"Chemicals" in food. Literally every substance, every food and people are composed of them. The common usage has bastardized the meaning and latched on to the naturalistic fallacy. Snake venom is natural. Cyanide is natural. Arsenic and Uranium are natural. Botulinum toxin is natural. Something being naturally occurring does not automatically make it good for you just as something being made in a lab does not equate to being bad for you.
I feel like that’s one of those things where the conversational use of chemicals and scientific use has drifted apart
There’s plenty of examples but the only one I can think of is evolution, like In every terrible sci-fi movie ever using evolution to describe the individual evil monster gaining some change
Anyways 100% agree with you tho
AI. In the real world, AI is any computer process that can make decisions as if it were smart. Expert systems, genetic algorithms, hell even fuzzy logic. A smart lightbulb is artificially smart. Artificially intelligent.
In movies and bad tech blogs, AI means a sapient machine and that's why LLMs aren't actually AI.
Same thing with people thinking that organic food is healthier. Organic food might be good for the environment, but not necessarily the climate or your health.
I worked in produce as a quality inspector for a couple years. Organic generally just means lower quality for higher price. No one is regulating it as far as I know, they can just skip pesticides, do everything else the same and charge more for the same product that actually cost them less to produce. We refered to it as a hillarious scam when the boss wasnt around.
My least favorite is "it's processed"
I can count the ingredients on my hands, and the "processing" is like 4 steps max.
"Unga bunga me invent new process for food. It called cooking. Make less parasites in meat. Very good."
"Cooking bad, garg. We no want processed food."
Cooking is processing food.
A guy at a deli counter slicing cold cuts and assembling them into a sandwich is "processed food". Using the term as a health concern marker is meaningless.
Even Kraft Singles, the posterchild of "processed food", famously disallowed to legally call itself "cheese" on its packaging, what is it made of? What hellish process hath humanity wrought? Cheddar cheese, sodium citrate (a mundane variety of salt), and water. That's it.
It's not forbidden from being called "cheese" because it's a bastard concoction of mad scientist chemicals that approximate cheese to ruse consumers. It's simply cheese, literally watered down to the point that you can't call it cheese anymore.
All that the sodium citrate is doing in this situation is acting as a binder that helps the cheese solids hold on to the water. This action is what gives many dishes, sauces, and the like their smooth, creamy texture. But use the word for that -- "emulsifier" -- and suddenly people think you're trying to poison them, because that's a scary chemical word.
Why does this product exist? Because it offers a unique melty texture that people appreciate in certain contexts. It's a niche product with a niche function. Treat it like one.
I really liked this post by Hank Green regarding "natural remedies".
tl;dw The chemicals used in chemotherapy are naturally occurring, and science uses what we know works. So when people say "you should use natural remedies", what they really mean is, you should use something:
- we don't know whether it works
- we know doesn't work
- we know is actively harmful
And the first two categories aren't necessarily bad, an Epsom salt bath can feel really nice, but don't think it's a replacement for proper medical science.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I love when they compare food labels from two countries but don’t notice the ingredients are the same just described in different words or with different levels of verbosity based on the local regulations.
Have you heard about the chemical dihydrogen monoxide?! It's 100% fatal! Too much causes death, too little, death! Massively addictive.
On one hand I agree with you, the way "chemicals" are used in everyday speech differs from the text book definition.
On the other hand, if we take our heads out of our asses and stop the "well actually"s I kinda have to agree with being against "chemicals" in food. Arsenic is naturally occurring, sure, but at what concentration? Radioactive uranium is a naturally occurring element, but I would hardly call nuclear fallout something natural.
Uranium doesnt need to undergo fission to be toxic. Fission also occurred naturally in the oklo nuclear reactor long ago. Uranium mined from that area is depleted in U235 and there are higher concentrations of stable isotopes derived from fission products in that area. Arsenic is found in higher concentrations in rice crops. Its found in certain soils and lakes. In certain areas in India, Fluoride can be high enough in concentration to cause bone growth abnormalities. Selenium is found in higher concentrations in the western US to the point that certain plants take it up and concentrate it further up to 2% dry weight. The plants use it as a defense against herbivory. Some trees concentrate nickel to the point that it turns their sap blue and may be a viable source of the element. i.e biomining. The plants that take up selenium also make an alkaloid called swainsonine that if ingested in high enough quantities, can cause cattle and other animals to shake themselves to death. Hence they are colloquially named locoweed i.e crazy weed. Certain plants were historically used as a form of crude birth control due to some of the compounds found in them being abortificants. Echinacea was pulled from the market as it was found to significantly increase the risk of heart attack and stroke due to its stimulant properties. Foxglove was used to develop digitalis which is a valuable heart medication but the plant itself is fairly dangerous. Metformin was derived from naturally occurring compounds that are poisonous in the concentrations they are naturally found in due to their tendency to cause severe hypoglycemia. There are TONS of plants that contain hepatotoxic compounds (cause liver damage). Green potatoes, rhubarb, raw red kidney beans, those all have substances in parts of them that can cause illness.
