I apologize if you thought I was implying that. I am in no way agreeing that there is a "Deep State" or anything to that effect. I was trying to draw criticism to DeSantis' use of the word Globalists, which does have antisemitic overtones, while the House just passed a bill that could lead to criticism of Israel in any way would count as antisemitism.

Sarcasm on the internet is hard to convey.

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

whatever new term comes into Vogue

These people are reading Vogue? That's an interesting twist. I wouldn't have thought the average Fascist would be all that into fashion. Fashists?

Our points don't disagree. Point #1 The goal is food production in order to sustain a growing population. Current production is ecologically and economically unsustainable. Point #2 The "global elite" wouldn't be caught dead eating lab grown meat unless they are doing a promo for the "lab grown meat" company.

Vertical farm viability scales almost inversely with electricity costs. And the latter trends lower and lower as time goes by. So I'm pretty confident that it's coming.

A law mandating Floridians pay more for their food than any other U.S.citizen. Yeah, I'm sure that won't be overturned.

You can, at least in my local grocery stores. Black bean burger patties have been available in the frozen section for years.

They're a bit of a rip off because they're way more expensive than a can of beans + spices, and probably an order of magnitude more expensive than dry beans + spices, but they're usually around the same price as the premade beef patties, by weight.

If my partner is insane, the pandemic did it to her. And how could it not, it killed her dad among several other people she loved.

It's the same line of reasoning with different excuses; I don't like it so no one should have it.

Tik Tok

Or pop tarts

It's in the Boing Boing article linked in the comment I first responded to.

https://boingboing.net/2024/04/29/after-a-vegan-blue-cheese-won-the-good-food-award-panicked-dairy-cheese-makers-forced-the-foundation-to-disqualify-it.html

After initially being named a finalist, Climax Blue cheese was later disqualified by the Good Food Foundation, reportedly due to issues around one of the ingredients (kokum butter) not having GRAS certification.

I think that's the point of lab grown meat. If you can harvest the stem cells of a living animal and use those to grow full sides of beef (I'm vastly oversimplifying the process), then no animals have been killed.

Bonus, emissions may be lower depending when comparing typical animal emissions vs the facility that produces the LGM.

Save your virtue signaling for someone else.

Pretty sure solar panels are legal in the US, jackass.

Korean bar near me has a dish with silkworm pupae and I am certainly curious. Mealworms and crickets haven’t been bad, but I usually only eat them to psych out Boy Scouts.

All I care about are two things: Does it taste good and is it okay to eat? If it fulfills those two requirements, I have no problem with it.

Petri dish free so you know the cells were free range as well.

It depends on the type of vegan. If they are vegan because they don’t like hurting animals, then lab grown meat is fine. If they are vegan because eating meat has a negative effect on their health, then it’s not fine.

Nah, I listen to Knowledge Fight which debunks Jones who rants about what you said. This meat is specifically lab grown, not alternative meats, so either DeSantis is a total moron to mix em up, or he's doing this sorta on what you're saying but more on the prop up beef markets side than scared of insects side. It's like dairy companies attacking any non dairy milk, like oatmilk, almondmilk, etc. This one feels less the conspiracy pipeline and more lobbying money.

Though obviously conspiracy speaking points.

I mean, politicians don't generally need to personally be involved in an industry for special interests to have an influence on policy.

I wonder if there's room for a Dormant Commerce Clause case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution.[1] The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

Thus, in a dormant Commerce Clause case, a court is initially concerned with whether the law facially discriminates against out-of-state actors or has the effect of favoring in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests. Discriminatory laws motivated by "simple economic protectionism" are subject to a "virtually per se rule of invalidity",[11] which can only be overcome by a showing that the State has no other means to advance a legitimate local purpose.[12]

On the other hand, when a law is "directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce that are only incidental", that is, where other legislative objectives are credibly advanced and there is no patent discrimination against interstate trade, the Court has adopted a much more flexible approach, the general contours of which were outlined in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.[13] If the law is not outright or intentionally discriminatory or protectionist, but still has some impact on interstate commerce, the court will evaluate the law using a balancing test. The Court determines whether the interstate burden imposed by a law outweighs the local benefits. If such is the case, the law is usually deemed unconstitutional.[14] In Pike, the Court explained that a state regulation having only "incidental" effects on interstate commerce "will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits".[15] When weighing burdens against benefits, a court should consider both "the nature of the local interest involved, and ... whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities".[citation needed] Thus regulation designed to implement public health and safety, or serve other legitimate state interests, but impact interstate commerce as an incident to that purpose, are subject to a test akin to the rational basis test, a minimum level of scrutiny.[16] In USA Recycling, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 66 F.3d 1272, 1281 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1995), the court explained:

If the state activity constitutes "regulation" of interstate commerce, then the court must proceed to a second inquiry: whether the activity regulates evenhandedly with only "incidental" effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce. As we use the term here, "discrimination" simply means differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter. The party challenging the validity of a state statute or municipal ordinance bears the burden of showing that it discriminates against, or places some burden on, interstate commerce. Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 336, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979). If discrimination is established, the burden shifts to the state or local government to show that the local benefits of the statute outweigh its discriminatory effects, and that the state or municipality lacked a nondiscriminatory alternative that could have adequately protected the relevant local interests. If the challenging party cannot show that the statute is discriminatory, then it must demonstrate that the statute places a burden on interstate commerce that "is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits."[17]

Thats good to know. Still, our govenor is an idiot

No it makes it not okay. Try reading, next time.

Cowboy boots with heels are definitely for men (helps keep your boot in the stirrup), but he's no cowboy.

Pretty much all the comments I've seen here were people praising it

I don't know how to explain this to you, but Lemmy users are made up of different people.

It's entirely possible you've encountered a bunch of people praising the TikTok ban. That doesn't mean any of those people are in this thread.

This take is as absurd as seeing some Pro-Palestine protesters and saying "oh, so now everyone's Pro-Palestine? I was just across the street at the counter protest and everyone was Pro-Israel!"