Milk and Dairy

NcdJd

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Mod note:

As of now this thread needs to stay on topic. Personal attacks, trolling and bickering have all got to stop or there will be consequences. Consider this your warning.

Thread title guarantees the conversation will be anything but civil in my opinion.

ganmo

sunnib wrote: »

Hi, what about organic dairy products? Organic cattle farmers claim to observe animal welfare.
I very much enjoy eating buttter, sometimes use mayo instead, but I could not do without cheese. Vegan cheese is too expensive
(I know - "you don't know what you can do until you have to.. " but if there was a win-win option ..)

Animal welfare is not a black and white thing. Its poor animal welfare to put a healthy dog down but if that dog is suffering then it is good animal welfare.

auspicious

Jjameson wrote: »

If a landowning farmer was motivated just by money he/she would let it or sell it.
I love my animal and I also love to eat them.
There is no profit in anything but the best animal welfare.
The happier and more comfortable the animal the better the thrive.
The more humane the slaughter process the better the efficiency,quality and yield of meat.
Emotive terms such as “torture” “babies”
may carry water among your peers but don’t change logical facts.

"The happier and more comfortable the animal the better the thrive" . That goes without saying. ...

Torture and babies I would see them as descriptors rather than emotive terms. Babies, I may have used but that's just go to common vernacular. Torture I would use in context as when I used it to describe the treatment of the pigs the the Irish factory farming video posted earlier in the thread.
Though if I forcibly impregnated a female human against her will repeatedly for personal gain she would describe it as torture.
But if it happens to a cow it's not?

Other than those two examples I can't remember using those descriptors.

Lady Haywire

Is it just A.I that you don't like?? A bull in the field is ok but the choosing of specific bulls for a cow is not?
(there are many different reasons for choosing frozen semen bulls over using a bull in the field)

And I've seen cows break through hedges/fences to get to a bull, heard them roaring the shed down to get a bull to hear them & a bull about a half KM away responding in kind once he heard the cow.

Donald Trump

auspicious wrote: »

Though if I forcibly impregnated a female human against her will repeatedly for personal gain she would describe it as torture.
But if it happens to a cow it's not?

Farmers shouldn't do such barbaric things of course. Not in this day an age. They should allow the cow and bull to choose.

And of course, after the bull brings her out on a few dates, and she is satisfied to choose him as a partner, they can of course sign a legal consent agreement to make sure that consent is gained before doing the deed. We don't want any retroactive claims of #metoobulled. The contract will protect both willing partners.



Of course, she will also be facilitated in her access to whatever types of birth control she would like, just in case for example, she doesn't want to get pregnant at that point in time. It might not suit her career etc.

auspicious

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Is it just A.I that you don't like?? A bull in the field is ok but the choosing of specific bulls for a cow is not?
(there are many different reasons for choosing frozen semen bulls over using a bull in the field)

And I've seen cows break through hedges/fences to get to a bull, heard them roaring the shed down to get a bull to hear them & a bull about a half KM away responding in kind once he heard the cow.

Your second paragraph. And??
That's nature for you.
Though it is different when you intentionally place the bull and cow together. Your intended purpose is personal gain. That's what exploitation is.

auspicious

Donald Trump wrote: »

Farmers shouldn't do such barbaric things of course. Not in this day an age. They should allow the cow and bull to choose.

And of course, after the bull brings her out on a few dates, and she is satisfied to choose him as a partner, they can of course sign a legal consent agreement to make sure that consent is gained before doing the deed. We don't want any retroactive claims of #metoobulled. The contract will protect both willing partners.



Of course, she will also be facilitated in her access to whatever types of birth control she would like, just in case for example, she doesn't want to get pregnant at that point in time. It might not suit her career etc.

Why secure the cow while forcibly impregnating her? Why doesn't she happily back up to the pipettes?

Lady Haywire

auspicious wrote: »

Your second paragraph. And??
That's nature for you.
Though it is different when you intentionally place the bull and cow together. Your intended purpose is personal gain. That's what exploitation is.

Yes, and if a heifer was to break away to a bull which is too big for her there will be complications at birth. Hence why frozen semen is used with a smaller breed of bull which may not always be available in the local area.

