very apparently wrong.

It reinforces the idea for men not to bother getting help in the first place - you’re a man, they won’t take you seriously anyway, they will call you weak, don’t ask for help, just give up. That’s the inner logic of clinical depression and the comic supports it.

And it’s a really dangerous thing to imply because it could keep men further from the available support systems. It’s discouraging. I’m not questioning weather those things could have been said by someone, but it kinda seems like the author took some horrible TERF talking points and went “I guess it will be the same in mental health”.

The mindset of “it’s gotta be one or the other” is a false choice presented by the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians.

What fossil lobby or conservative politician is currently saying “okay guys you can have renewables, but then we will have to cut back on nuclear”? That’s the opposite of what conservatives are saying.

You are repeating a talking point that’s being spread around to distract from the fact that it is financially rewarding for the fossil lobby to postpone the transition away from them to sustainable energy sources as far as possible, which is exactly what will happen if we drain resources from renewables towards nuclear. And acting like our resources aren’t in some way limited is nothing but wishful thinking.

While you wait for the next nuclear power plant, the fossil fuel lobby is raking in record profits for decades to come.

Invest the money into renewables instead. And every bit of money you think you can get from “just raising the taxes a little” or “printing it” - invest that too. Everything else is a waste of time and resources.

We can do both.

If you have a set amount of money and resources to invest renewables are almost exclusively the better choice. Investing in nuclear instead means it will take even longer for us to wean off fossiles. That’s why it’s so useful for the oil lobby to support nuclear.

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This “replace with coal” bs is straight up misinformation.

You know what sucks as well? Taking too many painkillers against headaches actually causes headaches. Horrible ones at that. Glad to read that you’re feeling better, but that’s a real trap many people out there are stuck in.

What is your goal, and what are your methods to get there?

I wanted to show that your argument is stupid. That’s it, really.

Because I’ve never actually tried to convince you, or praise veganism, or do any of the things you’d like to argue against to begin with. You are arguing against an army of strawmen.

Claiming I’m the one who’s confused only makes you seem delusional. You seem desperate to stir the conversation into a direction where you’re getting praised for your diet choices, while I’m still amused about your original comment.

You’re standing on the proud achievement of a claim that is not only wrong, even if it was true, it wouldn’t work as an argument in your favor. Maybe on some intellectually detached level you are in fact aware how stupid of an argument that really is, so now you’re trying to change the topic to vegan goals and systematic issues and convincing people of your unsurpassable approach to a sustainable lifestyle.

I am not a hardliner by any means. And I’m not even talking down your eating habits. I’m talking down dumb arguments.

Sounds like there is still some room for improvement in terms of “eating as sustainably as they can” then.

I don’t subscribe to the vegan moral system, I find it often inconsistent and confused. Like here… What’s best for the bees? What’s best for the ecosystem? What’s best for the humans?

Do you mean the vegan moral system is confused, or are you confused? Because not many vegans are confused about those things, that much I can tell you.

Right now you’re voting with your wallet to increase an economic demand for the death of billions of innocent blades of grass. Not to mention dead animals - but we’re not talking about them, that would be silly.

Being sealed off wouldn’t have to mean having zero contact with the surrounding nature. I think we can coexist with predators while still using some land for agriculture - just not all of it.

That being said, it’s bold of you to assume someone conscious of the suffering of plants isn’t eating as sustainably as they can with the choices they have available

Oh so you are a vegan?

I am not vegan, but simply trying to understand how honey is bad, but as you say “unavoidable collateral damage of agriculture” or not.

Is bad as well, we simply have no good way of avoiding it.

Think about it this way: Beekeeping is bad, agriculture is bad. Can we avoid both? No. But can we avoid at least one of them? Easily so. So let’s do that - half a win is better than nothing.

There are many ways agriculture could be less harm, less pesticides, less monotone growing practices, more spread out growing. We do not have to accept these practices to not starve.

I agree, which is why many (if not all) vegans strive to support those more sustainable forms of agriculture. But economic constraints are a real thing for many people. Not everyone can always decide to buy the higher quality produce. If we can - good, let’s do that. While and if we can’t, same thing with the honey: Can we avoid all the problems at once? No, but at least we can do as best as reasonable possible, so let’s do that. That’s veganism for many people.

I don’t think honey collecting is worse than agriculture (even of direct plants for human consumption), so I don’t think vegans should discount honey.

Even if it’s just 1% worse than agriculture wouldn’t we reduce a bit of suffering by replacing it? And I mean it’s not even like we need honey for anything. We consume too much sugar anyway. Even if honey is exactly as harmful as sugar cane farming (which is debatable), by omitting it we would save not only agricultural resources but animal exploitation as well. Not consuming it is better than consuming it in terms of animal suffering. Since we don’t need to consume it, from a vegan perspective I think it’s understandable why that’s seen as preferable.