fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3809 ]

[ SECRET POST #3809 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3809 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Solstice]

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[Martin Starr, Spider-Man: Homecoming]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[MacGyver (2016)]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #545.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

1. I've been pretty clear from the get-go that the things I don't think food stamps should be meant for are desserts and high-sugar things, so your popcorn assumption is flat-wrong.

2. I'm not judging you. But if that's the way you see it, I can't really do anything about that. But take note that I'm not the one saying I "fucking hate" people.

You are judging us. You just don't realize it. You think you're above it, that you just don't wanna pay for an unhealthy diet for us, but guess what. You're judging that we're using ~your money~ to buy the occasional sweet thing. Or a few sweet things. Because deep down you think we don't ~deserve~ those ad should fork over money while you faint on your couch at the idea we not be good poor people.

Keep imagining that everybody is out to get you. That everybody hates you and thinks you don't deserve things. It isn't true, but if it gives you comfort to have that boogeyman, OK.

People on foodstamps still pay taxes on other things, and have paid into the foodstamp system on their taxes before they needed assistance too, so they are entitled to spend their stamps on whatever they damn well like. It is their tax money as much as it is yours. You still have not justified why the government should be entitled to meddle in people's dietary requirements. Tell you what, to settle this, how about if you go onto food stamps you don't spend them on things like that and you just leave everyone else to go to heaven or hell in their own way.

You just like making sure other people know how lesser they are, applying a social stigma, that is all. You should work on that.

AYRT
1. So chips would be okay, but high sugar things would not be? How do you justify that distinction, as chips are just as bad for me as a sugary treat?
Actually, as I don't like sugary things and never have, so I rarely eat them, the calories from refined flour are doing me much more harm than an occasional piece of birthday cake or occasional piece of dark chocolate at that time of the month.

2. I suppose you technically aren't judging me, due to my lack of sweets consumption, but you are certainly being judgmental. But it's all for poor people's own good, of course, according to you. I wouldn't mind a positive way to get people to eat healthier. Like if fruits and vegetables and other things were subsidized so I didn't feel like I was wasting money buying them when instead I could buy a pound of pasta for $.50. Or allowing me to work at a public garden once a week in exchange for getting free vegetables. (I live in an apartment in the city, so I can't grow my own.) Or other ways. Telling me that I can't do something because it is bad for me makes you sound like you want to control me and my choices because obviously you know my life better than I do, which is judging me and my choices.

While I remain unconvinced that advocating the allocation government funds for healthier food means I'm judging poor people, I really like the idea of subsidizing fruits and vegetables and other healthy things. I'd like to see something like that, and I appreciate the manner in which you responded.

AYRT
See, this? "advocating the allocation government funds for healthier food" in theory I could get behind. Encouraging the money to go to healthy foods is a fine goal. There are several ways this could be done. Like my city gives good exchanges for food stamps at the public market. (Which is where farmers sell their local produce directly to people at a discount price to the grocery store.) I would love if somehow they managed to make it easier/cheaper for people to go there. I can only go if I can hitch a ride with someone, as I can't justify paying the bus fare and certainly can't walk while carrying all of that, especially given how far away it is. There are other ways to encourage the use of money toward healthy foods too.

What I have an issue with is that you aren't approaching the issue positively. With "how can we help people to make healthier choices." Instead you approached it negatively with "poor people aren't allowed to get anything high in sugar." Being negative about it feels very punitive and judgmental. Plus your criteria is arbitrary, as I really don't see a twinkie being worse than a bag of chips. Which is what I (and presumably others) were bothered by.

I really would love to eat healthy. I had about a year where I had some extra money and was able to do so, and I lost 40 pounds, which was awesome. But then life (and hospital bills and other stuff) happened, and I went back to scrounging for money and eating poorly because it was cheap, and the weight slowly crept back on. I would love if the government came up with a way for me to be able to eat better. I just don't want them controlling what I can and can't eat. And even the idea of that possibly happening bothers me.

I just don't see it as negative, but I respect that you do, and I 100 percent believe fruits, veg, meat and grain should be accessible to everyone somehow. And I also think there should be some kind of encouragement or incentive to choose them over other things. I just haven't figured out how to make it all mesh in a way that pleases everyone.

