top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 40 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I've heard the rich are made of fiber

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    The Nose-to-Tail philosophy indicates you need to utilize every part of the animal to show respect to the creature you killed.

    If you don't want to show respect, you can just discard the parts you don't want to eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 83 points 1 week ago (37 children)

    People do throw out tons of good stuff though. We can eat the rich and be sustainable

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 week ago (35 children)

    Eating fruit and vegetable scraps such as peels and stalks could provide a health boost that most of us are missing, say UK researchers.

    They say scraps are an overlooked source of dietary fibre and are encouraging people to try "root-to-tip" eating, including watermelon rind, pineapple core and butternut squash seeds.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw5ynver15jeo

    I was going to agree with the article, but nevermind. There has to be a better way to get your fiber.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    There has to be a better way to get your fiber.

    There definitely are. This is some bullshit "publish or die" noise. Please ignore and focus on the class war. 😅💟

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    I mean, if you start at class war it's definitely noise. If you're starting at diet and lifestyle it's just a clickbaity headline for "people often consider nutritious parts of food to be scraps".

    It's basically a step past telling people that the skin on a potato tastes fine and has vitamins, so try eating it when you make a baked potato, or leave it on when making soup".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    We are in a class war, so we're starting at the class war. 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I meant more that the article doesn't seem relevant to class war unless you're already choosing to look at it that way.

    How does a wealth tax increase my dietary fiber in a meaningful way that "eating more than the broccoli floret" doesn't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    The point the image is trying to make is that they want us to eat the normally distasteful stuff we tend to discard, and have done for time immemorial, when there is such a wealth inequality going on in the world.

    I haven't read the linked scientific article, admittedly, as linked from the BBC page. Does it really suggest such a basic thing that you can eat the broccoli stem? This is new to people?

    I'll object to the melon rinds someone suggested though. That I will not eat. 🤐

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    A lot of people don't eat the broccoli stems. Broccoli is the floret, so they just eat the pretty part. Same as how some people don't eat the skin on their potatoes because that's the dirty part.

    I'd try the melon rind purely because it's different than it sounds: it's not a bowl of watermelon rind. You remove the green part and then pickle it. Given what pickling can do to change a cucumber texture I'd be open to trying it. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of pickles, so most likely it's capped at a pretty low score for me.

    And that's part of why I'd push back on the culture war angle. Many of these are not things we've found distasteful since time immemorial. Roast squash seeds are sold in stores. Pickled watermelon rind is a southern food. Banana peel curry is well prexisting in southeast asia.
    If you look at it from the angle that you received the broccoli stem information, but remember that each item has someone out there saying the same thing, it's a lot less solidly "normalizing eating trash" and more "clickbaity news headline - eat more fiber".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Either way you turn or twist this, it's not worth our time discussing. Click bait is enough distraction as it is. There is far worse shit to deal with right now. Let's keep our focus here, guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    What am I turning or twisting? If it's not worth the time to discuss, why were you here in the first place?

    I think it's worth discussing people diluting the concept of class war by calling random things class war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    Oh no, I didn't mean you were turning or twisting. I just meant either way we look at it, this just feels like distraction and nothing worth our time right now. There is fascism to oppose, and genocide and corruption to protest. That's all, friend.

    I'm not calling this a class war, I'm saying there is a class war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

    There's no "publish or die" "noise" for the BBC because their money comes from the TV License which anybody who sees live TV by any means (so, even from the Internet and even other channels) in Britain is legally obligated by Law to pay (it's actually a Crime if they don't) so they don't really need to compete and are at no risk of dying.

    This is just another article from the BBC preparing the plebes for another round of Bailouts For The Rich Austerity For The Rest, same as in 2008 Crash.

    Just a couple of days ago they published an article from a Think Tank (i.e. a Technocratic Excuse Maker Funded By The Ultra-rich) about how things are going to get worse for people and they'll have to tighten their belts.

    The BBC is very much the Voice Of The British Elites and well known for their constant use of Manufacturing Consent techniques (their coverage of the Gaza Genocide is a particularly obvious recent example of that) so their motivations for chosing or not to publish something like this and how to frame it tend to be highly positivelly correlated with how to best serve the interests of said British Elites.

    IMHO this article which is essentially about how eating the stuff you would normally throw away is actually good for your health, similarly to the recent one I mentioned above which was about how "everything was perfect and now hard times are coming through no fault of anybody and we just have to accept it" is about getting common people in a mindset to more easilly accept Austerity (and judging what happened in 2008-2018, that Austerity will be a direct consequence of government bailing the rich out and then refusing to increase taxes on said rich to pay for it and instead making everybody else pay for it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (11 children)

    Hm? Are you saying these guys work for the BBC?

