"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I have literally never seen this hypothetical 'rules following' cyclists, but I do have several dings on my car from cyclist's lane splitting in traffic, which is illegal in our state.
You know, I was actually curious about the legality of lane splitting. I've never really done it cause I never bike on roads with more than one lane in each direction. I looked it up state-by-state (all 50), looking only at the actual law, or official state department of transportation documents.
I did not see a single law that prohibits bicycles from lane splitting. Most states that have laws against lane splitting specify that it applies to "motorcycles". Most states are literally just copy-pasted from each other.
Another good chunk of states say that "vehicles" can't lane split, but the official legal definition (which I checked for each state) specifically excludes human-powered devices like bikes from being called "vehicles". In those states, e-bikes and other motorized bicycles would not be allowed to lane split.
One state (virginia) even goes so far to have a law that explicitly states that lane splitting is legal on bikes.
None of that means that you won't get harassed by cops, but it's at least fair to say that there is no state where lane splitting on a regular bicycle is illegal.
if you can get a dui on a bike it is a vehicle, there is no exemption for bike-type vehicles on lane splitting. There ARE exemptions for lane splitting on motorcycles in stupid places like California.
I've seen FAR more asshole drivers than asshole cyclists. It's just a majority of drivers have a bias in their head against modes of transport that aren't cars, they see it as abnormal, so they're much quicker to stereotype the groups than they are to stereotype "drivers", which they, themselves, are a part of.
Lol not in Amsterdam and many other cities. And even outside of those cities, there are a higher % of drivers which are assholes than cyclists which are assholes. You are just an irrational person, there is absolutely no world where more cyclers act like shit in traffic than drivers, proportionally. The average driver absolutely acts like a baby compared to the average cyclist...
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)
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.
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, 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
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
I dont want to listen to them because there is nearly infinite better music than the overproduced boring stuff. Some tunes are catchy, even seen them live once because my mom wanted company, but they are mid at best imo
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.
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.
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.
...But you don't have to listen to it. If it's on the radio, change the station. The complaints in the article were WAY too in depth for a casual listener to make.
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.
First, this was never about your opinion. It was about an article that complained about music being used in advertising, songs being popular, and people being inspired by a band. That was the opinion you cited as a good reason to hate them.
Second, how often does that actually happen? Considering it's an internet meme to shit on them, how often do people cite Nickelback as their main example of rock ahead of, say, Nirvana?
Third, why is it disgusting that people mention a band you dislike? Can you not simply correct them and suggest the bands you ACTUALLY like? Does it have to be "hate" rather than "I'm not a fan"?
Fourth, how the hell did Nickelback ruin rock? Is rock so fragile that the Eagles can't be enjoyed because of "How you remind me" existing? There are bands far worse than Nickelback, but they aren't successful so you don't care. If Nickelback weren't as successful, you wouldn't care about them either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Male abuse/SA victims. It's already not taken seriously enough when it happens to women, but when it happens to a guy they get put down even more and told to "man up", sometimes even by people who'd support them if the sexes were swapped.
The idea of using public transportation. It's something for "them" (the poor), not for "me" (rich). Changes significantly from country to country, I suppose, but it's a prevalent thought here.
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.
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.
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.
Some of the fat people I've worked with were so much more hard working than others. But on other hand
some customers I've dealt with were the worst customers. There was a notorious mother daughter duo that my co workers labeled the "Thunder Cunts". The sad part is they had kids that probably.lived a life of hell.
Yeah, child abuse is no joke.
I bet you also had non fat customers who were a pain in the ass too, so it is not about weight, but about being an insufferable tw4twaffle.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lost a friend of 20 years over this. It wasn't exactly the last straw, but it was a HUGE fucking straw.
Made a comment to him about a passing woman wearing those thin strap gladiator sandals and he spent the next hour and a half telling me how disgusting I was.
For the record: he has also gone on to similar lengths of time describing to me how much he loves eating ass.
Fuck you Tom, and that's his real name because Fuck Tom.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? "Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime" and suddenly now since it's optically bad to charge black people higher rates "causation only equals correlation when we can't be called racist for it?"
