Tuml Ate My First Blog So Time To Start Again

> 20 ingredients

> 45 minutes

and dear GOD imagine what your slow cooked meals would become.

unseasoned fried chicken. unseasoned spaghetti (with burned pasta, gotta leave the water out after all)

Since we have so many spices I don't necessarily need to see it in the same list with whatever else

It's funny to take to its logical conclusion but I wasn't genuinely suggesting you don't need spices and that water should be omitted when it's called for. That'd be asinine.

Really, my point was just that a 20 ingredient list can include many things that don't actually need to be bought regularly (spices) or ever (water)(in most circumstances), so it may be much less than what it looks like.

You are expected to manage your own grocery shopping. Generally well in advance

At no point did you mention needing to BUY things before now

You can, of course, make entire unseasoned food

But if you're trying to make a specific recipie, you will need the seasonings required FOR that recipie

I think what's getting me is 1. Why you care so much, I don't even know you and 2. The idea of cooking without any seasoning at all or water is so ludicrous I don't know why you'd think that's what I meant.

When you post a thing on tumblr? People don't get to know the things that exist only in your head. I know that's kinda obvious yes but... People only get what you wrote down.

Without context, without details, all someone will ever get is what you VERY specifically said.

Now, somehow your post ended up across my dash. Doesn't matter how, because this is tumblr and stuff is nonsense here.

I don't know if you know how to cook. I don't know what you do and do not understand.

I do, however, know of people who say shit exactly like this ENTIRELY seriously. People who have eaten nothing more than boiled chicken for every single meal. Or just lentils. It's a THING.

There are, in fact, people who are so ignorant of these things that they would say all that you said with utter and absolute sincerity.

They exist. The world is weird. People are weird. I am weird, because I can't help but to respond to the idea of 'we recipies should list seasoning separately because you could make the meal without it' without giving maximum side-eye.

What's the difference between -punk and -fascist, when it comes to the mythology of something?

The true answer is whatever the self-described punks find too embarrassing or cringe or unsalvagable to be affiliated with that brings down their beliefs and causes and proves they're just a bunch of violent, dogmatic thugs. Then whatever subject they were on about gets disassociated from their movement and attributed to the enemy.

So yesterday's weirdo vegans that would infiltrate medical research compounds and free the animals, as well as try to do that to farms? In yesteryear when things were more blurb than conversation, comments may be praising the concept by the harder left types that only dig surface deep and think in the abstract. But if actual harm can be pinned on them, and they can't deny it, and that becomes a pattern?

Suddenly those people, "aren't real leftists, they're fascists. Real leftists don't do that."

Because the same people, operating under the same logic, doing shit like putting nails into trees so logging companies get nasty surprises if they cut the trees down, or dumping paint on fur coats in the store or on the people wearing them. In the 90s they'd be called, "crazy lone-wolf ecology minded punks." Their manifestos screaming about human overpopulation and despoiling the planet in the name of capitalism, to nods of approval of the crunchy, hippie, vegan suburbanite kids.

And then when their behaviors become unpopular to the point of indefensible, they run interference and spin those wackos as, "eco-fascists." Look out, those fascists are everywhere, doing everything. Including seemingly motivated by weirdly hard-left wackadoo logic. When they're naughty, they're right-wing, apparently.

Some "Convuhsayshunalist": "THE WHITE SUPREMACIST BRITISH ARE STEALING AND HOARDING CULTURAL ARTIFACTS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD. THE MUSEUM IS FULL OF STOLEN CULTURE AND PROPERTY."

Someone That Knows: "ACKSHULLY, while it's true they have some shadily acquired merchandise, a great deal of the museums and archives were given their artifacts and important cultural relics by the cultures and people themselves for preservation, display and retention. They're either on loan or were donated by the people of those nations and cultures to begin with. It is a fact the British museums are full of entirely legitimately acquired items by very willing and proud contributors from all over the world, and mischaracterizing them as just extensions of some supremacist regime is duplicitous and deceptive, at best."

Some "Convuhsayshunalist": "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SOME WERE HANDED CONSENSUALLY OR DONATED VOLUNTARILY. THEY ARE WHITE, THEY ARE SUPREMACIST, THEY ARE CAPITALIST. THERE CAN BE NO CONSENSUAL PRESERVATION OF CULTURE AND HISTORICAL RELICS UNDER WHITE PATRIARCHY AND CAPITALISM, THE WHITE PEOPLE AND CULTURE ARE INCAPABLE OF CONSENSUALITY SO LONG AS CAPITALISM EXISTS. THEREFORE, ALL ARTIFACTS POSSESSED BY BRITISH MUSEUMS ARE DEFACTO STOLEN AND APPROPRIATED, EVEN IF THEY WERE COME INTO POSSESSION WITH COOPERATION BY THE OPPRESSED VICTIMS OF COLONIALIST RULE. THEY ACQUIRED NOTHING FAIRLY UNDER CAPITALIST PATRIARCHY, EVERYTHING IS THEREFORE STOLEN."

