MANY years ago a school friend- a fellow guttermouth- and I were overheard by a proto-Karen discussing "leaving a bomb in the Starbucks and getting out before anyone discovers it" and I could not bring myself to directly tell the cop that approached us that we were talking about a really bad poop in the ladies' room.
Thanks for the link. Up to now, I've only seen criticism of the school & school board for letting a trans person dress in this way. Had no idea he was almost fired for 'toxic masculinity' but I did have my suspicions.
I don't think he has said anything about being 'trans'. I think this is the gender expression he has picked for the moment, since the School Board didn't approve of his previous toxically masculine expression.
It's so enjoyable to watch him rub their noses in it. He seems too over the top to be real, but the school board and other wokesters don't dare challenge him, "just in case".
Except that if he is mocking the School Board, then he is not sexualizing children. Allegedly the Board has effectively told him that as a male his expression of his gender is 'toxic'. Now he has produced evidence that the Board will not similarly sanction someone who expresses 'toxic' femaleness. In effect he has shown that the Board is quite prepared to discriminate against HIM on the basis of his gender expression, but not against him on the basis of alternative gender expressions. The Board is shown to be hypocritical. If this supposition is all true, he has won an important victory.
The real toxic in this story is the Ontario Human Rights Code which micromanages the culture of the populace by decreeing, for instance, that no one may discriminate on the basis of how someone expresses their gender. OHRC is social justice, it is the vanguard of the progressives that are undermining our conservative institutions. The toxicity of the OHRC finds its roots in Canada's horrendous Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter extends no real rights, as they are all subject to reasonableness tests. But the Charter does give real authority to the government to implement laws and programs to ameliorate the conditions of those who are members of 'disadavantaged groups'. The toxicity is government.
Another example of politicians calling legislation the opposite of what it does, eh? Our's do that too. I for one have no reason to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity. I happen to think that tolerance is bi-directional. Your PM doesn't seem to feel the same.
The thing about using the term "social justice" in this context (as used by politicians and the media) is that there is no justice at all. This is in deed toxic, designed and executed to promote hate and intolerance. As used in this way, it is the opposite of justice and equality.
I'm OK with self-identifying one's gender. Not OK with preventing others from sticking with traditional, biology based gender identity. Not OK with demanding everyone else change their lives and infringe upon my right to ignore you. That's what it has come to: you are guilty of high crimes simply by existing as a single-gender, biologically consistent, white male human. That is not justice, that is wrong in every way.
No one likes to have someone else encroaching on their scam. The goal is to be at the lowest possible circle of the oppression scale. The intersectionality at that level guarantees you maximum attention. Now someone comes along that threatens the entire paradigm. Damn straight they're outraged.
It is possible, even likely that he is mocking, and challenging, the school board. Or perhaps he is simply responding "appropriately" to the directives from the SB to be less masculine. Perhaps he has discovered his inner gender identity in a revelation sparked by the SB's criticism. It is possible. It is also possible that there is a universe in which flying monkeys live in harmony with unicorns and politicians tell the truth. I'll stick with "mocking" as the most likely explanation, but hey, I am open minded ;-).
As to prancing around kids like that, well, that has been explicitly endorsed by the school board in question. They have condoned trans-gender "expression" while condemning expression of traditional gender and gender roles. If this guy is in deed doing this as an expression of the absurdity of the districts policy, that is not a bad lesson for the kids to learn IMO.
School boards all around the country have been MANDATING that kids be coerced into rejecting their biology and being told they're wrong if they think that they "feel" the gender or sexual preference to which their biology is oriented - and at an age when kids have no idea about any of it. Our state has mandated such curriculum and "counseling" and there are widespread reports of children being subjected to barrage after assault until they "admit" their gender identity is as someone else has decided it should be. Parents objecting are routinely characterized as bad parents, extremists, and even terrorists. And not just about gender identity issues - on all political issues there is a decreed "correct view" kids must adopt to avoid harassment, and parents who object are not tolerated either.
SO maybe it's time to draw more attention to the complete wrongness of what this and other school officials have been doing.
