Spyke
Lodespawnreply
aussie.zone

Jeepers, your idea of your average hospitality worker is pretty dark

43
otterreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

I was implying that the meat® is from all of the animal... Also, I spent over two decades in the food industry (US, EU, etc.). Ask me for stories — if you don't ever want to eat at any restaurants ever again.

5
Lodespawnreply
aussie.zone

Yeah but lips and anuses aren't spit, I think OP was implying that if you attempted what is listed about the kitchen staff are going to make sure the contents of their sinuses form the main protein of your burger.

19
otterreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Yes, and animal fluids, et al, are not generally accounted for in the minds of those that consume said products. For instance, are you aware of the "acceptable" volume of fecal matter in "fast food" ingredients? 🤔

-13
Frezikreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Yes, and fecal matter on food (meat or otherwise) has been the norm for all of human history. We just have ways of measuring it now and make rules about it.

13

That's a very generous way of excusing corpo lobbying for barely-edible standards. 😅

-4

I'm not going to say I've thought about it but I would expect it's defined for a lot of countries (I'd be more worried if it wasn't deck ed) and I'm going to assume in most cases it aligns with the regulation of fecal matter levels for other foods .. unless a lobby group has convinced the relevant government body that they are mitigating it with some process like bleaching (also not great). But on the whole I would expect fast food meat to have the same acceptable level of fecal matter as mushrooms. Whether the level is a problem is going to depend on your country ..

7
Soulgreply
ani.social

Boy wait until you find out what manure is

0

They don't have the time or hydration to do that to every order. They have to save that for the special customers.

5
Zorquereply
lemmy.world

McDonalds marketing is getting pretty aggressive if they're sending their cashiers to Wendy's...

38
Nelotsreply
lemmy.zip

The cashier is working undercover in order to steal the krappy patty's secret formula.

9

“What did you find out, Steve? Did you get the formula?”

“Yeah, commercials, we just need more than the other guys. I don’t think our food matters, like, at all.”

3
hOrnireply
lemmy.world

So.... A good candidate for the next US president?

10
programming.dev

This is only missing JP coming up with a completely deranged definition of what fries are that he demands the cashier adheres to (I don't think the vodka applies, that's more making fun of the cashier). And also him entirely dodging the question of whether he likes fries, stating that people have discussed whether he likes fries but he refuses to reveal it.

63

Obviously fries represent the western civilization. Frying oil is the chaos dragon of woke left that means to destroy the fries, but will instead transform them into something even more beautiful, an entity of culinary perfection. But you would already know that if only you had bought my online course. sob It's so sublime. sob

15

Employee listening in the background hears the timer for the fries go off. Pulls the basket out from the oil.

Looks at the fries.

Looks at the stand for them to drain.

Looks at Jordan Peterson.

Looks at the fries.

Shoves their own face into the hot oil to escape the sound of JP's voice.

1
europe.pub

Gets plain fries, but gets charged for vodka. Cashier points to vodka line on the bill and says "potatoes", then points to fries and says "potatoes".

53

False inductive reasoning combined with butwhataboutism and sealinoning. All designed to exhaust the opponent and muddy the argument. Conservatives love this form of argument.

47

Yeah, I got the joke. I was talking about the inspiration for the joke that made it funny in the first place.

23

Sealioning (source) + whataboutism. A very cheap method of trolling and exhausting the opponent of the argument which relies on the victim being unaware of sealioning and they're being sealioned. It's frustrating seeing JP fans think this is proof he's a genius. it's like Ben Shapiro, another rightwing "influencer" who constantly speaks fast and gish gallops on purpose and his fans think he's a genius for that too

46

That, too. For people who don't know what that is (source)

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]

23

Thanks for teaching me something new!

Also your username is very apt for this thread.

8
lemmy.zip

The "motherfucker" forced me to hear this in Samuel L Jackson's voice.

12

lol the whole quote was a SLJ reference from one of his iconic lines, so you are right on the money

5

Currently watching a Peterson debate... This is just too perfect.

24
lemmy.world

My dog is an intellectual powerhouse compared to Jordan Peterson fans.

Lol. I just Googled him and his YouTube channel description reads...

"Join intellectual phenomenon Dr. Jordan B. Peterson for enlightening discourse"

23
forrgottreply
lemmy.sdf.org

It's a phenomenon how much he lacks any intellectual capabilities.

11

with the amount of benzos he took, and coma that gave him brain damage, hes been reduced to only able to respond with emotional outbursts.

3
feddit.nl

Watching him debate those atheists was painful. His debating technique is beyond stupid.

22
  1. Make a statement that is at best wildly controversial and at worst blatantly untrue
  2. Redefine the words in that statement to make it vacuously true and completely uninteresting
  3. When challenged, say that you don't care about common parlance
  4. Everyone loses, because this debate is now pointless and annoying
19
ano_ba_toreply
sopuli.xyz

See? That means he won the argument. Checkmate, atheists.

