5 ms·

Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown

Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown abominations.

Eumenes 4y ago
Exactly this ... or you forgot their favorite F word, Fascism
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I wouldn't say favorite but it's definitely been a useful one recently.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
To me it seems to be when it's irrational reactionary overreach. If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening and why does it need to be banned before it even becomes a real thing? Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand?
- orangepurple 4y ago
  You seem to forget that brainwashing and propaganda are a thing
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    I didn't forget that. Isn't that another strike against populism? Or is the idea here that the change in diet will still succeed due to nefarious brainwashing, implying that the majority of the people will succumb, but that this is contrary to the REAL will of the people? The will of the majority of the people should be listened to now because they are clearly not brainwashed when they have an idea I agree with, but will be at some indeterminate point in the future when it's something I don't like? That seems ideologically inconsistent but terribly convenient.
- dalmo3 4y ago
  > If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening Because of who is behind the unpopular thing, and who has power to make (thing) happen. Nuclear weapons are also deeply unpopular. > Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand? The market won't have a say when bureaucrats pass a law mandating every burger or sausage should contain a % of lab-grown meat, with the % increasing every year. If there's anything the recent years have showed is that slippery slope isn't a fallacy.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > Because of who is behind the unpopular thing, and who has power to make (thing) happen. Who? The government that's currently banning it? > Nuclear weapons are also deeply unpopular. Consumers can't just not buy nuclear weapons and cause them to stop existing. This has nothing to do at all with a food product. > The market won't have a say when bureaucrats pass a law mandating every burger or sausage should contain a % of lab-grown meat, with the % increasing every year. Why would they do this? And wouldn't the people who had to do this be the same Italian government that's clearly anti-lab grown meat? If they switch to that stance won't this ban be easily rescinded anyways? If there's a lab meat boogie man with the power to make new laws what does this ban really do?
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      Nearly all (if not literally all) of the dystopic sounding stuff being pitched as the way of the future is coming from the World Economic Forum [1]. 'Eat the bugs', "Lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world", "You will own nothing, and be happy", are some of the more visible positions/slogans put out by the WEF. It's primarily made up of a global 'alliance' of the ultra-rich, politicians, large multinational corporations, and banks. An upstanding, ethical, and socially minded collection if I've ever seen one. Reversing a law, especially one that would be exceptionally popular is unlikely to succeed. By contrast, so long as e.g. lab meat remains legal - there are lots of ways to work behind the scenes to achieve your ends. One of the easiest is labeling. By allowing lab meat to simply be labeled as meat, consumer choice can be largely eliminated. Pair this with artificial subsidies to the lab meat industry, and you completely undermine the market in a rather quiet fashion. It all has the same effect, without the same degree of outrage, as trying to overturn a popular law would. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum
ben_w 4y ago
"Lab grown abominations" are the only way I, as a vegetarian, get to enjoy hard cheese. GM bacteria rennet. Of course, part of why I'm vegetarian is that the idea of scraping off the stomach lining of a baby cow in order to turn milk into a convenient solid is, to me, also an abomination…
- xdennis 4y ago
  It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. The fact that you perceive something natural as an abomination is a symptom of a society that's too successful and needs to invent problems where there are none.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. If the cow could speak, I believe their opinion would be otherwise. Humans don't generally appreciate it when lions, tigers, and bears beat them to the top of the food chain. Perfectly natural, that hypocrisy; as natural as your face being eaten by leopards. > The fact that you perceive something natural as an abomination is a symptom of a society that's too successful and needs to invent problems where there are none. Lots of natural stuff has been "an abomination" to one group or another since writing existed, regardless of how successful the societies have been. Examples in Leviticus, amongst other ancient texts. Shellfish are natural.
    - C-x_C-f 4y ago
      > If the cow could speak, I believe their opinion would be otherwise. Except cows... Don't speak? That's kind of the whole point. We can't apply human value judgements to other species that work in a fundamentally different way. > Humans don't generally appreciate it when lions, tigers, and bears beat them to the top of the food chain. It's safe to say no carnivore/omnivore denies that animals suffer. And I'd bet most of us are not happy that they do. It's just not a deal breaker, seeing as it's outweighed by many benefits.

Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown abominations.