That shit don't sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they're arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they're the ones the cops use now, and they're "not" "bred to attack" over pits? Come off it.
You can't just accuse me of what I'm accusing you of because I accused you of it, that isn't how this works.
I left out how the pit breed happens to be particularly popular with minorities as well btw, which makes irrational pit hate itself a racist dogwhistle (pun intended). I think I'll add that in now. Gotta have a white people dog like a Bichon Frise huh? None of those dogs "the rappers" like? You disgust me.
"If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all." Your argument is peak "Argument to Authority." I guess it's a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait...
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They're statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that "pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals" is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you're gonna have to convince me with more than "insurance companies say they are."
The causal link is implied. When someone says "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 another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal's breed that makes it this way. It's literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately "more criminal" than another ethnic group.
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'm this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
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, @[email protected], 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 already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here.
Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn't tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable.
Couldn't tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn't matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn't be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
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.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me....
Anyone whos been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey.
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren't killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Of course it's not the dog's fault. It is just an animal. It's the breeders' and the owners' fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you're just looking for a pet next time.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They'd certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
In the community I grew up in it was common to praise someone who lifted their truck, swapped out the exhaust system, added light bars, etc, and then deride someone who lowered their car, added hydraulics to make it bounce, installed low profile tires with large rims. Mostly this had to do with racism, but I never understood why one would be praised and the other wouldn't when both take a lot of money and skill to do right.
Also, I think I get what you're trying to say with 'hard r', but it does not mean 'retarded', it is a way to differentiate between 'nigga' and 'removed'. And the way you used it, no matter the meaning you were going for, is still (ableist | racist) since the same meaning is implied. Not trying to be preachy, but it appears that you're trying to not be offensive and I just wanted to help.
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.
You were obviously talking about traditional pets, not service animals.
The service animal industry is also largely problematic and exploitative.
Rescue animals can serve as service animals in a large portion of cases anyways, you don't need "purebreds" to work as herding animals, bomb detection animals, anxiety-comfort pets, guide pets for the blind, etc.
I know multiple people who have service/working animals and my spouse and I both work in the pet foster community, so no not uninformed.
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.
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.
Because Labradoodles wound up very cute but inherited all the bad traits from both breeds and almost none of the good. Just a bundle of nerves and health issues, or so Ive heard/read
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.
There are a few different types of blockchain, differing by how they stop you just making up your own alternative chain and saying that is the real history:
Proof of Work - prove you wasted lots of energy to add to the chain, making it prohibitively expensive to make your fake alternative chain - but also causing lots of emissions / wasting lots of energy.
Proof of Stake - adding to the chain requires participation of the people with the most total coins in the cryptocurrency already. Essentially 'one dollar, one vote', and 'the rich get richer' brought to crypo.
Proof of Humanity / Proof of Personhood / Proof of Identity - adding to the chain requires the participation of the most people. Attempts to bring "One person, one vote", and Universal Basic Income to crypto. There are various attempts - some require submission of photos and videos, and have an adjudication scheme built in to detect duplicates (which might fall to AI-generated faces relatively soon). Others (see Worldcoin) require a trusted central party to produce hardware which scans faces and verifies they are real and unique (and have already had data leaks from participants involved in verification). The other option is to trust governments / other existing infrastructure to verify identities (which is probably the most sensible option if you are trying to genuinely just disrupt banking, but many crypto people hate because they also have a cyberpunk fantasy of accelerating crypto-anarchy, and actually want crypto to be used for tax evasion and without the cooperation of governments).
So there are alternatives to environmental impact, but there is currently no perfect crypto. Stack that on top of the number of scammers out there riding the crypto buzz, and it is certainly not that hard to see the reasons behind the hate.
Sounds like you're thinking of proof of work cryptocurrencies. They use blockchains, but are not blockchains themselves. The blockchains part is trivially cheap to compute.
No. No more than, say, Lemmy. It's just a cryptographically verifiable audit log.
This is not aimed at you; you asked a reasonable question. The height of ignorant hypocracy is people complaining about environmental impact (which is resource use) while using streaming movies, music, and online video games. Watching a Youtube video rant about the evils of Bitcoin uses more resources than syncing a day's backlog of the Bitcoin blockchain. Most popular web sites these days are so packed with Javascript, they compete with shitcoin blockchain resource use.
