To add onto your already excellent answer, another reason that going vegan for purely health reasons doesn’t make sense is that, as you said, veganism isn’t a diet. Or more specifically, the ethical stance that is veganism includes more considerations than just food. Someone that eats plant based foods only may not care about things like leather or other animal products that they may use on a daily basis that aren’t part of their diet. That person wouldn’t be vegan, but rather simply eating a plant based diet. I don’t mean to be pedantic but that is the distinction between being vegan and eating a plant based diet and there is no reason to be entirely vegan for health reasons alone unless you want to take it to the extreme and say that you don’t use animal products like leather because the animal agriculture industry creates pandemics and contributes significantly towards global warming. Despite those being perfectly valid (and important) reasons to be vegan I think that it’s a bit of a stretch to call those personal health reasons.

I’d also just like to add that nutritional yeast is a great source of vitamin B12 and is naturally vegan.

What you’re referring to are legal classifications that prevent discrimination in very specific circumstances such as when applying for a job. When someone decides to make fun of vegans they absolutely DO NOT think to themselves “is that a legally protected class? No? Okay, I’m in the clear.” This reasoning is blatantly incorrect.

If this were the actual reason then why do people also discriminate against groups that are protected classes like women? The answer is because we aren’t in a court. We are talking about social values, not legal ones. Despite how much of a fucking asshole it would make someone to be misogynistic in their daily life there is nothing preventing them from doing so other than the fear of being outcast by their peers. It only becomes illegal in very specific circumstances.

I can’t speak for the people that made the community but I don’t think that places like this are necessarily made by vegans for vegans as you describe. Personally I can attest that it’s just extremely frustrating to be made to feel like an out group in the ONE community where you shouldn’t be made to feel like that. I personally welcome nonvegans to participate in discussion so long as they come with the understanding that they are a guest in our community and should respect the community as such which does include taking care to not come across as tone deaf. I’m not religious and in fact actively oppose religion but if I found myself at a church for whatever reason I’m not going to go in there and start a bunch of arguments and whatnot. I would be respectful because I understand that going to their place of worship and causing a commotion is uncalled for and doesn’t benefit anyone. To be clear, I’m not trying to say that veganism is a religion because it is not and it is not viewed in the same way as religion is by its followers. I am merely using the analogy to illustrate how you should act when going into a community that you are not a part of.

If someone is going to browse all then they should be aware that they are entering different communities and be respectful of those communities. If they are disrespectful, whether it is a result of being unaware or just not caring, in my opinion that should warrant an immediate ban pending a demonstration of understanding and admission that what they did was wrong. Unfortunately even that might not make a noticeable difference since many of the disrespectful people are probably not repeat posters. Beyond that the only thing that I’m aware of that could really be done is making the community private which is obviously not ideal. Perhaps there could exist some middle ground of a community not being private but also not appearing on all but I’m unaware of if that’s possible or if it would even be any better in practice.

In my experience it is not NEARLY as prevalent as when someone learns that you are vegan or finds out about vegan communities and whatnot. People make countless memes about vegans for example, but when was the last time you saw a meme about someone choosing to eat Halal? Because to my knowledge there is no scientific study on the different experiences of these groups it is impossible to talk about this topic in any way that isn’t anecdotal but for what it’s worth I have been all over the US and the anecdotal experience that I have had is so overwhelming that I refuse to believe someone is arguing in good faith if they are claiming that, for example, someone eating Halal has even a remotely similar experience to that of vegans.

My guess is that this is because people tend to associate other dietary or lifestyle decisions as being just a different way to live. Like oh, that person is Muslim or Jewish and that influences their diet. And they don’t take that as a personal judgement anymore than they do when they learn that that person is Muslim or Jewish to begin with. But with veganism it is usually not something that a person is raised into. It is a decision that that person has made after learning more about the animal agriculture industry and it is usually for ethical reasons primarily. Not because a religious book told them to. Therefore they hear that someone is vegan and are instantly defensive in a way that isn’t true with halal, kosher, etc.

Did you block it before or after taking the time out of your day to post this useless comment? And can you show me on the doll where it hurts?

That’s a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn’t matter what you do to it, you won’t get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don’t see how this technique couldn’t be applied.

Edit: and to be clear, I don’t know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn’t entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.

Makes sense. What a ridiculous statement to have made to begin with though.

It’s interesting that they would choose to blur them if it’s that sensitive considering blurring things isn’t actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.

And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn’t take long to do either.