I don't run a farm to have pets. A cow has to pay her way to stay here. You say exploitation, I could also say she's an employee of sorts.

auspicious

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Yes, and if a heifer was to break away to a bull which is too big for her there will be complications at birth. Hence why frozen semen is used with a smaller breed of bull which may not always be available in the local area.

I don't run a farm to have pets. A cow has to pay her way to stay here. You say exploitation, I could also say she's an employee of sorts.

The cow was put there. It's captive.
Yeah when you keep slaves you gotta put them to work don't ya!

Donald Trump

auspicious wrote: »

Why secure the cow while forcibly impregnating her? Why doesn't she happily back up to the pipettes?

So you want to change the goalposts from the concept of impregnating the animal to the method of impregnation? Interesting.



If the cow wasn't "secured" then you'd be fine? Easily enough done. I mean it's done for the safety of the person. But all you need to do, even if the cow wouldn't stand, is to put a bucket of meal in front of the cow even if she won't stand. She'd be so distracted eating that she wouldn't notice the "procedure".

Gary kk

Two fences a ditch and river is the record this year for heifers in heat.

auspicious

Donald Trump wrote: »

So you want to change the goalposts from the concept of impregnating the animal to the method of impregnation? Interesting.

".

Are you for real? Have I not repeatedly used the word FORCIBLY?
The fact that I'm now using lots of rhetorical questions speaks volumes.
Good luck.

Lady Haywire

auspicious wrote: »

The cow was put there. It's captive.
Yeah when you keep slaves you gotta put them to work don't ya!

Ah we're back to the old humanising of farm animals again. I keep slaves now. Well bejaypers, wouldn't you think I'd be arrested for that.

I'm trying to explain why things are done. And I'm being told I keep slaves. Fabulous.

auspicious

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Ah we're back to the old humanising of farm animals again. I keep slaves now. Well bejaypers, wouldn't you think I'd be arrested for that.

I'm trying to explain why things are done. And I'm being told I keep slaves. Fabulous.

Not humanising. It's called logical consistency.
And yes your sentient beings are enslaved. Anything enslaved by definition is a slave. That's logically consistent too.
You see everything I say from your perspective. Everything I say, I say from the animal's perspective.

NcdJd

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Ah we're back to the old humanising of farm animals again. I keep slaves now. Well bejaypers, wouldn't you think I'd be arrested for that.

I'm trying to explain why things are done. And I'm being told I keep slaves. Fabulous.

I would think your more the slave to them Lady H. I went through some of your tweets yesterday for a nosey and it's an absolute credit to you how you treat your animals. Any animal that lands on your farm is one lucky beast!

Lady Haywire

auspicious wrote: »

Not humanising. It's called logical consistency.
And yes your sentient beings are enslaved. Anything enslaved by definition is a slave. That's logically consistent too.
You see everything I say from your perspective. Everything I say, I say from the animal's perspective.

So what's your take on guide dogs, are they enslaved?
Ponies kept in stables for riding?
Animals in zoos being looked at by the public, even if being used as captive breeding for endangered species?

All slaves?

Or could we actually look at the meaning of slave & see that it refers to humans not animals.

(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Lady Haywire

NcdJd wrote: »

I would think your more the slave to them Lady H. I went through some of your tweets yesterday for a nosey and it's an absolute credit to you how you treat your animals. Any animal that lands on your farm is one lucky beast!

Ah sure I only do that for the cameras :rolleyes:

NcdJd

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Ah sure I only do that for the cameras :rolleyes:

True ya must be worth millions at this stage.

Donald Trump

auspicious wrote: »

Are you for real? Have I not repeatedly used the word FORCIBLY?
The fact that I'm now using lots of rhetorical questions speaks volumes.
Good luck.

You actually don't have a clue of what you are talking about. How much physical "force" do you think is used or indeed "needed"? You are simply anthropomorphising

auspicious

I see nothing wrong with applying the term to animals to convey my opposition to their being exploited, held captive and 'put to work'.

While meat and dairy aren't essential a guide-dog could be argued to be.