Eumenes 4y ago

Exactly this ... or you forgot their favorite F word, Fascism

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I wouldn't say favorite but it's definitely been a useful one recently.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

To me it seems to be when it's irrational reactionary overreach. If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening and why does it need to be banned before it even becomes a real thing? Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand?

orangepurple 4y ago
You seem to forget that brainwashing and propaganda are a thing
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  I didn't forget that. Isn't that another strike against populism? Or is the idea here that the change in diet will still succeed due to nefarious brainwashing, implying that the majority of the people will succumb, but that this is contrary to the REAL will of the people? The will of the majority of the people should be listened to now because they are clearly not brainwashed when they have an idea I agree with, but will be at some indeterminate point in the future when it's something I don't like? That seems ideologically inconsistent but terribly convenient.
dalmo3 4y ago
> If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening Because of who is behind the unpopular thing, and who has power to make (thing) happen. Nuclear weapons are also deeply unpopular. > Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand? The market won't have a say when bureaucrats pass a law mandating every burger or sausage should contain a % of lab-grown meat, with the % increasing every year. If there's anything the recent years have showed is that slippery slope isn't a fallacy.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > Because of who is behind the unpopular thing, and who has power to make (thing) happen. Who? The government that's currently banning it? > Nuclear weapons are also deeply unpopular. Consumers can't just not buy nuclear weapons and cause them to stop existing. This has nothing to do at all with a food product. > The market won't have a say when bureaucrats pass a law mandating every burger or sausage should contain a % of lab-grown meat, with the % increasing every year. Why would they do this? And wouldn't the people who had to do this be the same Italian government that's clearly anti-lab grown meat? If they switch to that stance won't this ban be easily rescinded anyways? If there's a lab meat boogie man with the power to make new laws what does this ban really do?
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Nearly all (if not literally all) of the dystopic sounding stuff being pitched as the way of the future is coming from the World Economic Forum [1]. 'Eat the bugs', "Lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world", "You will own nothing, and be happy", are some of the more visible positions/slogans put out by the WEF. It's primarily made up of a global 'alliance' of the ultra-rich, politicians, large multinational corporations, and banks. An upstanding, ethical, and socially minded collection if I've ever seen one. Reversing a law, especially one that would be exceptionally popular is unlikely to succeed. By contrast, so long as e.g. lab meat remains legal - there are lots of ways to work behind the scenes to achieve your ends. One of the easiest is labeling. By allowing lab meat to simply be labeled as meat, consumer choice can be largely eliminated. Pair this with artificial subsidies to the lab meat industry, and you completely undermine the market in a rather quiet fashion. It all has the same effect, without the same degree of outrage, as trying to overturn a popular law would. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum

ben_w 4y ago

"Lab grown abominations" are the only way I, as a vegetarian, get to enjoy hard cheese. GM bacteria rennet. Of course, part of why I'm vegetarian is that the idea of scraping off the stomach lining of a baby cow in order to turn milk into a convenient solid is, to me, also an abomination…

xdennis 4y ago
It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. The fact that you perceive something natural as an abomination is a symptom of a society that's too successful and needs to invent problems where there are none.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > It's not an abomination to eat natural food. Any carnivore/omnivore would eat a cow if it could. If the cow could speak, I believe their opinion would be otherwise. Humans don't generally appreciate it when lions, tigers, and bears beat them to the top of the food chain. Perfectly natural, that hypocrisy; as natural as your face being eaten by leopards. > The fact that you perceive something natural as an abomination is a symptom of a society that's too successful and needs to invent problems where there are none. Lots of natural stuff has been "an abomination" to one group or another since writing existed, regardless of how successful the societies have been. Examples in Leviticus, amongst other ancient texts. Shellfish are natural.
  - C-x_C-f 4y ago
    > If the cow could speak, I believe their opinion would be otherwise. Except cows... Don't speak? That's kind of the whole point. We can't apply human value judgements to other species that work in a fundamentally different way. > Humans don't generally appreciate it when lions, tigers, and bears beat them to the top of the food chain. It's safe to say no carnivore/omnivore denies that animals suffer. And I'd bet most of us are not happy that they do. It's just not a deal breaker, seeing as it's outweighed by many benefits.