>>22254044
Big Tallow can't be trusted

>>22254044
Insane how bad the anti-intellectualism craze is becoming.

A vast majority of the public genuinely trust tik-tok influencers over scientists

>>22254049
Both can be bought as easilly as anyone else.

>>22254051
Not as easily as your mom though.

>>22254051
Not as easily as ya mum

>>22254049
Because credentialism became rampant (trust the experts, etc), and then they started lying to people
Well, kept lying to people.

>>22254051
>as easilly as anyone else
disagree, idiots on tik-tok can be bought far far more easily

>>22254059
>formally study and research a topic for years, publishing novel research papers

>somehow that makes you less reliable in the eyes of the unwashed masses than Gary from down the pub who 'did his own research' on wikipedia for a few hours

>>22254049

>>22254051
>>22254059
Case in point kek

>>22254051
Sorry retard, tiktok influencers can be bought much more cheaply than scientists to reach many more people than scientists, so people trying to pay to misinform are going to go where they get more bang for their buck. Even from your cynicism-based point of view, scientists are going to be much more trustworthy as an information source.

>>22254075
>They routinely publish papers they can't replicate, which is not scientific.
>They declassify other reports, revealing they were paid for by some special interest group for a specific result, not to find anything out.

I'll take a stranger's anecdote into consideration, but when I see several that coincide, I raise an eyebrow

>>22254081
If something is not reliable to replicate then it's mentioned in the papers, typically under the "limitations" section of those papers you've never read.

>>22254083
I've read a fair few of them
The ones that weren't behind paywalls, anyway
Which I find odd

>>22254081
>but when I see several that coincide, I raise an eyebrow
Mmm, a.k.a you value easily digested, inflammatory social media posts and anecdotes that suit your anti-intellectual biases over long, boring and dry research that you don't read and immediately dismiss

>>22254085
You probably found half the terms in the papers odd. Keep following your favorite tiktoker for your life advice, I'm not trying to convince you, just make fun of you.

>>22254087
Did you just make up a whole fanfiction based on something I said

>>22254088
I don't have a TikTok, I'm not on there
> I'm not trying to convince you, just make fun of you
ok

>>22254089
Anyone can lie to you dummy, scientists are just the least likely to for several reasons that you handwave so you can feel smart.

>>22254090
>Anyone can lie to you dummy, scientists are just the least likely to for several reasons
Yeah, this is not news.
I just don't take a scientist's word as gospel like I did when I was in my 20s
I'll look into datasets, control, any conflicting professional opinions, confirmable anecdotes etc

>that you handwave so you can feel smart
Why do you keep making things up about me

>>22254097
Nobody takes scientist word as gospel, they just reasonably assume it's probably true if the scientific consensus points to a particular viewpoint.
>I'll look at all of these things that scientists and their papers take into account
Maybe you're smart enough to realize that you're not even a fraction as good as scientists are at those tasks within their field of specialty, but probably not.

>>22254100
I should say nobody outside of actual 60-IQ literal retards who hold any viewpoint without critical thinking anyway, before you point to one person ever, but these people are in the extreme minority and are the exception that proves the rule.

>>22254100
>scientific consensus
Yeah but science isn't based on consensus, so I don't really care about this
>>22254100
>Maybe you're smart enough to realize that you're not even a fraction as good as scientists are at those tasks within their field of specialty, but probably not.
This is literally the "trust the expert" bullshit that I reject
You also have no idea what my background is

>>22254104
>You also have no idea what my background is
By virtue of the amount of years any one person has on this earth, your background cannot be a current-knowledge expert in multiple specialized areas of scientific study, so no, retard, you will not be even a fraction as good as scientists who are research experts in their field at those tasks. The fact that you're trying to fight me on my "you're not as good at this as people who spend their entire lives researching it" point tells me that everything I've said was correct and you're just a handwaving retard who wants to feel smarter than he is.

File: Screenshot_20261020-081454.png (75 KB, 384x512)

75 KB PNG

Was 2018 really when this all started?

>>22254106
>you're just a handwaving retard who wants to feel smarter than he is
Again with the fanfiction
No, I just don't "trust the expert" like you seem to
I'll verify it too
You don't really need expertise to do that

>>22254106
you're trying way too hard

Let me guess, soon there's going to be a thing about "HFCS misinformation" and a bunch will defend HFCS

File: maxresdefault.jpg (97 KB, 1280x720)

97 KB JPG

>you have to consume seed oils
>why?
>it's uhh.. it's uh err- good
>why?
>hahaha because uh it's like uh pretty good for you
>well, what makes it good?
>uhh yeah hahaha it's like uh probably one of the best things you can consume

>>22254108
I think that if the prevailing notion of experts in their field points towards a particular viewpoint then it's probably correct. That's not taking something as gospel like you like to pretend. I also understand that if you have no expertise in a field of study then your ability to verify such matters is going to be limited, but I doubt you'll cop to that simple fact either because you'd like to be both a layman and an expert at the same time.