The point is that nature has plenty of ways to kill. Something being "natural" is no guarantee of safety.
If you are not worried about the chemicals in your food, your long term health would like to have a word with you.
Not just your food, even the water. It's full of H2O.
Being overweight or obese, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, prolonged sitting, loneliness will all kill you way faster than all those "chemicals" in your food that you are so terrified of but no one really cares about any of that because its much harder to lose that extra 30 pounds and break up sitting every once in a while with light exercise than it is to act like a picky 5 year old and eat nothing but organic food satisfied by the false notion that you did something of consequence for your health.
Cyclists, some people just see red when they came across cyclist at the road.
Cycle infrastructure, even.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. We cyclists are perfectly within our rights to cycle in the middle of the lane at a speed comfortable for us. And it's safer for us to do that than hug the shoulder and risk getting clipped by an impatient driver. A bike lane gets us out of your way so you can drive the speed limit. It's for your benefit.
There's really no winning as a cyclist when most people are in cars. If you stop at all stop signs, and obey they right-of-way, people will yell at you and/or try to wave you through ahead of your turn dangerously. If you do an Idaho stop (which is the safest way to approach a stop, whether it's legal or not), people will honk and yell at you and possibly try to run you off the road.
I used to commute by bike a lot during rush hour. If there was a lineup of cars waiting at a red-light, and I just waited in line, people in cars behind me would honk at me as if me preventing them from being one cars-length further ahead in line would somehow affect them. If I filtered forward, like I should, people would actually edge their cars over to try and block me.
I think for the most part, it's misplaced anger from drivers who don't want to face the fact that they are the source of danger on roads. The worst bicycle collision is way less severe than a car crash. They also really hate when bicyclists can get anywhere faster than them, which is often the case because it shows them just how much time they waste being traffic.
Except Berliner cyclists. They scare me.
That's not "for absolutely no reason". Some cyclists make a bad name for the rest.
Edit: Oh my goodness, you guys. I'm not saying hate for cyclists is justified, that I hate all cyclists, or that "all cyclists do x". Some cyclists ride like they have a death wish. So do some drivers. Anyone, regardless of their vehicle, who is willing to put their life in my hands is someone I want to stay far the fuck away from.
Downvoted for saying the truth. Most cyclist I met here are absolutely jerks, they drive not even on the sidelines - no, they fucking drive in the mid of the road and if you try to surpass they move to the left.
For some it’s not their fault they are a bit of a nuisance obviously (those who cycle near the sidewalks, who signal were they are going etc), the cyclist infastructure is non existent here
Trans people
But... bathrooms!!! With the children!!! /s
A lot of that is just unavoidable lookism sadly, maybe I'm too doomer
At the individuated level, it likely plays a part, but it's got nothing to do with the systemic institutional hatred
I'm terrified of Weiner and vagina and everything in-between.
Edit: wtf is so special that Weiner auto capitalizes?
Weiner is a surname... and also a misspelling of wiener.
Big W
Women.
Misogyny is extremely widespread and socially acceptable.
Add men to the list.
Misandry is also extremely widespread and socially acceptable.
IMHO both groups have bad apples. In conservative societies, women are often mistreated. In modern/contemporary societies men are often misstreated.
adult men are treated fine in modern societies, it's boys/teenagers who are feeling increasingly out of place and are turning to misogyny as an outlet
IMHO both groups have bad apples
Oh bad people can come from anywhere, what a salient observation.
By every important measurable standard, women are still treated worse in contemporary society. The fact you would respond with this nothing take when someone brings up misogyny is incredibly telling. Wishing well to any women unlucky enough to be in your life.
I'd say modern being wealthy modern people.
Trans people, seriously, they just want to live their lives in peace. They're not here to radicalise anything or to "trick" anyone. They just want to get on with their lives and be left alone.
the other replies to this comment reaaaally prove your point.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Not to mention trans people are constantly under attack in most places and NEED to speak up.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Even if they were so what? You have to be cynical about these things and figure out how much danger every given person represents. I am in far less danger from someone who yells loudly on Instagram compared to some proud boy marching on the street. One makes the internet kinda boring the other sets off bombs.
Marginalized groups tend to be the loudest about oppression of all varieties.
It's similar to veganism, they yell really loud to make it known they want peace while at the sime time disturbing everyone else and expecting friendliness.
It's like that annoying neighbour that blasts music at full volume just because he likes it and then he goes on to say he just wants to be left alone.