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.
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.
The issue is that cryptocurrency doesn't really work without proof of work though, right? That's the fundamental basis of how the Blockchain ensures correctness.
Proof of work has nothing to do with blockchain itself. In Bitcoin, POW is how new blocks are found, but blocks are just payloads stored in the chain. Other, non-currency data can (and is) be stored in the Bitcoin blockchain, and this data does't necessarily require POW.
Bitcoin POW chunks might as well be new prime numbers; you spend a bunch of processing to calculate new primes, then you digitally sign the data and store those on the public blockchain and now you have digital currency. A blockchain block itself is no more CPU intensive than what it "costs" to set up a new SSL connection to whatever porn site you're browsing. It's literally just a chain of blocks of data hashes (even cheaper than your SSL connection) than include a previous block's hash, and which are signed.
POW is part of the cryptocoin part; blockchain is entirely unrelated - it's just a publically verifiable audit log (in this case also encapsulating the signed data).
There even exist cryptocurrencies which are not based on POW and the entire argument about environmental impact falls apart. Those have less environmental impact than Fortnight. But, in most cryptocurrencies there needs to be a mechanism to prevent people from arbitrarily printing cash and devaluing the system; aside from POW, staking is popular: you just buy coins outright. There are other methods; but in no case does the technology of blockchain involve POW.
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.
Well yea but when it comes to politics, nothing has only advantages. I just hate how this exact policy receives so much aggressive hate from liberals for not more reason than liberal policy has
I have only seen a lot of hateful liberals. That's why I said that. It was more of a rant. Seriously why are they so aggressive? They only make this world worse with their hatred. Though I'm sure there are aggressive conservatists too. I just haven't seen them yet
Never heard any anti-trans rhetoric, or just agree with it? ‘Cause I see calling for a group to be eradicated from public life as generally making the world worse.
In other words, watch CPAC and try to remember that the things they say are about real people, and they pass legislation negatively affecting those real people.
I don't even think I'm a conservative. I don't follow any conservative speakers, leaders etc. And I respect different opinions. But hatred is always bad. I saw a ton of hateful and aggressive liberals that seemed to act aggressively towards any different opinion (not only conservative I think). That is always bad. If you like aggression, well, I'd suggest therapy
Where did you see it? I’ve seen a ton of stuff like that on social media, but social media amplifies awful takes and has a large population of people lacking perspectives. It doesn’t represent the real world all that well.
Speaking on aggression, there is a large contingent of people in this country who are actively hoping for a civil war and the opportunity to shoot their neighbors over opinions they don’t like or living lives they don’t approve of.
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.
It is not. It is actually what the word "fair" means. You get hate (a bad thing) for doing hate (a bad thing). Completely fair in my opinion. There's nothing wrong in critics though. Unfortunately every part of the US culture and government tries to distort it
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
The last 40 years our country has been at an effective standstill because the only conservative platform is a 'return to a mythologized past that never actually existed'.
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.
Politics is hard in practice. There are always going to be factors that'll make ideas hard or even impossible to implement (any ideas, not only conservative)
Conservative politics are dead in the US and the world is following. What we have left is some fascism and handouts and a population not capable of having a conversation because of it.
You want to talk and conservative fiscal policy or fixing the US fucked up system of immigration 👏👏👏👏👏 I'm all ears.
You want to talk about fucking pizza gate, grooming, and spending a trillion dollars on a fucking wall? You can take my cock and try to speak with it in your mouth.
For the vast majority of political parties conservatism is all but in name. Sincerely a gun carrying, truck driving, white dude who fucking hates the at least good willed insanity of the more progressive parties not only here but in Europe.
"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.
But that's just a theory, a gaaaame theory
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.
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.
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:
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):
this post by Hank Green
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 ever tried uranium in your oatmeal? Delicious!
I use ethically sourced 100% natural asbestos to filter my coffee. Very good flavor profile.
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 H
2O.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.
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.
I have literally never seen this hypothetical 'rules following' cyclists, but I do have several dings on my car from cyclist's lane splitting in traffic, which is illegal in our state.
