- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1619 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
144 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 12576
Is cultural appropriation even possible when it comes to cooking?
|>>|| No. 12749
They would have been more honest if they had renamed them "Kleenex Wank Rags".
|>>|| No. 12750
unSurprisingly Waitrose allow me to buy tampons despite their not being marketed to me. Silly moo.
|>>|| No. 12751
>despite their not being marketed to me
Waitrose called it Gentlemen's Smoked Chicken Caesar Roll because it contains gentlemen's relish, or at least Heston's take on it, rather than because they were aiming it at men.
|>>|| No. 12752
Then the noise is even more stupid. Even if a sandwich were marketed at men it'd be no more sexist than having different shaving razors marketed to men and women.
I realise I'm preaching to the choir here guys, sorry. I'm just a bit flabbergasted - unless that twitter account is a troll account in which case well done them they got me to bite.
|>>|| No. 12792
A private email, eh? The article says the email was sent to a freelance vegan journalist. He played with fire and got burnt. An activist journalist! He lit a cigarette while lying in a bathtub of petrol.
|>>|| No. 12793
If nothing else, it suggests exceedingly poor judgement by a man who has editorial responsibility. There's a world of difference between a private joke between friends and a private joke sent to exactly the kind of twat who would incite an internet hate mob. Sitwell's only job was to make Waitrose look good, but he fucked that right up in a moment of thoughtlessness.
|>>|| No. 12795
He comes across as a small minded bully if you ask me. Obviously you can't divulge an entire person's character from one email, but given he's representing a company, not just himself, surely he knows better than to threaten to "kill" and "force-feed" someone? If the company doesn't want you doing that, then it's their call if you keep your job. Tough shit, I say.
|>>|| No. 12796
I got that very same vibe too.
I cannot, however, sign off on your misuse of the word 'divulge'.
|>>|| No. 12797
He made a bad joke in an email to a journalist, while working for a company who is currently undergoing a core marketing push to offer more vegan/vegetarian options. This isn't a question about a man losing his job for making a joke, it's about a man being so fucking incompetent at his job that he didn't realise the implications of sending an email to a JOURNALIST offending an entire important demographic of the company he works for.
It's also not a 'private email'. She pitched him an idea. That's a business email.
People are working very hard to make this anything other than him being incompetent. If you got an email from a client/supplier/potential customer and you replied sarcastically about killing them or people like them, how do you think it would go?
|>>|| No. 12798
>If you got an email from a client/supplier/potential customer and you replied sarcastically about killing them or people like them, how do you think it would go?
One would hope they aren't overly-sensitive card-carrying members of the Professionally Offended Brigade and can take a fucking joke.
|>>|| No. 12799
You don't have a job, do you? You seem to have no idea how the professional world works.
|>>|| No. 12859
Vegan activists storm Brighton steakhouse and blast diners with sounds of animal slaughter
Brighton activists from Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an international animal rights network, descended on Brazilian restaurant Touro Steakhouse on West Street on Saturday evening (November 24).
Activists held signs with photos of animals and played audio of animals being slaughtered, telling diners to 'listen to their screams'. The group then stood outside the restaurant chanting: "What do we want? Animal liberation! When do we want it? Now."
A spokesperson for DxE Brighton said: "In a time where we are experiencing mass environmental destruction, largely due to our unsustainable and unethical food choices, it is paramount that we put our egos and selfishness aside and accept that we are all connected, we are all animals. We can no longer ignore the suffering and pain we cause. We are not the only sentient beings that inhabit this planet. We all have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and fight for the oppressed. Over 70 billion farm animals are reared for food globally every year, most of these intensively. We put them there. What animals are facing now is without a shadow of a doubt a great injustice. Animal exploitation has become so normalised it goes virtually unnoticed but we are paying attention. People and businesses should not be able to enjoy the product or profit of animal suffering."
Do these tactics actually work or do they simply backfire and make people less receptive to the point you're trying to make?
|>>|| No. 12860
Of course they backfire.
Also, the girl on the right would totally get a portion of my vegan sausage.
|>>|| No. 12861
>Do these tactics actually work or do they simply backfire and make people less receptive to the point you're trying to make?
