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.
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.
But pugs are “purebred” which further highlights the point. A pug crossbreed with a longer-snouted breed would probably be healthier. You can’t reliably criticize hybrid breeds without criticizing breeding as a whole.
All breeds were created by crossbreeding. But for some reason the society invented a cutoff point beyond which crossbreeding is not okay.
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
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 bad people can come from anywhere, what a salient observation.
By every important measurable standard, women are still treated worse in contemporary society. The fact you would respond with this nothing take when someone brings up misogyny is incredibly telling. Wishing well to any women unlucky enough to be in your life.
“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.
AI. In the real world, AI is any computer process that can make decisions as if it were smart. Expert systems, genetic algorithms, hell even fuzzy logic. A smart lightbulb is artificially smart. Artificially intelligent.
In movies and bad tech blogs, AI means a sapient machine and that’s why LLMs aren’t actually AI.
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.
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.
A guy at a deli counter slicing cold cuts and assembling them into a sandwich is “processed food”. Using the term as a health concern marker is meaningless.
Even Kraft Singles, the posterchild of “processed food”, famously disallowed to legally call itself “cheese” on its packaging, what is it made of? What hellish process hath humanity wrought? Cheddar cheese, sodium citrate (a mundane variety of salt), and water. That’s it.
It’s not forbidden from being called “cheese” because it’s a bastard concoction of mad scientist chemicals that approximate cheese to ruse consumers. It’s simply cheese, literally watered down to the point that you can’t call it cheese anymore.
All that the sodium citrate is doing in this situation is acting as a binder that helps the cheese solids hold on to the water. This action is what gives many dishes, sauces, and the like their smooth, creamy texture. But use the word for that – “emulsifier” – and suddenly people think you’re trying to poison them, because that’s a scary chemical word.
Why does this product exist? Because it offers a unique melty texture that people appreciate in certain contexts. It’s a niche product with a niche function. Treat it like one.
I haven’t run into anyone who considers emulsifier a scary chemical word. Most people I know with any baking skill know what the word means and use egg yolks for that purpose all the time.
I 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.
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.
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.
They’ve still a way to go though as well. I remember when FA banned porn of child-looking characters half the website quit, ironically leaving known groomers who were flagrantly breaking the rule and getting away with it. The alternative sites aren’t much better, with some outright dying on the hill of allowing toddlercon. I dipped because I was insanely uncomfortable with how much of a grooming culture there was and as fun as it was to crash&burn the 40th discord server with admins doing that shit, it was stunting my development into a functioning adult.
While I agree and have no problem with furries, I think the issue is people seeing, what a lot of people in their own community see as linked to a sexual kink, being brought out into public spaces.
“Sexual attraction to furry characters is a polarizing issue. In one survey with 4,300 furry respondents, 37% answered that sexual attraction is important in their furry activities, 38% were ambivalent, and 24% answered that it has little or nothing to do with their furry activities.”
“Another survey at a furry convention in 2013 found that 96.3% of male furry respondents reported viewing furry pornography, compared with 78.3% of female; males estimated 50.9% of all furry art they view is pornographic, compared with 30.7% of females.”
So like clearly there is a large sexual component to the fandom, and I think it weirds people out and makes people uncomfortable when they see these people wearing their fur suits out in public. Which again to be clear is not something the entire community does or even tolerates, but there’s enough people who do so that it’s become part of the cultural zeitgeist.
But it’s also just the fact that it’s so far from normal vanilla experiences. Everyday people think role playing sexually is already adventurous and out there. Now add big animal suits that are typically associated with mascots for entertaining children and I think anyone can see why everyday people think it’s weird.
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.
The dog mask people are generally not furries. They’re called pups, and you’re actually right that pup play is a BDSM thing. The whole acting like a dog thing is more for dehumanization than anything else.
Furries are people who enjoy anthropomorphic animals for… well, a variety of reasons. Fursuits are extremely uncommon because they’re expensive as fuck, difficult to clean, easily damaged, etc. Most furries just come up with fursonas (generally online animal personas) and make art.
I know more about this than I otherwise would because I have friends who are pups and others who are furries.