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09637486.2026.2734852

    I'm not sure I follow your logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

    I'm saying that the BBC chose to publish a story based on that paper from April instead of countless other stories and frame it as they did because it portrays the practices of the poor as being a good thing.

    People don't throw that stuff away because it's unhealthy, they throw it away because it doesn't taste as good as the rest and they do so because they can afford to throw out the unpleasant to eat parts to eat even if they're nutritious.

    It's only the poor who don't and they don't because they have no other choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    I don't agree with that interpretation. It's literally "people should be eating more fiber at the same time they're throwing away a lot of fiber".
    Poor people aren't scraping the food stores for dietary fiber or fretting about how they'll afford a modest reduction in the long term risks of certain forms of colon disease.
    For goodness sake, one of the tips is to make roast squash seeds. That's not eating the unpalatable part, people buy those.

    It's not "eat like the poor" it's "cook like a restaurant". That thing you don't need for this recipie is great for this other one.

    I think you are both under and overestimating how much people know about cooking. People will trim off the better tasting parts of food and throw it away because it looks funny or isn't there at a restaurant.
    It looks funny because living organisms don't have a lot of clean, straight lines and are often squishy and lumpy. The restaurant removes it because it's too variable to cook without attention that's too expensive to give, it's too small for sale, or it simply messes up a clean presentation. So instead it gets quickly cooked and eaten by them, taken home by the chef, or added to soup or broth.

    Being terrible at cooking and kitchen management cuts across economic lines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    Maybe that's a very UK specific thing, because I come from a very poor Portuguese background and people ate pretty much EVERYTHING that could be eaten both animal and vegetable and my parents who grew up in deep poverty have it so ingrained that even today when they're in their 80s and don't at all need to do it, their "waste not" spirit remains strong and things like the hard tasteless bits of cabbage (which are definitely full of fiber given their texture) still end up in the pan with the rest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Lack of culinary education? It's a significant driver of multigenerational health and dietary inequity. Poor people in urban areas have neither the time nor resources to cook properly, so they don't. Then their children don't learn, and the cycle gets worse. Obesity rates rise, health deteriorates, and the costs to manage that go up, making it harder and harder to break the cycle.

    At least where I am, access to a variety of animals and vegetables is out of reach for those in poverty, and no one ever taught them what to do with them anyway.
    So you end up with people eating mostly kraft macaroni, hot dogs and canned beans, cooked in a peeling Teflon pan and garnished with ketchup to taste. Or maybe you have money, so you mostly eat takeout.

    It's why adult cooking classes are a thing that targets "entry level", like how to cook eggs (the easy ways) or cut an onion, and food banks offer classes in how to cook the food they're giving you. A potato is useless as food if you do not know how to cook a potato.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I don't think "eat melon rinds because they have fiber" is quite the culinary education you seem to think it is.

    I'm from Portugal, known for the Mediterranean Diet, and from what I see here compared to living in countries like Britain, culinary education is not about using the unpleasant parts of veggies for their fiber, it's using fresh veggies in the first place.

    That's the problem I saw with the poor in Britain - they'll eat lots of cheap carbs and not enough vegetables.

    Using the unpleasant parts of the veggies for fiber (which is not a nutrient as the human body cannot break it up or absorb it, it's just filling and keeps your digestive system clean) is just poverty.

    This article is definitelly not about teaching people to eat the right things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Did you read the article? Where they talk about fiber being for keeping the gut clean and most people not getting as much as they're supposed to?

    Do you think theyade these recipies or tips up from scratch? They're all things that people eat and usually have for a long time.
    By the rationale you seem to be using, there's an ultierior motive to teaching people how to cook potatoes. After all, it's unpleasant to eat until you cook it. Just like a watermelon rind is unpleasant to eat unless you pickle it. Just like squash seeds are gross unless you roast them like sunflower seeds.

    it's using fresh veggies in the first place.

    Quite. And part of that is teaching people what parts you can and can't eat.
    Saying they're trying to get people to eat garbage when the tips include eating my favorite part of broccoli just doesn't land.

    You're seeing a class war narrative where I think it's just a low effort report on a research paper and an attention grabbing headline and image.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Nah, none of what you're saying is lost on me or something I didn't know. I think you're misinterpreting what we're/at least I'm saying, given you just made that comment. But it's cool, it's good that you're bringing this up, because it's also important.

