• ULS@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t understand the furry thing. If anyone wants to explain it that would be cool.

      I’ve gone to lgbtq+ bars and sometimes 1 or two people will have leather dog masks on. I don’t understand it though. Is it a sub/Dom thing? I’m kinda new to to the LGBTQ+ culture.

      • juliebean@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        basically, its a subculture of people who like anthropomorphic (i.e. humanized) animal characters, like zootopia, for one fairly recent mainstream example. some furries do dress up in costumes, but the leather dog masks are a somewhat unrelated bdsm thing, though there’s probably some significant overlap in the groups.

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t think those are necessarily related.

        Furries are just people who like animal mascot type characters and made a whole subculture around that.

      • M. Orange@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The dog mask people are generally not furries. They’re called pups, and you’re actually right that pup play is a BDSM thing. The whole acting like a dog thing is more for dehumanization than anything else.

        Furries are people who enjoy anthropomorphic animals for… well, a variety of reasons. Fursuits are extremely uncommon because they’re expensive as fuck, difficult to clean, easily damaged, etc. Most furries just come up with fursonas (generally online animal personas) and make art.

        I know more about this than I otherwise would because I have friends who are pups and others who are furries.

    • cobra89@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      While I agree and have no problem with furries, I think the issue is people seeing, what a lot of people in their own community see as linked to a sexual kink, being brought out into public spaces.

      “Sexual attraction to furry characters is a polarizing issue. In one survey with 4,300 furry respondents, 37% answered that sexual attraction is important in their furry activities, 38% were ambivalent, and 24% answered that it has little or nothing to do with their furry activities.”

      “Another survey at a furry convention in 2013 found that 96.3% of male furry respondents reported viewing furry pornography, compared with 78.3% of female; males estimated 50.9% of all furry art they view is pornographic, compared with 30.7% of females.”

      Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom

      So like clearly there is a large sexual component to the fandom, and I think it weirds people out and makes people uncomfortable when they see these people wearing their fur suits out in public. Which again to be clear is not something the entire community does or even tolerates, but there’s enough people who do so that it’s become part of the cultural zeitgeist.

      But it’s also just the fact that it’s so far from normal vanilla experiences. Everyday people think role playing sexually is already adventurous and out there. Now add big animal suits that are typically associated with mascots for entertaining children and I think anyone can see why everyday people think it’s weird.

      • juliebean@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        honestly that argument just feels like recycled homophobia to me. and just because something is weird doesn’t mean it should be hated.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      They’ve still a way to go though as well. I remember when FA banned porn of child-looking characters half the website quit, ironically leaving known groomers who were flagrantly breaking the rule and getting away with it. The alternative sites aren’t much better, with some outright dying on the hill of allowing toddlercon. I dipped because I was insanely uncomfortable with how much of a grooming culture there was and as fun as it was to crash&burn the 40th discord server with admins doing that shit, it was stunting my development into a functioning adult.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Comic sans.

    It is literally a font. Sometimes when some corporate partner is annoying me I will pdf lock a document, with a signature, to them in comic sans.

    • puppy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Add men to the list.

      Misandry is also extremely widespread and socially acceptable.

      IMHO both groups have bad apples. In conservative societies, women are often mistreated. In modern/contemporary societies men are often misstreated.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        adult men are treated fine in modern societies, it’s boys/teenagers who are feeling increasingly out of place and are turning to misogyny as an outlet

      • whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        IMHO both groups have bad apples

        Oh bad people can come from anywhere, what a salient observation.

        By every important measurable standard, women are still treated worse in contemporary society. The fact you would respond with this nothing take when someone brings up misogyny is incredibly telling. Wishing well to any women unlucky enough to be in your life.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Chemicals” in food. Literally every substance, every food and people are composed of them. The common usage has bastardized the meaning and latched on to the naturalistic fallacy. Snake venom is natural. Cyanide is natural. Arsenic and Uranium are natural. Botulinum toxin is natural. Something being naturally occurring does not automatically make it good for you just as something being made in a lab does not equate to being bad for you.

    • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I love when they compare food labels from two countries but don’t notice the ingredients are the same just described in different words or with different levels of verbosity based on the local regulations.

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      On one hand I agree with you, the way “chemicals” are used in everyday speech differs from the text book definition.

