Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

I don't get the toilet seat debate because I never use the toilet seat innthe first place. No, not even if I'm sitting down.

>mfw reading that

Perhaps he sits on a chair chairman to poo instead?

FTFY

[Yoink]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[hector13]

Your son has the cold, dead eyes... of a killer.

[MrRoboto75]

Your son has the cold, dead eyes... of a killer.

Your killer has the cold, dead eyes of a son.

[hector13]

He looks like a horse in a man costume!

[Doomblade187]

So, I was eating at Texas Roadhouse with the fiance and in-laws, and as we were leaving right before closing, we saw a Domino's Pizza driver delivering food. To the reataurant. Like... I understand not wanting to eat your workplace food every day, but the food wasn't that great this time, so the implications are amusing.

[Billy]

I have to sit down cause the heavy lifting does my back in

[Kagus]

I'm going to assume that the BBC is holding back the really biting insults in this roast, because the alternative of people going apeshit over the comments mentioned in the article... Well, WTF?

I'd love to see these people in a proper UK parliament bicker fest. Wouldn't last ten minutes.

[pisskop]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Its sensational to make the current administration look like fools and overreactionaries.  that said Tdog has an ego much larger than the room its in, so its easy to offend him

[Reelya]

While some people do over-react, it's actually pretty poor journalism from the BBC to list responses from un-named twitter users as if that's newsworthy. But I guess that's where the general level of journalism is at these days.

EDIT e.g. two un-named twitter users were outraged. Is this indicative of some broader trend or is it literally just those two twitter users? The article doesn't give you any clues to ascertain the relevance. From the BBC article, you can go through it and realize there's exactly one person with a name attached who was critical of the content of the roast, and that was Maggie Haberman from the New York Times, and her criticism was that Michelle Wolf merely shouldn't have made jokes about Sander's appearance. Which is a fairly common complaint that the media attacks females in public office for their appearance.

[Khan Boyzitbig]

While some people do over-react, it's actually pretty poor journalism from the BBC to list responses from un-named twitter users as if that's newsworthy. But I guess that's where the general level of journalism is at these days.

We are talking about the BBC here, they wouldn't know good journalism if it was screaming naked and on fire 1 inch from their face. Not these days anyway.

[Reelya]

I was interested in reading up a little about the ecological sustainability of veganism after the prev. post. It's talking about how "vegan" food grown on the other side of the world has more ecological impact that eating locally-produced animal products. Which is fine, but then it had this weird statement:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html

Back in December Mexico was considering importing avocados, which have been a staple in the country for tens of thousands of years.

Makes me wonder what the writer was thinking or if they have a grasp of basic history. First, it implies a history for Mexican (benefit of the doubt that they mean the region not the country) settlement going back "tens of thousands of years", which clearly didn't happen, and that there were staples of the Mexican diet going back "tens of thousands of years", which can't really be true - since agriculture including Avocados is about 5000 years old there. While someone could have eaten avocados about one unit of 10,000 years ago, pre-cultivation wild avocados don't have much flesh on them, definitely not enough to form a staple of the pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer diet.

[Kagus]

Perhaps they meant a staple food of non-human animals in the region? The wording seems ambiguous enough to be interpreted that way, and it's a much more impressive number that way around.

-snip-

I misread this the first couple times through and thought that someone had bought non-vegan ice cream for the vegan, and I got confused because that definitely would be breaking the veganism rules. Still nothing to publicly shame someone over.

But if the fellow did just take issue with her buying the ice cream and not even eating it, then he's an even colossaler twat.

-snip-

Well, Maggie Haberman doesn't single out the remarks about the representative's appearance. I'd understand the sentiment if that were the case, but the tweet reads "criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth". That's not singling out a specific comment, that's attacking the concept of her getting insulted at all. The fact that the BBC interpreted it as being specifically about her appearance is also pretty bad, along with the unsourced comments.

[smjjames]

I was interested in reading up a little about the ecological sustainability of veganism after the prev. post. It's talking about how "vegan" food grown on the other side of the world has more ecological impact that eating locally-produced animal products. Which is fine, but then it had this weird statement:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/veganism-environment-veganuary-friendly-food-diet-damage-hodmedods-protein-crops-jack-monroe-a8177541.html

Back in December Mexico was considering importing avocados, which have been a staple in the country for tens of thousands of years.

Makes me wonder what the writer was thinking or if they have a grasp of basic history. First, it implies a history for Mexican (benefit of the doubt that they mean the region not the country) settlement going back "tens of thousands of years", which clearly didn't happen, and that there were staples of the Mexican diet going back "tens of thousands of years", which can't really be true - since agriculture including Avocados is about 5000 years old there. While someone could have eaten avocados about one unit of 10,000 years ago, pre-cultivation wild avocados don't have much flesh on them, definitely not enough to form a staple of the pre-agrarian hunter-gatherer diet.

Also, I thought Mexico was one of the biggest growers of avocados, them wanting to import avocados seems wierd unless they wanted to import some particular variety.

The wild avocados could still have had their uses to pre-agrarian hunter-gatherers.

[Reelya]

The point in the article is that people in wealthy nations are eating so many avocados, one of the vegan-approved foods, that it's causing environmental degradation in places like Mexico - e.g. land-clearing for avocados, but also shortages, which is why Mexico is considering importing the stuff. Meaning the locals can no longer eat avocados.

The point about it being a staple not making sense is that there's just not enough meat on a wild avocado for it to form a significant part of the diet. It would be like claiming raspberries were a staple part of the hunter-gatherer diet or something. Clearly not true, since wild raspberries aren't really sufficient to base a diet around: they would have been a supplemental food source among dozens of supplemental food sources that would have been exploited on an ad-hoc basis. It would be like claiming christmas pudding forms a staple part of the English diet because they have it at Christmas.