Aged like fine gatorwine.

Thank you. I just saw her video on that yesterday (via Nebula), and I was coming in these comments to make sure she was visible.

My parents would say you just haven’t been hungry enough. Their parents lived through the great depression. I wouldn’t know, but I hear people are having to make food/medicine trade offs, which seems more dire than flavor/texture preference tradeoffs.

That said, I don’t know a protein source that’s as available and cheap as beans, but you might try insects if cheap is the priority or poultry if availability is your priority.

You can buy a large bag of frozen vegetable blend and steam it fairly simply. You can either steam single serving and keep the rest frozen OR steam the whole bag in bulk, and refrigerate for up to a week, reheating single servings as you need them.

Best of luck.

Yeah, no. I cooked my own beans from dry and I was still overly gassy for a bit.

Best sloppy joes I ever had were mostly TVP. It is really great at absorbing the lipids from the meat AND spices.

I have always hated soaking beans, which is why the Instant Pot has been one of the single greatest cooking inventions I have ever used.

Exactly why I bought mine. Any pressure cooker will do. Beans (red, pinto, or black) 1 : 2 with water for 40 minutes, followed by natural release. I use roughly a pint of dried beans (1lb bag, then topped up out of a mixed-beans bag), to get 9 large servings.

I also do quinoa in the same cooker 1 : 5/4 with water (or sub up to half the water with stock) for 0 minutes (just bring up to high pressure), followed by natural release. I use 3 cups dry to make 9 servings.

Depending on your spice budget, you might feel like you are getting more by applying right before eating. But, if you want the spice flavors to permeate the beans, it’s best to add them to the pot and warm them just a bit with the saute setting before adding the beans (or quinoa/rice/grains) and water.

If you eat meat, miscut ham is also a good addition to the beans before cooking – they will share lipids and flavors.

I use nooch as a topping for mine, to try to keep it vegan, but what I really like is a Mexican shredded cheese blend.

No. Dehumanizing the intolerant is not acceptable. People can change and be redeemed (albeit rarely).

Yes, I was notified in the infosec.pub UI that today it was my cake day! 🎂

I’m not sold on the anarchist approach because I do believe their should be an authority that is capable of redistributing hoarded (by a minority) resources back into the commons, and said authority should be democratically controlled. In short, I think anarchy tends to devolve into warlord-ism as the selfish (non-socialist “libertarians”, e.g.) choose to use violence to amass power.

I think a lot of hateful speech should be legal, tho subject to cultural isolation. But I also believe that there should be legal restrictions on speech, inciting violence should clearly be restricted, but I also think speech can be stochastic violence and that should also be restricted. I think it should be legal to insult and belittle and offend people, but not to dehumanize them, and I think dehumanizing people should be punished through the removal of political power. I think a democratically controlled State (e.g. the FCC) is a better way to implement these restrictions than a privately-owned corporate Capitalist structure (e.g. Meta, X, Skydance, etc.).

So say we all!

I believe it was a satirical “compromise position” between the two positions in the image, yes.

once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die

I don’t believe this is universal; we have at least one reformed neonazi that is antifa now.

So, I’m all for taking away the political power of the intolerant, but I don’t think we should kill them because they are intolerant, even proudly intolerant. Now, I do think it is much more likely that you will have to enact violence against the intolerant in defense of yourself or others, and if that happens to be fatal to the intolerant person I still find defensive violence justified.

You first! /s

Well, we’ve never had direct democracy in the U.S. The People didn’t even vote for Senators for quite a while, and we still don’t vote for President, much less all the legislation and regulation done at various levels of government.

That said, I don’t really believe in unrestricted democracy anymore. I think the best solve for the “paradox of tolerance” is for intolerant persons to be prohibited from wielding political power, including the vote. I think the anarchist solve is non-binding democracy: a democratic decision, no matter how overwhelming, can’t reduce the freedom on the minority (and even the people that voted for it aren’t bound to it either, they voluntarily comply as long [or short] as they care to).

He’s a lot like Ralph the Wolf visually, and Ralph talks and punches a time card: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4

I pay for it, because I’ve always watched a lot of it and I got used to “YouTube Premium” when it was called “YouTube Red” and came free with “Google Music” (now called “YouTube Music”).

My argument is that self-defense is more narrow than your definition. At the point in the conversation when we were exchanging definitions of that term, no specific acts had been mentioned in the thread/post.

The threat of that particular CEO has now been neutralized. It was arguably legitimate at the time he was shot, tho.

I certainly think it is possible to argue neither of those threats were/are neutralized. But that may say more about me than I really want to impose on anyone else.

“No War But Class War” ?

It’s only self-defense if the threat is legitimate and not already neutralized. Even if a murderer has expressed their intent to escape and kill again, if they are already captured and constrained executing them is wrong.

Some deaths in the process of neutralizing threats may be unavoidable and just. That could include resistance or revolution. But, no, you don’t get to justly kill anyone based on their mere willingness to kill you.

Dehumanization is denying someone human rights.

Fascists can and should be denied political power, not human rights.

You and I might disagree about the specifics of human rights, but I doubt we disagree that they exist.