Donald Trump

auspicious wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with applying the term to animals to convey my opposition to their being exploited, held captive and 'put to work'.

While meat and dairy aren't essential a guide-dog could be argued to be.

What about cats? I asked that one because of the movement to eliminate outdoor cats.


You used the word "imprison" in relation to animals. Would a cat who is not let outdoors be imprisoned? Would you be ok with cats who are kept indoors fulltime and kept purely as human companions/entertainment?



I can understand the argument for wiping out all external cats. That is not "neutering" them and letting them live. That might be part of an initial strategy to try to eliminate them but the goal would be their total elimination.

Lady Haywire

auspicious wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with applying the term to animals to convey my opposition to their being exploited, held captive and 'put to work'.

While meat and dairy aren't essential a guide-dog could be argued to be.

Apply the term all you like but it's incorrect.
Comparing farming to slavery could be incredibly insulting to descendants of freed slaves, considering a lot of animals these days get excellent treatment, housing, food, access to veterinary care etc.

Markcheese

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is it alright to do it if there is no profit in it?

Well that's most beef farmers covered so ... ðŸ˜

auspicious

Imprison means to hold captive. While one could not argue against the fact that the factory farmed pigs in the previously posted video are imprisoned it it's more difficult to apply it directly to cats kept indoors. Cats kept indoors are very safe and protected from succumbing to disease or injury outdoors. They on average lead long lives. Happy lives as long as all their basic needs are met. Keeping them indoors also protects against their impact on biodiversity.
Some are of the opinion that yes it is captivity and a cat should be allowed the experience of the outdoors. They are after all already alive and focus should be put on not allowing more ferals to populate, especially in landscapes not native to them or able to sustain them.

Markcheese

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As poor a post as I’ve ever seen.

Take a bow.

Also, I think the word you’re looking to explain the things you’re touching on is - Nature.

Well then ,bow deep i shall .
Natural good ? , human intervention bad ?

None of our food is natural ... It's been selectively bred ,over thousands of years , to grow in places it never originally could ,and in forms that bear little relation to their original type ..
That goes for plant and animal ...

Donald Trump

Markcheese wrote: »

Well that's most beef farmers covered so ... ðŸ˜

That was going to be my response if there had been a reply

Donald Trump

auspicious wrote: »

Imprison means to hold captive. While one could not argue against the fact that the factory farmed pigs in the previously posted video are imprisoned it it's more difficult to apply it directly to cats kept indoors. Cats kept indoors are very safe and protected from succumbing to disease or injury outdoors. They on average lead long lives. Happy lives as long as all their basic needs are met. Keeping them indoors also protects against their impact on biodiversity.
Some are of the opinion that yes it is captivity and a cat should be allowed the experience of the outdoors. They are after all already alive and focus should be put on not allowing more ferals to populate, especially in landscapes not native to them or able to sustain them.

You have given definitions but not your own viewpoint. My friend, from whom I learned all of this, loves cats but wants all outside cats to be eliminated and for all house cats to be kept indoors permanently. She has her own cat and treats it almost like a child. Probably better than some children get treated if the truth be told.



That is her opinion and she is clear on that. Her position is not to allow nature to run its course by allowing the cat to go out and hunt whenever its nature urges it to. House cats are fine but must be kept indoors at all time. (That seems like a prison to me in fairness.) . You talk about basic needs, but the cat has other instincts that cannot be satisfied by a life indoors.

Markcheese

Jjameson wrote: »

If the calf is taken instantly there’s no bond. The calf knows no different and the cow settles very quickly. Divide a 9 month weanling and there is stress.

Although there are ways of doing that now ,that seriously reduce stress in the cow and weanling ,( easiwean ,supposed to be the cats PJs )

auspicious

Jjameson wrote: »

Have you any experience of working with cows to be an authority on their perspective? Why would you assume that’d have you speak for them?

You’d still feed them to cats and older dogs?

I'm no authority. All you need is empathy to put yourself in somebody else's position and consider the ethical implications.

Yes I feed animal flesh to the cats. It is a necessity.
Once again questions are being asked which don't reflect an understanding of at least the definition of what a vegan is.

-Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Pretty disgraceful the ridicule you’re facing auspicious for your choices.

Not sure why it’s allowed.

The whataboutery is beyond ridiculous.

I’ve no idea why you’re responding to most of those posts that are clearly refusing or making any effort to understand your choices.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty disgraceful the ridicule you’re facing auspicious for your choices.

Not sure why it’s allowed.

The whataboutery is beyond ridiculous.

I’ve no idea why you’re responding to most of those posts that are clearly refusing or making any effort to understand your choices.

Not one person has ridiculed anyone for their choice to be a vegan. If you want to be a vegan be a vegan and fair play to you. It is none of mine or anyone elses' business. Vegan meals can actually be quite nice and it could be an education for non-vegans to try them once in a while. A non-vegan can still eat and enjoy "vegan" food


People has challenged him/her on their incorrect assumptions about cruelty.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not one person has ridiculed anyone for their choice to be a vegan. If you want to be a vegan be a vegan and fair play to you. It is none of mine or anyone elses' business. Vegan meals can actually be quite nice and it could be an education for non-vegans to try them once in a while. A non-vegan can still eat and enjoy "vegan" food


People has challenged him/her on their incorrect assumptions about cruelty.

Well maybe you haven’t read many posts on the forum. There’s plenty of ridicule.

You think you run the rule on what’s cruel ?

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Well maybe you haven’t read many posts on the forum. There’s plenty of ridicule.

You think you run the rule on what’s cruel ?

I didn't see anything on this thread in relation to attacking anyone for being a vegan. I have not read any other threads in the forum, never mind all of them.


I am not the god of cruelty. However, if someone tells me that something is cruel, when they obviously don't really understand what is going on, and therefore their assumption is not based on reality, then I am entitled to give my opinion.

gozunda

Donald Trump wrote: »

I didn't see anything on this thread in relation to attacking anyone for being a vegan. I have not read any other threads in the forum, never mind all of them.
I am not the god of cruelty. However, if someone tells me that something is cruel, when they obviously don't really understand what is going on, and therefore their assumption is not based on reality, then I am entitled to give my opinion.

Sadly its such extreme vitriol which seems to have now become part of the course in recent times. And unfortunately much of that apparently derived from these online videos allegedly showing 'cruelty'

Video's like those of Eathling Ed who has a financial value of well over $68 million plus Patreon and other sources made from his anti farming 'cruelty" videos. $ 68 million made from flogging 'cruelty' to impressionable kids.

Then when a farmer posts a clip of a cow giving birth on Facebook or Twitter - he gets death threats for him and his family. And that has happened in this country

When did this become acceptable?
Unfortunately Ignoring the problem of such radicalisation only allows the threats to grow in intensity.

More importantly its hate mongering. And Its not even that those who make these videos help the actual animals their filming. They don’t. They just use the videos to make money by trying to convince others that all farming is 'cruel' and claim that it doesn't matter whether it happens here or abroad. Tbh its no better than telling people here that driving is dangerous because of some videos showing bad driving by drivers in Russia. Completly unbelievable tbh.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Sadly its such extreme vitriol which seems to have now become part of the course in recent times. And unfortunately much of that apparently derived from these online videos allegedly showing 'cruelty'

Video's like those Eathling Ed who has a financial value of well over $68 million from Patreon and other sources made from his anti farming 'cruelty" videos. $ 68 million made from flogging 'cruelty' to impressionable kids.

Then when a farmer posts a clip of a cow giving birth on Facebook or Twitter - he gets death threats for him and his family. And that has happened in this country

When did this become acceptable?
Unfortunately Ignoring the problem of such radicalisation only allows the threats to grow in intensity.

More importantly its hate mongering. And Its not even that those who make these videos help the actual animals their filming. They don’t. They just use the videos to make money by trying to convince others that all farming is 'cruel' and claim that it doesn't matter whether it happens here or abroad. Tbh its no better than telling people here that driving is dangerous because of some videos showing bad driving by drivers in Russians. Completly unbelievable.

Your post contains some of the classics here -

Extreme vitriol
Hate mongering
Vegans = impressionable kids
‘Cruelty’
Radicalisation

And yet your post on the feedback thread painted a different picture.

