abraxas @ abraxas @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

387

Joined

2 yr. ago

I've never heard of them. Looks like the nearest one is 4 hours away from me, and there are zero in my home state or any state I like to visit.

Actually, a quick google seems to suggest Smoothie King primarily uses frozen fruit for their smoothies. They offer "nutritional add ins" that are protein powders. This is like Tropical Smoothie.

Maybe I wasn't clear about Herbalife. The ENTIRE smoothie is protein powder. Here is a typical herbalife smoothie. The entire smoothie. Others are the same with artificial flavors. Then one freeze-dried strawberry dropped in lets them say there's real fruit in it.

Here is a (genuinely random) sample from Smoothie King. A little protein added at the end, but primarily frozen fruit. This is reinforced by the fact that they sell fruit "smoothie bowls" for a comparable price. Herbalife has no fruit on hand to sell.

I've never in my life been to a smoothie place or shake that primarily used powders.

It's always:

1. ice cream, ice, flavoring sauces, some real like chocolate/coffee (pretty much every local diner)
2. fresh fruit, yogurt/banana (smoothie places like Tropical Smoothie)
3. Packaged liquid flavors plus frozen fruit (a couple smaller restaurants)

Last I saw, Tropical Smoothie Cafe (national chain) does fresh or frozen fruit exclusively for $5-6, and Herbalife does cheap flavored soy powders for $11

There is a massive quality difference. They don't even advertise readily that there's soy in in them; I had to look it up. Thankfully I'm not allergic. And that's the thing. They sell fake shit and intentionally hide that fact.

Their Schtick is that people start Herbalife "franchises" under another name, but then serve Herbalife. I believe they are generally not supposed to use the word "Herbalife" anywhere on their merchandising.

Someone already produced the "crushed bicycle" picture here with a couple crushed/mutilated bodies. It's not the only one, but it strikes a chord of being the least NSFL while still proving the event.

So what are the 2 (or more) bodies lying on and around the bicycles? Including the one in the back that seems to be missing a head?

And this isn't even the worst one. There is one that looks vaguely similar but with ALL bodies instead of bicycles, so NSFL I committed I would never repost it anywhere.

I mean, there is that photo of a bunch of crushed human bodies under tank treads that nobody likes to reference.

As it's not NSFL, I'm not posting. After seeing that image, I lost all doubt that the massacre happened exactly as we know.

And no, I don't intend this to convince you. I don't think seeing the photo would convince you either.

Except, isn't Herbalife something that's never branded? My cup had some smallbiz-seeming name on it. Definitely not Herbalife.

I subbed to an anti-MLM subreddit in the past, and that's the exact shifty behavior they removeded about Herbalife having. I just hadn't seen it.

The irony is, I think I agree with more points on the Communist Manifesto (not all, mind you) than I actually agree with Marxists. I feel like Communism has devolved from Marx the same way Capitalism devolved from Adam Smith.

I am actually not fond of the free market. I think regulated markets and private property with some leniency works, but is inorganic and that society is responsible to support people harmed by it. ALL forms of resource allocation are non-ideal, but a government that owns redirection (you can't steal my food because police protect it for me, but we are all responsible for you to be able to eat whether you are a "deadbeat" or not. Ditto with all necessities and some luxuries).

So basically, I'm somewhat socialist without the goal of nationalizing small business. But if you ask many folks, I'm automatically a liberal.

So I should discard my own far-left views because I see a far-right group with that one same bullet point?

Let's try it on you. Here's some info about growth of veganism in the alt-right. Ready to support small time ranchers yet?

I think it's not that they have a leftist bias here, but that they have a Marxist bias. I find I get drowned, or just mass-accused of being a liberal, for simply not being a Marxist.

The false claim that Marxism is the endpoint of "left" (and that anyone who isn't Marxist is to the right of them) is silly and makes it hard to have useful conversation even if you don't care about downvotes.

Herbalife, fucking herbalife.

This weekend, I went into what looked like an indie smoothie shop and dropped an ungodly amount of money on a delicious sounding shake... only to watch the lady drop a scoops of powder and ONE freeze-dried strawberry into a cup with ice. Tasted like ass.

Yet they do have regulars to that shit, and nobody is taking them out of business. I want my fucking $11 back. So anyone reading this doing a class action against Herbalife, I want in...

But I doubt it, since it's a scam that's so normalized we don't realize it's a scam anymore.

No shit. Especially on a silly celeb survival show hosted by Will Shatner.

Exactly. I recently watched Lance Armstrong go off on a silly survival TV show about how trans folk should not be allowed in men/women's sports and try to defend it with a truly pointless argument of "unless there's overwhelming proof" bullshit.