The latter. People don't typically like to have their life choices directly attacked, particularly not in obnoxious ways by obnoxious people. And a typical response to this sort of attack is to double down, I really think they're making people less likely to consider the actual ecological issued that animal farming presents. Even if I was a vegetarian, I'm not sure I'd tell people, as the association with these sorts of twunts is just too common.
|>>|| No. 12862
Girls like that are ten a penny in animal rights circles, although usually they all have on the same pair of thick rimmed glasses.
|>>|| No. 12864
Given it makes me want to go out of my way to go to that restaurant just to upset them next time I'm in Brighton I'd say it has failed.
|>>|| No. 12865
There was a similar protest somewhere recently and the chef started butchering a pig or something in the window as a response.
|>>|| No. 12866
A vegan activist who stormed a steak house and Tesco meat aisle is the daughter of a millionaire meat selling CEO.
Morgan Kayleigh Giampaolo raided the Touro steak house in Brighton to play animal slaughter noises to diners last week. She also attended a Tesco in Hove with 'Direct Action Everywhere' as they held a 'silent disruption' event, standing in the meat aisle with signs saying: 'It's not food it's violence' and graphic images of abattoirs while mothers pushed toddlers past them in prams.
Last week Direct Action Everywhere entered Touro Steakhouse in Brighton and got into a chanting match with a carnivorous stag party who yelled back 'Stand up if you love meat.' Members of the stag party, including a £250 'Oompa Loompa impersonator', started chanting back at them and even persuaded fellow diners to join in. Most of the diners at the Brazilian-themed restaurant appeared unmoved by the protest and carried on talking and eating, even when the activists played the noise of a cow being killed and shouted 'It's not meat, it's violence' repeatedly.
It's all so depressingly predictable.
|>>|| No. 12867
The sheer level of filth she must get up to in the bedroom with anyone she thinks might piss her dad off, though. It's powerful stuff.
|>>|| No. 12869
I don't get it, are you saying it is wrong, or ridiculous, to hold views that differ to those of your parents? I for one think differently to mine on lots of things, and am even politically active about them. Does that shock or amuse you in some fashion?
|>>|| No. 12871
It's basically a stereotype for a teenager or student to go out and protest against something their parents believe in. Bonus points if it's something they've made a lot of money doing.
The fact you don't innately understand that is odd. Either you don't have a good understanding of human interactions, or you're being deliberately obtuse.
|>>|| No. 12872
The people I've known most active in pointless hippy activism, the kind which is never destined to achieve anything other than stroking your ego and making yourself feel very righteous, have all been from very wealthy backgrounds. They decide to 'slum it' for a bit before inevitably going back to rejoin their comfortable well off lifestyle. It's also noticeable how the people targeted by their protests, those going out for a meal or to the supermarket, are ordinary working class folk rather than those actually creating and entrenching inequality because they've no desire whatsoever to meaningfully address the class system they're benefiting from.
The last thing any movement needs is clueless rich twats using your cause as a hobby horse.
|>>|| No. 12873
Weirdly, it's sort of a consequence of benefits reforms under the Blair government. It's also the same reason why so many bands these days are incredibly posh.
Back in the 80s, you could sign on once a week, tell them "there are no jobs" and get your giro. There really weren't many jobs out there if you were young and unskilled, so what was the point of hassling you about it? Because unemployment benefit was so easy to claim, it acted as a de-facto minimum income - you could spend all week organising political protests or rehearsing with your band. It wasn't terribly difficult to sign on under two names for a bit if you needed some extra cash.
It was the Major government that renamed Unemployment Benefit to Jobseekers Allowance, but it was the Blair government that really started turning the screws on claimants. The amount of money you got fell in real terms and you had to spend more and more time jumping through hoops to get it. Stricter identity checks made it significantly harder to travel around the country and sign on wherever you were. The same rules that made life difficult for dossers also made life difficult for artists or political activists from working class backgrounds.
|>>|| No. 12874
This is one thing that's a pretty good argument for UBI; allowing people to afford to learn to make income from their creativity would be a hell of a thing in the current climate
|>>|| No. 12875
During the 80s there was an alternative stream to UB called Enterprise Allowance, for which you just claimed to be self-employed instead. A number of artists used it to get started.
|>>|| No. 12876
Seeing as the thread has moved on to 'bashing vegans' for now:-
>A tribunal is to be asked to decide whether veganism is a "philosophical belief" akin to a religion, in a landmark legal action.
>Jordi Casamitjana says he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sports after disclosing it invested pension funds in firms involved in animal testing. He claims he was discriminated against, and the tribunal will now decide if veganism should be protected in law.
>The League Against Cruel Sports says he was dismissed for gross misconduct. It denies the sacking was because of his veganism.