You know, I was actually curious about the legality of lane splitting. I've never really done it cause I never bike on roads with more than one lane in each direction. I looked it up state-by-state (all 50), looking only at the actual law, or official state department of transportation documents.
I did not see a single law that prohibits bicycles from lane splitting. Most states that have laws against lane splitting specify that it applies to "motorcycles". Most states are literally just copy-pasted from each other.
Another good chunk of states say that "vehicles" can't lane split, but the official legal definition (which I checked for each state) specifically excludes human-powered devices like bikes from being called "vehicles". In those states, e-bikes and other motorized bicycles would not be allowed to lane split.
One state (virginia) even goes so far to have a law that explicitly states that lane splitting is legal on bikes.
None of that means that you won't get harassed by cops, but it's at least fair to say that there is no state where lane splitting on a regular bicycle is illegal.
if you can get a dui on a bike it is a vehicle, there is no exemption for bike-type vehicles on lane splitting. There ARE exemptions for lane splitting on motorcycles in stupid places like California.
I literally just looked it up for every state. I found no state with a law against lane splitting for bicycles. It's legal in every state.
Ignoring the impact (death for the cycler), I've seen plenty of asshole bikers who deserve a good yelling at and 100% deserve the hate.
What they don't deserve is getting run over.
I've seen FAR more asshole drivers than asshole cyclists. It's just a majority of drivers have a bias in their head against modes of transport that aren't cars, they see it as abnormal, so they're much quicker to stereotype the groups than they are to stereotype "drivers", which they, themselves, are a part of.
Yeah. Turns out there are a ton of cars, not a ton of bikes.
The rest is just made up in your head.
Lol not in Amsterdam and many other cities. And even outside of those cities, there are a higher % of drivers which are assholes than cyclists which are assholes. You are just an irrational person, there is absolutely no world where more cyclers act like shit in traffic than drivers, proportionally. The average driver absolutely acts like a baby compared to the average cyclist...
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.
Every single interaction I have had with a cyclist has been unpleasant, every one.
Logicalfallacy.txt
Not what they said🤣
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.
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
oh noes!
very real danger!!
i'm much frighten!!!
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
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
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
Ah, the common paradox. Nobody wants to listen to Nickelback because it's overplayed, and nobody drives in New York because of all the traffic.
I dont want to listen to them because there is nearly infinite better music than the overproduced boring stuff. Some tunes are catchy, even seen them live once because my mom wanted company, but they are mid at best imo
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
Also a phrase that sums up their entire career. And that's fine. They're like the musical equivalent of comfort food.
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.
Thanks I'm glad someone got it
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".
...But you don't have to listen to it. If it's on the radio, change the station. The complaints in the article were WAY too in depth for a casual listener to make.
That assumes you have control of the radio station or whatever songs are being played. It isn't like that for a lot of people.
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.
First, this was never about your opinion. It was about an article that complained about music being used in advertising, songs being popular, and people being inspired by a band. That was the opinion you cited as a good reason to hate them.
Second, how often does that actually happen? Considering it's an internet meme to shit on them, how often do people cite Nickelback as their main example of rock ahead of, say, Nirvana?
Third, why is it disgusting that people mention a band you dislike? Can you not simply correct them and suggest the bands you ACTUALLY like? Does it have to be "hate" rather than "I'm not a fan"?
Fourth, how the hell did Nickelback ruin rock? Is rock so fragile that the Eagles can't be enjoyed because of "How you remind me" existing? There are bands far worse than Nickelback, but they aren't successful so you don't care. If Nickelback weren't as successful, you wouldn't care about them either.
No, makes sense to me.
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.
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.
Possums. They are immune to rabies and eat disease-spreading ticks. Salute your local possum
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.
There are two right ways, and 1 wrong way.
The right way,
"I have a cat/dog/toddler"
The wrong way.
You are one of Them, aren't you?
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.
trans people
Male abuse/SA victims. It's already not taken seriously enough when it happens to women, but when it happens to a guy they get put down even more and told to "man up", sometimes even by people who'd support them if the sexes were swapped.
