Pineapple with egg on pizza
No, there’s a reason
I’m listening.
tell us
Ok, Reason #1 is
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 an 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.deleted by creator
furries
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.
honestly that argument just feels like recycled homophobia to me. and just because something is weird doesn’t mean it should be hated.
It’s like you glossed over my entire comment and only read the last word…
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.
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.
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.
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 don’t think those are necessarily related.
Furries are just people who like animal mascot type characters and made a whole subculture around that.
“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.
If you are not worried about the chemicals in your food, your long term health would like to have a word with you.
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.
Not just your food, even the water. It’s full of H2O.
Being overweight or obese, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, prolonged sitting, loneliness will all kill you way faster than all those “chemicals” in your food that you are so terrified of but no one really cares about any of that because its much harder to lose that extra 30 pounds and break up sitting every once in a while with light exercise than it is to act like a picky 5 year old and eat nothing but organic food satisfied by the false notion that you did something of consequence for your health.
I fully agree on those other factors you mentioned some of even higher importance.
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.
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
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
Organic has less pesticides. Which is probably healthier no? I mostly buy non organic, but always get organic for certain foods like strawberries and oats since they tend to have so much pesticides used on them.
Organic has less pesticides.
Less pesticides also means more bacteria and more bug poop. There is a reason why they use pesticides, after all.
Even if there are trace amounts of pesticides left, you can just wash the produce, which you should always do anyway. Same reason you wash the organic produce to get rid of bug stuff…
The trace amounts of bug poop or pesticides really makes no difference when it comes to your health.
Not necessarily less pesticides, but “natural” pesticides. In my opinion, organic food is probably either equivalent or better than not-organic, but I don’t think there’s much scientific consensus.
People tend to think “organic” means that a food item is free from the ills of industrial agriculture, but it really doesn’t. It’s the same thing with people directing hate at GMO’s: most complaints people have about them are really complaints that apply to industrial ag whether GMO or not.
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.
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.
But that’s just a theory, a gaaaame theory
Matpat is a fascist piece of shit.
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.
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.
My least favorite is “it’s processed”
I can count the ingredients on my hands, and the “processing” is like 4 steps max.
A guy at a deli counter slicing cold cuts and assembling them into a sandwich is “processed food”. Using the term as a health concern marker is meaningless.
Even Kraft Singles, the posterchild of “processed food”, famously disallowed to legally call itself “cheese” on its packaging, what is it made of? What hellish process hath humanity wrought? Cheddar cheese, sodium citrate (a mundane variety of salt), and water. That’s it.
It’s not forbidden from being called “cheese” because it’s a bastard concoction of mad scientist chemicals that approximate cheese to ruse consumers. It’s simply cheese, literally watered down to the point that you can’t call it cheese anymore.
All that the sodium citrate is doing in this situation is acting as a binder that helps the cheese solids hold on to the water. This action is what gives many dishes, sauces, and the like their smooth, creamy texture. But use the word for that – “emulsifier” – and suddenly people think you’re trying to poison them, because that’s a scary chemical word.
Why does this product exist? Because it offers a unique melty texture that people appreciate in certain contexts. It’s a niche product with a niche function. Treat it like one.
I 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.
Cooking is processing food.
“Unga bunga me invent new process for food. It called cooking. Make less parasites in meat. Very good.”
“Cooking bad, garg. We no want processed food.”
I really liked this post by Hank Green regarding “natural remedies”.
tl;dw The chemicals used in chemotherapy are naturally occurring, and science uses what we know works. So when people say “you should use natural remedies”, what they really mean is, you should use something:
- we don’t know whether it works
- we know doesn’t work
- we know is actively harmful
And the first two categories aren’t necessarily bad, an Epsom salt bath can feel really nice, but don’t think it’s a replacement for proper medical science.
Have you heard about the chemical dihydrogen monoxide?! It’s 100% fatal! Too much causes death, too little, death! Massively addictive.
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.
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
Mmmm, no they deserve it and then some.
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
Kill yourself niggerfaggot, trans “people” all deserve the rope #TTD
But… bathrooms!!! With the children!!! /s
@ada @Lanky_Pomegranate530 there’s so many valid reasons, I’ll probably go over the character limit on my instance if I list them off.