I hear you. And I agree, what these schoolboards are doing in this regard is pathological, frankly criminal, and verging on the demonic. I'm just suggesting, until I understand otherwise, I am going to assume the schoolboard and this guy are normalizing paedophelia.
Even if they aren't purposefully trolling, some of these people may overestimate the degree to which their (captive) audiences are delusional, and their overreach could be misunderstood to be them parodying themselves.
If this was true, would the board defend them (I’m not aware of their preferred pronouns) so fiercely? We shouldn’t believe everything we read online 😒
Right, that's why I said "if." Either way, the board wouldn't want to appear as if they're discriminating, nor would they want to give him his purported wish of firing him so he can file a lawsuit (if the speculations are correct). He's got them in a Double DDDDDD bind.
One person has two choices. You want a third, then make one up.
They, Them, Us, We are collective, as in more than one. You don't get to redefine them because you want something other than Him or Her. That's just stupid. Diagnosed with multiple personalities - maybe you can we "we" and "us". Form a coalition, get a friend, be part of a group and you can use "we". This has NOTHING to do with gender. It has to do with what the words really mean. Geez.....
🤔 I did some TA in England during my PhD studies back in 1995. English was (and still is) my second language. I couldn’t believe how bad the grammar of the students’ essays was. I always corrected the use of “they” in the singular. I didn’t even understood back then their defense. They assured me they were correct. I moved on, but in 2002 I found myself star struck by the far far far left. I very slowly learned about about their narrative. I wish the use of “they” in the singular was the problem…. In this particular post I purposely used “they” because I honestly do not know if that person is a he or a she. But also because we’re very much allowed to half joke in here. I love the humor in this community. It has kept me sane and slowly I’m beginning to find my voice. You need a chill pill Sir.
Such a lovely pushback. Toxic masculinity at work. Twitter exploded, Rebel News got many clicks. Demonstrators all suitably playing their parts in the drama with cameras at the ready for their 15 min.
Heard on npr yesterday... White House conference on food blah blah... "food as medicine" which I thought "oh that could be a good thing" and then they started talking about "medicalized food" for Medicare patients. Yes, let's add the statin, the ssri, and the oral vaccine to your food. That kind of "medicalized food". 🤯😱🙇
Years ago, when we first started putting fluoride in our water supply ("for the children"), the people who opposed it were ridiculed as "Birchers", right-wing nuts, etc. The actual point we raised was that the government was medicating the population without their permission. If fluoride was good for tooth decay, then how about a little aspirin for your heart or, better yet, some Valium to keep the peasants docile. Now we learn that some studies show adverse health effects from too much fluoride in our diets.
Agree. Another is all the damned salt in packaged food products. At least we can cut down on salt and calories a lot by cooking at home and using fresh produce and meat, but judging by the size of so many shoppers' giant asses, I doubt enough are doing so.
Right, but at least we have a choice if we are aware enough. I use non-iodized salt because I think the taste is better. Iodized salt became popular because it prevents goiter (enlarged thyroid gland). That's not the problem it once was because seafood is now readily available. If you regularly eat seafood, you will get enough iodine in your diet to prevent goiter. Years ago, before modern freezing and refrigeration, seafood was scarce for folks living inland.
2. the moment they start talking about food as medicine... well, will that mean I need an Rx to buy food - and if I don't have an Rx to buy grass fed beef, then what?
Especially the 4Chan stuff. They are good LOL. There is some stuff that I have no idea if it is real or fantasy but it's great fun reading it like Miles Mathis stuff.
“So what might we eat in 2030? I think demand will be shifting and more people will want to eat a healthy diet, one that is less intensive (and wasteful) of resources. The increasing emergence of localism, wholefoods, organic, artisanal and “real food” movements is a sign of this – at least for the rich and dedicated. So our diets may be more veg and fruit, whole grains and vegetarian food or new alternatives (soya products, or perhaps insects or artificial meat), and less fried and sugary things. We’ll still eat meat, but, perhaps more like our parents and grandparents, see it as a treat to savour every few days.”
Please just read what comes after (soya products...)