The idea of using public transportation. It's something for "them" (the poor), not for "me" (rich). Changes significantly from country to country, I suppose, but it's a prevalent thought here.
MSG
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.
Socialism
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.
Fat people. There, I said it.
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.
Some of the fat people I've worked with were so much more hard working than others. But on other hand some customers I've dealt with were the worst customers. There was a notorious mother daughter duo that my co workers labeled the "Thunder Cunts". The sad part is they had kids that probably.lived a life of hell.
Yeah, child abuse is no joke. I bet you also had non fat customers who were a pain in the ass too, so it is not about weight, but about being an insufferable tw4twaffle.
Yeah I worked in a really shitty area. It was heartbreaking seeing how shitty people were.
Oh I feel for you. It is never easy to witness some stuff.
And very cuddly and squeezable. I like touching fat folks as much as I like touching for folks. All bodies are nice.
Satanists get persecuted a lot; although, they do a lot to protect religious freedom.
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.
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.
Caring about people who are different from yourself
Bidets!
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)
Oh they deserve it, just not because of their music. I used to hang with a few guys that grew up in the same town, the stories they would tell...
do tell
They were always taking photographs of everything. Ugh.
Nah, everyone else are haters or secret top 40 listeners.
furries
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.
There's nothing to explain, it's just redirected bestiality.
Clowns. I never found them entertaining, but they just want to entertain kids and people at circuses.
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.
I bet you eat ass with no complaint, and yet you call liking feet disgusting.
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.
Lost a friend of 20 years over this. It wasn't exactly the last straw, but it was a HUGE fucking straw.
Made a comment to him about a passing woman wearing those thin strap gladiator sandals and he spent the next hour and a half telling me how disgusting I was.
For the record: he has also gone on to similar lengths of time describing to me how much he loves eating ass.
Fuck you Tom, and that's his real name because Fuck Tom.
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/
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.
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?!
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.
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.
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)
Poverty.
I do :(
You know what you did
You're doing great. :)
Age gaps in partners.
The (formerly) Dixie Chicks.
They were fucking right and the entire nation nuked them from orbit.
XANADU
[wanders away singing] ♫_A place where nobody dared to go,
The love that we came to know,
They call it..._♫
George Michael
Head cheese
Ambrosia salad
Quest 64
Libertarians
Socialists
But even more so libertarian socialists
I've just using that label because it was just a guerenteed fight starter instead of clarifying anything
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.
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.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? "Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime" and suddenly now since it's optically bad to charge black people higher rates "causation only equals correlation when we can't be called racist for it?"
That shit don't sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they're arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they're the ones the cops use now, and they're "not" "bred to attack" over pits? Come off it.
You can't just accuse me of what I'm accusing you of because I accused you of it, that isn't how this works.
I left out how the pit breed happens to be particularly popular with minorities as well btw, which makes irrational pit hate itself a racist dogwhistle (pun intended). I think I'll add that in now. Gotta have a white people dog like a Bichon Frise huh? None of those dogs "the rappers" like? You disgust me.
"If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all." Your argument is peak "Argument to Authority." I guess it's a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait...
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They're statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that "pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals" is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you're gonna have to convince me with more than "insurance companies say they are."
Quick thought experiment - magically replace every pitbull in the world with a chihuahua instead. Do the number of maulings go up or down?
No one is ascribing any casual links here.
The causal link is implied. When someone says "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 another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal's breed that makes it this way. It's literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately "more criminal" than another ethnic group.
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.
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.
I'm this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
The one in my neighbourhood jumps all over me. I am also a bit on edge, although most of it seems to be goofiness.
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, @[email protected], 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 already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here. Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same? Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn't tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable. Couldn't tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn't matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn't be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
Because those are the two dog breeds that exist. Pitbull and Chihuahua. There are no others.
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.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me....
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren't killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
Of course it's not the dog's fault. It is just an animal. It's the breeders' and the owners' fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you're just looking for a pet next time.
There are a shitload of people who advocate for completely destroying this breed of dog.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They'd certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
What do you think happens to all the unadopted pitbulls, pizza parties every Friday? Nope, it's euthanasia.
