And Hill's biscuits. They're the only people who can fuck up a custard cream. Mind boggling.
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
877 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
10395 readers
1336 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. You can replace the addres of .x.com to xcancel.com in the address. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement (see rule 6)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I love that argument where the AI addict asked if I hate AI so much, would I be able to complete my work without it. And apparently AI all shut down yesterday, and I didn't notice whatsoever because that's how much I use it.
What about lawns reconverted to preservation spaces with native plants, and an occasional bumbling human meandering about?
Those aren't lawns:
Some people misuse the term so I wanted to be sure
Me IRL
Does this include golf in Wii Sports?
Yes, because if kids see golf in video games, it will make them want to golf in real life
Yes, even in Wii sports the golf courses contributed to global warming, that's why we have storm island
I love space tourism! It paves the way for humans to travel far beyond this planet. Plus, in the early days, we might get to see a billionaire become a firework 🤞
You can just call it capitalism. Almost every problem with everything listed is actually a capitalism problem not something inherent to itself.
All of those existed way before capitalism. Except the ones that require technology more advanced than what they had available.
And several of them were/are issues in "non-capitalist" countries like the USSR and China. (Though, to be fair, those are still state capitalist.)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Thank you! So many AI bros keep going "then why aren't you against xyz?" And I'm like, I am? I can actually have a consistent moral framework?
But how do you have such a big context window???
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lawns are fine. Having lawns and nothing else is a problem. Filling your lawn with chemicals is a problem. Most people I know who have lawns don't do that. They also have rich borders and beds and planters and wild areas. I post a different pic everyday here of bugs I find in my garden; the grass and clover and soil itself is full of life. Most people need an open space to play or entertain or whatever, and a lawn - though not a wildflower meadow - beats decking or concrete.
Yeah, I was prepared to completely agree with everything, but "lawns"? I have ~100m² of grass where my child and dog are free to play within the boundaries. Is this capitalistic of me?
most lawns are monoculture, water hungry and non native
the native focused setups being the few alternatives but those are not really lawns
I don't think your first statement is true. Most people I know or places I've lived in or been have a mixed, lived‑in garden where the lawn is one component of a wider ecosystem. Most don't look like the green on a golf course.
A lawn with clover, moss, daisies, micro‑wild patches, little plants I can't even name that drift in on the wind, and healthy soil full of ants and worms and beetles and spiders and things I need to photograph and identify is not a monoculture. It’s a low meadow kept short that hosts plenty of life.
Go take a look in any real garden or lawn for 10 minutes. You'll find life.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Lawns are fine.
They really aren't. Even without the chemicals, they're still incredibly water-hungry and require intensive irrigation in most climates. And even if you have some garden beds around the edges, the lawn itself is still mostly an ecological dead zone when it comes to biodiversity and habitat. Not to mention that it also requires a lot of work (often assisted by fossil-fuel-powered machinery) to maintain.
And all just for aesthetics? Or -- at most -- used as a dog bathroom? Lawns are still incredibly wasteful, even in the most ideal circumstances.
Do people... water lawns? Well obviously don't grow them there then. You leave a patch of ground completely alone around here and much of what ends up growing there is still various types of grass, some of which we also use in our lawn seed mixes.
And what's a natural alternative that's nice to walk on barefoot in the summer?
A patch left alone will become grasses again because biodiversity in the area has been eliminated and the non native grasses will out-compete native plants.
To return an area to nature requires considerable effort to ensure natives can reestablish in an area and keep invasives out.
As for walking barefoot, use paths or don't go barefoot. Your desire to walk barefoot does not trump the need for a healthy ecosystem.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Edit: disregard this comment, I mistranslated lawn in to garden/backyard, i am not native english
Filling your lawn with chemicals is a problem
~~Nile~~ Mr. Green sweating in the corner
Call it data prison. Once they get your files, they don't give them out, hold them hostage for a fee you pay.
Monoculture farming is pretty much the only thing that's keeping billions upon billions from starvation and is pretty much the foundation of society.
There's also not that much wrong with it. You can absolutely do modern farming sustainably, it's just many don't. So, like all companies, farmers need to be forced to do the right thing.
Also, the Netherlands is basically a giant floodplane, and wetre all fine. It's not our fault other places have a skill issue.
the Netherlands is basically a giant floodplane, and wetre all fine.
...so far.
What with climate change, larger storms, and sea level rise, though ... might get a bit more spicy in the times to come.
load more comments
(1 replies)
While some of the feats of large scale agriculture seem impressive, the fossil fuel industry and those who sell the machinery seem to have inflated the numbers quite a lot.
Biodiverse landscapes grow a higher density of food with fewer pesticides and herbicides, and better soil health and water retention in the long term. The problem: you need those pesky people to maintain and harvest complex biodiverse systems, and they want livable wages! Best call them savages and uncivilized, drive them away in the name of progess and force everyone to use your machines, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and fuels.
The problem: you need those pesky people to maintain and harvest complex biodiverse systems, and they want livable wages! Best call them savages and uncivilized, drive them away in the name of progess and force everyone to use your machines, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and fuels.
Yeah, you can pretty much only do polyculture by hand, that's true. Are you suggesting we go back to unmechanized farming?
That would be super great for the planet, as it would cause the deaths by starvation of roughly 90% of the population, with the majority of the remaining humans forced into subsistence farming.
Neither corpses not subsistence farmers would cause much pollution. It might be somewhat hard to get volunteers for it though.
On the other hand, you can absolutely maintain a biodiverse landscape AND use mechanized monoculture fields. You just need to give nature time and space too, and that's something most farmers refuse to do. Which is why they should be forced to. I don't see why a factory gets banned from destroying biodiversity, but it's fine when farmers do it.
give nature time and space
That's what a biodiverse landscape does? I didn't say unmechanized - but there's a difference between running giant machines over 200ha of the same and running a small tractor over a 2ha field. For the landscape it makes all the difference: having 2ha of one thing, then a hedge (that can contain edible fruits and berries), then something else, maybe have pasture with nut and chestnut on it, instead of just pasture.
Even in a small vegetable garden planting different plants together is so much easier. Higher plants give shade to smaller ones, aromatic ones protect pest-endangered ones ... recreating an actual ecosystem is the real deal.
Todays' rural areas are empty of people. They were bought out by those people who consented to being enslaved by the machine and fuel complex. The ones who were forced to leave had to become wage slaves in the cities. The ones who run the system now don't even want to touch the soil anymore! They just send a fucking drone to analyze where to dump how much of their chemicals. It's not a sustainable way of managing soil and water.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›