AYRT
I'm not going to go into much, as I feel we might have discussed it all, pretty much, but I wanted to clarify something. When talking about changing people's behavior, "positive" means you are giving them something to hopefully change their behavior, while "negative" means you are taking something away. So if you wanted a child to get good grades, "positive" would be to give them $5 for every A, while "negative" would be to take away their cell phone if they didn't get all As. (There is more to it, but that is a basic overview.) As you were taking about taking away high sugar foods to force people to be healthy, you were advocating a negative solution. I prefer positive methods. If that makes sense?

NAYRT--Dude, I think I mentioned this yesterday--I am all for vastly increasing the amount of money that goes torwards food stamps, and incentivizing buying healthy food by making food stamps "worth" more when they're used to buy fruit and veggies. But attacking sugar and desserts and leaving microvave pasta (and ramen, which kept coming up yesterday) on the table is a load of bull, and why limiting what food people can buy with food stamps/SNAP is so stupid.

Under your "sugar and desserts and soda are evil but ramen and microvave popcorn are A-OK" plan, a blackberry apple pie would be literally off the table, but instead I could eat a nourishing bowl of $0.25 reconstituted fried noodles seasoned with tons of sodium and MSG, or get popcorn lung eating bags of artificial butter flavored fluffy starch. Your crusade has jack shit to do with "health" and everything to do with "wah I hate when poor people have sugar (I mean fun) so no poor people can have any!"

Who cares if they fucking die of scurvy from never eating one fucking vegetable, processed sugar is the *real* enemy! From a nutritional standpoint, there's not much damn difference between white wheat flour or popcorn (okay, some fiber, but the fake butter seasoning is not doing anyone any favors) and white sugar. They're basic fuels for bodies but you can't fucking live on white flour tortillas and ramen and microwave popcorn any more than you can live on soda. Your "don't let them eat cake" vendetta is bullshit.

-Someone who has so far been lucky enough never to need government food aid.

I'm done responding to comments that attest to know what I *really* think or feel. You're part of the problem here, too. It's not all just me an my evil opinion.

Get over your victim complex. Your words come through loud and clear, they just aren't as non-judgey as you think they are.

AYRT--honest question, then. I'm not attacking, I really don't understand. Why sugar? Why not hydrogenated oil? Or bleached white flour? Or white rice? Yes, they are staple ingredients in many foods, or in the case of whife rice the backbone of whole fucking cultures (sorry, I swear for emphasis a lot). But they're still just empty calories. Why single sugar out? Or dessert, for that matter? From where I'm standing (I grew up with everything on this list as The Enemy, and as a result as soon as I could make my own food choices I ate so much junk to make up for years of food policing) it doesn't make sense.

I single out sugary snacks because they're the simplest things to cut with the most benefit of cutting. The nutritional value of a candy bar or kool-aid or a box of cookies is so much less than even white rice which - while not as good as brown rice - still contains vitamins and minerals (iron, niacin and folic acid are added back in) is more filling and is slower to work through the blood, so highs and crashes aren't as bad.

And at some point I just feel like there should be a limit to what the government subsidizes, and for me that limit is processed sugary foods. I don't see this as being any different than Michellle Obama's school lunch ideas, which weren't perfect - mainly because schools don't cook real food anymore and are - but were a step in the right direction.

Sorry, I can't agree with you. I think I'd rather the government flat out banned (bleached) white flour, white sugar, and hydrogenated oil, so the inability to indulge in them didn't become yet another thing to set the poor apart from everyone else, basically a punishment for being poor that is also being framed as "for their own good," but if it's so good, then let it apply to everyone. And since, what, 60+% of the US population is obese these days, far more people than qualify for SNAP, anyway, it would do everyone a lot of good. Of course, one of the selling points that people often forget about white sugar and flour and hydrogenated oil is that they keep for way longer than their un or minimally processed counterparts, so food distribution would have to be improved a ton to make this work.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3809 ]

Re: Things that stick in your craw

DA

Re: DA

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

DA

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw

Re: Things that stick in your craw