Everyone knows the FBI is in the pocket of big-chihuahua.
White people.
My soup. So ehat i
Car mods (not coal rolling that's just hard r). You nerds are judgey as fuck. Let them have fun.
In the community I grew up in it was common to praise someone who lifted their truck, swapped out the exhaust system, added light bars, etc, and then deride someone who lowered their car, added hydraulics to make it bounce, installed low profile tires with large rims. Mostly this had to do with racism, but I never understood why one would be praised and the other wouldn't when both take a lot of money and skill to do right.
Also, I think I get what you're trying to say with 'hard r', but it does not mean 'retarded', it is a way to differentiate between 'nigga' and 'removed'. And the way you used it, no matter the meaning you were going for, is still (ableist | racist) since the same meaning is implied. Not trying to be preachy, but it appears that you're trying to not be offensive and I just wanted to help.
LTT reference on hard R. Meant to be cheeky but I could see folks missing that.
There are plenty of reasons to hate car mods.
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.
Tell me you have a pet and not a working animal without telling me you have a pet and not a working animal.
You're uninformed. Have a nice day.
You were obviously talking about traditional pets, not service animals.
The service animal industry is also largely problematic and exploitative.
Rescue animals can serve as service animals in a large portion of cases anyways, you don't need "purebreds" to work as herding animals, bomb detection animals, anxiety-comfort pets, guide pets for the blind, etc.
I know multiple people who have service/working animals and my spouse and I both work in the pet foster community, so no not uninformed.
Obviously. Interesting.
You're wrong/have no idea what you're talking about.
Have a nice day.
I want a Weiner mixed with Pitbull mixed with Chihuahua dog to herd my cattle. Specifically one that's been inbred for six years.
It's kind of ironic seeing people post something here and being downvoted. Kinda just proves their point.
Not necessarily. They could be down voted because what they mentioned is hated for a good reason. Like if someone posts "Nazis" or "cancer".
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.
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.
I think this applies to every breeder, regardless if they do pure breeds or trendy mutts.
I'd rather mix breeds gain popularity than pure breeds
No, breeders deserve hate.
Anyone who has as pet that struggles with recessed snouts will agree.
Imagine being born unable to breathe properly because breeders wanted to promote an aesthetic.
Fuck breeders, return to mongrel.
The man who created Labradoodles regrets his actions
Can we find the pug guy? Theres someone responsible for some animal suffering
How come?
Because Labradoodles wound up very cute but inherited all the bad traits from both breeds and almost none of the good. Just a bundle of nerves and health issues, or so Ive heard/read
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.
Quick question: isnt blockchain also very harsh on the environment bc of ever-elongating sequences to calculate?
There are a few different types of blockchain, differing by how they stop you just making up your own alternative chain and saying that is the real history:
So there are alternatives to environmental impact, but there is currently no perfect crypto. Stack that on top of the number of scammers out there riding the crypto buzz, and it is certainly not that hard to see the reasons behind the hate.
Sounds like you're thinking of proof of work cryptocurrencies. They use blockchains, but are not blockchains themselves. The blockchains part is trivially cheap to compute.
No. No more than, say, Lemmy. It's just a cryptographically verifiable audit log.
This is not aimed at you; you asked a reasonable question. The height of ignorant hypocracy is people complaining about environmental impact (which is resource use) while using streaming movies, music, and online video games. Watching a Youtube video rant about the evils of Bitcoin uses more resources than syncing a day's backlog of the Bitcoin blockchain. Most popular web sites these days are so packed with Javascript, they compete with shitcoin blockchain resource use.
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.
The issue is that cryptocurrency doesn't really work without proof of work though, right? That's the fundamental basis of how the Blockchain ensures correctness.
Proof of work has nothing to do with blockchain itself. In Bitcoin, POW is how new blocks are found, but blocks are just payloads stored in the chain. Other, non-currency data can (and is) be stored in the Bitcoin blockchain, and this data does't necessarily require POW.
