“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
The word theory is another one.
I find myself thinking this a lot. Someone goes; “and that’s my theory about…” And I’m like; that’s not a theory, that’s a hypothesis…
Like how some creationists try to dispell evolution by saying that it’s only a theory.
I just say “so is gravity”
Idk if that helps your point as it’s simultaneously one of the most studied and least understood things in physics. Although I doubt a creationist could mount that argument.
The point is it’s not just a guess with no evidence which is what they think a theory is.
If they came back with that you try and explain that’s why it’s called a theory and not a fact.
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.
That depends on where you live though. Here in Denmark, as an example, we have a certificate called “Statskontrolleret økologisk” which basically translates to “Government-certified organic”. There are specific guidelines and rules that need to be followed, to be allowed to use this seal on your product.
We have a similar system in the US. The US department of agriculture has a stamp they put on food that has strict criteria for what goes in it
Doesn’t it cost more to produce because you lose more crops to pests?
No, thats just the bullshit they use to justify it.
Anything not looking good enough gets sent to a secondary outlet and is sold as is with no organic labels. The stuff that is a grade below that gets juiced ( dont drink fruit juice that you didnt make yourself if you can help it…). They are not losing a single pennie, they are making out like thieves
Organic has less pesticides. Which is probably healthier no? I mostly buy non organic, but always get organic for certain foods like strawberries and oats since they tend to have so much pesticides used on them.
Organic has less pesticides.
Less pesticides also means more bacteria and more bug poop. There is a reason why they use pesticides, after all.
Even if there are trace amounts of pesticides left, you can just wash the produce, which you should always do anyway. Same reason you wash the organic produce to get rid of bug stuff…
The trace amounts of bug poop or pesticides really makes no difference when it comes to your health.
Not necessarily less pesticides, but “natural” pesticides. In my opinion, organic food is probably either equivalent or better than not-organic, but I don’t think there’s much scientific consensus.
People tend to think “organic” means that a food item is free from the ills of industrial agriculture, but it really doesn’t. It’s the same thing with people directing hate at GMO’s: most complaints people have about them are really complaints that apply to industrial ag whether GMO or not.
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.”
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 haven’t run into anyone who considers emulsifier a scary chemical word. Most people I know with any baking skill know what the word means and use egg yolks for that purpose all the time.
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.
I fully agree on those other factors you mentioned some of even higher importance.
Water is a chemical. Salt is a chemical. Everything is a chemical.
Absolutely, but not at all chemicals are the same as you know. Some are harmless and some are not.
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.
That’s why it’s hate for no reason!
The same hatred from the same haters for public transport too: if everyone else is in public transport there more room for you on the road.
It’s a bizarrely prevalent attitude from a bizarrely large portion of car users.
We had some nice mini-traffic island things separating a cycleway on a road, drivers kept hitting them and damaging their cars. They complained and the council removed them despite it being obvious to anyone that they were doing extremely what they were supposed to do: stopping those idiots from hitting actual cyclists!
Holy words
I thought this as well but German drivers will dangerously swerve into oncoming traffic to overtake me sometimes when I block a lane. Even if there is a red stop light 50m down the road.
Well, it’s less of them, and at least they’re risking their own lives too. If there’s an accident I want the person responsible coming with me to the hospital. That might not be rational, but it’s how I feel.
Lol it’s not rational but I know how you feel. Sometimes I daydream somebody hits me and wrecks my bike and then feels so bad that they give me loads of money in hopes of me not suing them, and then I use that to buy a better bike. And then I wonder wtf is going wrong in my brain
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.
what’s an Idaho stop?
If you are on a bike, you treat stop signs as yields, and red lights as stop signs. Iit has been shown to be safer.
If it were codified like this as law everywhere, people would accept it better. The rule breaking is what pisses a lot of people off. It would be much more predictable and safer too.
Yeah, the government needs to get behind it (and tell people about it). I’ve come up to stop signs before, and been nearly run over from behind by cars that didn’t expect me to stop.
But not the cyclist as the cycle right through it.
Classic, I’m guilty of this. The best part about cycling in my small city is squeezing into the gaps and not waiting around in the wind for the lights to cycle.
I see it as my reward for biking instead of driving to be both a pedestrian when I want (go through red lights when traffic is clear on safe streets) and a car when I want (take a lane to get around a delivery truck)
That and getting places faster!
Congratulations, you’re one of the dickheads giving cyclists a bad name.
Studies show all the things I do actually make it safer for me as a biker. Example: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride
When you are riding in and around drivers in 2 ton machines because your city doesn’t have proper bike infrastructure, you take every single opportunity to avoid them. Call me a “bad cyclist” but I’m going to prioritize my safety over a law or someone’s bad driving any day.
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.