Can anyone tell me if their Parents/Grandparents saw meat as an occasional treat? My parents & grandparents ate meat every day, except through WWII, and my grandparents were born in the late 1800s. Perhaps these "elites" (translation parasites) consider anyone who doesn't move in their rarefied circles as being from a kind of Dickensian lower working class?
We had meat lunch and dinner. Sometimes breakfast. Regular portions--but smaller than the gargantuan portions now. Meat, potato and maybe another veg. Always bread. I was raised on a animal/crops farm. Duh. Unless poor it was not an occasional treat around me as a middle class family. We were very healthy kids.
Same here. I grew up on a farm in Indiana in the 1960s and 70s. My grandmother cooked for our extended family (she was a retired teacher; my mom had a full time office job) and meat was the main course at least twice a day. Meat loaf, fried chicken, pork roasts, ham. She also raised a half-acre garden and during the summer the dinner table looked like a fully stocked buffet -- it was not unusual for green beans, tomatoes, sweet corn, and cantaloupe all at the same meal. There was not *always* meat at breakfast, but if there was it was usually ham, sausage, or "SOS" (chipped beef and cream gravy) on homemade biscuits. Both biscuits and the handmade dough for the pie she made *six days a week* (she made a cake on Sunday because that was fancier and the preacher might drop by for an afternoon visit 😂) were made with lard.
Even during WWII (which I do not remember obvs, but I heard stories) there were hogs and chickens and the carnivorous life continued uninterrupted.
For supper and (where I grew up if you had a big meal at noon) dinner, we often had big meals. We almost always had meat and potatoes, bread and at least one side at supper, but at moor sometimes it was just potatoes, other vegetables, and bread. AsI got older we started having things like chili and spaghetti at supper and lighter lunches. My mom also made big breakfasts before school for us. We had dessert for almost every meal except breakfast.
In poorer countries you grow up eating more legumes and carbs, fact. And that explains the shorter heights and weaker constitutions in people that grew up in the third world. That doesn't mean we should go back there!
I’m not sure. I read about him quite awhile ago. Sally Fallon has quite a lot available with the natural food issue plus cookbooks and nutrition plans. The people he studied were not exposed to modern foods and perhaps there was cultivation. No doubt use of animal husbandry. I started my better nutrition with the paleo diet. But I eat lower carb now. I feel better on fewer carbs and no grains or wheat if I can help it. I can’t resist a crusty French baguette with butter sometimes. 😏
I was raised in Holland during the ‘50s and ‘60s and meat was definitely only for Sundays. Every evening dinner was potatoes and a vegetable. We did get fish though, and lots of bread and cheese. We were poor,
and my parents had 9 children. No doubt the reason we were poor!
My parents were WWII generation. The only time we had a meatless dinner was when Jersey corn and beefsteak tomatoes were in season. Corn on the cob and sliced tomatoes, THAT was a treat.
Mine too. Oh the memories. My mom would put newspapers on the big kitchen table and an old fashioned ice cube tray without the cube contraption filled with butter. A big pile of our corn on the cob and we would roll the corn in the tray and have at it. That was supper. Even our school cafeteria had meat or poultry at every lunch. Fish on Friday. Made in the school kitchen. No ala cart.
Depopulation is good for you, the biosphere and our becoming cyborgs. Why can't you see giving up your life for the greater good of transhumanists and technocrats is in your best interests?
In the apotheosis of this law, Klaus Schwab unmasks himself at the 2024 WEF Summit, revealing he was Andy Kauffman in heavy "Tony Clifton" style makeup all along, and that he's been quietly plotting and executing this bit for 40 years.
WEF has no clue. A 40% reduction in food intake is called "caloric restriction". Intermittent fasting does not necessarily reduce the calories. That only occurs when you are on the "eat everything in 2 hours" type of intermittent fasting and then you have a hard time eating it all.