Bitcoin POW chunks might as well be new prime numbers; you spend a bunch of processing to calculate new primes, then you digitally sign the data and store those on the public blockchain and now you have digital currency. A blockchain block itself is no more CPU intensive than what it "costs" to set up a new SSL connection to whatever porn site you're browsing. It's literally just a chain of blocks of data hashes (even cheaper than your SSL connection) than include a previous block's hash, and which are signed.
POW is part of the cryptocoin part; blockchain is entirely unrelated - it's just a publically verifiable audit log (in this case also encapsulating the signed data).
There even exist cryptocurrencies which are not based on POW and the entire argument about environmental impact falls apart. Those have less environmental impact than Fortnight. But, in most cryptocurrencies there needs to be a mechanism to prevent people from arbitrarily printing cash and devaluing the system; aside from POW, staking is popular: you just buy coins outright. There are other methods; but in no case does the technology of blockchain involve POW.
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.
There are actually two conditions in the question, friendo
Well yea but when it comes to politics, nothing has only advantages. I just hate how this exact policy receives so much aggressive hate from liberals for not more reason than liberal policy has
You say this as if conservatives aren't aggressively hateful lol
People hate the hatred fueled by conservatism
I have only seen a lot of hateful liberals. That's why I said that. It was more of a rant. Seriously why are they so aggressive? They only make this world worse with their hatred. Though I'm sure there are aggressive conservatists too. I just haven't seen them yet
The hatred from conservatives that I'm referring to is through the legislation they pass that has IRL consequences and ruins people's lives
I'm not going to argue. I have a completely different opinion
It’s not subjective, it’s fact. You’re welcome to your own opinion, not your own reality.
Never heard any anti-trans rhetoric, or just agree with it? ‘Cause I see calling for a group to be eradicated from public life as generally making the world worse.
In other words, watch CPAC and try to remember that the things they say are about real people, and they pass legislation negatively affecting those real people.
I don't even think I'm a conservative. I don't follow any conservative speakers, leaders etc. And I respect different opinions. But hatred is always bad. I saw a ton of hateful and aggressive liberals that seemed to act aggressively towards any different opinion (not only conservative I think). That is always bad. If you like aggression, well, I'd suggest therapy
Where did you see it? I’ve seen a ton of stuff like that on social media, but social media amplifies awful takes and has a large population of people lacking perspectives. It doesn’t represent the real world all that well.
Speaking on aggression, there is a large contingent of people in this country who are actively hoping for a civil war and the opportunity to shoot their neighbors over opinions they don’t like or living lives they don’t approve of.
It's pop politics. Pop politics and marketing is the enemy. Regardless of sides.
It's like the difference between real art and pop marketed art. Street rap and pop rap etc.
So there's some reasons to hate then? The question asks about things hated for absolutely no reason.
Yea I know. That comment was a rant. I just hate aggression like that
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
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.
Hmm I guess I meant a different kind of conservatism
Define it then, don’t have to be coy.
It was about legalization policies, not about economical stuff
Why are we hated on for hating on folk???? It's so unfair!!!
It is not. It is actually what the word "fair" means. You get hate (a bad thing) for doing hate (a bad thing). Completely fair in my opinion. There's nothing wrong in critics though. Unfortunately every part of the US culture and government tries to distort it
My response was sarcastic reply to the person above me... I am very much not conservative
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
Fuck that, they deserve every ounce of hate.
The last 40 years our country has been at an effective standstill because the only conservative platform is a 'return to a mythologized past that never actually existed'.
Fuck conservatives
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.
Politics is hard in practice. There are always going to be factors that'll make ideas hard or even impossible to implement (any ideas, not only conservative)
It's also changing constantly which people don't like to admit. People want something secure but life will never be secure.
If only the US had a conservative branch!
Conservative politics are dead in the US and the world is following. What we have left is some fascism and handouts and a population not capable of having a conversation because of it.
You want to talk and conservative fiscal policy or fixing the US fucked up system of immigration 👏👏👏👏👏 I'm all ears.
You want to talk about fucking pizza gate, grooming, and spending a trillion dollars on a fucking wall? You can take my cock and try to speak with it in your mouth.
For the vast majority of political parties conservatism is all but in name. Sincerely a gun carrying, truck driving, white dude who fucking hates the at least good willed insanity of the more progressive parties not only here but in Europe.