Yeah I know an A-hole driver so all drivers must be A**holes.
No some people just don’t have good reason.
You can say ass on the internet bud, it’s ok.
I think the thread was titled poorly. Anything that gets a lot of hate usually has some sort of reason, even if it may not be justifiable.
There’s absolutely no reason to hate on a cyclist when you wouldn’t hate on a car polluter, because unlike car polluters, we aren’t murderers.
Truth. Furthermore, accidents involving a bike and a car have mostly happened because of a lack of infrastructure and options for safe travel on bikes. Public residential streets, for example, are for all modes of transportation, not just cars. Car brains are hysterical and don’t like that, and my life has been threatened many times while riding my bike on residential streets. I even had an older woman match my speed, roll down her window, and say “Next time I see you I’m running you over.” Cyclists do absolutely nothing to deserve this, and even if they’re holding up traffic, it’s no excuse for homicide.
I’m sure there are many reasons to hate on a cyclist, (not that I personally believe this, but) such as when they block a single lane road slowing traffic to a crawl and placing the responsibility of possibly accidentally killing a cyclist in the motorist’s hands, though you could argue that’s more about the fact that the roads don’t have dedicated bike lanes, and that’s not the cyclist’s fault, but it is still a reason, not that that reason is justified, I like cyclists!
For thousands of years, people walked on roads. That’s what they were for. They were also for horses, donkeys, and carts, but humans were a big part of it. And none of those four things really goes faster than a bike. Cars are new. Taking people and horses off roads is new. Being able to drive the speed limit is a new, temporary condition, and it can be taken away at any time. Blaming this on cyclists is a reaction based on a misunderstanding of what roads are for. Personally, I support legislature to let people walk on the road however they like again.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I was also a (very cautious) cyclist until my bike was stolen.
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
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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
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.
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
- The homeless
- Children
- Chronically ill
- Disabled
- Sex workers
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.
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.
I second this. I love Nickelback. They are unique in their own way .
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 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.
Another thing that is hated for no reason. Age-gap relationships.
Some valid points? Some? Well, yeah, there are some that probably could be omitted, but most stands strong.
Maybe I’m biased as I listen to more or less different genres, but there’s nothing wrong on hating on Nickelback.
Why would you hate someone for making music you don’t enjoy? Why hate someone for making money with a successful product? Why not just… Ignore them? You are under no obligation to like them, but there’s only around three arguments in there to actually hate them. There are more arguments in that article that boil down to “it’s successful, so it sucks” than valid criticism.
It’s cool to hate
Being cool is so lame.
Liking something is just a waste of time.
It is less “it’s successful, so it sucks” and more “I keep having to listen to something I don’t like, so now I hate it”.
Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy rock music (among others), but assholes like Nickelback are making terrible example of it. When someone asks me what I listen to and I reply “rock music” the person often reply along the lines of “ah, ok, like Nickelback?” And that’s just disgusting.
I don’t actively hate on them posting shit on the internet on my own or marching with antiNickelback sign in RL, but when someone asks or when discussion revolves around, I tell him I hate the band.
Being successful musician has nothing to do with it. People like Kanye or Taylor Swift made way more money with their (IMO shitty) music, but I don’t hate them as Nickelback. Because they (probably, or at least not that obviously) don’t ruin the genre they perform in.
Edit: Half of what I want to say is probably lost in translation as English is not my native language, so I can’t make all the nuances I would do in my language.
Striking workers.
Conservatives seem to really hate electric cars for some reason. You’d think that for all the bitching 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.
Possums. They are immune to rabies and eat disease-spreading ticks. Salute your local possum
Gay people
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.
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.
pineapple needs to go under the cheese, then its sublime.
People who hang toilet paper the wong wayWait, there’s a wrong way?
Yes, and I will die in this hill.
I told my wife ten years ago that if she hangs it so it’s close to the wall spiders will make their nest there.
After that day it’s always been hung correctly.
You are one of Them, aren’t you?
There are two right ways, and 1 wrong way.
The right way,
“I have a cat/dog/toddler”
The wrong way.
T R I G G E R E D ! ! !
Yup, if you hang it so the “waterfall” is on the right hand side it’s wrong
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.
I’m really hoping it’s something that they figure out over time, but it’s going to be a lot of work so probably nothing that will happen overnight.
I don’t really think the sexual violence rates in the furry community are higher than in the general community. There’s just more awareness of what consent is. I mean I could say “look at r/jailbait, straight people have a pedophile problem”, and I’d be right, but only because society has a pedophile problem.
That would be true if every single porn site was at or worse than r/jailbait, which to be honest does feel like the case at times.
Socialism/Communism/Anarchism. Barely anyone who actually understands them and the theory supporting them hates them, but tons of people have been fed Red Scare propaganda on the matter.