Having done both I can't stand even parodies getting it wrong. Both are good for you but one has a 40% reduction in calories and one has a time limit for eating (2-6 hours a day).
all this exposes the dire state of our democracies. difficult to find a decent leader in the so called democratic world that can stand against sovranational organizations that have zero accountability to anyone. it is a short circuit in governance and a dangerous one. Yes, some change of direction in Sweden, Italy but definitively not enough. and the dictators are celebrating our collective suicide.
I had no idea about Poe's Law, although I have seen it function IRL. The number of times I have made a snarky, intentionally-extreme Tweet, only to have people who do not follow (or agree with me) like it and people who do follow (and ostensibly agree with me) decry it is amazing. In response, I have taken to using the fabled #Sarcasm hashtag or adding emoticons! The Internet, a cesspool in which we love to swim while simultaneously puking from the stench.
Given Nicole Kidman's educational video (linked in this thread) I think I would be partial to mealworms versus crickets. (That said, I did have some cricket protein powder in my cabinet for a while!) #TrueConfessions
I don't need my mind changed, TBH. I am not against having the option to eat crickets, toasted or deep-fried, at my pleasure. I am dead-set against some arbitrary set of assholes deciding that, "I will eat crickets and like it."
Choices == Good.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, deciding on my behalf == Bad.
Dude ... that was said in jest in direct response to your comment. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone here would be into mandatory insectivorousness?
Eat the bugs, live in the pod, will you let me go? Bismillah! No, we will not let you go (Let him go!)
No, no, no, no no, no, no
Social credit, social credit, social credit let me go.
Klaus Schwab has an income guaranteed for me, for me,
For meee
open your eyes
look up from the lies and seeeeee
you'll be a poor boy, you'll get no sympathy
cuz it's eat the bugs, shiver cold
you will do what you're told
any way the world folds
doesn't really matter
to me
to meeeeeeeeee
But you will be happy... ;)
Welcome to 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better (Tales From the Great Reset)
- Welcome to the year 2030. Thanks to the Great Reset, you will own nothing and you will be happy - just like Ida in her city...
https://covidsteria.substack.com/p/2030-i-own-nothing-no-privacy-life-never-better
Klaus misspoke. What he meant to say was "You will own nothing and WE will be happy."
See? Now it makes sense! 😸😸😸😸🙀
Wow, what a way to start the comments! That was great! Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off!
Nothing really matters, it’s all called ESG...
All these lyrics had me rolling!!
Grey poupon??
😹😹😹😹
Case in point:
• "Is massive boob trans guy the world’s cleverest troll?" (https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/xohfkv/is_massive_boob_trans_guy_the_worlds_cleverest/)
I admire deep commitment to a bit. I've almost been arrested because explaining a joke would have ruined it for everyone.
Agreed, and I can totally see you doing that 😂
This guy/gal is approaching Andy Kaufmanesque levels if he is indeed trolling.
"I've almost been arrested because explaining a joke would have ruined it for everyone."
Oh, you have to tell that story on your sub, Guttermouth.
It isn't long enough to merit a post.
MANY years ago a school friend- a fellow guttermouth- and I were overheard by a proto-Karen discussing "leaving a bomb in the Starbucks and getting out before anyone discovers it" and I could not bring myself to directly tell the cop that approached us that we were talking about a really bad poop in the ladies' room.
Biological warfare...
Oh, past Guttermouth. There is so much I have to warn you about, and yet tragically, I cannot.
Let her enjoy the illusion of living in a sane world while she still can 😆
Imagine the same thing in 2022?
Shudder.
🤣🤣🤣
🤣😂🙌🏼
Yes, please!
Thanks for the link. Up to now, I've only seen criticism of the school & school board for letting a trans person dress in this way. Had no idea he was almost fired for 'toxic masculinity' but I did have my suspicions.
I don't think he has said anything about being 'trans'. I think this is the gender expression he has picked for the moment, since the School Board didn't approve of his previous toxically masculine expression.
Yep. If he can't logic them out of their stupid position, he's going to force them to look like idiots defending it.
It's so enjoyable to watch him rub their noses in it. He seems too over the top to be real, but the school board and other wokesters don't dare challenge him, "just in case".
Perhaps. He has been great for making a mockery of all things trans and woke. Except the sexualizing of children part does not make him a hero.
