Funny events in anti-woke world

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
In recent right wing weirdos lie about nutrition news some of you might have seen the claim that the US gov has suggested lucky charms are healthier than beef and seen this chart:

MA_FoodCompass.jpg

Which if you know anything about the right wing griftosphere and nutrition is being wildly misrepresented am taken at face value.

First. The food compass is not a US government programme. It is based on an algorithm designed at Tufts University that ranks foods based on a number of categories such as vitamins and mineral content and macronutrient profiles. That's it. It was simply an attempt by eggheads to design an algorithm to rank foods.

Second this graph is from another paper exploring the limitations of the food compass. Pointing out that nutrition and health is a little more nuanced and how just ranking foods can come up with silly results like "based on the criteria of variety of micronutrients and balance of macronutrients you could come up with something silly like lucky charms are healthier than steak."

The whole lucky charms being ranked higher than beef is an admitted limitation with the exercise of trying to rank foods not actually a recommendation to eat Lucky Charms. But of course a bunch of weirdos, idiots and liars are using this the same way someone might say that the food pyramid is bad health advice despite the fact that nobody follows it and the most in depth study on the topic determined that ACTUALLY following the guidelines would be the healthiest diet. Because really what it's about is sowing the seeds of doubt about medical and health advice in general from the government.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Because really what it's about is sowing the seeds of doubt about medical and health advice in general from the government.
That's the difference between a lie and bullshit. A lie is simply trying to obscure a truth. Bullshit makes it harder to tell what is and is not real.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,832
12,407
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
In recent right wing weirdos lie about nutrition news some of you might have seen the claim that the US gov has suggested lucky charms are healthier than beef and seen this chart:

View attachment 7746

Which if you know anything about the right wing griftosphere and nutrition is being wildly misrepresented am taken at face value.

First. The food compass is not a US government programme. It is based on an algorithm designed at Tufts University that ranks foods based on a number of categories such as vitamins and mineral content and macronutrient profiles. That's it. It was simply an attempt by eggheads to design an algorithm to rank foods.

Second this graph is from another paper exploring the limitations of the food compass. Pointing out that nutrition and health is a little more nuanced and how just ranking foods can come up with silly results like "based on the criteria of variety of micronutrients and balance of macronutrients you could come up with something silly like lucky charms are healthier than steak."

The whole lucky charms being ranked higher than beef is an admitted limitation with the exercise of trying to rank foods not actually a recommendation to eat Lucky Charms. But of course a bunch of weirdos, idiots and liars are using this the same way someone might say that the food pyramid is bad health advice despite the fact that nobody follows it and the most in depth study on the topic determined that ACTUALLY following the guidelines would be the healthiest diet. Because really what it's about is sowing the seeds of doubt about medical and health advice in general from the government.
You have to be a complete and total tool and dumbass and believing that lucky. charms and healthier than half the stuff on that chart. People never read the back or side of the box. Even a preteen or teenager with a decent head on theirs shoulders, knows that's not even close to the truth. This is the same dumb le people bought about Coca Cola. The company lied about their drinks being healthy.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,209
118
The whole lucky charms being ranked higher than beef is an admitted limitation with the exercise of trying to rank foods not actually a recommendation to eat Lucky Charms.
In certain ways, I suspect Lucky Charms are nutrutious: like all breakfast cereals, they're almostly certainly fortified with large quantities of vitamins.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,963
9,663
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
In recent right wing weirdos lie about nutrition news some of you might have seen the claim that the US gov has suggested lucky charms are healthier than beef and seen this chart:

View attachment 7746

Which if you know anything about the right wing griftosphere and nutrition is being wildly misrepresented am taken at face value.

First. The food compass is not a US government programme. It is based on an algorithm designed at Tufts University that ranks foods based on a number of categories such as vitamins and mineral content and macronutrient profiles. That's it. It was simply an attempt by eggheads to design an algorithm to rank foods.

Second this graph is from another paper exploring the limitations of the food compass. Pointing out that nutrition and health is a little more nuanced and how just ranking foods can come up with silly results like "based on the criteria of variety of micronutrients and balance of macronutrients you could come up with something silly like lucky charms are healthier than steak."

