this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
1339 points (98.4% liked)

Political Memes

8745 readers
2614 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 58 points 2 years ago (2 children)

"How much sawdust can you put in a Rice Krispy treat before people notice?"

Answer: As much as they can legally get away with. If you've ever eated grated Parmesan cheese from the store, you've eaten sawdust. They list it on the can as "cellulose."

[–] ornery_chemist@mander.xyz 41 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Sawdust is not (just) cellulose and cannot be listed as such on nutrition labels. Sawdust, i.e., wood shavings, contains many other compounds, especially lignin. Wood is refined by e.g. the Kraft process to separate the lignin from the cellulose, giving a suspension of cellulose fibers in water called "wood pulp." I didn't look, but I would imagine that calling wood pulp "cellulose" on a nutrition label is fine, 'cause that's what it is.

Now, none of this invalidates the crux of your argument that cellulose can be used as a cheap filler, such as in cheap "Parmesan cheese," and no disagreement here that that shit is scummy af. However, there are some legitimate uses for smaller amounts in foods, such as anti-caking, thickening, and literal dietary fiber.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I love insightful answers like these. It scratches my food science itch.

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 55 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The free market will regulate this since at some point, saw dust will become rare

[–] joeyv120@ttrpg.network 45 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 years ago

Fun experiment. Look at labels when shopping and make note of standard fillers like "cellulose".

[–] Landmammals@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (8 children)

I usually think of myself as a libertarian, but end up getting into arguments with other people who think they're libertarians. My version of the libertarian government has a very powerful EPA, child protective services, and fda. Because the freedom to do what you want with the things you own does not extend to polluting. Children are their own humans and needs their freedom protected, you don't own them and can't abuse them just because they live in your house. Also you can make and eat whatever you want, but you're not allowed to poison people.

It's like the phrase, your right to wave your fists in the air ends at my nose. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as it's not hurting anyone. But it's not a trust based system.

[–] 31415926535@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I always identified as libertarian, then had surgery, lost my job, became homeless. I've seen firsthand how important things like Medicare, ssi, social services are. Yeah, a lot of people using these programs are lifers, don't care about getting a job. But there are a lot of people who just need help, women fleeing domestic abuse, people with legitimate physical or mental disabilities that make it hard to hold jobs. Many see this help as essential, but temporary, they want to get back on their feet, start working.

[–] Ser_Salty@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

Those "lifers" will quite often also just not be fit to work. Physically, sure, but they might be mentally fucked. I don't mean full schizophrenia or something, just... broken people. Saw it all around me growing up, literally in my neighbors. People that were at some point just discarded. They can't get a job and the longer they can't get one, the less likely it is they'll ever get one. They fall into alcoholism, health deteriorates... 20 years later the chances of them getting a job are slim to none because nobody would hire them. They just end up stuck, lost in a system that doesn't care about them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] greenmarty@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

I can (probably) sum it as "Person's freedom ends where rights of other begins."

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm assuming you're saying you're philosophically libertarian, and not Libertarian as in a particular party, because you didn't capitalize the word but could be mistaken...

So you're a liberal that doesn't like to label themselves that way? Why throw your hat into a ring with all the rest of that batshit crazy shit if you believe in a strong centralized government and regulation (ie support for a strong FDA, EPA, and CPS)? The things you appear to support are philosophically liberal ideals. What things make you want to label yourself libertarian that conflict with a liberal philosophy?

Again, genuinely curious because libertarians tend to be either liberals that don't like that label, or batshit crazy racists that want the end of times so they can shoot minorities. And I'm just endlessly fascinated by both types of people. Also I'm always on the look out for the elusive 3rd type of libertarian.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Not the one you responded to, but I do see myself as libertarian socialist - which is nothing else than an anarchist.

The right side always seems to want to steal the labels from our side, because freedom and liberty sells good...

A liberal on the other hand is a very comformist stance in my opinion

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Also I’m always on the look out for the elusive 3rd type of libertarian.

You mean the original libertarians? Lol!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/herbal-supplements-targeted-by-new-york-attorney-general/

I mean, they're doing it anyways without a free market, so long as you stamp not tested by the FDA or some shit. You can claim all kinds of crap and get away with it now.

[–] LoamImprovement@ttrpg.network 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Parmesean flavored sawdust cheese-like crumbles

[–] 31415926535@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I haven't been able to drink milk since I discovered that the FDA allows a certain amount of pus in each carton.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If the allowed amount was "literally none" then the cost of adherence and monitoring would make milk too expensive to produce or it would be poorly enforced and nothing would be different. The same is true for insect parts, rat hair, and other contaminents in literally all processed food. Perfect cleanliness simply isn't possible, and you'll never notice anyway.

[–] XRchiver@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

This. This is why there's an episode of Bob's Burgers about their daughter lying at school about the funeral parlor next to the burger shop and her dad's food having corpses in it and the FDA investigating the restaurant because it potentially had more than 0.4% (?) of human flesh content. Why any at all? At such a small amount it's impossible to detect, completely safe to consume, and would be well less than a single finger in literal tons of hamburger. It's gross, but you'll be fine just like you have so far.

That, and farmers have to drink milk too; if there was pus in the milk, they'd care enough to do better, and they do because that's why we give cows antibiotics sometimes.

Now, if the government decides to loosen all those regulations, THEN I'll be worried.

[–] great_site_not@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

the FDA investigating the restaurant because it potentially had more than 0.4% (?) of human flesh content. Why any at all? At such a small amount it's impossible to detect, completely safe to consume, and would be well less than a single finger in literal tons of hamburger

Not to actually argue against your point (nor to conflate this cartoon scenario with real-life regulations), but 0.4% would be way more than just one human finger in literal tons of hamburger. 0.4% of one ton would be 8 pounds / ~4 kilograms. I don't know how many human fingers that is, but I'm certain it's significantly more than one.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] comador@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Wanna hear how many rodents crap on your vegetables in warehouses throughout the US before the get loaded in trucks?

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well, mastitis is very common in an animal that consistently lies on dirt to rest. And when you think about it, pus is nothing more than immune cells and their secretions fighting bacteria, but it's diluted to the point what it's negligible.

On the other hand, coprophagia is also inevitable and part of everyday life but nobody curls their upper lip at that! Lol

But yeah, studying microbiology changes people. *twitches*

[–] Leg@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I'd advise against learning about how any other food or drink is prepared in that case. It's more gross than un-gross across the board.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (9 children)

It's the same as people putting water in milk in the past

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Rice_Daddy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I had an internet discussion with someone who believed that all regulations are bad. I don't think s/he's a troll, but tried as I might I couldn't get this person to agree that at least some regulations might be good.

Can't remember off the top of my head, but one argument was that even for major safety violations, the market would put them out of business, and other companies won't do it. I said that this would be after the damage is done and people/environment are hurt, but the person said that regulations are reactive anyway and companies would just stop doing it. It was very frustrating trying to get this person to agree that maybe some regulations can be good.

load more comments
view more: next ›