You can't take the stage at a Rammstein concert and expect to just chill out there without getting thrown out.
-
This does not happen.
-
Even if it was, are you really shitting on trans people for complaining about constantly being hate-crimed for sport?
-
People keep saying this, but what is expected when a minute fraction of the population has such a high rate of being murdered? What is expected when without making any fuss, legislators are constantly trying to legislate trans people out of existence, refusing healthcare, increasing the already disproportionate suicide rate, forcing them to do things that puts them in situations where the chance of being murdered is much higher.
These sentiments come from such a place of privilege, "I don't have this problem, why are you getting on stage to shout about this, you should expect to be discriminated against and murdered" if you don't see anything wrong with that, you should reevaluate your morals.
Furries. They're some of the nicest people ever. I'm a cosplayer and our worlds intersect a lot. They raise more money for charity than any group as small as they are, they're kind and accepting, and they're wicked talented. I trust Furries before muggles anyday
they're wicked talented
Sincere question: what specifically are their talents?
Diverting attention from other nerdy/niche groups who don't seem weird at all in comparison?
generally furries are really good creatives in a wide variety of differnent areas
haven’t seen it in the thread yet, but (most) GMOs. The foods and technology aren’t the problem, it’s a solution to ending hunger. It’s the corporate interests that squash competition that’s the problem.
It's also the shitton of nasty pesticides GMOs enable.
What? GMO's use less pesticides. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2020/07/new-study-gmo-crops-reduce-pesticide-use-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
Nickelback. I mean they're not good but they're not really bad either, just a complete nonevent. They don't deserve the hate they get, they don't really deserve anything
Yeah, most of the hate is because they were super overplayed for a solid decade. For years the popular radio stations in my area didn't seem to play anything but Nickelback, green day, Lady Gaga, and pink. In a vacuum, they're fine. "How you remind me" is pretty good imo. I don't care for anything else from them. I've heard that their guitar player is actually really talented, but I haven't listened to them enough to know myself
"All the right reasons" is a solid album by them. Nothing groundbreaking or unique in terms of sound but it's an enjoyable listen.
Also a phrase that sums up their entire career. And that's fine. They're like the musical equivalent of comfort food.
The thing is, Nickelback didn't invent post-grunge or radio grunge, but they were definitely face of it. That era saw a nearly endless stream of cookie cutter Pearl Jam wannabes pop up, and at the same time the entire independent radio industry, which had played a big role in birthing so many counterculture movements, was under threat of corporate consolidation when they were getting popular in the late 90s.
To many millennials, nothing else embodied this dark era for rock music like Nickelback. It was "we have Eddie Vedder at home" meme - shoved down our throats, carbon copied every few months, constantly reminding us that the alternative rock station we grew up with was purchased by Clearchannel and would be transitioned to Latin Beats by the end of the year.
So in that sense, Nickelback may not have killed grunge, but it happily set up shop on its grave, to forever pantomime and disrespect the alternative rock giants laying below. And for a lot of people, that was just too painful.
I second this. I love Nickelback. They are unique in their own way .
No, they're not. That was kind of my point
I think they're a relic from a time when it was ok/cool to hate on a band or artist for no reason, publicly, without everyone judging you for being a prick.
My theory is that they're one of, if not the, last bands to fall into the above category, so everyone just uses them as their go-to.
Younger people (in this case meaning people under 35 lol) are just so much more accepting and less judgemental than previous generations. And you love to see it.
Oh, boy, they most certainly deserve the hate. This article sums it up pretty well: https://www.grunge.com/51980/nickelback-became-hated-band-music-industry/
Holy fuck, that article is elitist. Half of the sections seem pointlessly mean, like they're trying to dunk on them to win popularity points. One of them is just insulting Chad Kroeger for marrying Avril Lavigne, as if a 10+ year marriage is a bad thing. Some valid points buried in there, but the credibility is lost.
Striking workers.
Conservatives seem to really hate electric cars for some reason. You'd think that for all the removed they do regarding how Dark Brandon is personally hiking gas prices as part of his pinko commie agenda they'd like to stick it to him and stop paying for gas, but no, they take personal offense as if an electric car is somehow emasculating.
Honestly I don't understand how the right hasn't co-opted solar energy as a libertarian sort of grid independence thing. Seems like an easy win considering how much opportunity there is for politicians to throw subsidies at manufacturing in their states.
Because there aren't any "real" libertarians. Here's what happens when people actually try that stupid shit...
Guy made the story into a book, you may have heard of it. "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear"
True survivalist/libertarian types have always loved solar power.
I don't know how solar lost its space age coolness, though, aside from active lobbying from the fossil fuel industry to try to kill it. For awhile solar was undoubtedly the power source of the future, the same thing that was on our space probes and satellites.