Someone That Knows: "This is far and away from your original broadbrush accusation and now you're dipping your pen into a whole different inkwell of stupid. You started on an inaccurate premise and deliberately muddled it while meaning something entirely ideological. That was disingenuous and leading."

The money raised by the gala goes towards a collection that spans over 33,000 objects and seven centuries.

"No TRUE Scotsman would ever believe anything other than what I do"

far too confortable with the idea that their museums, military benefits and cheap food are worth more then the death of babies all over the world.

Can confirm, this isn't a bug or a new development. It's just something that always resurfaces as a hypocrisy whenever a new generation gets told they're the next generation, the hope of enlightened thinkers. Their slutshaming will be modern and okay because it's not the bigoted old stuff, which they insist was not their new ideas and theories, but proper, appropriate, enlightened criticism that is totally valid.

"She's totally catering to the male gaze/compliant with patriarchy" was ALWAYS, "she's a whore" but in nice makeup.

And even if she was a fraud, it's just,

They will move every goal post and anything you try to do for them in the "right direction" is never correct or good enough. Because the violations aren't caused by being bad, they're caused to prove nothing you do is enough for them. It's to always expect more from a position of moral authority and judge you from such. An invisible committee of peers that gets to set these invisible standards that you can only see because of the spilled blood of other creators before you creating slightly clear lines near the invisible, destructive ones, giving you an INDIRECT sense of where the line is if only from those that died on them ahead of you.

That's how the Radical Progressive Revolution of moralism and social values/ethics works. You aren't being judged by good or worth, but by how well you conform to their ideology, and as those goal posts are constantly moving, you can only ever be their darling for a moment before you suddenly need to do more for them. Like a house guest that invites themselves into your home and then seeks to declare their authority equal to that of the master of the house.

Oh wait. No, we don't. Hm.

And we too use public funds to erect museums talking about the amazing miracles contrary to science and reality the founding fathers have brought to our nation and- oh wait. No, that's just stuff they historically, objectively did, not stuff like, "They don't pee or poop and when they were born there were double rainbows in the sky."

Hm. 0/2

Well at least we have the tombs of the dynasites of past presidents and they're forever watching us, waiting for the day they'll be needed to rise and- .. no? Barring some specific, outlying wackadoos that are private citizens in their schizophrenia and not some state sanctioned church.. That's 0/3

Hm.

As opposed to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade that operated from 1619 in North America, to June 19th 1865.

246 years of pure, unending torture by the HUWITE man vs. thousands of years of intercontinental candies-and-rainbows indentured servitude among civilized and peaceful Africans, that in no way was classism because only whites can be classist, and it miraculously can't be racist, because only whites can be racist!

Other races of people and other nations can't possibly be scrutinized under the same standards, because something something punching up, capitalism, oppressor/oppressed dynamics, yada yada. So even if she's the descendent of black slavers who owned people and extolled evil on all the slaves they ever owned, it's perfectly fine, because they're black people enslaving other black people! Not problematic kinds of slavery, like the white owning anyone else kind.

A.) That the climate is changing

B.) That punishing business and the wealthy isn't going to stop, slow down, or prevent it.

And why is that? Because the conversation about anthropocentric climate change gets co-opted by anti-capitalists that scream industry must be curtailed in the developed world (but, miraculously, not the third world) and that Europe and the rest of the developed world not only, "shouldn't be allowed to pollute," but should have to redistribute their money and more or less give blank checks to the less developed world. Supplying not just capital, but technical knowledge, solely for their benefit at our own expense.

That stops being about climate change and becomes simply about anti-capitalism and wealth redistribution, and doesn't actually address climate change. Not natural climate change, not climate change brought on by pollution and mismanagement of resources.

And this is why climate change talks break down. Because anticapitalists keep using it as a pretense to scream about how the only way to "save the earth" is to tie the developed world's hands together, disallow access to natural resources, give enormous lumps of money to warlords and plutocratic countries and cultures with no obligation for them to develop or improve conditions in order to receive said resources. And the money intended to buy carbon sequesters or develop utilities just goes to pay some plutocrats 52 babymamas, doing absolutely nothing else for anyone.

The people most ardent and avid about climate change have always approached it as a conversation opener and then deviate off into things that will not prevent the climate from changing. Because for them, it isn't about minimizing human influence on the climate. To them, the only reason the climate changes at all is just the existence of capitalism.

It wouldn't matter if the developed world eliminated waste carbon from all steps of the process entirely. It wouldn't matter if all electrical power came from nuclear, resulting in more energy to sequester carbon and not produce it and reutilize the carbon in more solid, stable forms. It wouldn't matter that we modify our livestock's diet so their flatulence no longer is either produces, nor enters the atmosphere. It's not about climate change, it's about anticapitalism for them. And nothing else.

They argue for renewables, but only those renewables and initiatives that allow them to circumvent and defeat private property rights by saying the state has a right to your wind and solar power and dominance/eminence over the means by which you produce it and distribute it on your property, arguing that, "you acknowledge the preminence of housing codes, right? :)"

They argue that nuclear isn't, "transformative enough." Which more or less means they hate nuclear because it can be monetized and privatized, and as previously covered, they hate nuclear power.