Except that if he is mocking the School Board, then he is not sexualizing children. Allegedly the Board has effectively told him that as a male his expression of his gender is 'toxic'. Now he has produced evidence that the Board will not similarly sanction someone who expresses 'toxic' femaleness. In effect he has shown that the Board is quite prepared to discriminate against HIM on the basis of his gender expression, but not against him on the basis of alternative gender expressions. The Board is shown to be hypocritical. If this supposition is all true, he has won an important victory.
So where is the real "toxic" in this story? Seems like the school board...
The real toxic in this story is the Ontario Human Rights Code which micromanages the culture of the populace by decreeing, for instance, that no one may discriminate on the basis of how someone expresses their gender. OHRC is social justice, it is the vanguard of the progressives that are undermining our conservative institutions. The toxicity of the OHRC finds its roots in Canada's horrendous Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter extends no real rights, as they are all subject to reasonableness tests. But the Charter does give real authority to the government to implement laws and programs to ameliorate the conditions of those who are members of 'disadavantaged groups'. The toxicity is government.
Another example of politicians calling legislation the opposite of what it does, eh? Our's do that too. I for one have no reason to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity. I happen to think that tolerance is bi-directional. Your PM doesn't seem to feel the same.
The thing about using the term "social justice" in this context (as used by politicians and the media) is that there is no justice at all. This is in deed toxic, designed and executed to promote hate and intolerance. As used in this way, it is the opposite of justice and equality.
I'm OK with self-identifying one's gender. Not OK with preventing others from sticking with traditional, biology based gender identity. Not OK with demanding everyone else change their lives and infringe upon my right to ignore you. That's what it has come to: you are guilty of high crimes simply by existing as a single-gender, biologically consistent, white male human. That is not justice, that is wrong in every way.
So I see that the "real" trans community is outraged over this individuals expression of whatever it is that this person is expressing.
No one likes to have someone else encroaching on their scam. The goal is to be at the lowest possible circle of the oppression scale. The intersectionality at that level guarantees you maximum attention. Now someone comes along that threatens the entire paradigm. Damn straight they're outraged.
It is possible he is gretting tittilated, mocking the school board, and prancing around like that in front of children.
It is possible, even likely that he is mocking, and challenging, the school board. Or perhaps he is simply responding "appropriately" to the directives from the SB to be less masculine. Perhaps he has discovered his inner gender identity in a revelation sparked by the SB's criticism. It is possible. It is also possible that there is a universe in which flying monkeys live in harmony with unicorns and politicians tell the truth. I'll stick with "mocking" as the most likely explanation, but hey, I am open minded ;-).
As to prancing around kids like that, well, that has been explicitly endorsed by the school board in question. They have condoned trans-gender "expression" while condemning expression of traditional gender and gender roles. If this guy is in deed doing this as an expression of the absurdity of the districts policy, that is not a bad lesson for the kids to learn IMO.
School boards all around the country have been MANDATING that kids be coerced into rejecting their biology and being told they're wrong if they think that they "feel" the gender or sexual preference to which their biology is oriented - and at an age when kids have no idea about any of it. Our state has mandated such curriculum and "counseling" and there are widespread reports of children being subjected to barrage after assault until they "admit" their gender identity is as someone else has decided it should be. Parents objecting are routinely characterized as bad parents, extremists, and even terrorists. And not just about gender identity issues - on all political issues there is a decreed "correct view" kids must adopt to avoid harassment, and parents who object are not tolerated either.
SO maybe it's time to draw more attention to the complete wrongness of what this and other school officials have been doing.
I hear you. And I agree, what these schoolboards are doing in this regard is pathological, frankly criminal, and verging on the demonic. I'm just suggesting, until I understand otherwise, I am going to assume the schoolboard and this guy are normalizing paedophelia.
So you're saying once again the normalization error is overwhelming the outcome ;-)
(sorry statistical humor)
Most uncorrupted children would see that and laugh.
Reading the replies to this comment, I realized to my disappointment it's not about Bill Gates after all.