I have old oil-crisis era books and magazines on my shelf which absolutely loved solar power and billed it as the cheap energy solution for the common man. Somewhere we went wrong, and I think it was Reagan (in many ways...)
They have lol: https://4patriots.com/products/patriot-power-generator-1800
on the flip side, the further left you go the more you get people who hate cars in general
Living in apartments.
In a lot of cities and towns living in apartments is seen as something that young adults who are renting short term do, and definitely not families or older couples.
Living in an apartment is considerably cheaper for my situation. I drive so much less, I pay for less power, and I have all this parkland around me.
I'm a car guy and I don't have a garage, that's annoying, but I commute by escooter now and drive on the weekends. It's much better.
Oh lots of things
Women
Ethnicities
LGTBQ+
Drag Queens ( they are so entertaining)
Inconvenient truths
People who hang toilet paper the wong way
The French (cowards? They won more battles than anyone and have mastered the art of standing up for themselves)
Furries
Pineapple on pizza ( its good, Ill die on this hill)
Bronies
Caillou - not, that whiney snot deserves it
Marijuana
Ned Flanders
Bell bottoms
Satan ( the word in acient hebrew that we translated to Satan first appears in the book of Job, and would more accuratly be rendered as accuser of prosecutor. In the whole bible satan only goes after 10 people, and only when god tells satan to do it. Half way through satan is like 'um god? This guys like, broken now. Call it good?' But that rapscallion god was like 'no, he could still recover keep hitting him' and all that because god 'knew' Job was the most loyal and devout of his followers and his narcisism just couldnt help but make a grand display of proving it)The pinapple on pizza one is weird to me, do these people not enjoy the idea of contrasting and complimentary flavours?
Savoury + sweet is a good combo and they dont seem to have a problem with tomato on pizza if they are getting technical over 'fruit' being an ingredient.Nope, nope, nope. I hate it. Savory + sweet is not my jam. But, you do you. I don't care what other people eat.
Well, I hate pineapple and putting it into things just kind of ruins the thing you're adding it to anyway, so there's that.
pineapple needs to go under the cheese, then its sublime.
I think it's more that pineapple flavor is really overpowering on a pizza. And on drinks. I think people dislike ginger (to a lesser extent) for the same reason.
People who hang toilet paper the wong wayWait, there's a wrong way?
Drag queens are wonderful. I finally got into Drag Race (just not a reality show viewer generally), and those queens will totally tug your heart strings if you just watch, and they're real artists too. RIP Chi Chi DeVayne.
Bronies deserve it because they still haven't denazified. Furries are a mixed bag with half being outright pedophiles and the rest being insanely cool people, with bronies it's a guarantee they have at least one filly in their spank bank. But in either case if a nazi comes along trying to start shit with either i'm shutting that shit down right away because they don't have the right to get on a high horse when they're 20x worse.
None of the furries I am friends with tolerate Nazis
...anymore
MOST of the furries I am friends with did not ever tolerate Nazis
TBH I do know someone who has a "not checking if the character they're posting porn of is underage" problem, and I've actually only seen them do it with human characters, though they have no special preference between humans and anthros.
trans people
VEGANISM!
It's great for your health, we'd solve like 25% of the climate catastrophe overnight and it redeems billions of our fellow earthlings from the unimaginable suffering we inflict on them 24/7.
It's a ridiculously obvious and easy step we should take as a species, yet even hardcore leftists turn into irrational idiots and go full Bullshit Bingo when you bring it up. Because they have become accustomed to a taste.Best thing I ever did for myself.
I think it’s less veganism and more how noisy and evangelical the loudest vegans are.
If you’d just said veganism, I’d agree, but you went on to emphatically tell us all the reasons why veganism is better. All legit, sure, but all the underlining gives it a particularly condescending tone. It’s not veganism that irritates me, it’s how condescending so many vegans become. Same camp as CrossFit for me. They’re both cultures I don’t really care to be a part of.
Eating animals is doing so much harm on a personal and global scale, yet people mostly choose to ignore it. So we get louder to confront your cognitive dissonance. I know it is annoying to you, I was annoyed too. But it's necessary and it's working. We're not a cult, quite the opposite: Vegans act according to scientific facts. Do you want to have a heart attack? No. Do you like torturing animals? No! Do want to wreck our planet to the point our children won't be able to live on it anymore? If course not. Veganism is not the only answer to all this, but no solution will suffice without us stopping to abuse animals. Think about that when you're out in the supermarket next time. It feels good to actually live up to you ethical values.
Also, #7 and #30, bingo!
I try to tell people to ditch beef as a compromise. I'm flexetarian myself and try to avoid meat, but beef is by far the worst offender when it comes to climate.
I think the average person doesn't want to give up all meat dairy and eggs all in one go. Removing beef is highly effective and a first step into a more conscious diet.