They argue about punishing and legally destroying businesses that violate environmental laws, some of which seem to be erected and force walking on eggshells with disproportionate financial punishments simply to justify dismantling them. While they acknowledge, none of these laws or rules would affect business and industry in other countries, and currently it's other countries contributing the lion's share to the problem of climate change.

They blame the developed world for the waste and largesse of the developing world, while half-acknowledging unless we go in there and conquer them and forcefully institute these things FOR THEM, there's no way to force them to comply with even things good for their health and the world's future.

Climate change to these people is purely a stick by which to use as a wedge and a sharp end to institute new rules, largely arbitrary and vibes, to prevent exploitation of resources in the west. And if the entire world is not also following these, "world saving rules," it helps nobody. You're just trying to save the neighborhood by punishing one or two houses, among hundreds. When you only care about punishment of a few families for these supposed crimes everybody is committing, it becomes brutally obvious just how you're using laws and rules and positive seeming pretenses to do so.

We can and absolutely should have rules that enable technology to sequester carbon, and other particulates, for proper and logical management. But that is extremely different from arguing both for renewable energy AND disrupting nuclear power plant growth, because, "nuclear isn't TRANSFORMATIVE enough."

Nuclear is LESS carbon producing than solar or wind, takes up less space (saving more trees and the environment) and can handle base load power for 100% of its lifespan. To be against nuclear power if you care about climate change, just proves to me it's not about "saving the world" to you. It's not about protecting minorities. It's purely about ideological views that the developed world are parasites that need to be lanced and their guts fed to less developed countries, for the crime of having something they do not yet possess. That bullshit ideological view can go starve to death at the edge of town, for all I care. It's the most unnecessary and meaningless way to fix a problem that could ever exist, and doesn't go towards solving problems.

We no sooner get a practical electric car and start getting the batteries to equal a tank of gasoline or diesel, before these shysters pivot. And suddenly, nobody should be "allowed" to own a car anymore, everybody should have to live in a tunacan city, and our developed society should have no parking space for anything but public transportation. Nobody should have private property or conveyance. Nobody should have private wealth.

No. Fuck you, you lying, duplicitious fuckers. You don't care about the climate. For you, it's a vehicle for arguing rich people shouldn't have money and business shouldn't business. At least, outside Russia, parts of South America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

If you want to talk about combatting climate change, and not, "Combatting climate change," focus on those things humans actually do that contributes. Arguing that eating meat shouldn't be allowed and trying to outlaw farms is the wrong way to do this. "Eating the bugs," is not the right direction to go.

Realize there are logical and reasonable limits. If the British Isles stopped 100% of all waste particulate production, it'd contribute to less than 1% of the change on earth regarding trash and carbon production. Any given country in Africa and Asia produce way more than that despite having less development. CHINA still produces over 60% of the aersol that the rest of the developed world agreed was bad and was destroying the ozone layer IN THE 80S. Do you understand that? All your legislation and good vibes and trying to use the law and government to impose restrictions on industry and tie a government, economy and military's hands together don't matter if the rest of the world WON'T COMPLY. And the bad actors get advantage that the good actors do not, giving them the upper hand from shortcuts and convenience.

And yet, some of you seem to believe that is the point. Because for many, climate change was about weaponizing pretension, not fixing a crisis. It's about blaming Europe because some island nation is sinking under the melting polar icecaps and forcing Europe to pay up for their relocation. It's about trying to create legal arguments why Europe and the developed world are on the hook to compensate every time a tsunami washes away an entire population's home, "because of climate change caused by anthropocentric influence."

And yet many of you who bang the gavel the hardest about holding developed countries responsible for the pollution and carbon and methane emitted, would stop short of arguing the UN should punish producers, like China and India, for refusing to comply with environmental regulations that you insist are SO important for westerners to follow.

So this conversation, this, "convuhsayshun", a bad pretense disguised as a feelgood chat about a natural disaster and the consequences of unregulated industry, becomes a sad parody of itself. It gets wheeled out by people with an agenda that goes way beyond preventing greenhouse gas emissions or ensuring animal safety and rights, and spirals into, "global consciousness and environmental justice." And every time they overstep, they go back to, "just wanting to have a convuhsayshun about climate change! :c :c :c :c" which isn't actually about saving the planet at all, it's just anti-capitalist and anti-westernism with a mask on.

No, you're an anticapitalist using the pretenses of natural disasters as a way to browbeat and argue for wealth redistrbution and saying this group of people over here shouldn't be allowed to engage in the same thing you're allowing this bigger group of people over there to do, and those ones do it without any of your passive aggressive, destructive, hobbling rules. Be fucking consistent and realistic, acknowledge China has more coal fired power plants now than it ever did, acknowledge Southeast Asia dumps more garbage and human waste into the oceans than Europe, Oceania or North America ever has, and sneer about them and their societies being bigger contributors, and not investing in cleaning up their own waste.