17
plythreply
feddit.org

He seems to genuinely be trying to understand his emotions. Are there others who equally expose their inner world, especially conservatives? I don't know another conservative person who dares to do it.

-13

Nah, he just got brain damage from his Benzo addiction, and now he can't stop crying even in situations that aren't warranted.

12
lemmy.world

My father tried to tell me what a "genius" he is. I told my father point blank, Jordan Peterson is only a genius to morons. He even gave me one of Peterson's self help books, I immediately tossed it in the trash. Though, in retrospect, I probably should have tried to return it to Amazon and used the money to buy something more worthy of reading, like Chick Tracts. 😂 At least they're entertaining.

18

So close to the real thing that it wasn't funny or entertaining to me, just another instance of me being annoyed by Jordan Peterson even when it wasn't actually him.

4
aussie.zone

It's mostly just that. The whole thing was a mess. The atheists were told they would be debating a Christian and prepared as such, but he won't define himself as a Christian. So much time is wasted dancing around that. They had to change the title from Christian debates to Jordan Peterson debates. On top of that he will barely engage properly, saying things like he won't entertain a hypothetical because he wouldn't allow himself to get in that situation in the first place. Just generally not acting in good faith.

20

The guy is a notorious rhetorical shitmuffin.

He just strings fallacies together and his crowd along.

5
sopuli.xyz

Vodka with my Big Mac

I've had that quite a few times. Doesn't really go together but rather they go sequentially. First you drink vodka then later on you want greasy shit

15

Dunno, I was picturing it more like a chocolate® milk when all you've got is a squeezie of Quik & a jug of milk. One after the other, and shake your face to mix. Win.

1
qaz
lemmy.world

Some person was showing me videos of him and telling me he was very smart, does anyone happen to know some good examples to get him to reconsider?

15
Honytawkreply
feddit.nl

Ask about his Benzo addiction that literally gave him brain damage. Which was what all his doctors predicted would happen.

12
lemmy.today

a coma to get over his benzo withdrawal which is unsanctioned, since he went to russia.

2
Honytawkreply
feddit.nl

He had to fly to Russia because no doctor in Canada or the US would perform the procedure on him. That is how unsanctioned it was.

1

If the person can watch him talk and come away with their opinion that's he's a genius they will be hard to convince otherwise.

7

Any video in which he's pandering to the Bible Belt Friends, in particular after 2020

Some of his Q/A with crowds after a talk also show him extremely defensive for no good reason - I remember a couple around 2019 or 2020, unfortunately I don't remember anything useful to locate them. These are not the ones he used to host from home mind you

6

This was made when JP was at his peak. In 2020 he was induced into a coma in Russia to treat his benzo addiction. The brain damage turned him into the fucked up crybaby version we see today. I'd give him even less credit than this video gives. (Although the vid is still great)

9
lemmy.world

I genuinely can't think of a better example of a modern day sophist than Jordan Peterson.

14

Define turn. There is no "right" order. It's all a construct. Now tell me, what does the word Define mean to you?

1

I sometimes just feel bad for him, like I want to give him a big hug and talk about addictions.

He's just such a sad man

7

Sophists are not edgy and clever. They're asocial and annoying to be around.

6
lemmy.world

I find it incredibly obnoxious when you are discussing or debating with someone and they start one of their replies with "so."

5

Noted! I try not to be an asshat, but I can be a bit of a 'splainer despite myself.

4

Mostly, because it is cheaper and it is allowed, but potato is also an option.

6
Tryenjerreply
lemmy.world

Interesting. I always heard that real vodka was made from potatoes.

4

I think Rogan was the smarter one.

Actually, I know Rogan is smarter. Rogan had a craft as a fight commentator; that's a skill that takes knowledge in both tv presentation and fighting. And I bet you rogan easily talk for a full day about Pride FC without repeating a point.

JP knows how fill an essay up to four paragraphs.

2
Madison420reply
lemmy.world

I think you're mistaking charisma for intelligence which is sorta how we got here.

4
lemmy.world

I am not. Rogan is a legit expert at his field. Charisma is just another thing he has on JP. And I am not even a fan of Rogan.

I can't even name what JP is good at.

0
Madison420reply
lemmy.world

You can be an expert and be extremely good at something and still an absolute fucking idiot hence charisma and experience rather than intelligence.

2
Madison420reply
lemmy.world

Jp was an actual professor at Harvard but not at all an honest or sane one.

1

Dont forget how he had to wrestle mike goldberg so that he wouldnt drink more than 2 monster energys per night and say something outof pocket

1

Fries are what the British would call 'chips' and the British are objectively wrong on this one specific thing

2

I’ll bite.

It might have been different a few decades ago, but in the UK these days fries are still fries. Nobody would ever ask for a Big Mac and chips. Chips are specifically much fatter ‘chipped’ potatoes. And potato chips are crisps.