Eggs are a super food, too. They're cheap, delicious, and have dense nutrition. And, if you live anywhere close to rural, you can get farm-fresh eggs from ethically treated, well fed chickens for cheap.
We minimize our meat consumption, but we eat lots of eggs, and I don't see any ethical concerns with people's backyard chicken coops.
Pretty much what I did. Meat once a week and almost always birds. Maybe a hamburger or pho twice a year, and always with my family.
Because they have become accustomed to a taste
I have been toying with baking the last two months and vegan bread is a challenge. It isn't just taste. Take my basic bread and cut out milk+butter and all I have left is oil. The bread rises funny and the crust is totally different. Yes I have tried a good friend of mine has a dairy allergy.
Just saying it isn't like there is a ready solution I can grab.
I agree, changing your diet is something you need to be willing to do, because it takes time to learn new things. Some take babysteps, some go all in. It is possible to cook and bake delicious food without animal products. So have fun learning!
Vegan.bingo that’s amazing I’m gonna just refer to that for every one of those conversations from now on
The dead animal flesh is already there and I honor its sacrifice by eating it. That is my position and my purpose.
Fat people. There, I said it.
I think the issue is with normalizing unhealthy bodies. idc how you look as long as you're healthy, but society is becoming increasingly accepting of obviously unhealthy lifestyles and bodies. It's no better than anorexia.
Ime fat people are pleasant to hang out with.
Yeah, being fat shouldn't be a qualifier for anything IMHO. Like, let people live their lives in peace! There are pleasant and unpleasant fat people, as there are thin, so why does weight have to do with anything?! It is baffling to me we have to work so hard to humanize fat persons. Fat bias is so ingrained in our culture people think is ok.
And very cuddly and squeezable. I like touching fat folks as much as I like touching for folks. All bodies are nice.
Socialism
Our road system, retirement benefits, health system (except USA), public school system, national parks are all socialist.
True, but they also mixed into comunism
Fucking commie! /s
You know socialists want to take away everything you own and install a dictatorship right? /s
The ironic part is that actual socialism is actually pretty popular. It's the violent revolution and ensuing dictatorship which turns most people off to the Marxist Leninist ideals, which takes up most of the oxygen in that room these days.
The ensuring dictatorship isn't socialism nor communism. You can dream of something and ending with something else.
Satanists get persecuted a lot; although, they do a lot to protect religious freedom.
It's important to note that when you hear a story about Satanists using freedom of religion to install a statue of baphomet in a public space, or citing religious freedom acts to protect safe access to abortion, you're hearing about the Satanic Temple. When you hear about Satanists practicing "chaos magick" or talking about how liking blue cheese means you're gay, you're hearing about the Church of Satan. Here's a handy reference from TST:
Oh man I didn't know they didn't believe in an actual Satan!
most satanists are just cute in personality lol
Lucifer was kinda right ngl
And most of them are just trolling-atheists/agnostics.
furries
While I agree and have no problem with furries, I think the issue is people seeing, what a lot of people in their own community see as linked to a sexual kink, being brought out into public spaces.
"Sexual attraction to furry characters is a polarizing issue. In one survey with 4,300 furry respondents, 37% answered that sexual attraction is important in their furry activities, 38% were ambivalent, and 24% answered that it has little or nothing to do with their furry activities."
"Another survey at a furry convention in 2013 found that 96.3% of male furry respondents reported viewing furry pornography, compared with 78.3% of female; males estimated 50.9% of all furry art they view is pornographic, compared with 30.7% of females."
So like clearly there is a large sexual component to the fandom, and I think it weirds people out and makes people uncomfortable when they see these people wearing their fur suits out in public. Which again to be clear is not something the entire community does or even tolerates, but there's enough people who do so that it's become part of the cultural zeitgeist.
But it's also just the fact that it's so far from normal vanilla experiences. Everyday people think role playing sexually is already adventurous and out there. Now add big animal suits that are typically associated with mascots for entertaining children and I think anyone can see why everyday people think it's weird.
Hello.
I don't understand the furry thing. If anyone wants to explain it that would be cool.
I've gone to lgbtq+ bars and sometimes 1 or two people will have leather dog masks on. I don't understand it though. Is it a sub/Dom thing? I'm kinda new to to the LGBTQ+ culture.
I don't think those are necessarily related.
Furries are just people who like animal mascot type characters and made a whole subculture around that.
basically, its a subculture of people who like anthropomorphic (i.e. humanized) animal characters, like zootopia, for one fairly recent mainstream example. some furries do dress up in costumes, but the leather dog masks are a somewhat unrelated bdsm thing, though there's probably some significant overlap in the groups.