He almost got voted off the show for that rant alone. If it weren't on Fox, he would have.

I'd like to interject that it's not necessarily the evidence that mixed, but its interpretation. The same data can be taken two different ways.

I just finished reading a link (wish I kept the url) that argued trans woman runners still outperform cis women by 12% after 2 years of hormones, pointing out the competitive requirements are only 1 year of hormones. Only in the subtleties do you find that their metrics for performance did not just involve running speed (but included push-ups), and that the underlying research admitted in conclusions that they were likely over-rating the trans women's competitiveness...

One of the things that I read somewhere that REALLY stuck with me is this. There will always be an "evidence-based "argument to attack trans atheletes so long as there is at least one trans athelete that is outperforming cis atheletes. If trans women are equivalent to cis women, then the real answer is that it should be even (weighted obviously) odds that the best in the world would be trans or cis... but what we seek to validate "fairness" is that no trans athelete ever actually rises to the top. Because if they do, it must have been their gender advantage.

It might help you to understand that there has been a lot of study in many sports (for the very reason of your uncertainty).

Apparently, testosterone level (not birth gender) is the effective indicator of expected performance. In all women's sports that allow trans competitors, trans individuals need to test **lower ** testosterone levels than are naturally allowable in cis women.

The issue is this. For someone trans to be willing and able to power through all the bullshit, they need to be uniquely dedicated and talented (or they'd just not do it). What that means is that unsurprisingly some trans individuals are absolutely phenomenal at a given sport.

Ultimately, there's the problem. "We" seem to think a m>f individual doesn't have an unfair advantage ONLY if they lose. So we're not looking for the average or variance of skill, only the fact that there exists a trans individual that shines. It's hard not to look at a trans woman winning and say "see, that's what happens when someone born male competes with a woman in this sport". But it's also unscientific, as the science says trans women compete with comparative attributes to cis women.

Chess? Banning trans competitors is fucking idiotic and the chess federation can fuck right off with that implied notion of women being less capable.

Yeah, there's no real defense to the two being separated in any league.

With all due respect, I was replying to someone who made perfectly clear that the will of the majority (vote) was meaningless to them. How exactly do you intend to seize control from 90% of a country who wants something different if not at gunpoint?

Don't worry about responding. I blocked you too. I'm mid-migration towards servers that defederated the /c/thedonaldmarx communities, so blocking individual people is all I have right now.

Oh awesome me too! How long have you been vegan? :)

Never. I eat the deer that has to die due to overpopulation. Flip-side, I'd say anyone who lets that meat rot is the one that isn't an animal lover (and that includes vegans).

This whole "you can't be an animal lover if you're not a vegan" tripe is bullshit. But worse than being bullshit, you automatically lose whoever you were talking to from ever taking your side seriously even if you actually have good points.

Yeah I’ll be honest, i thought exactly the same as you about PETA before going vegan. But if you’re vegan, you’re intent on reducing the suffering of animals right?

I am not an anti-natalist. I am not willing to euthanize animals for some great aggregate goal. As an animal lover, both of those end goals of PETA disgust me. And I'm far from alone. The **only ** way to reduce animal suffering is to wipe them all out and re-engineer their natural habitats. I oppose that. I'm ok with a world where animals (including humans) suffer, but that we work to better things. We had a decent balance once, then it went to shit. I'm not about making it go MORE to shit.

So it’s not too much of a leap to imagine a world where the people with the most money and the most to lose have orchestrated an incredibly effective smear campaign.

You seem to be ignoring, or forgetting, my points. Every complaint I have presented is a first-party complaint against PETA by people who are not part of a smear campaign. So if you're asking if I'm willing to believe the small animal shelter run by a good friend of mine is part of an "incredibly effective smear campaign", I'm going to laugh you out the door.

That kind of nonsense reminds me of the people who used to cry about "the gay agenda". I'm sorry.

I’m giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming you’re here in good faith

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of the same, but your last post has made it difficult. Requiring me to be a vegan to be an animal lover (when I mentioned being around nature-worshippers, it should have been obvious). Implying, perhaps unintentionally, that people I know are part of some giant smear campaign. No.

you must understand the commodification of sentient beings is absolutely unnecessary in 2023

What does anything have to do with mass-euthanasia? Are you actually "merciful depopulation"? That is very different from hunters culling overpopulated areas.

That's funny. I hear people lying and want to avoid turning this into reddit 2.0, and you think this is about people calling out my bullshit.

You know what happens if you call out a lie and 100 zealots claim it's "bullshit"? You still have a fucking lie. Apparently, if I don't think every single American is literally as bad as Trump, I'm a fucking moron.

Well, working on "having nothing left" by blocking you.