    But not important in the context of the class war, of course, and genocides going on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    I'm honestly asking: did you reply to the wrong comment in the thread? You're not the person I replied to.

    Otherwise I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    You said, "you are both under and overestimating", so I assume you were addressing me, too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Nope. I meant they were both under and over estimating. I would have said "you both are ..." Otherwise.

    Are you saying that saying someone is creating a spurious class war narrative out of something benign is wrong to comment on because of class war and genocide?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I mean, all you'd have to do is make a smoothie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    There was. Then the dipshit Ronald Reagan got put in office and he bent over and opened his asshole up to all of his corporate donors and destroyed America. That guy all he was good for was telling snappy one-liners and reading off a teleprompter. The rest was just a puppeteer running his pen.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago

    Eat your fiber, how are you going to overthrow the rich if you can’t take a shit?

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I am stunned Prop 40 is polling so badly. Billionaires really bamboozled the half of Californians dumber than the average Californian.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

    Here in California, we have a billionaire tax on the ballot that is about to lose in a landslide. And we are about to pass one of the worst voter ID laws in the country, so California may well go red next time. The billionaires bought a whole state.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    Why is it losing? From a 10-second read it looks like the opposition argument is basically "it might get complicated"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    The media has been flooded with emotional negative ads, paid for by our billionaire masters. They've bought California.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    How are any of these ads even remotely convincing though? Like tax the mega rich, the "elites" if you will. It's so simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Because California is one of the most corrupt states in the union. Unironically. Socially they're fairly progressive, but economically they're essentially three mafias in a trenchcoat pretending to be a carnival owner.

    Take the high speed rail project. Or how they have implemented cannabis licensing, or the ridiculously bad infrastructure and homeless resolution spending problems.

    The day-to-day in California is shit for the average person, and they've now been told they are the most left-wing state for decades because of some social issues; so they're associating the shitty life they are living with left wing economics, despite pretty much no left-wing economics being involved. Populist propaganda works because you are correctly recognizing the problems involved, regardless of whatever solution you're selling -- and more "left wing" (aka neoliberal/conservative gay-accepting) candidates are essentially unelectable and objectively not the solution. Unfortunately the DNC refuses to run anyone remotely left wing in the entirety of California.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    People have been intentionally trained to have zero media literacy and propaganda works. You would think the elites would learn, seeing as teaching a population to uncritically ingest everything put in front of them is how we ended up with antiscience flatearth antivaccination sovereign citizens voting in the pedophilic reality show "star" who is actively destroying the world's economy. Greed has worped the ultra rich to the point they literally can't see anything further then how their own stock portfolios are doing right this moment. Fuck them. And fuck us too I guess because we let it happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I think the deeper issue is that a lot of people think they're going to be wealthy one day, and propaganda against taxing the wealthy makes them feel like the government is taxing their feelings about being wealthy in the future, causing them to vote against their own interests and prevent themselves from actually becoming more wealthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    I starting to wonder if their really are enough delusional people for that to be a thing, what pea brain actually think they might end up a billionaire in their life time, they have better odds winning the lottery and that wouldn't make you a billionaire either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago

    No, but seriously. These people just need to die. There is no way out. They will not give up, not 1 cent.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    Reminder that JK Rowling's descent into transphobia begun with her fearing she might have to pay taxes under a potential Corbyn presidency.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    A: UK don't have presidents, we have a Prime Minister

    B: Evidence of her TERFism is found literally in her books from day zero, but it just was excusable before she unmasked as "maybe she's unknowingly parroting harmful stereotypes?" cause it turns out that some older creators had such an influence on media that lots of the stereotypes she used were just background radiation.

    (Goblin = Jew is as old as WWII, but probably older "They're just a Man in a Dress" and "Cis Woman that looks masc is funny" is at least as old as 1800s, etc etc)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Wtf is it about rich people not wanting to share part of their imaginary wealth that they will never ever ever get to spend anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago

    It's the meritocratic delusion; a well documented psychological phenomenon wherein people with good outcomes will twist the facts of their life into such a story as to justify their success. The most famous experiment was giving a monopoly player a headstart and seeing how that changed their behavior - with the near universal result being that the player with the headstart believes that their win in the game was due to their skill, not due to the headstart they have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    are they telling people to eat trash ?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    This meme misses the whole point. This ain't about eating the rich. (though feel free if it looks good on your plate - I won't stop you)

    Modern consumers will barely eat the crust off a piece of bread. Let alone just scrub a carrot or potato under running water and then eat the whole thing. You won't even eat odd looking fruit and vegetables either. Those just end up in that garbage. Nutritionists have been trying to tell to eat those peels for decades. There is more fiber, vitamins, and minerals in the peels than in the insides.