The dog mask people are generally not furries. They're called pups, and you're actually right that pup play is a BDSM thing. The whole acting like a dog thing is more for dehumanization than anything else.
Furries are people who enjoy anthropomorphic animals for... well, a variety of reasons. Fursuits are extremely uncommon because they're expensive as fuck, difficult to clean, easily damaged, etc. Most furries just come up with fursonas (generally online animal personas) and make art.
I know more about this than I otherwise would because I have friends who are pups and others who are furries.
They've still a way to go though as well. I remember when FA banned porn of child-looking characters half the website quit, ironically leaving known groomers who were flagrantly breaking the rule and getting away with it. The alternative sites aren't much better, with some outright dying on the hill of allowing toddlercon. I dipped because I was insanely uncomfortable with how much of a grooming culture there was and as fun as it was to crash&burn the 40th discord server with admins doing that shit, it was stunting my development into a functioning adult.
Comic sans.
It is literally a font. Sometimes when some corporate partner is annoying me I will pdf lock a document, with a signature, to them in comic sans.
It's also supposed to be an accessible/helpful font for dyslexics.
That's a happy accident not an intentional feature of the font. I think modern fonts that specifically target dyslexia are preferred, I've heard good stuff about https://opendyslexic.org/
Ugly-ass Nancy and Sluggo looking shit, what are you, five? Take that comic sans tf out of here.
His point demonstrated.
Guy Fieri
I don't enjoy his flavor... but the dude is just living his best life and gets an absurd amount of hate. It's actually really funny to me how disproportional the hate is, but I sometimes feel bad for him.
I'll forever get three people mixed up: Guy Fieri, Gordon Ramsey, and Anthony Bourdain. I would need to see all of their pictures side by side to distinguish them one from the other. (RIP Mr. Bourdain)
His shows are entertaining as hell. ToC just started back up.
Caring about people who are different from yourself
Bidets!
Not sure if they get much hate but they sure get a lot of shit
Fuck off with your bidets, y'all are like CrossFit and vegetarians, always looking for a place to mention your shit.
Excuse me sir, I don't have any shit. Because of my bidet.
Nickelback
They chose to be commercially popular. They CAN absolutely shred, they ARE very talented. But they chose the top 40 route and are laughing all the way to the bank.
Everyone has a price, if you're an artist and you havent "sold out" its because nobody offered you enough money.
Music is a medium and playing is a craft. Some people play to express themselves in artistic ways and others play to make a living. It's all music, even when it's not art.
Nobody hates the guy who paints walls for a living for not being Picasso, but when it comes to music, everyone looks at any guy with a guitar expecting him to be the next artistic genius.
Sometimes he's just there to play three chords, get paid and go home.
I don't really like Nickelback's music, but if I ever need a house painted, I'd call them before calling someone who hasn't "sold out". I think that's their appeal.
The "sold out" thing bothers me sometimes, yes the ARE bands who come from less popular genres towards more mainstream sound because thats where they found commercial success and wanted/needed that money to keep doing what they do.
But there are also many bands who change genres and sound over time and some bands just enjoy playing that kind of 'radio friendly' music. Personally i feel like nickleback are in the 'we just like this kind of music' category.
(Personally I cant stand nicklebacks genre, so no bias here)
Haha my first thought when I read the title was Creed. We had similar thoughts.
Nah, everyone else are haters or secret top 40 listeners.
Dispassionate takes on controversial issues.
There's always atleast two sides to each story and more often than not the truth is somewhere in the middle. If you think something is clear-cut you're almost guranteed to be mistaken and misinformed and many of your dearest beliefs are totally wrong.
There is, of course, a relevant xkcd - it's yesterday's https://xkcd.com/2898/
Oh, that's brilliant. I hadn't seen that one yet. The alt text is great, too.
I think social media, particularly Twitter, has bred this. Twitter is designed in a way that makes it impossible to have an actual structured debate and instead encourages short and unambiguous statements which cannot possibly accurately encapsulate an issue
Yes, social media has destroyed nuance. Recognizing that a person can understand a position without believing that position is also gone. And people are often performing for likes and “ratio” and discussing in bad faith and being intentionally obtuse in the hopes of getting more attention.
I've taken to letting people know my opinion that if they are omicient they are wasting their talent arguing about piddly topics with subjectives like myself
Dispassionate? Could there be a better word? I think I know and agree with what your saying but I don't think that's the correct word.
Speaking out against intervention in [current war]
Speaking out in favor of past interventions in [previous decade's wars]Lindbergh Leftism needs to make a resurgence
(/s)
Non-monogamists. Not referring to simply polyamorists or even relationship anarchists, but non-monogamists in general. When I saw LGBT equality unfold in the first world, I thought "yay we're finally throwing off those norms" but here we are a decade or so later and polyamory still gets everyone saying "meh". The only time I've ever seen polyamorists in late night media was in an episode of The Resident, and it was used to illustrate the man as a cult leader, which tied into the show like pineapple ties into pizza (I do not miss that show). But you have an LGBT couple in every five episodes.
