turdcollector69

If someone’s opinions are entirely formed by Russian propaganda memes then yeah. This guy didn’t pick Russia at random he chose it because he was influenced.

I’d rather die in nuclear hellfire than live in a hole for the rest of my life.

The billionaires can have their hell on earth, I’ll take the express ticket off this rock.

Imagine the h3h3/Hasan drama if this was a thing

My problem is that these labels don’t differentiate the levels at which demonstrable harm occurs. I’m not against labels, I’m against bad labels

Putting something that’s harmful at the parts per million(ppm) level in the exact same category as something that’s harmful in the parts per billion(ppb) level is counterproductive.

This results in people treating incredibly harmful compounds that are dangerous in the ppb range the same as compounds that are dangerous in the ppm or even ppt(thousand) range.

Including minor and major carcinogens in the same label makes people think they’re safer than they are.

It’s why prop65 warnings are a joke and ignored by almost all consumers.

If we’re going to use a single label that doesn’t differentiate the level of harm then we need to save it for the most harmful compounds only.

Tldr: Without more information on the label putting nitrates in the same category as asbestos or lead is counterproductive via implied false equivalence.

I actually had it backwards, unsaturated fats are horrendously bad.

Their molecular shape makes them more grabby than saturated fats.

This grabbyness makes them clog your arteries faster than saturated fats.

It has to do with the availability of hydrogen binding spots, unsaturated fats have room for more hydrogen bonds, saturated fats don’t.

Lmao a carcinogen tier list would unironically be fantastic because it would help me gauge the relative risk.

I just feel like putting evering into one big bucket is lazy as fuck and doesn’t really help anyone.

Exactly, just slapping a “warning cancer” label on literally everything does absolutely nothing to help me actually protect myself.

Yes!! Thank you for getting it. I have no issues with labeling carcinogens but we really need to distinguish between agents that are harmful at the ppm and the ppb levels.

There’s an entire axis that differs by orders of magnitude that is being ignored and it’s incredibly detrimental to the whole system.

This list sucks because it lacks meaningful information and is just eventually going to be a list of every compound in the known universe.

Clearly not well, reading comprehension is important

Do you believe that engaging in arguments will change that? If anything your helping them by boosting their visibility via engagement metrics.

Changing a tankie’s mind with arguing is a sisyphean task.

That’s what I’m saying, putting nitrates next to hardcore carcinogens like asbestos makes the hardcore carcinogens look less harmful than they actually are.

They need to differentiate the levels of harm or else it’s just another warning that people will ignore because it’s on literally everything.

How can you not see how putting in the same category implies the same level of harm.

I hate these fuckin reddit brained Lemmy users who intentionally misread comments just to argue some adjacent point.

Whatever if you all want pointless warning labels go for it, just know you’re not doing anything useful.

Everyone knows bacon isn’t good for you, nitrates aside the un*saturated fats are horrendous for you.

If you’re eating bacon you’re already doing it knowing it’s bad for you.

We should save the prop65 warnings for things that actually need it. They’re already way oversaturated and have lost all meaning to the vast, vast majority of consumers.

We may as well flatten the whole planet to eliminate the risk of falling down stairs.

I hate how far people go to safety pad the whole planet when an ounce of personality responsibility is all that’s needed.

I never said they weren’t in the same category. To act like implying the risks of nitrates are identical to asbestos is insane and just makes people ignore these warnings.

There is a need to differentiate the level of risk because if you don’t people are going to think the 10,000kg bomb is the same danger as a Glock when in reality they abso-fucking-lutely not.

It’s disingenuous, you’re right that context matters because displaying the two as if they’re the same strips the risk assessment of its context.

It’s pointless because California standards are so stringent that literally everything has a prop 65 warning on it.

It’s completely lost all value or meaning to end consumers.

Putting nitrates in the same category as fucking asbestos is literally insane.

It’s like putting a Glock and a 10,000kg bomb in the same category, it’s utterly disingenuous.

I have no love for tankies. It just seemed like a lot of effort and mental energy went into that so I thought there may be some interesting lore there.

Why do you care about tankies so much?

You can just let people be wrong. It costs nothing.

They’re obviously hardliners to the point of comedic effect but why do you care so much to argue?

Do you really expect someone who’s so set in their opinions as to join .ml to read your comment and just go, “oh damn, guess I’ll just stop believing in the things I believe in and believe in entirely different things”?

Do you genuinely think you’re so convincing or do you just enjoy a good pissing contest?

Makes me think of the racoon trying to wash its cotton candy.