this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
190 points (67.9% liked)
memes
22064 readers
3242 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There alternatives are still harm reduction, I agree that linkrot is a real issue and that animal testing is rather neglected by most vegans. However the fact that there are alternatives to the way we do animal testing, that quite a few are due to regulatory restrictions and not necessary in the scientific sense is not false information.
I would also like to point out that this expectation of always having a well-studied understanding with sources at the ready seems to not be applied when carnists post stuff like "animal testing is necessary", "animal ag's impact on the climate is negligible" etc.
No not false information as fake news. The word i search for was "Faktenverdrehung" in german which is not false information but something like warped information and not know good word in english. So i default to false information.
The second: just because opposition do bad thing not ok for you to do same. Especially if most important point to science, still able to get good result, is misrepresent. Maybe you care more about ethic than science, so might nitpick about thing that i specifially care lot about.
I not care if you understand fully what quote. But that know enough about source to jugde quality of information. And give context for that. For example that this website seem extremely focus on ethic, given only 3 source for science and a lot more for ethic. (And maybe if copy paste use > in front of text to show it quote and not own text, then i would go to website to search not ask you).
Also if care about link rot save important resource in wayback machine.