I think this one is tough. I know a few people that consensual non-monogamy has worked out well for (long term), but most of the people that I know who tried it out it hasn't gone well. So I'm not against it in theory, but it comes with a lot of caveats. I don't personally know anyone who began a monogamous relationship, transitioned to poly, and had it end well. I tend to think of this scenario as a sign of relationship trouble, or a cause of it. Maybe it's not polyamory's fault that so many people in relationship trouble are drawn to it.
It's pretty common to the point of being cliché that "we opened up out relationship" will fail. Usually the people involved are going to come at it in an extremely hierarchical way. Often there are existing problems that aren't being addressed. It's almost at the same tier as "let's have a baby to save our relationship"
People who are non monogamous from the start I expect have similar success rates as anyone else.
I don’t “meh” is hate. Just don’t think people are interested in non-monogamous relationships. I find it funny though because people still cheat and we have a high divorce rate, yet people still shame others for being promiscuous and desire to be in monogamous couples.
Yeah, I understand not wanting it in one's own relationship, but other people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I don't understand getting upset at a polyamorous couple. If you don't like it then just don't do it yourself
Yeah I'm sure this is for no reason
There’s a ‘polyamorous’ couple in You and they’re a terrible representation of polyam. They’re more swinger, which I know a lot of and they’re cool, but not the same.
Polyamory is wildly misunderstood and gets a lot of negative feedback as a result in my experience, and while I know it’s not for everyone, ENM is a solution that would let a lot of people be a lot happier than they are today.
Even LGBT is far from being actually free.
fuck the haters non-monogamy is badass
Optical discs (blu-rays, DVDs, cds, etc...). I hate that I have to justify buying one or having a collection.
How dare you store media on a reflective plate?!
I know you probably already hate me for mentioning it, but foot fetishes. It's a very common fetish people have and I don't think people should be ashamed of it. It's not even the weirdest fetish out there when it comes down to it. I understand the stigma comes from weird dudes asking girls for feet pics in creepy ways and I feel like that's reasonable. But most of us are just regular people just trying to live our best life. I used to feel comfortable telling women I'm with that I have a foot fetish and most of them were even down to give it a try. Nowadays I'm too embarrassed or ashamed to even mention it and when I do I get shot down more often than before because of this stigma. I'm more comfortable these days telling someone that I'm bisexual than telling someone I like feet. Which I guess is a win for the gay part of me, but it still sucks.
I'm not into that at all (tbh I find feet kinda disgusting) but I've never seen it as something really weird because it really isn't that weird.
ngl, having my toes sucked sounds good rn
See, you get it. :)
You should avoid judgemental sexual partners anyways. Foot fetishes are considered "weird" if that's how you phrase it. Generally speaking, it's not that uncommon. Don't open up with a partner about kinks unless you trust them not to run their mouth.
In that regard I definitely agree with you. It could even just be the people I associate with. If anything the people that have given me the most shit for it are other guys that I have as friends.
I spent some time explaining amputee fetish to my CW the other day (which is actually called body identity integrity disorder). I'm just glad there are people who like their limbs and appendages attached.
Poverty.
I do :(
You know what you did
You're doing great. :)
XANADU
[wanders away singing] ♫_A place where nobody dared to go,
The love that we came to know,
They call it..._♫♫ the tears you cried!
♫ can't be denied!
I love that terrible movie and its amazing soundtrack.
George Michael
Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren't as safe drivers. It isn't "fair" in that the dog didn't choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of "teenagers as unsafe drivers," you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it's statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I've known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they'll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it's aggressive. I'd like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don't actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that... I'm genuinely curious about this.
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it's breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that's socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn't be an asshole under those circumstances?
I don't hate the breed or agree with breed bans but both my niece and my friend's daughter were badly bitten by pits and they do make me nervous.
Okay, I'm trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren't being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren't being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more "innately inclined towards criminality" than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog's breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any "big dog with a blocky head" immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren't a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that's "tough" and they essentially train (or don't train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn't at fault.
Anyone who's been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Everyone knows the FBI is in the pocket of big-chihuahua.
*little chihuahua
Head cheese
Ambrosia salad
Quest 64
My soup. So ehat i
White people.
not really imo.
As a race white ppl have done a lotta bad shit globally. Of course that is not the fault of an individual white person. And sure, sometimes people forget about that last part and treat white people different which is racist. But then again non whites deal with way more racism, so I'm not complaining
Race isn't even a good social construct. No doubt people have done truely aweful th8ngs for "the white race" but it doesn't and never has helped the majority of people stuck in that construct.
new generation of white folk arent to be hated really, but older generations of them tend to be well, let just say not so nice at heart at times.
