To start off my research for the thesis I’m reading all about changing food habits. That is, the process by which a whole society goes from not eating a particular food to eating it regularly.
If you’re American you probably eat potatoes regularly. And yet this crop was domesticated in Peru, and…
As far as changing food habits for me personally, taste doesn’t really matter, it is easy to find pleasing food from many sources (but perhaps I am just easy to please). Now that I’ve switched to a job that actually pays (and hence became more busy), I’ve noticed cost and convenience changing my food habits. They are improved because I have more money to spend, and I can buy healthier, sustainably grown food. However, I find I am limited by convenience. I have less time to cook and mostly only shop at my local grocery store (and am limited by the extent of their offerings). I would say power does not have an effect on me either, but perhaps that may be subconscious.
I don’t mind that food is an inconvenience, I enjoy the effort that goes into making meals for myself and others, so I am planning to free up more time to dedicate more time to making food that is delicious and healthy - even if it is expensive and inconvenient. However, this is not an option for everybody, so I think cost and convenience are the first things that need to be improved to allow society as a whole to improve their food habits.
…but that tweet was brilliant satire of our culture. You hated it? Don’t watch TMZ. That’s all they do. Rip people to shreds. Don’t watch E! They attack like dogs. Are you enjoying the people attacking someone for wearing a not so good dress? Kudos. Feel good about yourself. That poor son of a bitch wore the wrong thing. Laugh at Joan Rivers for making fun of someone for wearing a color. Let’s put her on a list and toss that thing around for a week all over the internet.
Yeah, The Onion made a brutal fucking joke.
That’s our society in a nutshell. We are like a pack of attack dogs, always looking for a weakness or a reason to destroy a human. Then we’ll build then up and hope we can tear them down again.
The Onion was spot on. That’s satire. The fact that she’s an innocent girl is what makes the point even more poignant. One of the reasons you don’t like it is because somewhere deep down, you know that’s what you are and you’re being called a bad person because of it by that tweet.
So, be upset all you want but don’t say it wasn’t a joke because it was. And a very effective one.
this makes no sense
I don’t see how this doesn’t make sense. The OP is completely right, what’s different about attacking a little girl like this when we do it to adult women all the time? What is the age at which tearing a person apart becomes okay?
The joke is disgusting, and it’s disgusting because it reflects who we are as a society and none of us want to see that. Which is why nothing ever changes.
The joke is disgusting, and it’s disgusting because it reflects who we are as a society and none of us want to see that. Which is why nothing ever changes. <- yep.
I can understand the frustration, but it seems a bit unproductive to “brand” feminism. Isn’t any bit of feminism a good thing, isn’t this moving in the right direction at least?
This is not being anti-feminist for the interests of women, and the restoration of proper sexual behavior,
this is anti-woman. This is overwhelmingly misogynistic.
Women have control over their own sexuality, and while I’m sure that’s tough for you to deal with, it is none of your business.
You can value virginity, and want to only share that with the right person,BUT THAT IS NOT RIGHT FOR ALL PEOPLE.
Some people don’t take sex that seriously.
Some people take sex very seriously, but have different views on what it means.
People just feel differently about sex, and feminism doesn’t make them disregard their self-respect, it gives them the ability to express sexuality in a way that they are comfortable with.
Sex has nothing to do with self-worth, in its essence. To some people it may, but this feeling is by no means universal.This is trying to control women’s sexuality. This is anti-woman.
(Source: communismkills)
oh man this is good
Oh, I see. Now it’s our fault that we are too stupid to know that beef pink slime is a good thing.
Why didn’t we know that?
Because the beef industry spent decades keeping it a secret. Because the food industry fights labeling that might have allowed customers to make a choice between paying higher prices for slime-free beef versus paying less for beef with what everyone says is a safe food additive.
You see, that won’t do, because customers are morons. They would make the “dumb” choice by paying more for something without an additive they don’t want, just like some of them pay more for organic, or fresh (which is actually usually frozen, thanks to more industry label lobbying), or BPA-free.
If the food industry doesn’t want this kind of reaction to its practices, then it needs to improve its practices, not hide them.
good:
Debates over access to abortion and birth control seemed to dominate the national conversation throughout the Republican primary, but according to a new Pew poll, those issues aren’t a major priority for most voters. For 86 percent of them, it’s still the economy, stupid.
The thing is, I feel like the Republicans strong points are on the economy, jobs, and budget deficit. At least relative to the bottom 5 or so.
(Source: pewresearch)
Extrapolating the approval ratings of individual senators over the entire Congress (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/12/senate-approval-ratings.html), the overall approval rating would have a spread of +3 (approve-disapprove=3%), but the overall approval rating of Congress is at -68 right now, according to RealClearPolitics.
At first I was confused as to why there would be such a large disparity in these polls. They should be about the same, because if the individuals are making the right decisions (by a 3% margin), then the overall decisions should be just as good. But I think it comes down to this: In terms of how each congressmen is making decisions in regards to their own constituents, they’re doing pretty well. But in terms of all of those decisions coming together to enact changes on a national level, it actually turns out pretty crappy. I think there’s some sociological reasoning that I don’t know enough about that would say that what’s best for the individual isn’t necessarily best for the group, but either way the people taking part in these polls are probably missing that point.
