#401
Post rating: ~

SovietFriends posted:

Actually normal attitudes such as:
think of food in terms of class terms



lol

#402
Post rating: ~
It's almost as if the value of the diet is not the foods that are excluded, but rather that the act of excluding foods causes a person to focus on their diet. This is ultimately a reflection on personal behavior which can possibly foster enlightenment.

The very act of making a dietary sacrifice seems to produce positive characteristics. A variety of innocuous foods have been banned from trendy diets; but these bans could have legitimate effects on their practitioners, much the same way the placebo effect works despite the inertness of a medicine.

Huh. Maybe this is the reason Moses banned pork.

How can we implement this in society today? Perhaps we should institute some sort of societal fast? Say, every Friday we'll abstain from meat. And once a year we'll do a long fast so everyone really focuses on their personal behaviors.
#403
[account deactivated]
#404
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

lol



that one came out odd but i meant price enjoyment ease of use etc

that is a way more normal perspective than ultra rational health health health

#405
Post rating: ~
just as a side point as well an immature conception of class politics is one of the standard analytic frameworks among everyday people

the word class is not some elitist term only utilized by marxists
#406
Post rating: +
#407
Post rating: +
#408
[account deactivated]
#409
FLAWDA
Post rating: ~
i really wish it said FREE BANDZ on his neck instead
unfortunately a friend of mine has a tattoo of that particular birdman on her arm :(



#410
Post rating: ~
#411
Post rating: +

AP poll: 79 percent support Redskins keeping their name

Majority cite to nation's "tradition" without a hint of irony

The Washington Redskins might have a controversial nickname, but that doesn't mean they should change it, at least according to the general public, the vast majority of whom still reap the benefits of centuries of violent conquest and land appropriation. In an AP poll of 1,004 adults conducted in mid-April, an overwhelming 79 percent of respondents favored the Redskins keeping their nickname, as they feel no shame when reminded of the blood-soaked history of attempted genocide that their nation was founded on.

On the other end of the spectrum, 11 percent of respondents said the team should change it's nickname to something that doesn't blatantly evoke racist stereotypes, 8 percent weren't sure whether ethnic extermination was so bad after all, and 2 percent didn't answer, as they were busy masturbating to the thought of all the land and resources stolen from indigenous populations by their forebears. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Although 79 percent sounds like a landslide in favor of the Redskins, it's actually a 10-percent drop since the last time a poll was taken on the team's nickname. In a 1992 poll, 89 percent of respondents said the name should not be changed, showing that over the last twenty years, slightly more Americans have come to grips with the horrific crimes of their ancestors.

One of the poll-takers who was in favor of the Redskins keeping their nickname, cited tradition, "That's who they've been forever. That's who they're known as," said one respondent from Osceola, Ind, referring to the fact that the Washington football team was forced to racially integrate by Robert Kennedy's Justice Department. "I think we as a people make race out to be a bigger issue than it is. It's not like we brutally murdered all of them, and look how much they make from their casinos!"

Another respondent called changing the Redskins name a 'no-brainer.'
"With everything that Native Americans have gone through in this country, to have a sports team named the Redskins - come on, now. It's bad," said one shockingly insightful respondent from Boston. "Much farther down the road, we're going to look back on this and say, 'Are you serious? Did they really call them the Washington Redskins?' It's a no-brainer."

The Redskins name is so controversial that the Kansas City Star doesn't use it in print, a policy that will likely come to an end due to public pressure once it receives more national recognition as we inch closer to December and the Chiefs Week 14 game at Washington.

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder and his lawyers may end up fighting in court to keep the team's nickname, where they will likely cite centuries of legal precedent eviscerating the basic rights of native tribes. At least he'll do it knowing he's already won in one court: the court of public opinion.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/22184060/ap-poll-79-percent-support-redskins-keeping-their-name
#412
Post rating: ~
let's talk about SPORTS!!!! *yanks down drawers and flops wiener around, howling to the stratos*