And fair play to you for supporting Eathling Ed. I’d never heard of him until you started watching his videos. I still don’t know who he is but I’m sure you’ve directed a lot of people to his videos from all you talk about him. Do you subscribe too ? What platforms is he on ? Do you have any links ?

I suppose it’s true that there’s no bad publicity so those post, I assume inadvertently, are supporting him financially.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your post contains some of the classics here -
Extreme vitriol
Hate mongering
Vegans = impressionable kids
‘Cruelty’
Radicalisation
And yet your post on the feedback thread painted a different picture.
And fair play to you for supporting Eathling Ed. I’d never heard of him until you started watching his videos. I still don’t know who he is but I’m sure you’ve directed a lot of people to his videos from all you talk about him. Do you subscribe too ? What platforms is he on ? Do you have any links ?
I suppose it’s true that there’s no bad publicity so those post, I assume inadvertently, are supporting him financially.

I thoughts you weren't talking to me? No worries.

Sorry you feel that about words. (They relate to the videos btw)

But what 'picture' are you talking about. My comments are what they are. I find reasonable discussion is generally good imo....
I made no mention of 'vegans' btw.

And I'm fairly sure its just regular kids who tend to use social media and are more likely to come across this kind of monetised stuff. Terrible stuff really.



I believe the current discussion was on 'cruelty' btw. Nah but I can't take the credit I'm afraid. I was reading various news reports about it recently.

Personally I'm more offended by lies and misery porn merchants making money out of cruelty by flogging such video footage.

And I think it was videos here posted by another poster where I first saw them. Incredible that some earn so much money from cruelty. And then they try and claim thats what farmers are guilty of...

Unearthly

gozunda wrote: »

I thoughts you weren't talking to me? No worries.

But what 'picture' are you talking about. My comments are what they are. I find reasonable discussion is generally good imo.

Sorry you're offended by those words.

I made no mention of 'vegans' btw.

And I'm fairly sure its just regular kids who tend to use social media and are more likely to come across this kind of monetised stuff. Terrible really.

I believe the current discussion was on 'cruelty' btw. Nah but I can't take the credit I'm afraid. I was reading some news reports about it recently and thats how it is described.

Personally I'm more offended by lies and misery porn merchants making money out of cruelty by flogging such video footage.

And I think it was videos here posted by another poster where I first saw them. Incredible that some earn so much money from cruelty. And then they try and claim thats what farmers are guilty of...

Source for 68 million net worth claim please

Unearthly

Unearthly wrote: »

Source for 68 million net worth claim please

Any update on this ?

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any update on this ?

Why - i don't think you asked that question?

unfortunately I've had to put some posters on ignore due to recent comments on this forum.

I think that's allowed afaik.

But yeah its there already. Or look it up. Its all there.

Panch18

Some absolute lunatics on this thread

A cow out roaming around a field is in prison but a cat that is not allowed outside is not in prison

Some ****ed up logic with this crowd there is no doubt about it

auspicious

Panch18 wrote: »

Some absolute lunatics on this thread

A cow out roaming around a field is in prison but a cat that is not allowed outside is not in prison

Some ****ed up logic with this crowd there is no doubt about it

You are quite right. Both are by logical definition in captivity or imprisoned.
Though the point which I wasn't clear enough in making was that the ultimate end goal of the farm setting is not in the best interest or wellbeing of the cow whereas the house setting is in the best interest of the cat. It's the difference between a farm and a sanctuary.

Gary kk

auspicious wrote: »

You are quite right. Both are by logical definition in captivity or imprisoned.
Though the point which I wasn't clear enough in making was that the ultimate end goal of the farm setting is not in the best interest or wellbeing of the cow whereas the house setting is in the best interest of the cat. It's the difference between a farm and a sanctuary.

Did you ask the cat how he/she felt about been held in a "sanctuary" .