So if we’re talking objectively… Fries are just the same US and UK. But US potato chips aren’t actually ‘chipped’, they’re very thinly sliced. And ‘crisps’ are indeed very crisp.

So I’d actually say the UK descriptions are more objectively correct.

4

I like a lot of JPs stuff l. He intruduced me to a lot of concepts but ironically i must warn that his content really is for the thinking man in the sense that you need to stay vigilant to spot the cintradictions with reality. Cleaning your room doesnt fix dating or the job market for instance and sometimes those realities that go beyond our own self discipline and talent really are overwhelming.

-5
Maxxiereply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Making fun of someone with an obviously fake conversation is a universal staple, from classroom to a boardroom.

+10 points if you do the voice, - 100 if the voice is a racial stereotype

27
Honytawkreply
feddit.nl

-10 points if the person you are doing an impression of is standing right behind you.

1
Cramponreply
lemmy.world

Racial stereotype. What do you mean? Imitating an Indian scam call from a scam factory in India having a conversation with you is viable with an Indian accent if it adds to the story.

Every time I tell a story of a french person being upset about something minor I always add a french accent to help develop the story.

Telling any story of a cultural exchange with a monotone AI voice isn't really normal.

-2

What do you mean? Imitating an Indian scam call from a scam factory in India having a conversation with you is viable with an Indian accent if it adds to the story.

They means that it is not and they are right.

1
lemmy.world

No, anyone whose brain isn't addled by narrative-over-facts finds making up fake conversations to support a narrative extremely pathetic and cringeworthy. It stands to reason that if someone merits being criticized for acting a certain way, then you're able to use actual examples of them acting that way to make your point.

You likely only say what you did because you and the majority of your social circle are part of the above-described addled category.

1
feddit.it

It's a parody not a made up example. It doesn't prove a point other than accidentally showing your lack of understanding of basic storytelling.

0
Nelotsreply
lemmy.zip

Idk, does it still count as a strawman if you're doing it to make fun of him rather than make an argument against something he said? I don't think it does.

15
Frezikreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Technically, yes, but we're all supposed to be smart enough to understand context.

3
lemmy.zip

I just think relying on a strawman is not a very good way to make fun of something.

He says so much dumb shit that you don't really have to exaggerate in order to make him sound stupid.

0
lemmy.zip

Eh, I'd have more fun if we didn't mention this asshat altogether. 😛

0

There was always the option of simply not partaking in the post or comments. Hell, you can even hide it if it bothers you that much.

-1

I find that Jordan Peterson himself is not annoying, but his fans. Even when you give positive feedback that Peterson is actually pretty good as psychologist, as soon as you criticise his sophistry and his intentionally erroneous take on philosophy, his fans will immediately come at you like a horde of zombies. That's what Peterson's fans are: unthinking horde. It is unfortunate that his fans tend to be lonely individuals who feel lost, and Peterson is only too happy to lap it up for his own grift.

-17
belastendreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Oh Peterson is extremely annoying. His preferred style of discussion is essentially an upgraded version of the Shapiro method:

  1. Throw out an argument
  2. When this argument is attacked, immediately derail the discussion to talk about definitions
  3. Whenever it seems like your opponent tries to define something by using a different word, interrupt them by questioning the definition of that word.

It's the idea of platonic ideals but perverted, so that you cannot ever describe things, because to describe you have to use other things to compare them to. Critically, he never uses this argument against himself. His definitions, however circular they are, are unassailable and end up so distorted that he essentially creates his own language.

Take the word "believe". To Peterson, this is defined as "willing to give up your life before renouncing a thing". Who TF uses this word that way?

23

He’s also doing a lot of argument by definition.

For example, he argued that God exists because morals exist. This follows from his own definition, which states that morals can only come from God.

9
Bananareply
sh.itjust.works

In the early days I checked out a couple of his lectures too because I knew he was problematic but couldn't articulate why. What i realized when trying to decipher these lectures is just how much time he spends approaching making a point but literally never gets there.

This man operates on plausible deniability. He litters in truisms that dumb people latch onto (like that cleaning your room will make you feel better -- no shit everyone knows that) and then goes into these half-baked diatribes like how women are agents of chaos, but never fully explains why, and then moves onto a new point, and everyone acts like he's a genius because they draw their own conclusions based on those half-baked points.

Then when his fans start saying horrible shit to women, he takes no responsibility, because he never explicitly concluded on his point, leaving him with plausible deniability.

The man is a pseudointellectual at best, and is absolutely a charlatan.

9

This man operates on plausible deniability. He litters in truisms that dumb people latch onto ... and then goes into these half-baked diatribes

You've described like 70% of conservative media right here.

6

hes crucial into drawing incel men into conservative politics voter base, also being funded by russia is one of the reasons. ive only ever see meatheads/gymbros find him inspiring, and yes they are all magats.

2

hes what you call a pseudointellectual, they also tend to be incel men too.

hes also well funded by the russians, as he have relations with them in the past.

3