“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
Like how some creationists try to dispell evolution by saying that it’s only a theory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
I’m terrified of Weiner and vagina and everything in-between.
Edit: wtf is so special that Weiner auto capitalizes?
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.
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.
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.
And they choose this path because LGBT folks have been getting bullied, assaulted and murdered for just existing for about as long as civilization has existed. If they don’t stand up for themselves nobody else is going to do it for them.
The key word is “trying” - most of them are trying to live their lives largely without bothering anyone - except that “anyone” is composed of a lot of people that can’t put up with their existence. Not through any fault of the person, just because of the way they are.
I do get what you’re saying. But it’s a half step away from deriding them for their very existence, which is disgusting. They are attempting to break the status quo in the same way the civil rights movement did.
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.
People can do whatever they want imo, go take that rammstein stage…just be realistic about what you’re gonna get as a result.
You feel like a woman and want to be one? Go ahead, i’d even date and or wife you if your personality is likeable i don’t care about your genitals and whatever makes you happy goes.
Understand that not everyone is going to agree with you, stay safe and be careful. Same goes for everyone else.
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.
Have you ever actually met any trans people? Because they don’t do that thing you said
