Most veg Indian food has dairy added tho. Avoiding ghee is like going through an obstacle course of nice aunties and uncles trying to feed you. And don’t even get me started on curd.
Indian vegans also often use substitutes. I’m for vegan food unity: don’t harm and exploit animals and I support you.
If that’s the kind of logic that convinces you of things, you should check out all of the other people saying the same thing as me.
Basically your one job as a leftist when it comes to capitalist propaganda is to not unquestioningly repeat it and guess what you’re doing, lib. And it’s in the realm of orientalism to boot. Not exactly distinguishing yourself.
Try fixing that section, which is entirely speculation, and see how quickly it gets reverted and by whom. You’ll quickly run into either a power user with reactionary politics that should’ve been banned ages ago per Wikipedia’s own policies or a series of FirstWordLastWord962578 accounts making reversions with no explanation.
The latter is what lazy government behavior looks like. The former is the larger social structures built around the acceptability and empowerments of reactionary thought and narratives that is inherently anticommunist.
But really, go do it. Remove the section as speculation and show/tell us what happens.
That’s ideally science but you’re gonna have low-impact papers if you don’t do the “look at this new thing I ‘proved’” song and dance. Publishing culture and self-promotion in academia make everything worse.
Incidentally, I know someone that tried publishing a paper to explain why a very common method actually led to bad results very often. It showed methodology and had verification from another group using independent materials. The paper was rejected because, “everyone knows that method X works great you must’ve done something wrong”.
There’s a lot of myth-making in how science works, following prescriptive announcements of “the scientific method”. In reality it’s just humans trying things out and using “good enough” ideas regardless of how well they are investigated. If the ideas are truly 100% wrong in a way that precludes further work, they’ll get discarded. But wrong ideas can still persist for decades or more so long as they don’t disrupt other things working well enough. That methodology earlier was “good enough” despite major flaws so the academy said, “it’s actually 100% right” right up until they abandoned the method (which they did for unrelated reasons).
Per the other reply to you, you might recall when I went over our consensus perspective on Ukraine, how it is motivated by understanding the best possible outcome for Ukrainian lives and contrasting this with the bloodthirsty liberal approach you’ve supported (all dressed up in “concern”).
Is it the “uninformed” and life-devaluing comments you’re referring to?