4 ms·

From your comment one might be inclined to picture that Koreans add it into everything which they do no more or less than other countries that consume it. You

From your comment one might be inclined to picture that Koreans add it into everything which they do no more or less than other countries that consume it. You would have to specifically ask for this ingredient at a restaurant and it is only kept alive if it is prepared in a seafood restaurant specifically which they keep them alive and fresh to be consumed usually raw since its a bad idea to consume already dead raw fishes. I guess what you wrote does a really great job of illustrating the subtle passive aggressive tones often used by journalists in the West to mock or bring their personal stereotype views of the world while virtue signaling, constantly thinking and telling others what a great, upright, outstanding set of moral upbringing you've had, will have as a result of the perceived quality of life you might be experiencing. Following such mindset I can see why somebody in the West might be construed as uppity and condescending, they are not able to see at all the bubble that they've constructed not through actually perceiving things as they are but how it makes you FEEL informed, intelligent, morally superior being that you believe yourself you are. Which really leaves to little debate as to what the PURPOSE of these articles are: They are specifically brought to light to make the reader believe they are morally upright descent human beings that the rest of the world simply isn't. THE question to ask here is why is the population constantly subject to such reminders through mass media and why is there so much deliberate and urgency that can't be found in other parts of the world? Does it strike you that what we lack is probably what we are taught to believe as it would not fit with the reality that has been constructed in this country?

bane 5y ago
I think it's interesting that there are comments even here that say something along the lines of "once I learned that the octopus is capable of thinking I stopped eating them (even though I eat other animals much higher up the evolutionary ladder)". What it says to me is that some people stopped eating them because it was surprising that octopuses have a complex sensory response system, because they never thought about it. But it's not surprising that a cow does so they keep eating them.
- deutschewelle 5y ago
  > once I learned that the octopus is capable of thinking I stopped eating them (even though I eat other animals much higher up the evolutionary ladder)" Yes and this is exactly the issue here, that people in the world are increasingly incapable of being grounded in principle, its whatever in that moment is trendy to believe, do etc., through group thinking. Social media does a great job of trust in large numbers. And going back to the original parent comment, this is largely cultural is it not? We are simply using the ideas that arise from one culture to impose it on the other only to be disappointed. > What it says to me is that some people stopped eating them because it was surprising that octopuses have a complex sensory response system, because they never thought about it. But it's not surprising that a cow does so they keep eating them. It is insane to me that the people arguing octopus lives matter essentially, are not seeing the irony of their reaction, that they would continue to tolerate the farming of foods that they regularly consume (beef, chicken) but not under the same amount of vigor and without the same level of virtue signaling attached with such dangerous thought exercise. The craziest take away is that literally people will stop doing a behavior that is inconsistent with their own values, as long as they are made to FEEL informed. If the documentary was mostly powerpoint slides it is NOT possible to FEEL because it does not try to pander or manipulate the emotions of the audience. The sad matter of the fact is that being informed with facts that you have to weigh yourself and reach your own conclusion is too difficult, (boring even!) that the individual living in the so called "First World" CANNOT/MUST NOT be burdened with because they are too busy with whatever ephemeral activities they are engaged in at any given time. Remember! Original Parent noted eating octopus NEVER bothered him UNTIL he saw a Netflix documentary. Or one can reduce this to an outsider: Individuals in the West are increasingly growing dependent on for-profit motivated organizations to think and judge for them. The more obfuscated and difficult it is to follow the cui bono chain, the increasingly emotional and tribal they become. ex) If YC startup selling imitation crustacean meat was behind the Octopus Lives Matter, one would immediately deduce there are biases and conflict of interest and such narrative would lose credibility. However, if the distance between whoever benefits and the narrative is wide and uncertain (multiple beneficiaries) it becomes increasingly credible (must be of good non-profit social cause) and resilient against Truths that challenge it. Often explanations that deviate from the narrative are labelled with hostility and written off as conspiracy... and on HN, such contrary views are quickly downvoted and censored outright.

bane 5y ago

I think it's interesting that there are comments even here that say something along the lines of "once I learned that the octopus is capable of thinking I stopped eating them (even though I eat other animals much higher up the evolutionary ladder)". What it says to me is that some people stopped eating them because it was surprising that octopuses have a complex sensory response system, because they never thought about it. But it's not surprising that a cow does so they keep eating them.

deutschewelle 5y ago
> once I learned that the octopus is capable of thinking I stopped eating them (even though I eat other animals much higher up the evolutionary ladder)" Yes and this is exactly the issue here, that people in the world are increasingly incapable of being grounded in principle, its whatever in that moment is trendy to believe, do etc., through group thinking. Social media does a great job of trust in large numbers. And going back to the original parent comment, this is largely cultural is it not? We are simply using the ideas that arise from one culture to impose it on the other only to be disappointed. > What it says to me is that some people stopped eating them because it was surprising that octopuses have a complex sensory response system, because they never thought about it. But it's not surprising that a cow does so they keep eating them. It is insane to me that the people arguing octopus lives matter essentially, are not seeing the irony of their reaction, that they would continue to tolerate the farming of foods that they regularly consume (beef, chicken) but not under the same amount of vigor and without the same level of virtue signaling attached with such dangerous thought exercise. The craziest take away is that literally people will stop doing a behavior that is inconsistent with their own values, as long as they are made to FEEL informed. If the documentary was mostly powerpoint slides it is NOT possible to FEEL because it does not try to pander or manipulate the emotions of the audience. The sad matter of the fact is that being informed with facts that you have to weigh yourself and reach your own conclusion is too difficult, (boring even!) that the individual living in the so called "First World" CANNOT/MUST NOT be burdened with because they are too busy with whatever ephemeral activities they are engaged in at any given time. Remember! Original Parent noted eating octopus NEVER bothered him UNTIL he saw a Netflix documentary. Or one can reduce this to an outsider: Individuals in the West are increasingly growing dependent on for-profit motivated organizations to think and judge for them. The more obfuscated and difficult it is to follow the cui bono chain, the increasingly emotional and tribal they become. ex) If YC startup selling imitation crustacean meat was behind the Octopus Lives Matter, one would immediately deduce there are biases and conflict of interest and such narrative would lose credibility. However, if the distance between whoever benefits and the narrative is wide and uncertain (multiple beneficiaries) it becomes increasingly credible (must be of good non-profit social cause) and resilient against Truths that challenge it. Often explanations that deviate from the narrative are labelled with hostility and written off as conspiracy... and on HN, such contrary views are quickly downvoted and censored outright.