The whole lucky charms being ranked higher than beef is an admitted limitation with the exercise of trying to rank foods not actually a recommendation to eat Lucky Charms. But of course a bunch of weirdos, idiots and liars are using this the same way someone might say that the food pyramid is bad health advice despite the fact that nobody follows it and the most in depth study on the topic determined that ACTUALLY following the guidelines would be the healthiest diet. Because really what it's about is sowing the seeds of doubt about medical and health advice in general from the government.
They just want to pump up anti-government sentiment. "They're coming for your deep-fried bacon-and-cheese nuggets!"
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Jan 9, 2011
1,847
546
118
In certain ways, I suspect Lucky Charms are nutrutious: like all breakfast cereals, they're almostly certainly fortified with large quantities of vitamins.
Looking at this chart I think there's some kind of comparative of nutrient vs calorie comparative ranking going on here, where the highest nutrient to calorie ratio is reported as being more recommended. That kind of makes sense - beef is basically "good for you" on the basis that if you value protein and having relatively few additives a lot then its generally working in your favor but from a nutrition standpoint its not exactly bringing a lot of variety to the table. On the other hand most boxed breakfast cereals are effectively multivitamins mixed with sugar and fibre so while they bring no protein to the table, and probably a lot of additives and preservatives, calorie-to-nutrients they do a lot more for you than a steak.

At the top of the chart we have watermelon and kale which have a reasonable amount of nutrients, less than a multivitamin but they also have really few calories per gram, no fat and a lot of fibre so they probably have a really favorable ratio.

I appreciate that the paper Cheeto says this came from was intended as a criticism, but I kind of think the issue has more to do with the relative value proposition and different weights different people will give stuff. If you want zero preservatives then half that shit should be ranked 0, and if you think protein is the most important then chicken and beef would be No. 1 and 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,033
887
118
Country
United States
"Chat bots are woke!"

Meanwhile

I literally asked Chat GPT why Billionaires are bad, its response was to gaslight me about why you shouldn't hate people for their wealth. There is a difference between hoarding power and resources, and being moderately wealthy. I could give a flying fuck about what it thinks about trans rights, on crucial economic issues, it's wrong, and designed to maintain the status quo.

Also, they let the former head of an oil company head COP28. The "woke" elites are a joke, they just have better PR than the elites who aren't woke. They still want to hoard resources and power.

.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,124
1,251
118
Country
United States
I literally asked Chat GPT why Billionaires are bad, its response was to gaslight me about why you shouldn't hate people for their wealth.
Regardless of the bot's correctness, no it did not "gaslight" you. That word does not mean "disagree with what I believe" or "say something sincerely that is wrong" or even "lied to me".
 

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,094
1,377
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear
Don't get much more dark than using your alleged best friend's death to push further anti-vaxx conspiracies even as they publicly knew and said she was having health troubles for months beforehand.


-


Also our press (and unhinged RW conspiratorial abuse) continues to fucking suck.


The news division of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was facing backlash over a Jan. 19, 2023, headline about New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's decision to resign — a headline that many criticized for being sexist.

The headline has since been altered, but it originally read, "Jacinda Ardern resigns: Can women really have it all?" when the story was first published. That version can be viewed in an archived version of the story. After an outcry, the headline was updated and now reads, "Jacinda Ardern resigns: Departure reveals unique pressures on PM."

Ardern's surprise resignation came with commentary about the level of abuse, vitriol, and threats she had faced as a world leader. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, co-leader of the Maori party, said in a statement:

It is a sad day for politics where an outstanding leader has been driven from office for constant personalisation and vilification. Her whanau have withstood the ugliest attacks over the last two years with what we believe to be the most demeaning form of politics we have ever seen.
Ardern announced on Jan. 19, 2023, that she was stepping down, citing burnout. "I know what this job takes, and I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It is that simple," she said in her announcement.

News reports about her resignation also cited escalating threats and violent, anti-vaccine protests.

The trope about women "having it all" is, at its basic level, a dated catch-all that portrays female success as pitting successful careers against raising families. Beth Prescott, a researcher for The Centre for Social Justice, a U.K.-based think tank, told Yahoo News, "Whatever your views on Jacinda Ardern, this was a shocking and archaic headline from the BBC."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,209
118
I literally asked Chat GPT why Billionaires are bad, its response was to gaslight me about why you shouldn't hate people for their wealth. There is a difference between hoarding power and resources, and being moderately wealthy. I could give a flying fuck about what it thinks about trans rights, on crucial economic issues, it's wrong, and designed to maintain the status quo.
This is a form of garbage in garbage out issue, though, isn't it?