    Eat more of that stuff BEFORE you need to go digging through the garbage/compost pile. Y'all are so wasteful it's beyond the pale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I wouldn't mind them having money so much if it wasn't for them spending it on destroying democracy

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    Fiber not fibre?

    Edit: found the actual article and it has the correct spelling.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw5ynver15jeo

    At home, people might want to try leaving skins on kiwi fruit, using broccoli stalks in stir-fries or adding bell pepper seeds to dishes, the researchers suggest.

    I agree with the article, people toss out the best parts.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    it's amazing how few people on lemmy actually read the articles, because my first read was "oh they mean you should eat the stuff you typically throw away" and not "you should eat scraps from the garbage." and looky here.

    but hey, being angry and posted an unfounded kneejerk reaction gets attention, so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 week ago* (16 children)

    The Democrats have had almost FIFTY YEARS to increase taxes on the rich to pre-Reagan levels.

    I'm starting to think that maybe they're in on it

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • The side of the democrats who actually want some vaguely leftwing policies is currently increasing their numbers

    Support them, please

    Sanders has a whole book showing how even in the dems there are people paid by corporations and AIPAC, he knows, he says it publicly, yet he's out there supporting some democratic candidates.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    You can complain about this on any other day but today. It doesn't matter how bad you think the democrats are. Currently they are the only way to limit Trump's power.

    This sort of stuff discourages people to vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    You vote for the Democrats to slow the slide to the right. But never hope for them to ever reverse anything. They will just do it more discreetly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I'll vote for them because there's no viable third party option that speaks to me.

    They're also easier to push to more progressive laws.

    Also: all the Republicans are pushing trans ads HARD. I'm paying so much more for groceries and they're airing ads about trans kids. Out of touch asshats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    This is actually a tough point, because of all the non-mainstream parties available, I've got the Greens for a moderate reform and that's basically it. A Natural Law party appeared on the ballot, but I get the prayers-over-pursuit vibe from them, even if they may not associate with Christianity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    You know Republicans have to vote for it to pass it right? The last time they had a majority was for only 2 months in 2010 and it wasn’t a true majority because Kristin Sinema and Joe Manchin blocked everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    they had both house and senate in 2019-2023

    From the article:

    Control of the Senate shifted over to a 50-50 party split on Wednesday as Democratic Georgia Senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock were both sworn in as the 49th and 50th Democratic senators, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris as the deciding vote should the chambers' votes ever end in a tie.

    50-50 split with Republicans potentially posing as Democrats is a pretty weak level of absolute control, but you're technically correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Yeah thats pretty much been it. Since Reagan both parties had a trifecta three times each. Democrats have always had a few spoilers on anything (Sinema, Manchin, fetterman types) and razor thin margins. Republicans are much more likely to vote lockstep unless someone (Collins) can do a vote against for show. They also have had more years with a trifecta total.

    Thats not even factoring in the supreme court bullshit we've had going on since Bush.

    The thing is we've already seen that voting matters. Republicans always showed up and voted for the furthest right. That made more of them keep fucking going right. Meanwhile progressives stay home because "theyre not good enough" and that Overton window just keeps going.

    If the working class would show the fuck up and always vote for the most left, we could make that Overton window shift further and further left.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    What did they actually block?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Off the top of my head Sinema became famous for blocking a minimum wage increase. She was definitely a establishment spoiler because she didn’t do anything but block stuff. Manchin gets a pass in my book because he was actually voting for his constituents. He ran as Democrat but he was actually a left leaning republican representing West Virginia which is Republican territory. He didn’t block much but he stonewalled anything that was remotely progressive. Torpedoed any bill that didn’t give massive concessions to republicans or West Virginia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago

    A wealth tax would be a good start, but it won't address the cause of the problem to begin with, which is capitalist domination of production and distribution. This is the base that the state rests upon, meaning any inch we take can be reversed without our consent. In order to truly deal with the problems of today, we need a new system, a socialist system, that cannot be won by the ballot box but instead is made by the people coming together and making it happen through organizing work and revolution.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    11 comments in c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world view that post