4 ms·
Yes, you got me, I get paid $50 Soros bucks for every snarky post. It couldn't possibly be that "not commonly used in the home" is a vague and unhelpful definit
by breezybottom 4mo ago
Yes, you got me, I get paid $50 Soros bucks for every snarky post. It couldn't possibly be that "not commonly used in the home" is a vague and unhelpful definition, which varies across time and cultures. Or that these researchers still haven't explained the theoretical basis linking all these wildly different "UPF"s to the negative health consequences they're supposed to explain.
- margalabargala 4mo agoSoros bucks? You're spouting a right wing position, not a progressive one.
- breezybottom 4mo agoI didn't know right-wing means rejecting bad science and progressive means accepting it.
- margalabargala 4mo agoIt doesn't, so there's something you're correct about! But certainly pro-processed-foods stuff gets pushed by the right, and Soros is on the left, so there's the contradiction.
- breezybottom 4mo agoHuh? You're on the side of RFK Jr and the MAHA nutjobs. This is the kind of "science" they believe in.
- margalabargala 4mo agoSometimes among large groups of people there are varying opinions, you'll see this more as you grow up. The american right wing is one such group.
- breezybottom 4mo agoSo it's not as simple as "questioning bad science makes you a conservative". Glad we agree.
- margalabargala 4mo agoAbsolutely we agree. Being able to recognize and intelligently question bad science does not appear to have much overlap with conservatives, at least in America. The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.
- breezybottom 4mo agoI didn't say ultra processed foods are healthy. I said the entire idea of ultra-processed is vague and incoherent.
- margalabargala 4mo agoIt's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though. The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.
- breezybottom 4mo agoNo, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.
- 4mo ago
- Hnrobert42 4mo agoNo. I didn't think you were an astroturfer. I wonder where you derived this objection. Also, good luck with your bottom. Perhaps look into your consumption of UPFs. ;-)