Going to a dog breeder.
Yes there are bad dog breeders. Don't give them your business.
There are no good dog breeders, or any pet breeders for that matter. In a world where thousands of abandoned pets are put down because there is no room anywhere for them, you have no good justification to purchase a pet from somebody who creates dozens more of them voluntarily to make money.
Breeders who responsibly create a hybrid breed for sporting or companion purposes. Doesn't matter if all applicable health testing is done and every puppy has a home in advance before it's even born, people seem to immediately think backyard breeder if a dog isn't purebred.
It's kind of ironic seeing people post something here and being downvoted. Kinda just proves their point.
So if someone said that people hated nazis and holocaust denial "for no reason" and was downvoted into the dirt you'd say that proved their point? Sometimes people are downvoted FOR A REASON. That does not validate their point in a thread like this.
Blockchain. Most of the people who have this hate don't know how it works in even the most gross sense, believe that it and cryptocurrencies are the same thing, and have a visceral, knee-jerk reaction when they're mentioned, without being able to explain why.
Cryptocurrency, too, although there are far more examples of bad actors in that space. But the concept of an economy that works across the internet entirely outside the control of 5-eyes surveillance states? Yes, please.
It gets hate because usually when blockchain is mentioned it is followed by a really dumb idea.
I'm sure there's technological value in a write-only distributed database. I cannot come up with any good suggestions, but I'm sure that distributing links to ugly monkey pictures is probably not it.
it’s not blockchain itself, it’s how over-hyped it is for what is a data structure with a very limited and specific use-case.
It’s the fact that ‘blockchain companies’ exist while there are no ‘binary search tree’ companies or ‘weighted directional graph’ companies.
Yeah, I completely agree. For a while there, it was the new "cloud." What made it worse, I think, is that blockchain is a relatively simple concept ane a fu& programming exercise. And once you've written your first, you look side-eye at Bitcoin prices and the temptation is too much for some people.
It's painful, because cryptocurrency - if done well, without POW - does address a number of capitalism problem spaces; and blockchain has applications in secure digital voting and other data integrity areas. Cryptobros do seem to be a rather unsavory lot, I'll admit. The majority give off greasy libertarian vibes, and I mostly keep quiet about the topic for fear of being associated with them.
Crypto miners are the reason why graphics card prices skyrocketed back when they did. And mining uses enormous amounts of energy and contributes over 100 million tons of CO2 emissions yearly. Fuck them.
For sure. Not to mention what a "trustless" digital currency could mean for the majority of the world which is not in the hegemonic monetary position.
People argue that The Fed is Democratic or that the PBC is antiimperilest butneithers's plans for global currency dominance has the majority of people in the world having any control or say in their monetary policies. They are both, outside of the home countries undemocratic and imperialist.
And that's just on crypto currencies the value of a denctralized smart contract and other function execution machine is also crazy cool to me.
The majority of the hype from get rich quick suckers and scammers deserve the hate they get IMHO. Even the suckers, because they really would be OK with getting rich off of doing nothing and just having everyone cater to them for it.
Conservatism.
Yes, no. An ideology that celebrates killing minorities, women, and the queer community deserves all the hate it gets. The latest victim to your favorite ideology, Nex Benedict in the US and the entire Palestinian population vis-a-vis Netanyahu's conservative government. Conservatism belongs exactly where it is in the public's eye. If not moreso.
Unfortunately they're associated with every horrible idea on earth so I don't know why they expect to be treated well.
Well yea I shouldn't have said it here. It's a controversial one. Hopefully I already explained the reason of me saying it in the replies
Why are we hated on for hating on folk???? It's so unfair!!!
Who is hating on you for wanting to lower taxes?
Or are they hating on you for wanting to deregulate industries?
Or was it a different conservative view?
The conservative part of my views is more about not legalizing things that were not legalized previously (if they do tend to cause damage to people of course). Lol I can see that downvotes by every single USA citizen on Lemmy for that one. Maybe I can explain further if needed but later. I think taxation is important and can be kept high if needed. The government probably shouldn't regulate the industry much but the opposite situation has its advantages as well (EU government nailed that). Private life should always stay private though + mass surveillance is a huge waste of resources that is not good in any perspective. I don't identify myself as a conservative in the traditional meaning of this world. I have my own views
Nah, that's justified
Like many things, I get the ideology and theory, but I don't understand it in practice. Which basically goes for all politics.
Basically they all require force to realistically attain because chaos rules reality and you cant fuck with chaos and the laws of universe or else bad stuff happens. Maybe things could change later on if humanity makes it that far... But we are nowhere near that.