Panch18

auspicious wrote: »

You are quite right. Both are by logical definition in captivity or imprisoned.
Though the point which I wasn't clear enough in making was that the ultimate end goal of the farm setting is not in the best interest or wellbeing of the cow whereas the house setting is in the best interest of the cat. It's the difference between a farm and a sanctuary.

you really have absolutely no clue what you are talkling about

Literally no clue

Gary kk

Jjameson wrote: »

Ah he seen a video.... and then a documentary or 3. Then there’s the imagination and empathy.

More like a propaganda video.

Dizzyblonde

Mod note:

One month ban from the forum for Panch18. Trolling will not be tolerated in this forum.

***Gary kk tread carefully

Gary kk

auspicious wrote: »

"The happier and more comfortable the animal the better the thrive" . That goes without saying. ...

Torture and babies I would see them as descriptors rather than emotive terms. Babies, I may have used but that's just go to common vernacular. Torture I would use in context as when I used it to describe the treatment of the pigs the the Irish factory farming video posted earlier in the thread.
Though if I forcibly impregnated a female human against her will repeatedly for personal gain she would describe it as torture.
But if it happens to a cow it's not?

Other than those two examples I can't remember using those descriptors.

Ban me away but ban auspicious for post like this.

auspicious

I'm not attacking or bashing farmers. All farmers are doing is supplying the economic demand. The comsumers demand the product and farmers provide it.
I'm only discussing the practices which the animals are subjected to.

White Clover

auspicious wrote: »

I'm not attacking or bashing farmers. All farmers are doing is supplying the economic demand. The comsumers demand the product and farmers provide it.
I'm only discussing the practices which the animals are subjected to.

How knowledgeable are you on the practise of farming animals, I'm talking about real life, hands on knowledge?
Its a simple question, so I don't want any answers going off on any tangent.

gozunda

auspicious wrote: »

"The happier and more comfortable the animal the better the thrive" . That goes without saying. ...

Torture and babies I would see them as descriptors rather than emotive terms. Babies, I may have used but that's just go to common vernacular. Torture I would use in context as when I used it to describe the treatment of the pigs the the Irish factory farming video posted earlier in the thread.
Though if I forcibly impregnated a female human against her will repeatedly for personal gain she would describe it as torture.
But if it happens to a cow it's not?

Other than those two examples I can't remember using those descriptors.

Just to highlight again imo that the title of this thread amounts to little more than trolling. It is a nine year old zombie thread only relatively recently resurrected and Imo is reflective of a large proportion of many of the issues currently under review.

More importantly it is deliberatly disingenuous and a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of normal farming practice here.

On the issues raised above - the use of the phrase "torture" and it's actual definition completely fails to stand up to proper scrutiny

Torture is defined as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure" Merriam-webster online Dictionary.

And it is absolutely incorrect and wrong to suggest that any genuine food producer gains 'sadistic pleasure" or deliberately inflicts "intense pain" purely to 'torture' animals in farming. If there are exceptions then the full weight of the law should be applied but not disingenuously used to beat everyone else over the head with

Applying words such as 'rape to AI does not stand up. The usual reasoning given is that as cows can't consent- it is 'rape' or 'torture'. Can any animal wild, domestic or otherwise consent to medical help or intervention? If a cow has other gynecological problems not involving AI and intervention is required to 'reduce suffering' - is that 'rape'. Do we leave animals die or suffer just because they cant consent to any medical intervention? How would that reduce suffering?

Animal welfare is enshrined in law and provides for the proper treatment and care of animals both domestic and wild. Turning that back to front and blaming farmers or others for poor animal welfare conditions and yet not supporting animal welfare is at best contradictory and makes no sense whatsoever.

Unfortunately many of these type of threads seem to beat a similar drum - that everything to do with animal products and animal farming are the worst ever - even where there is evidence to the contrary. I understand the passion but the tendency to throw the kitchen sink plus the dirty bathwater at animal agriculture doesn't work and unfortunately shows up such arguments for what they are.

The most concerning issue however is the constant use of hyperbole and disingenuous argument which unfortunately does nothing but encourage extremism - up to and including ever increasing number of death threats etc to farmers and food producers across wider social media and elsewhere.

auspicious

Rules
-No personal abuse. "Attack the post, not the poster". Refrain from abusive labelling like militant, extremist, elitist, propagandist, hippie etc