are they telling people to eat trash ?
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.
The main reason we peel veggies and fruits are the tons of pesticids poisoning their surface.
So please let’s not transfer again yet another industry fuck-up responsibility onto consumers.
They could avoid saying literally “in your garbage” tho
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
They love to demonize the 1%, just point their ire at the entirely wrong 1%.
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.
They haven’t limited his powe r when they have had the chance no and there has been a couple times thy could have. I don’t expect much from them honestly.
Yea, but at least they’re not into regime change in other countries, waging senseless wars and supporting genocide…
/S
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.
they had both house and senate in 2019-2023 https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-control-house-senate-first-time-since-2011-schumer-ousts-mcconnell-1563229
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.
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.
What did they actually block?
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.
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.
Why is it losing? From a 10-second read it looks like the opposition argument is basically “it might get complicated”
The media has been flooded with emotional negative ads, paid for by our billionaire masters. They’ve bought California.
How are any of these ads even remotely convincing though? Like tax the mega rich, the “elites” if you will. It’s so simple.
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.
Hope to fuck Fiona Ma wins, she’s progressive and has good chances
As dystopian as it is, one has to admire the patience and determination displayed by corrupt politicians. They slowly get their way unless they are constantly beaten away by a stick made of civil unrest.
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.
fat lady ain’t singing yet
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.
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.
They have better odds of being hit by lightning 5 times in a lifetime, but don’t you dare give them math.
Reminder that JK Rowling’s descent into transphobia begun with her fearing she might have to pay taxes under a potential Corbyn presidency.
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)
My bisexual ass when woman looks masc: owo
Same here, same here
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.
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.
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.
He was such a cunt. He spent taxpayer money to dismantle the solar panels that were already installed in the WH
People do throw out tons of good stuff though. We can eat the rich and be sustainable
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.
Indeed. I tried this during the pandemic, in an attempt to both eat healthier and waste less food. Then I got hit with diverticulitis, because it turns out not everyone can digest all that inedible shit.
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. 😅💟
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".
We are in a class war, so we’re starting at the class war. 🤷♂️
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?
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. 🤐
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”.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean, all you’d have to do is make a smoothie.
mhhmmm watermelon rind smoothie. My next favourite thing after Fall leaves lasagna.
I prefer fall leaf sausage.
I personally enjoy watermelon rinds.
My compost pile will appreciate those things more than my colon will.
Nah, your compost pile doesn’t give a shit, and because modern diets have so little fibre, your colon has trouble giving a shit, too.
https://smv.org/learn/blog/are-there-health-benefits-hunter-gatherer-diet/
I doing know why people don’t like pineapple core; it’s like a crunchier, milder pineapple. And pumpkin seeds are eaten quite commonly as a snack throughout the world.
Yeah, the birds and deer out back can eat that shit.
I’m not sure I could do watermelon rind, but I legitimately like pineapple core, and I know some people who roast the squash seeds and absolutely love em, like big sunflower seeds.
deleted by creator
How will garlic scraps fuck up your stock? Too bitter?
It was just this year that I found out I was peeling carrots for no reason.
I am all about the watermelon rind, that is tasty. Not the skin though.
TBF peeling is a big waste of food
Stalks be nasty tho
That’s not even about being sustainable, it’s just about being healthy.
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.
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…
The (original/BBC) title was intentionally clickbaity.
It helps when the article isn’t shared. It’s a screenshot of a knee jerk reaction which gives the assumption that between the commenter and the screenshotter that someone confirmed it.
I’ve heard the rich are made of fiber
And high in protein
But full of shit.
No problem, in a few years you’ll see similar articles, titled “Faeces has more nutrients than you would think” (read: “eat shit, pleb”).
But we’re gonna eat the rich because they’re full of fiber, protein, and shit. After that, the rich will no longer be alive to tell us to eat shit.
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.
We can do both. Tax billionaires and eat more sustainably.
I don’t think it’s necessary to turn raccoon just to be able to eat.
That’s not what I’m saying. We throw away a ton of perfectly edible food, some of which is waste like peels and such which often contain a lot of the non-sugar nutritional content of the crop.
While it might not be palatable on its own, many of the things listed would be fine in a smoothie.
No, but seriously. These people just need to die. There is no way out. They will not give up, not 1 cent.
too late for wealth tax.
what does the wealthy having wealth do for me? its not as if my home or possessions are sacred. I gain nothing from the taboos that protect them.
the time for a wealth tax was fifty years ago. most of us hadn’t been born yet. Now is the time for avenging the victims of property, for taking the world back, for casting off this great weight and unleashing human flourishing, production, art.
Why not both?
its very hard to tax a completely dispossesses living post human object created as a monument to pain and experiment in suffering.
also taxes require a state. those tend to go bad places.
Taxes require a state
Since when?
There’s ways to do taxes without a state
still would rather not have them than tax them. not having them would be easier than taxing them. starting in on not having them would make taxing them as a conditional surrender much easier if that were your ultimate goal.
Planning for idealism is the enemy, first we must tax them, then we must destroy them
is this like some weird Marxist thing? because killing them seems way easier, and like it would make taxing them easier even if you only got a few.
I mean, you’re not wrong I guess
While their possessions are hard to tax, they themselves are still fragile meat sacks.
kill them, or make them wish you had!
who says the only solution is killing?
I didn’t propose it.
I finally obtained a numerical value. 50$ mil and up is considered the ultra rich and the benchmark for a wealth tax.
100mil and up would be more worth it be cause you were to do a fixed rate of 7% more than the general population redistribution would seem more worth it. Taxing the super duper rich 3% could’ve worked in 2009.