MAHAfags will seethe over sneed oils but not safety standards, quality control, pesticides, or any kind of pollution.

>>22254121
>t. trusts the experts blindly about dumping toxic waste into drinking water sources
ok

>>22254118
Scientists love the chance to disprove their peers and take the subject into new and innovative directions while making a name for themselves. Its not that same as some uneducated con artist selling miracles

>>22254122
MAHA doesnt care about pollution because political donors told then not to.

>>22254118
>I think that if the prevailing notion of experts in their field points towards a particular viewpoint then it's probably correct.
Eh, yeah it's likely, but I'm not going to run around pretending it's fact or relinquish my agency to critically think about it
Simple as

>>22254127
>MAHA doesnt care about pollution because there's no actual way to stop it aside from making sweeping and devastating infrastructure changes
fixed

>>22254128
Next to nobody feels this way, you're confusing people understanding their limitations due to a lack of expertise with "taking it as gospel".

>>22254132
There were plenty of ways of stopping it in place until the current admin and its previous iteration undid a lot of them. If putting back in place regulations that were already there and recently got removed is what you call sweeping and devastating infrastructure changes then... I wouldn't be surprised in the least, actually.

>>22254044
First heart disease cases started after johnson and johnsons sludge waste material crisco

>>22254136
Whatever regulations we had in place were feel-good bullshit anyway
Does that stop China making factories? Or the Third World polluting the rivers and oceans? Or does global warming stop when we push our problem out of the country?

>>22254141
They were measures that helped to limit pollution and the current admin and its previous iteration did away with them, period full stop. No amount of dancing and coping will change that fact or the fact that the MAHA crowd doesn't give a shit. That or they're so ignorant they don't even know that ithappened, or so delusional that they read such things and just write it off as fake news. You're probably in one of those camps so I will waste no more time feeding you replies, silly troll.

>>22254144
Yeah, good sidestep
It just limited pollution output here, but we outsource our pollution production elsewhere. We always do.
This does nothing for global warming, but it sure does make us feel good about it.

>>22254107
No, it was 2016. The killing of Harambe and the subsequent ‘dicks out’ movement altered the timeline

Getting my cousin to help me hook up a seed oil IV drip directly into my veins later today.
I'm about to get seeded!

>>22254051
Both can happen but they're not the same.

You pay off someone on TikTok and they can shill for you in literal seconds with 0 ramifications.

You pay off a scientist and they need to forge a paper which gets reviewed by other scientists which could ruin their career

File: big-dog-small-dog.png (790 KB, 2234x1649)

790 KB PNG

>>22254148
this desu senpai

>seed oil vs butter/lard/tallow
>cane sugar vs corn syrup
>people not recognizing that the average american is consuming about 650 calories per day from added fat and 400 calories per day from added sugar and the source doesn't really matter when you're consuming that much, you'll be overweight and unhealthy either way

I'm sure seed oils are fine. People on that the news had on tv told me they were safe and healthier. They say all the toxic chemicals used to process them are all taken away, and cannot harm you at all.

God your dumb fringe health food debates are boring.
The they don't want you to know folks are all idiots who wish they weren't.
If you're a fat fuck it's not because the government, it's because you are a fat lazy fuck who blames everyone but themselves for their failures

>>22254191
Actually my diet of 4000 Calories of fried foods would be perfectly healthy if McDonald's used a different fat to fry them in

I will not trust the experts, sorry I'm just not gonna.

something always going to be a scapegoat for the heavily subsidized modified corn starch, corn syrup and corn subsidies that actually kills americans

first it was fat and eggs
so everyone got rid of fat and there was a fat free craze but americans still got fatter and more diabetic

then no fat is actually healthy its... umm it's a certain type of fat yes that's what the real problem

>>22254239
Corn doesn't kill Americans, what kills Americans are the Children who live in the Corn

>>22254239
>so everyone got rid of fat and there was a fat free craze but americans still got fatter and more diabetic
I don't think many people actually went on a low fat diet. They might buy some low fat cookies or salad dressing, but then they'd still end up consuming a lot of fat elsewhere. It's like someone drinking a diet soda while eating a meal entirely of fried food with sugary sauces. The issue more consistently seems to be people not settling on "eat less processed food" and blaming individual things within processed food and thinking getting rid of that somehow makes processed food perfectly healthy.