      On the other hand, if we take our heads out of our asses and stop the "well actually"s I kinda have to agree with being against “chemicals” in food. Arsenic is naturally occurring, sure, but at what concentration? Radioactive uranium is a naturally occurring element, but I would hardly call nuclear fallout something natural.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      My least favorite is “it’s processed”

      I can count the ingredients on my hands, and the “processing” is like 4 steps max.

      • pixelscript@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        A guy at a deli counter slicing cold cuts and assembling them into a sandwich is “processed food”. Using the term as a health concern marker is meaningless.

        Even Kraft Singles, the posterchild of “processed food”, famously disallowed to legally call itself “cheese” on its packaging, what is it made of? What hellish process hath humanity wrought? Cheddar cheese, sodium citrate (a mundane variety of salt), and water. That’s it.

        It’s not forbidden from being called “cheese” because it’s a bastard concoction of mad scientist chemicals that approximate cheese to ruse consumers. It’s simply cheese, literally watered down to the point that you can’t call it cheese anymore.

        All that the sodium citrate is doing in this situation is acting as a binder that helps the cheese solids hold on to the water. This action is what gives many dishes, sauces, and the like their smooth, creamy texture. But use the word for that – “emulsifier” – and suddenly people think you’re trying to poison them, because that’s a scary chemical word.

        Why does this product exist? Because it offers a unique melty texture that people appreciate in certain contexts. It’s a niche product with a niche function. Treat it like one.

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I haven’t run into anyone who considers emulsifier a scary chemical word. Most people I know with any baking skill know what the word means and use egg yolks for that purpose all the time.

      • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        “Unga bunga me invent new process for food. It called cooking. Make less parasites in meat. Very good.”

        “Cooking bad, garg. We no want processed food.”

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I really liked this post by Hank Green regarding “natural remedies”.

      tl;dw The chemicals used in chemotherapy are naturally occurring, and science uses what we know works. So when people say “you should use natural remedies”, what they really mean is, you should use something:

      • we don’t know whether it works
      • we know doesn’t work
      • we know is actively harmful

      And the first two categories aren’t necessarily bad, an Epsom salt bath can feel really nice, but don’t think it’s a replacement for proper medical science.

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Being overweight or obese, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, prolonged sitting, loneliness will all kill you way faster than all those “chemicals” in your food that you are so terrified of but no one really cares about any of that because its much harder to lose that extra 30 pounds and break up sitting every once in a while with light exercise than it is to act like a picky 5 year old and eat nothing but organic food satisfied by the false notion that you did something of consequence for your health.

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Same thing with people thinking that organic food is healthier. Organic food might be good for the environment, but not necessarily the climate or your health.

      • Unmapped@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Organic has less pesticides. Which is probably healthier no? I mostly buy non organic, but always get organic for certain foods like strawberries and oats since they tend to have so much pesticides used on them.

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Organic has less pesticides.

          Less pesticides also means more bacteria and more bug poop. There is a reason why they use pesticides, after all.

          Even if there are trace amounts of pesticides left, you can just wash the produce, which you should always do anyway. Same reason you wash the organic produce to get rid of bug stuff…

          The trace amounts of bug poop or pesticides really makes no difference when it comes to your health.

        • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Not necessarily less pesticides, but “natural” pesticides. In my opinion, organic food is probably either equivalent or better than not-organic, but I don’t think there’s much scientific consensus.

          People tend to think “organic” means that a food item is free from the ills of industrial agriculture, but it really doesn’t. It’s the same thing with people directing hate at GMO’s: most complaints people have about them are really complaints that apply to industrial ag whether GMO or not.

      • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I worked in produce as a quality inspector for a couple years. Organic generally just means lower quality for higher price. No one is regulating it as far as I know, they can just skip pesticides, do everything else the same and charge more for the same product that actually cost them less to produce. We refered to it as a hillarious scam when the boss wasnt around.

          • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            No, thats just the bullshit they use to justify it.

            Anything not looking good enough gets sent to a secondary outlet and is sold as is with no organic labels. The stuff that is a grade below that gets juiced ( dont drink fruit juice that you didnt make yourself if you can help it…). They are not losing a single pennie, they are making out like thieves

        • ArcaneGadget@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          That depends on where you live though. Here in Denmark, as an example, we have a certificate called “Statskontrolleret økologisk” which basically translates to “Government-certified organic”. There are specific guidelines and rules that need to be followed, to be allowed to use this seal on your product.

          • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            We have a similar system in the US. The US department of agriculture has a stamp they put on food that has strict criteria for what goes in it

    • GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Have you heard about the chemical dihydrogen monoxide?! It’s 100% fatal! Too much causes death, too little, death! Massively addictive.

    • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel like that’s one of those things where the conversational use of chemicals and scientific use has drifted apart

      There’s plenty of examples but the only one I can think of is evolution, like In every terrible sci-fi movie ever using evolution to describe the individual evil monster gaining some change

      Anyways 100% agree with you tho

      • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        AI. In the real world, AI is any computer process that can make decisions as if it were smart. Expert systems, genetic algorithms, hell even fuzzy logic. A smart lightbulb is artificially smart. Artificially intelligent.

        In movies and bad tech blogs, AI means a sapient machine and that’s why LLMs aren’t actually AI.

    • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Oh they deserve it, just not because of their music. I used to hang with a few guys that grew up in the same town, the stories they would tell…

    • Zoop@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Haha my first thought when I read the title was Creed. We had similar thoughts.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      They chose to be commercially popular. They CAN absolutely shred, they ARE very talented. But they chose the top 40 route and are laughing all the way to the bank.

      Everyone has a price, if you’re an artist and you havent “sold out” its because nobody offered you enough money.

      • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The “sold out” thing bothers me sometimes, yes the ARE bands who come from less popular genres towards more mainstream sound because thats where they found commercial success and wanted/needed that money to keep doing what they do.

        But there are also many bands who change genres and sound over time and some bands just enjoy playing that kind of ‘radio friendly’ music. Personally i feel like nickleback are in the ‘we just like this kind of music’ category.

        (Personally I cant stand nicklebacks genre, so no bias here)

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Music is a medium and playing is a craft. Some people play to express themselves in artistic ways and others play to make a living. It’s all music, even when it’s not art.

        Nobody hates the guy who paints walls for a living for not being Picasso, but when it comes to music, everyone looks at any guy with a guitar expecting him to be the next artistic genius.

        Sometimes he’s just there to play three chords, get paid and go home.

        I don’t really like Nickelback’s music, but if I ever need a house painted, I’d call them before calling someone who hasn’t “sold out”. I think that’s their appeal.

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I know you probably already hate me for mentioning it, but foot fetishes. It’s a very common fetish people have and I don’t think people should be ashamed of it. It’s not even the weirdest fetish out there when it comes down to it. I understand the stigma comes from weird dudes asking girls for feet pics in creepy ways and I feel like that’s reasonable. But most of us are just regular people just trying to live our best life. I used to feel comfortable telling women I’m with that I have a foot fetish and most of them were even down to give it a try. Nowadays I’m too embarrassed or ashamed to even mention it and when I do I get shot down more often than before because of this stigma. I’m more comfortable these days telling someone that I’m bisexual than telling someone I like feet. Which I guess is a win for the gay part of me, but it still sucks.

    • ugh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      You should avoid judgemental sexual partners anyways. Foot fetishes are considered “weird” if that’s how you phrase it. Generally speaking, it’s not that uncommon. Don’t open up with a partner about kinks unless you trust them not to run their mouth.

      • TommySoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        In that regard I definitely agree with you. It could even just be the people I associate with. If anything the people that have given me the most shit for it are other guys that I have as friends.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I spent some time explaining amputee fetish to my CW the other day (which is actually called body identity integrity disorder). I’m just glad there are people who like their limbs and appendages attached.

    • Fisch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not into that at all (tbh I find feet kinda disgusting) but I’ve never seen it as something really weird because it really isn’t that weird.

  • Flamingflowerz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Breeders who responsibly create a hybrid breed for sporting or companion purposes. Doesn’t matter if all applicable health testing is done and every puppy has a home in advance before it’s even born, people seem to immediately think backyard breeder if a dog isn’t purebred.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s kind of ironic seeing people post something here and being downvoted. Kinda just proves their point.

    • mars296@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not necessarily. They could be down voted because what they mentioned is hated for a good reason. Like if someone posts “Nazis” or “cancer”.

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        One so far for not liking “how conservatism is hated on more than liberalism for no reason”. Most likely to turn into a racist, sexist, some -ist diatribe if it gets some comments going.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      So if someone said that people hated nazis and holocaust denial “for no reason” and was downvoted into the dirt you’d say that proved their point? Sometimes people are downvoted FOR A REASON. That does not validate their point in a thread like this.