🤣
Yes also the teacher with the plastic sex toy pointer - I thought these people MUST be trolls!!?? Yes!!!
We can hope 🤡
Even if they aren't purposefully trolling, some of these people may overestimate the degree to which their (captive) audiences are delusional, and their overreach could be misunderstood to be them parodying themselves.
Either way, works for me!
Poe rady again!
👍😹
Ok yes there were trans folk on twitter questioning this dude. This makes sense now. Sorta.
Brilliant.
out-woke the wokeness.
"Safe and effective" counter-wokeness.
If this was true, would the board defend them (I’m not aware of their preferred pronouns) so fiercely? We shouldn’t believe everything we read online 😒
Right, that's why I said "if." Either way, the board wouldn't want to appear as if they're discriminating, nor would they want to give him his purported wish of firing him so he can file a lawsuit (if the speculations are correct). He's got them in a Double DDDDDD bind.
And it WOULD bind 😬😬😬
🤣
You want to start a thread on pronouns?
One person has two choices. You want a third, then make one up.
They, Them, Us, We are collective, as in more than one. You don't get to redefine them because you want something other than Him or Her. That's just stupid. Diagnosed with multiple personalities - maybe you can we "we" and "us". Form a coalition, get a friend, be part of a group and you can use "we". This has NOTHING to do with gender. It has to do with what the words really mean. Geez.....
🤔 I did some TA in England during my PhD studies back in 1995. English was (and still is) my second language. I couldn’t believe how bad the grammar of the students’ essays was. I always corrected the use of “they” in the singular. I didn’t even understood back then their defense. They assured me they were correct. I moved on, but in 2002 I found myself star struck by the far far far left. I very slowly learned about about their narrative. I wish the use of “they” in the singular was the problem…. In this particular post I purposely used “they” because I honestly do not know if that person is a he or a she. But also because we’re very much allowed to half joke in here. I love the humor in this community. It has kept me sane and slowly I’m beginning to find my voice. You need a chill pill Sir.
That was the conclusion my husband and I came to also - it’s gotta be!
Such a lovely pushback. Toxic masculinity at work. Twitter exploded, Rebel News got many clicks. Demonstrators all suitably playing their parts in the drama with cameras at the ready for their 15 min.
Heard on npr yesterday... White House conference on food blah blah... "food as medicine" which I thought "oh that could be a good thing" and then they started talking about "medicalized food" for Medicare patients. Yes, let's add the statin, the ssri, and the oral vaccine to your food. That kind of "medicalized food". 🤯😱🙇
Is that how they’re managing Brandon?
They put his meds in ice cream :)
"breathable medicine", medicine in the water supply
FUCK IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE:
WE JUST WANT Y'ALL TO BE SLAVES
Years ago, when we first started putting fluoride in our water supply ("for the children"), the people who opposed it were ridiculed as "Birchers", right-wing nuts, etc. The actual point we raised was that the government was medicating the population without their permission. If fluoride was good for tooth decay, then how about a little aspirin for your heart or, better yet, some Valium to keep the peasants docile. Now we learn that some studies show adverse health effects from too much fluoride in our diets.
Don’t forget the iodine in salt, vitamins in milk and fortified grains.
Iron in flour/grain products...may actually be a much larger problem than most realize. But it is hard to avoid, even when you know
Agree. Another is all the damned salt in packaged food products. At least we can cut down on salt and calories a lot by cooking at home and using fresh produce and meat, but judging by the size of so many shoppers' giant asses, I doubt enough are doing so.
Right, but at least we have a choice if we are aware enough. I use non-iodized salt because I think the taste is better. Iodized salt became popular because it prevents goiter (enlarged thyroid gland). That's not the problem it once was because seafood is now readily available. If you regularly eat seafood, you will get enough iodine in your diet to prevent goiter. Years ago, before modern freezing and refrigeration, seafood was scarce for folks living inland.
FUCK THIS.
1. those are GMO foods.
2. the moment they start talking about food as medicine... well, will that mean I need an Rx to buy food - and if I don't have an Rx to buy grass fed beef, then what?