>>22254257
It's not the processed foods. It's the 4000 calories a day.

>>22254261
people shouldn't naturally want to eat 4000 calories a day without huge hormonal changes

>>22254261
People would struggle to eat 4000 calories a day without processed food. Processed food is usually high calorie but digests fast and doesn't keep you full as long.

>>22254075
My dad is very prone to this when it comes to medicine. The less evidence there is for its efficacy the more he trusts it.

>>22254272
This. It's a fairly small amount of food for an average-sized person, I'd say? The main reason processed food cooks so fast and "lasts" so short is that there isn't much density to it.

>>22254051
You ate horse paste because Josh Rogain told you so. Lmao how dumb can you be?

>>22254288
HOLYBASED

>>22254075
Now imagine all these 60 IQ dumbbels with AI... they will feel like gods

Anyone eating under 4000 Calories a day is not really a patriot. If anything someone like that should move to Europe or maybe Communist China, because eating like a famine victim goes against American ideals of freedom and plenty.

>>22254250
It's a bit confusing because on reddit they use "corn" instead of "porn"

File: images[1].jpg (25 KB, 446x448)

25 KB JPG

>>22254295

>>22254295
That's dumb, people need to stop being so scared of porn. It's just videos of people having sex, like it's the same issue I have with the seed oil weirdoes.
Stop blaming your lack of self control on society and take some responsibility for yourself. You're not gonna be given a job, a girlfriend and a nice house you have to make it yourself.

File: who-gave-the-order-v0-lxr(...).png (83 KB, 473x379)

83 KB PNG

>>22254302
i don't think they're scared of porn, i think it's just more self censorship

>>22254302
>>22254310
They are mindful of other people who might get triggered

>>22254323
>people who might get triggered
advertisers?

File: 279181932427954.jpg (449 KB, 900x1200)

449 KB JPG

>>22254049
This. No trust in institutions for our retarded incel brethren here. Mindbroken by covid. They'll forever think everything is a "conspiracy" and that their no name "sources" are preferable to the experts.

Sad fucking times. But at least you're aware of what's happening.

>>22254044
>now
I've been posting that link here for many months whenever some nut appears and says 'seed oils' are in any way detrimental to health.

>propaganda website has a damage control page
Wow no way
Wikipedia can't be trusted as a neutral source with anything even vaguely political

>>22254342
Luckily there's nothing political about seed oils. Just the truth that they cannot harm you.
But you don't trust anything, you only have 'distrust' mode.
You're gone and you're never returning.

Food is now a partisan thing?

Which political party as a whole thinks seed oils are bad?

That's right, there's isn't one. Only a handful of schizos with no formal political association at all.
Glad we cleared that up.

>>22254339
These people have always existed, they were around in the 80s and 90s on those daytime Talk Shows, those early predecessor to podcast radio shows.
In a way it spawns out of the New Age movement and the Ex-Hippies who took the lack of trust in institutions that came out of the 60s and shifted it into the early the early natural foods and clean living movements and while all those movements gave us healthier foods, organic produce and more natural alternatives, it also spawned the anti-vaccine movement and dozens of "They don't want you to know" fad crazes over the last few decades.

>>22254345
>Second sentence of the article is Joe Rogan cope
It's political now, sorry

>>22254351
Joe Rogan is with which political party?

>>22254348
Seed oils are the fringe politics version of Data Centers. Communists and Fascists unite against Seeds and Vaccines, like Democrats and Republicans unite over data centers being built in their communities.

>>22254351
>Rogan cope

So you don't understand references? You probably see anything about Trump and call it "TDS" without realizing that there's more behind it.
Joe Rogan is not involved in politics. Seems it has something to do with him reaching a large audience (of fucking retards) and some shyster spreading lies on that forum.

Try and keep up, virgin.

How much of the disinfo stuff relies on people simply not being able to get medical help for anything?
Like, you have problems and they just will not diagnose it for money reasons. So people keep having issues from stuff they eat and it becomes a common trend that if you want something intenstine related fixed it requires google and self medication.

>>22254107
Been much longer than that. I did paleo back in 2012/13 and dropping seed oils was a primary part of the diet along with soy and corn.

The fact of the matter is peanut oil makes everything delicious

>>22254125
Unless that new direction contradicts the leftist narrative. Then they get discredited, shunned, etc.

