[wredue]

It’s funny, cause if you asked all the people who approve of this, they’d scream “free market capitalism! End regulation!”

Meanwhile, they support a move that is incredibly anti-free market and stomps on the right to do business in the name of virtue signalling bullshit.

What is “a law formed on ‘culture’” if not entirely virtue signalling? I thought you guys said that virtue signalling was bad?

[seec]

In order to signal virtue, the thing in question has to be considered virtuous, by the mainstream media intelligencia and generally the opponents as well. You cannot appear virtuous if what you stand for is contrary to the mainstream opinion of how moral behavior is supposed to look like. By deciding to give preference to history and the thing that is currently considered immoral (eating meat) they actually do the reverse of virtue signaling.

And yes, that is a pro free market move, because the only thing they say is: you can call your alternative product whatever you want and you may sell it as well, but do not try to confuse customers with historical naming that do not represent what your product is. Vegans/vegetarians are in general for an outright ban of those products, so basically authoritarian fascist behavior; but as always, it's the most tolerant called on his behavior and somehow it is found problematic that it is forbidden to lie on products packaging...

[AlexAltea]

This is a problem with many dimensions and few equilibrium points. Libertarianism and nationalism are certainly incompatible, but that doesn't mean everybody needs to make their mind an pick one. They can accept both as valid equilibria, and rally for a gradient-descent into the closest one according to local politics.

Right now we find ourselves far from any equilibrium points: just an awkward heavily polarized in-between. I hope we can find the next equilibrium without a global civil war.

PS: Not sure if "you guys" goes for me, I'm merely an observer. I'm not even Italian.