>Mr Casamitjana says he is an "ethical" vegan. "Some people only eat a vegan diet but they don't care about the environment or the animals, they only care about their health," he told the BBC. "I care about the animals and the environment and my health and everything. That's why I use this term 'ethical veganism' because for me veganism is a belief and affects every single aspect of my life."
>Dietary vegans and ethical vegans both eat a plant-based diet. However, ethical vegans try to exclude all forms of animal exploitation, for instance avoiding wearing or buying clothing made from wool or leather, or toiletries from companies that carry out animal testing. They may refer to "companion animals" rather than "pets", and will avoid zoos or other environments where they consider animals are exploited.
>Mr Casamitjana worked for the animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports and claims that, to his surprise, he discovered it was investing its pension funds in companies that carried out animal testing. He says he drew this to the attention of his managers. When nothing changed, he informed other employees and was sacked as a result. He is now bringing a legal case, claiming he was discriminated against on the basis of his vegan belief.
|>>|| No. 12878
What seems to have happened here is that he's found out that he can't claim protected disclosure and instead is trying to claim protected status. Not that I don't agree that it would be slightly hypocritical of LACS to choose to invest in such firms, but ultimately you can't go around disclosing confidential information and not expect to be fired.
|>>|| No. 12879
>he's found out that he can't claim protected disclosure and instead is trying to claim protected status
I don't understand what you're saying. He clearly believes LACS will be found to have dismissed him unlawfully, even though they say it was gross misconduct, so can you elaborate on his reasoning?
|>>|| No. 12880
>I don't understand what you're saying.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act provides protection for whistleblowers. My working theory is that he believes he was blowing the whistle, and has found out after the fact that the information he was revealing does not count under PIDA, and has tried to argue that he's being fired for being vegan, even though you generally don't get fired for gross misconduct on the spot.
Then again, I've just seen a clip on the news of him wearing a Mask of Shame so the whole thing could just be a stunt through which to get the information out.
|>>|| No. 12882
I'm quite sure PETA does this sort of thing simply to garner attention. All their other tactics are designed to be headline grabbing, so I don't think it's much of a stretch that they know fine well that everyone will be talking about PETA if they release something daft like this.
Of course it does make them look excessively daft, so maybe not.
|>>|| No. 12883
To play devil's advocate: why is it daft?
PETA's raison d'etre is to protect animals. And I'm sure neither of you are going to be so bold as to claim language has no effect on our behaviour. So in what way does this campaign not seek to achieve their aims?
|>>|| No. 12884
If language influences behaviour then why would you encourage people to feed birds scones? Baked goods are harmful for them.
|>>|| No. 12885
>And I'm sure neither of you are going to be so bold as to claim language has no effect on our behaviour.
I certainly am, particularly when it comes to proverbs, which are so far removed from the literal for anyone who understands them. Whens the last time you or anyone else for that matter threw a stone at a bird? If they did I can guarantee it's not because they heard someone say it.
|>>|| No. 12886
Why are you using terms like devil's advocate. Advocating for the devil. Do you hate God? Are you being deliberately proactive to christains. Don't you realise the power of language and the insensitivity of your words?
|>>|| No. 12888
>I certainly am
I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Any linguist will tell you there are reams of evidence showing that different words influence the way we think and act.
>Whens the last time you or anyone else for that matter threw a stone at a bird?
So you genuinely think that PETA's objective in encouraging people not to talk about throwing stones at birds is to stop their perceived epidemic of people literally throwing stones at birds? Maybe that explains why you think it's daft - you've totally misunderstood it?
|>>|| No. 12889
Do you genuinely think people are more likely to hurt birds because of that phrase? You've got to be having me on.
Show me the reams of evidence.
|>>|| No. 12890
Er... no, that's what I just said. It's not specifically about people throwing stones at birds. Are you a bit fick m9?
|>>|| No. 12891
Look, lad. Make yourself a cup of tea and have a bit of a think about how you're spending your Sunday. The linguistic evidence relates to grammatical structure (accusation sentences etc.) which impacts upon thinking patterns but that is a damn big difference to acting out given we have free will. If anything the very concept of this should be scary enough if we're outright doing brainwashing by calling a spade a teaspoon.
What goes beyond this i.e. words is a pseudo-science that dehumanises everyone (and in this case everything) and is only pursued by the most feckless HR graduates. People don't throw rocks at birds or go make lemonade when the tequila runs out because there is at the very least a complete divorce going on with what may have once been very practical proverbs.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]