>>22254141
who is buying that shit from china anyway?

>>22254525
All the First World consumer economies.
Either we make it here, they make it there, or it gets made somewhere else by another country that doesn't care too much about the environment.

Either way, it's going to get made.

File: Infographic_red-processed(...).jpg (138 KB, 620x880)

138 KB JPG

Why do the mindbroken anti-science brigade suddenly hate seed oils now, but say nothing about the well-known increase risk of death from processed meat?

Why does big meat get a free pass, are they not likely to do all the bribing and conspiracy shit they imagine big seed-oil doing?

Is it simply because they believe eating red meat makes them manly and badass?

>>22254569
Meat, trucks, guns etc. = based, conservative, masculine

Seed oil, vegetables, bicycles, vaccines = soy, liberal, feminine

Not that seed oils have ever been a left-wing thing, scientists (soy, liberals) have always warned against excess use of processed oils and fried foods

>>22254044
Nice

>>22254569
>>22254593
It's insane. Palm oil isn't a seed oil. They keep guzzling Mars bars, Nutella, Dominos pizza, down it with Coca-Cola's refined glucose drinks. And that's just breakfast.

But o-ho-ho wait a minute. Someone's cooking veal in grapeseed oil. Ladies! We better alert our lord and saviour Joe Rogan. What the fuck is up with this effeminate hugbox pseudo-culture? Other than being an obvious Russian plant?

>>22254623
That's one hell of a straw man. The only people I know who obsess over seed oils are health nuts who aren't slamming down the things you mention. Frankly, if being wary of seed oils gets people to eat healthier to any degree I don't care. Maybe they'll start paying attention to nutrition facts and ingredients. Realize how much salt and sugar is shoved into every packaged product they buy.

>>22254569
Mostly because there's a concerted effort from the WHO to get people to stop eating meat completely, so every bit of "research" from government orgs like that is most likely propaganda

>>22254639
>Mostly because there's a concerted effort from the WHO to get people to stop eating meat completely
proof? just seems like they recommend less red and processed meat but don't seem to have any issues with chicken and fish.

File: uow0bsnbs2h91.jpg (14 KB, 360x360)

14 KB JPG

>>22254569
HE'S A VEGAN! HE'S A VEGAN! HE'S A VEGAN! A VEGAN! LOOK, THERE'S A VEGAN!

>>22254679
Ah, my bad, it was the WEF, not the WHO
Some faggot "bioethicist" doctor

>>22254708
Poor Kramer is STILL beating himself up over this.
He never learned that apologising to certain people just makes them go after you harder.

>>22254044
With porkbelly being some of the cheapest meat I can find I never run out of homerendered lard, so I cook with that.
I doubt frying something in grapeseed oil once in a while would do me in faster than the cigarettes and vodka anyway, though.

>>22254593
I'm pretty sure Dr. Chaim Judowitz collaborated with Ilhan Omar and AOC to promote the use of Seed Oils in their "Obey us and you'll be free and happy" campaign against the legitimately elected President Donald J Trump's agricultural policies

>>22254044
>VEGETABLE oil
>Check ingredients
It's actually soy "and/or" canola oil
>CORN oil
>Check ingredients
It's actually soy "and/or" canola oil
>OLIVE oil (that isn't blatantly JUST olive oil)
It's a proprietary "blend" of unknown proportions of soy "and/or" canola and still expensive as fuck


>Multiple containers labelled as "different" things are all actually made from the exact same damn ingredients and they still won't even say exactly whats in it.
I just want a legitimate product that doesn't blatantly lie about what it even is in the first place to oil my vegetables with. Just the fact they pull this shit makes me suspicious as fuck and avoid soy/canola shit more than any soi memes or "settled science" ever could.

>>22254767
>>VEGETABLE oil
>>Check ingredients
>It's actually soy "and/or" canola oil
What's wrong with this?
>>CORN oil
>>Check ingredients
>It's actually soy "and/or" canola oil
Doesn't happen.
>>OLIVE oil (that isn't blatantly JUST olive oil)
>It's a proprietary "blend" of unknown proportions of soy "and/or" canola and still expensive as fuck
Doesn't happen.

People simply noticed the parallels with the tobacco industry. Dubiously independent organizations with vague health claims, industry plants, suspected corruption with fraudulent research, conflicts of interest, etc. Of course even basic critical thinking was turned towards profit, endless meme diets and gimmick items. And now engagement bait and branding.
Also, skepticism really started with margerine, 2018 is a ludicrous claim.