I still think to myself : There’s people out there with all the money in the world… People who have the ability to better society and instead they just do shit like donate a wing for tax write offs and if there’s no tax write-off or passive income for 20 years there’s no point to those people.
You know what, I looked at my fiancé sometime at the beginning of last month and I said to her: " If I had that kind of money if I had trillions of dollars to just piss away, I would buy up so many old hospitals and make them functional. I’d find all the people I’ve wronged and I’d build trusts for their kids to go to college and give them 5 million each to do whatever the fuck they want with, buy a house, invest whatever they want.
I would donate a fuck load to every special needs school, I would overhaul my home city, I would overhaul the one I live in, I would put so much back into the lives of those that matter to me and others.
And it’s crazy that there’s people out there with nearly all the money in the world and they won’t help anyone but themselves."
She looked at me with her eyes wide with a smile, that like that of you son of a bitch you would too kind of smile.
In that moment after I said all of that it made me realize: THAT’S PART OF IT!!! FUCK!!! There’s people with nearly all the money in the world and will never have to worry about anything for generations to come unless they choose to indulge in a different lifestyle than what they grew up with and they choose to just never put any of it back into society.
Well fuck that! , maybe they should be forced to give back some of their wealth back into society to better the planet instead of just keeping it all for themselves.
I ultimately understood wealth redistribution after saying there’s people with nearly all the money in the world and they choose to not help a soul.
why do we let them keep defiling earth with their caustic presence? they’re vile. they will never do anything for another person. why allow them in society? why allow them any power? any protection for their possessions? that’s real resources that could go to building schools and hospitals.
The real resource they have is their money. Other than that it’s all stuff they buy with their money to be able to have assets to hold their wealth and I don’t mean just mansions I mean paintings, jelwery, antique and vintage furniture of value. Clothing that needs to be stored a certain ways, wines and collectable foods, historical documents of value, historical artifacts in general…
Things that we would never even think of is what they hold their wealth in which is why they use trusts and company holdings and offshore bank accounts so they’re not holding their full assets and net worth.
Like that one painting that they all say is worth 20 mil, is that 20 mil that’s not in their bank account but is always obtainable through auction. It makes you less of a target if your wealth is spread and diversified.
none of that does fuck all for me, and I bet that painting would be easier to look at of they didn’t own it. I might like it. won’t know til its liberated.
It’s simple: we don’t allow it. They force it.
By holding wealth they hold power, by holding power they can use coercion and violence to ensure they keep power
So that unless a large enough majority would choose to fight back, which is a huge risk that most wouldn’t want to take, they can just fend off all attempts to remove their power with very little difficulty
And you may say “but then why doesn’t a majority form to fight back?”
- fear of repurcussion - what if you lose the fight? They will destroy everything you care about in retaliation
- corruption of state - the state itself is willing to prop them up due to those with wealth using wealth as a tool to rot it from the inside out
- class traitors - those in power create a mythology that anyone could be like them, it just takes hard work, in so creating people who have no power that are willing to fight for them cause they think it will give them power (it won’t)
If things get bad enough, then all those bullet points will not outweigh the amount of people willing to fight back, it’s happened time and again. But in almost every case it’s gotten MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE than our already shitty situation before there was enough will to fight.
oh. I guess we should all just kill ourselves to spare us the coming climapocalypse they’re inflicting on us, then.
Or, and it’s a novel idea, work to push that war forwards in time by supporting progressives and doing local politics
yeah, why go to the doctor when I have band aids? band aids cure all.
imagine reading how taxes work.
dont do it.
just imagine it.
and then keep posting these questions online.
should be nothing to tax. why take a piece when we could cut out the rot and take everything?
…and when you flush the toilet and leave the garbage out everything just ‘magically disappears’. Roads, parks, community centers, safety measures basic care for people with disabilities for these things just appear out of nowhere?
people just do those jobs out of the goodness of their hearts and dont need to eat cuz they are the ‘lowers’?
you understand that billionaires not existing would make more resources available to all if these people?
did you mean victims of poverty?
because taxes do that.
the wealth dont pay taxes. they just take money and let everyone else hold the bill for it.
imagine if they did pay what they owed.
then all that good shit will actually make it to people who needed it.
what does them existing in society get us? we kill children who are accused of stealing candy bars and shit head 20 year olds who sell meth.
so justify the harms allowing the wealthy to continue to exist inflicts on the rest of us. make them less horrible than misplaced skittles. justify the lives that could be saved with the resources they consume being lost instead.
no amount if tax would be enough. they must he exterminated.
if they are taxed they wouldnt be billionaires. there would be no one to exterminate.
try math next time.
that law literally cannot exist.
Yeah, but that wont bring back the millions, if not billions who died suffering and living in absolute mediocrity because of these demons
time doesnt go backwards.
We can do both. Both is good
Fedposting on main
why announce it? seems like that would negate the point.
I am stunned Prop 40 is polling so badly. Billionaires really bamboozled the half of Californians dumber than the average Californian.
Democracy under capitalism isn’t difficult, it’s impossible.
only blood. they won’t have anything else.
Because a bunch of the big companies in California have been moving to Texas to avoid taxes. They probably think this will cause even more money to leave the state.
Jusy gimme the scopdog already.
what’s scop dog
SCOP = Single-Celled Organic Protien
It’s lab grown meat paste used to make various meat substitutes in cyberpunk fiction. A scopdog is a hotdog made from scop.
oh thanks i was just trying to make a bad joke haha
Eat your fiber, how are you going to overthrow the rich if you can’t take a shit?
I wouldn’t mind them having money so much if it wasn’t for them spending it on destroying democracy
The money is the fulcrum for doing so, they wouldn’t want or need it if it wasn’t useful for that