KYS
>the reasonI’m hated for no reason: Nah man, it’s because you’re paedo mutant potato looking faggot with a receding hairline in dire need of a noose.:hang_yourself:
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
Caring about people who are different from yourself
Quest 64
I do :(
You’re doing great. :)
You know what you did
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
The man who created Labradoodles regrets his actions
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
Can we find the pug guy? Theres someone responsible for some animal suffering
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.
ngl, having my toes sucked sounds good rn
See, you get it. :)
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.
Cyclists, some people just see red when they came across cyclist at the road.
That’s not “for absolutely no reason”. Some cyclists make a bad name for the rest.
Yeah I know an A-hole driver so all drivers must be A**holes.
No some people just don’t have good reason.
You can say ass on the internet bud, it’s ok.
I think the thread was titled poorly. Anything that gets a lot of hate usually has some sort of reason, even if it may not be justifiable.
There’s absolutely no reason to hate on a cyclist when you wouldn’t hate on a car polluter, because unlike car polluters, we aren’t murderers.
I’m sure there are many reasons to hate on a cyclist, (not that I personally believe this, but) such as when they block a single lane road slowing traffic to a crawl and placing the responsibility of possibly accidentally killing a cyclist in the motorist’s hands, though you could argue that’s more about the fact that the roads don’t have dedicated bike lanes, and that’s not the cyclist’s fault, but it is still a reason, not that that reason is justified, I like cyclists!
For thousands of years, people walked on roads. That’s what they were for. They were also for horses, donkeys, and carts, but humans were a big part of it. And none of those four things really goes faster than a bike. Cars are new. Taking people and horses off roads is new. Being able to drive the speed limit is a new, temporary condition, and it can be taken away at any time. Blaming this on cyclists is a reaction based on a misunderstanding of what roads are for. Personally, I support legislature to let people walk on the road however they like again.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I was also a (very cautious) cyclist until my bike was stolen.
Truth. Furthermore, accidents involving a bike and a car have mostly happened because of a lack of infrastructure and options for safe travel on bikes. Public residential streets, for example, are for all modes of transportation, not just cars. Car brains are hysterical and don’t like that, and my life has been threatened many times while riding my bike on residential streets. I even had an older woman match my speed, roll down her window, and say “Next time I see you I’m running you over.” Cyclists do absolutely nothing to deserve this, and even if they’re holding up traffic, it’s no excuse for homicide.
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
Except Berliner cyclists. They scare me.
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.
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.
Cycle infrastructure, even.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. We cyclists are perfectly within our rights to cycle in the middle of the lane at a speed comfortable for us. And it’s safer for us to do that than hug the shoulder and risk getting clipped by an impatient driver. A bike lane gets us out of your way so you can drive the speed limit. It’s for your benefit.
That’s why it’s hate for no reason!
The same hatred from the same haters for public transport too: if everyone else is in public transport there more room for you on the road.
It’s a bizarrely prevalent attitude from a bizarrely large portion of car users.
We had some nice mini-traffic island things separating a cycleway on a road, drivers kept hitting them and damaging their cars. They complained and the council removed them despite it being obvious to anyone that they were doing extremely what they were supposed to do: stopping those idiots from hitting actual cyclists!
Holy words
I thought this as well but German drivers will dangerously swerve into oncoming traffic to overtake me sometimes when I block a lane. Even if there is a red stop light 50m down the road.
Well, it’s less of them, and at least they’re risking their own lives too. If there’s an accident I want the person responsible coming with me to the hospital. That might not be rational, but it’s how I feel.
Lol it’s not rational but I know how you feel. Sometimes I daydream somebody hits me and wrecks my bike and then feels so bad that they give me loads of money in hopes of me not suing them, and then I use that to buy a better bike. And then I wonder wtf is going wrong in my brain
It’s kind of ironic seeing people post something here and being downvoted. Kinda just proves their point.
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.
Not necessarily. They could be down voted because what they mentioned is hated for a good reason. Like if someone posts “Nazis” or “cancer”.
One so far for not liking “how conservatism is hated on more than liberalism for no reason”. Most likely to turn into a racist, sexist, some -ist diatribe if it gets some comments going.
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?!