>>22254768
Liar. I just checked my olive oil and it says "select olive oils from Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain & Tunisia"

>>22254776
Blended olive oil isn't uncommon. Done for the same reasons budget mass market wine makers don't do vintages and blend years. All to keep a consistent flavor profile.

>>22254776
If you mix two olive oils together it's still olive oil.

>>22254791
They say when you buy olive oil from the store, it can contain oil from over a thousand different olives.

This argument is not worth your time.

>>22254810
why can't they just make one big olive

>>22254861
This is what gives them away. They worship science like it's perfect, but it can't even make one big olive.

>>22254768
He's idiot, but these three things do happen.

>>22254869
>can't even make olives without pits

File: 1785227785629681.png (365 KB, 480x640)

365 KB PNG

>>22254768
>Doesn't happen.

>>22254874
The seed oil shill was gaslighting him? Who would have thought?

>>22254889
Maybe the guy saying it doesn't happen was from a country where this doesn't happen, this seems to be an US-only thing.

>>22254874
This is the most blatantly labeled food item ever created. If you don't want a blended oil don't buy the one that says CANOLA OIL BLEND in clear lettering.

>>22254874
It's not misleading. All you have to do is read.

>>22254906
What kind of people see a scam and jump the defend the scammer? It starts with an A...

>>22254907
Maybe standards for how honest one must be change from country to country. What is thivery and dissimulation in a country is common practice in another.

>>22254909
'Buyer beware' should apply everywhere. But in America they can only be so vague.

>>22254874
>blend

>>22254906
>>22254907
It's intentionally deceiving. If anything it should be labeled canola oil blend as it's 95% of the fucking product, you retards.

File: 1789354831507633.png (2 MB, 1081x1585)

2 MB PNG

>>22254915
>But in America they can only be so vague.
The US has the worst standards I know off, take a random third world country for example, like Brazil, by law one cannot call it "olive oil" if it's not pure olive oil.

>>22254908
Azerbaijanis...

>>22254929
This and the other should honestly just say olive oil added for color.

>>22254926
>>22254908
I think I understand now: conspiritards have trouble reading and so think clearly labeled items with more than four words are a (((trick))).

>>22254929
>transgenica
I fucking knew it

>>22254946
>This and the other should honestly just say olive oil added for color.
The translation is "mixed oil made of soy and olives, 12% olives"

>>22254956
And I understand that you are a moron who doesn't have a clue. The choice of text size is rather intentional, if that helps.

>>22254957
It's a small label added to inform genetically modified crops were used to make this product. I think this also doesn't exist in the US...

My job would be a hell lot easier there.

>>22254976
Large and clear? Yes, I imagine they chose that so anyone with an IQ above 70 would understand what they are buying.

>>22254978
We don't have labels that indicate GMO foods, but we do have labels to indicate non-GMO foods.

>>22255031
The US has not labeling standard for GMO foods, a brand being able to add a third part NGO "it's le good" label is not the same thing. Specially with how corrupt these things are in the US.

>>22254874
God damn you have to be really fucking stupid to think that this proves the other anon's point.

>>22254976
You see how the word "blend" is in huge letters? Do you know what the word blend means?

>>22255022
You obviously underestimate both the average shoppers time spent looking at labels and the average marketing jews ability to hide the obvious in plain sight. Keep thinking you live on some magical high IQ plain when you are simply ignorant.

>>22255062
Being able to stick "olive oil" on the package of something that is not olive oil is objectivelly dishonest, no matter how common place this is in your society.

>>22255059
Sure thing. Does it inherently mean it's blended with something other than the words that come before it? Could it not have been titled cooking blend? Why specifically choose olive oil when it's only 5%?

>>22255070
Because it's an oil blend that has some olive oil in it. There's nothing misleading about this. If it just said "Olive oil" full stop as the product and was only 5% olive oil then you'd have a point, but that's not the reality of the situation. Do you whine when a garlic hummus blend is only 5% garlIc by weight but is still advertised as garlic hummus? Probably not. "Blend" means it's a mix of things and it's described by what makes this particular blend different from regular canola oil.

>>22255085
>garlic hummus blend
That thing is not called "olive soy oil blend", it ommits on purpose to mislead.

>>22255085
You'd defend packaging that says CASHEWS (and other nuts) being a blend of 95% peanuts and 5% actual cashews by this logic. Whilst also charging 175% more than the bag of fucking peanuts right beside it because of the literal handful of cashews they threw in.

>There's nothing misleading about this

>>22254049
I guess the jews should have stopped lying to people then

>>22255114
He is being obtuse on purpose. There is no arguing with his type.