Chat GPT has almost certainly been programmed to be "nice". This naturally causes it a huge problem when it is asked to mimic people who were vile, because it will be prevented from fully representing their views and feelings. This is perhaps not a bad thing, because I really don't think letting every malcontented neo-Nazi have an AI Hitler genuinely spouting Naziism for their own personal echo chamber is societally advantageous. (Never mind that the PR for the company would be awful.)
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,515
3,716
118
This is a form of garbage in garbage out issue, though, isn't it?

Chat GPT has almost certainly been programmed to be "nice". This naturally causes it a huge problem when it is asked to mimic people who were vile, because it will be prevented from fully representing their views and feelings. This is perhaps not a bad thing, because I really don't think letting every malcontented neo-Nazi have an AI Hitler genuinely spouting Naziism for their own personal echo chamber is societally advantageous. (Never mind that the PR for the company would be awful.)
And ironically they jumped out of the way of one bus and in front of the other, because now you have John Wilkes Booth and Hitler saying they didn't kill anyone and they just had strong beliefs, but believe in dialogue and other such nonsense.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

~s•o√r∆rπy°`
May 26, 2022
1,094
1,377
118
Clear 'n Present Danger
Country
Must
Gender
Disappear

If you run out of horror movies to watch, this may be of use as a substitute.



No, Davos is not a secret plan to raise a stadium of babies in Matrix-style incubator pods, as some Twitter users supposed — prompting a fact check from Reuters.

The real Davos conspiracy is hiding in plain sight and it’s pretty much the kind of pro-business agenda you’d expect from a bunch of billionaire Fortune 500 CEOs, heads of state and central bankers meeting at a ski resort in the Swiss Alps. A recent article on the World Economic Forum’s website about “the Davos Agenda” gives you the basic idea: “We desperately need to disrupt our approach to retirement saving.” People are living longer, you see, so they’ll “want to work past mandatory retirement age…while others will need to work longer to remain financially resilient in later life.”

In other words, grandma’s going to have to go back to work.

It doesn’t say that explicitly of course, instead relying on the bloodless, euphemistic language that is the province of economists. “The traditional three stage life of school, work and retirement no longer functions in an age of unprecedented longevity and shifts in work and health outcomes,” the article concludes. That’s the real Davos agenda: business friendly proposals so banal that even the most insidious ones pass without notice. I’ve reviewed a bunch of Davos panels so you don’t have to, and here are the most evil parts.

  1. An Entire Panel on “Quiet Quitting”
“Quiet quitting” is the idea that discontented workers are checking out at work and driving productivity down, a disputed phenomenon but which some employers believe has picked up ever since the pandemic. (Perhaps they haven’t seen Office Space or any of the countless 2000’s-era movies and TV shows depicting a protagonist whose animating conflict is hating their job.) Consisting of CEOs from Vimeo, Mercer and Wipro, the panel represents a “tough crowd” for blaming the phenomenon on bosses, cracked moderator Ben Smith, founder of Semafor.

Solutions for the scourge of quiet quitting are discussed and include connecting with employees by doing everything from CEOs sending workers video messages — “so you can get their emotion and nuance instead of reading an email,” explains Vimeo CEO Anjali Sudi — to conducting hourlong, open-ended meetings with no agenda; and stressing the business’s contributions to charity in order to motivate employees. Wipro CEO Thierry Delaporte insists that the “number one reason for the people to really be happy at Wipro is the fact that two thirds of the equity ownership goes to a philanthropic trust…and they can take pride [in] that.”

The consensus opinion is that company culture is how to keep people from quiet quitting — the obvious solution, better pay, apparently overrated. “It's not just your body, it's your heart,” said Sudi. “And you will get so much better work out of somebody if they feel part of the culture and mission.”

“You'll sometimes see people say they think that the mission stuff is sort of a con and sort of a trick by employers…so that they don't have to do these things [offer better pay],” suggested Smith. “And I'm curious if you see those things in tension.”

“I've never thought about them in tension,” Sudi bluntly replied.