It’s like the matrix except you are in a Monty Python skit.
lol
"it turns out that the matrix was coded in "monty python"..."
bruh, loved the nerdy pun
Scary true
I have to admit occasionally falling for the especially well crafted parody account...
Especially the 4Chan stuff. They are good LOL. There is some stuff that I have no idea if it is real or fantasy but it's great fun reading it like Miles Mathis stuff.
Had I seen that graphic anywhere else I would have believed it was true.
But this i’ve just copied from WEF website:
“So what might we eat in 2030? I think demand will be shifting and more people will want to eat a healthy diet, one that is less intensive (and wasteful) of resources. The increasing emergence of localism, wholefoods, organic, artisanal and “real food” movements is a sign of this – at least for the rich and dedicated. So our diets may be more veg and fruit, whole grains and vegetarian food or new alternatives (soya products, or perhaps insects or artificial meat), and less fried and sugary things. We’ll still eat meat, but, perhaps more like our parents and grandparents, see it as a treat to savour every few days.”
Please just read what comes after (soya products...)
Can anyone tell me if their Parents/Grandparents saw meat as an occasional treat? My parents & grandparents ate meat every day, except through WWII, and my grandparents were born in the late 1800s. Perhaps these "elites" (translation parasites) consider anyone who doesn't move in their rarefied circles as being from a kind of Dickensian lower working class?
We had meat lunch and dinner. Sometimes breakfast. Regular portions--but smaller than the gargantuan portions now. Meat, potato and maybe another veg. Always bread. I was raised on a animal/crops farm. Duh. Unless poor it was not an occasional treat around me as a middle class family. We were very healthy kids.
Same here. I grew up on a farm in Indiana in the 1960s and 70s. My grandmother cooked for our extended family (she was a retired teacher; my mom had a full time office job) and meat was the main course at least twice a day. Meat loaf, fried chicken, pork roasts, ham. She also raised a half-acre garden and during the summer the dinner table looked like a fully stocked buffet -- it was not unusual for green beans, tomatoes, sweet corn, and cantaloupe all at the same meal. There was not *always* meat at breakfast, but if there was it was usually ham, sausage, or "SOS" (chipped beef and cream gravy) on homemade biscuits. Both biscuits and the handmade dough for the pie she made *six days a week* (she made a cake on Sunday because that was fancier and the preacher might drop by for an afternoon visit 😂) were made with lard.
Even during WWII (which I do not remember obvs, but I heard stories) there were hogs and chickens and the carnivorous life continued uninterrupted.
For supper and (where I grew up if you had a big meal at noon) dinner, we often had big meals. We almost always had meat and potatoes, bread and at least one side at supper, but at moor sometimes it was just potatoes, other vegetables, and bread. AsI got older we started having things like chili and spaghetti at supper and lighter lunches. My mom also made big breakfasts before school for us. We had dessert for almost every meal except breakfast.
Edited to make some kind of sense. Lol
In poorer countries you grow up eating more legumes and carbs, fact. And that explains the shorter heights and weaker constitutions in people that grew up in the third world. That doesn't mean we should go back there!
People’s health started to go backwards when faming and crop cultivation began. The skeletal history proves it.
Weston Price's research is very interesting.
Very. I believe his X factor for health turned out to be Vit K2 after studying indigenous populations with excellent general and dental health.
Indeed, and fascinating this is. Does Price's research place the blame on farming generally, or "big-time, i.e., factory" farming?
I’m not sure. I read about him quite awhile ago. Sally Fallon has quite a lot available with the natural food issue plus cookbooks and nutrition plans. The people he studied were not exposed to modern foods and perhaps there was cultivation. No doubt use of animal husbandry. I started my better nutrition with the paleo diet. But I eat lower carb now. I feel better on fewer carbs and no grains or wheat if I can help it. I can’t resist a crusty French baguette with butter sometimes. 😏
I was raised in Holland during the ‘50s and ‘60s and meat was definitely only for Sundays. Every evening dinner was potatoes and a vegetable. We did get fish though, and lots of bread and cheese. We were poor,
and my parents had 9 children. No doubt the reason we were poor!
Heck no! My parents were meat and potatoes people. Every night. Bacon and eggs for breakfast, usually. I remain a meat lover today.
My parents were WWII generation. The only time we had a meatless dinner was when Jersey corn and beefsteak tomatoes were in season. Corn on the cob and sliced tomatoes, THAT was a treat.
Mine too. Oh the memories. My mom would put newspapers on the big kitchen table and an old fashioned ice cube tray without the cube contraption filled with butter. A big pile of our corn on the cob and we would roll the corn in the tray and have at it. That was supper. Even our school cafeteria had meat or poultry at every lunch. Fish on Friday. Made in the school kitchen. No ala cart.
Depopulation is good for you, the biosphere and our becoming cyborgs. Why can't you see giving up your life for the greater good of transhumanists and technocrats is in your best interests?
Where was this graphic? And where was the firestorm? I wanna see!
Yes! Me too.
When you're not at the table...you're on the menu.
We're all gonna be "people persons" now!
Yummy!
The old Monthy Python sketch "Can we have your liver then?" takes on a whole new meaning.
In the apotheosis of this law, Klaus Schwab unmasks himself at the 2024 WEF Summit, revealing he was Andy Kauffman in heavy "Tony Clifton" style makeup all along, and that he's been quietly plotting and executing this bit for 40 years.
WEF has no clue. A 40% reduction in food intake is called "caloric restriction". Intermittent fasting does not necessarily reduce the calories. That only occurs when you are on the "eat everything in 2 hours" type of intermittent fasting and then you have a hard time eating it all.
pssst, it WAS parody. Thank me later.
I knew that but it was a wrong parody. LOL
Having done both I can't stand even parodies getting it wrong. Both are good for you but one has a 40% reduction in calories and one has a time limit for eating (2-6 hours a day).
PS. Thanks
XD BTW 16/8 is the IF schedule with the best evidence of its benefits. Its what I'm trying to do now.
Micro livestock??!!🤣🤣🤣
That part is unfortunately in progress in Canada and Australia.
Look. If we can milk almonds, why can't we grill crickets?
🤔🤔😗😗
Don’t you mean poerady?
Good one Canny! Lol!
all this exposes the dire state of our democracies. difficult to find a decent leader in the so called democratic world that can stand against sovranational organizations that have zero accountability to anyone. it is a short circuit in governance and a dangerous one. Yes, some change of direction in Sweden, Italy but definitively not enough. and the dictators are celebrating our collective suicide.
I had no idea about Poe's Law, although I have seen it function IRL. The number of times I have made a snarky, intentionally-extreme Tweet, only to have people who do not follow (or agree with me) like it and people who do follow (and ostensibly agree with me) decry it is amazing. In response, I have taken to using the fabled #Sarcasm hashtag or adding emoticons! The Internet, a cesspool in which we love to swim while simultaneously puking from the stench.
Best internet description ever! Winner, winner cricket 🦗 dinner. Forgive me for the silly internet jokes.
Given Nicole Kidman's educational video (linked in this thread) I think I would be partial to mealworms versus crickets. (That said, I did have some cricket protein powder in my cabinet for a while!) #TrueConfessions
Chickens love those mealworms so I guess we get them in a roundabout way anyhoo! Lol
If I told you toasted crickets taste like bacon, would that change your mind?
I don't need my mind changed, TBH. I am not against having the option to eat crickets, toasted or deep-fried, at my pleasure. I am dead-set against some arbitrary set of assholes deciding that, "I will eat crickets and like it."
Choices == Good.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, deciding on my behalf == Bad.
Dude ... that was said in jest in direct response to your comment. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone here would be into mandatory insectivorousness?
I hear you! I just figured I'd be precise. Sorry if I came off over-the-top. Hell, I like bacon.
Sometimes I wish I had an old flip phone and no internet, but I’ve learned a lot of good stuff, too, so...
Soylent Green baby!!!
https://www.amazon.com/Soylent-Green-Charlton-Heston/dp/B001QUM4IY
It’s people!
I’m going to watch that movie again.