  1. Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin High Fiving Over Blocking Biden’s Agenda
Senators Sinema and Manchin, fresh off an entire congressional term spent blocking key parts of President Biden’s legislative agenda, speaking at Davos did an up-high to commemorate the obstruction.

During the panel, Sinema rues that “neither Speaker has ever shown interest in recent years of collaborating with the moderates in other parties,” comparing former Speaker Pelosi to Republican Speaker McCarthy. “They go, my way or the highway. Pelosi did it, McCarthy's doing it. This is not healthy for democracy.”

“And we still don’t agree on getting rid of the filibuster?” Sen. Manchin, seated next to her, asked.

“That’s correct!” Sinema chirped, briskly high-fiving him.

“The Democratic Party shared a narrative that said we would not have any more free and fair elections in this country if the United States Congress didn't eliminate the filibuster and pass a massive voting rights package,” Sinema continued. “Joe [Manchin] and I were not interested in sacrificing that important guardrail for the institution.”

Something else they apparently aren’t interested in is passing any substantive legislation this term since the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold makes that all but impossible.

  1. Bringing Jobs Back Would Be Too Costly
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and WEF president Børge Brende — himself a former Conservative Norwegian politician — agree protectionism would strengthen supply chains and reduce political extremism by bringing jobs back but deem it too costly to seriously pursue.

“If we go too much into this notion of friendshoring or more protectionist measures, we can shave off a lot of growth globally,” said Brende. “How far will the US go in French shoring, making sure that things goes to Mexico and countries that you're allied with?”

Amazingly, Coons acknowledges the harmful effects of unfettered free trade: “The reach and the scope of globalization that have caused a backlash in many of our countries. A populist backlash, certainly in the United States need to be addressed. One of the ways to deal with some of our challenges in terms of the hemisphere and migration. Also is to do some nearshoring to improve the job opportunities in Central America, for example.”

After acknowledging these grave problems, though, Coons goes on to say they’re sticking with free trade anyway. “But I don't think it will be as robust as potentially projected,” Coons said. “I do think that we will continue to have an open economy, to be committed to free trade and to see the robust value that globalization has brought to the world, as well as to many of our people.”

  1. Henry Kissinger Speaks on Peace
No Davos summit would be complete without wheeling out global war hawks’ grand wizard, Henry Kissinger. Now a 99-year-old, the gray Kissinger looks like the picture of Dorian Gray by the end of the novel. Henry Kissinger played a central role in the secret bombing of Cambodia — which killed an estimated 100,000 civilians — along with other later atrocities like the Argentine Dirty War, and overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende, so I guess it makes sense that they’d be interested in his “historical perspectives on war”.

But the moderator was also interested in Kissinger’s thoughts on peace.

“You've drilled down deeper on the challenges of war and peace than any other person I can identify,” said Harvard professor of government Graham Allison, without a hint of irony. Since then, Allison adds, Kissinger has “continued thinking and writing about the challenges of building a peaceful world order.”

  1. The “Infomercial” for Saudi Arabia
“This is basically an infomercial for Saudi Arabia,” tweeted Politico reporter Alex Ward, referring to a Davos panel about the desert kingdom featuring a bevy of top Saudi government officials and bearing the complimentary title, “Saudi Arabia’s Transformation in a Changing Global Context” — a reference to the purported transformation brought on by Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.

In the panel, Fred Kempe, president of the powerful Washington think tank the Atlantic Council, calls Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Finance, Mohammed Al-Jadaan, a “rockstar.”

“I hope that's an accepted thing to call someone in Saudi Arabia, but you really are highly respected by all of your peers,” Kempe said, Al-Jadaan beaming.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia’s closest ally, is a top donor to the Atlantic Council. This week, CNBC issued an embarrassing retroactive update to an op-ed written by Kempe defending the appointment of the CEO for the UAE’s state oil company to head the United Nations’ climate summit, in order to reflect the Atlantic Council’s financial interest.

Editor’s note: This article and headline were updated to reflect the fact that the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar are major sponsors of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum. Sultan Al Jaber is CEO of ADNOC and chairman of renewable energy investing firm Masdar. The financial relationship between the companies and Atlantic Council as well as the obvious conflict of interest were not disclosed to CNBC prior to publication of this column and does not meet our standards of transparency.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan