|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
posted May 27, 2025 10:35 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 23:00, 27 May 2025.
|
Governments aren't gutless per se, they just dont have the support they need to implement certain things without being removed, or without never being appointed in the first place. A prohibition (or strict control) on refined sugar isnt passable, even if it would immediately improve public health.
But, I am guessing similar to the Ukraine thread, you will want to take a position that it is top-down rather than more so a bottom-up problem. And when I say "problem" I dont mean it as looking for somebody to blame, because the blame part is mostly irrelevant. I mean it as what primarily needs to be corrected, because democratic governments need to get support from constituents if they want to do something new, and what you want to see happen does not have the support that it needs, which is something both of us know perfectly well.
And it is going to be very difficult to get that support too, because it isnt just about children who love sugar (which is just about all children). A grandmother can also get instant gratification for giving their grandkids sweets, and so they will want to do it, because the alternative may be sadness and loneliness. They want their grandkids to want to come to see them, and one of the most common ways to do that is through bribery, because they think it is the only way that people will ever love them.
And with parents themselves, there is the constant challenge of toddlers who are fussy eaters, and so sugar & salt is an easy solution to that challenge, especially when the toddler has been exposed to that kind of food and so they don't want anything else. And this isn't an easy thing to control if children are going to be in social settings where this type of food is readily available to them.
But, none of this is insurmountable, because awareness and recognition of the cycle is increasing, and so things are on a positive trajectory in all generations, and this doesn't even account for the advances they are making in medicine to change our biology.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 08:56 AM |
|
|
Now you are just ridiculous. Poor grandparents. How did they manage, when sweets were not so readily available?
I mean, if your main point is, that parentship and grandparentship will become impossible to halfway decently manage if it's not allowed anymore to coax and bribe their children and grandchildren with unhealthy drugs, then this says more than enough about society and its state.
I mean, it's not that I suggest to ban all kinds of sugar and all salt in general. But what is necessary is for salt to exactly detail on EVERY product, how much Natrium exactly it contains (that includes fastfood; if you buy a burger at McD's you should kno exactly what you eat, shouldn't you). And to prohibit the use of refined sugar (and possibly a lot of artificial sweeteners) for children's consumption.
The latter would lead to an immediate switch of the sweets industry to unrefined brown sugar. And since everything sweetened with refined sugar would have an "not under 18" sign on it, all hidden sugar would be unrefined, too, and in no time. In the end I doubt it would even be a big deal after a time. Prohibition of smoking in public buildings and pubs and bars wasn't a big deal in the end either.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 02:37 PM |
|
|
The grandparent part was ridiculous indeed. Grandparents and grandkids love each other because the first ones have the love of a parent and not the responsibility, so its usually a very joyful relationship. Not because they bribe you with candy out of desperation, who on earth thinks like that.
But overall, he’s right about how in democratic countries you should have social support when applying such radical changes and the -at least visible- bad effects of refined sugar dont seem to be horrifying enough to grant such conviction. Don’t get me wrong, as someone who loves history, I agree that in just about a generation, people can get used to drastic changes and things that seem extremely weird for your parents can easily be your norm. But there has to be a will, a consensus to make the jump and right now it doesnt seem to be there when it comes to sugar. People do turn out more conscious about the benefits of a healthy diet gradually though. He’s right about that, too.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 03:14 PM |
|
|
|
Is this OSM thread is theoretic, thesis, belief, opinion, etc without a fact and reason? Hard discussion..
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 03:37 PM |
|
|
There is no social consensus anymore in our societies. And no country has a true plebiscite. If governments would enact only things a sizable majority of society would be in favor of there wouldn't be much left.
So forget "social consensus" - there isn't much of it. Governments aren't in power to pamper the population; they are in power to do what is necessary to make things work and to secure the (near) future. If there would be any consensus about that, things wouldn't be so screwed.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 04:18 PM |
|
|
But they literally don't have the ability to do it.
As in, if a bunch of congressional candidates ran and said they wanted to pass a law that reclassified refined sugar as a controlled substance, citing its addictive qualities and its effects on national health, it would hurt their campaign and in many cases they wouldn't win, and they would not get the votes they needed to do it. And they in fact do NOT have the votes they need, because the country is too libertarian.
Even Germany is too libertarian for that, and your country is one of the least libertarian developed countries.
China in theory does have the power to just say, "Okay guys, no more refined sugar". But then even China has to be weary, because authoritarian governments still have to keep the population relatively happy.
It is easier to get around this by changing things in piecemeal. So, for example, restrictions on advertising is more doable. Sugar tax is more doable in some states. A national sugar tax would be difficult to pass in the US, and with the current Congress it would be impossible to do it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 04:41 PM |
|
|
Works differently, as you well know.
You'd run with pointing out that children's health hs decreased over the last decades and you'd make sure to stop that trend (if you'd touch the subject at all). If asked, how?, you'd simply answer that there were a couple of options, all under review at this time, but raising the food quality would certainly be something to keep in mind, because everyone would profit from that.
See, you just have to do what everyone in politics does: claim to make something better, but be vague about the how, the cost and how to finance it. We are in the Trump thread, right? You can say what you want, obviously - just don't say anything you know the public may not like. That's how everyone is doing it.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 04:49 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 17:13, 28 May 2025.
|
Yeah, that can and and does happen all the time, because the average person doesn't browse through a candidate's platform with a comb, and it doesn't need to even be on the platform at all.
But the people who are elected in office usually don't have these views in the first place. As in, they aren't interested in a sugar tax or reclassifying refined sugar. Politicians come out of the general population, so they tend to share the same views based on their background and where they grew up.
So again, the government cant do it because it doesn't have the support it needs.
And right now, the public perception of sugar has not yet caught up with what we know about sugar. The health part I think has penetrated the culture pretty thoroughly, but the addictive part not so much. And that's a fairly consistent thing when it comes to addictive substances. It's harder to get people to acknowledge that part. Based on what we know from science, it makes sense for refined sugar to be reclassified.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 05:13 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:14, 28 May 2025.
|
Maybe “consensus” was too strong a word, you have to have a significant amount of support and your policy shouldnt alienate the majority. Why didnt Prohobition work? And would you have liked it to?
JollyJoker said:
Governments aren't in power to pamper the population; they are in power to do what is necessary to make things work and to secure the (near) future. If there would be any consensus about that, things wouldn't be so screwed.
You can say this to excuse any authoritarian policy. Details matter.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 06:13 PM |
|
|
What the hell are you two talking about? Every tax raise alienates those whose taxes got raised - or those whoe have to pay more in case it's a consumption tax.
And why would this even alienate a lot of people? It would only be refined sugar, so there would still be enough stuff allowed. And blizzard, your point means, that there will never anything happen that's not shared by the majority of people - which clearly is not true: Usually, the things that happen are shared only by a MINORITY. Or do you think that Trump is backed by a majority with what he does and decrees like an Emperor?
In any case it's interesting that you are fighting tooth and nail against the idea. You'd think you have a problem with helping kids to a better diet and making sure that the permanently increasing percentage of overweight and obese children is decreasing again, since parents don't seem to able to.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 07:26 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 20:30, 28 May 2025.
|
I'm not fighting tooth and nail against anything. I'm observing & explaining reality and what is or isn't currently feasible. Making refined sugar a controlled substance is not going to pass in the USA right now. Neither is making greasy fast food joints a 16 or 18 age requirement.
I've already said this before about Trump, but yes, a large portion of what he is doing is in fact supported by more than half of Americans. Some of it isn't. It just depends on the issue. Dismantling DEI was fairly popular. Less than 1 in 5 seem to support annexing Greenland (but that is still a sizable minority who do support it, because imperialism is not something that lacks appeal for the common person). But either way, it's not a coincidence that he was elected POTUS by popular vote, because he is in fact a popular figure. That is because top executives generally DO reflect the culture that they are in.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 09:29 PM |
|
|
Interesting choice of words, since a few years ago, when I was trying to explain to you how different substances have different addiction levels, you were fighting that very basic fact “tooth ahd nails” claiming that all addictions are ABSOLUTELY phychological, hence, all substances should have the same legal status. What was your exact words, let’s see: “Whether a person becomes addicted or not doesn't depend on the substance. It depends completely on the person, their situation, their genetics and so on and culminates in the question whether a person likes what the drug in question does or not.”
You seem to acknowledge addiction levels now, since you compare cocaine’s to sugar’s. Yet, here you have another completely unnuanced approach but this time 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Because once you’re on your “one-track mind” mode, it is you who is fighting tooth and nail to not move an inch. Refined sugar can be sold with certain restrictions, especially to children, I never said this will never ever happen or shouldnt happen, what tooth and nails? But you cant make that transition in a day if you dont have enough public support. There is a culture, there is an industry, there are norms that state officials can not be authoritarian in transforming. So, saying things like “it’s the state’s duty to protect their citizens, not pamper them” when it comes to something like sugar, while you were defending to make heroin’s legal status identical to alcohol a few years ago is really an interesting jump.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2025 10:49 PM |
|
|
I had to think about that as well, but you didn't saw me demanding legalizing any drug for children, do you?
I also think that it's a different ballgame when you consume something on a regular basis as soon as you CAN consume anything at all. It makes the whole thing something common, a matter of course.
For majorities, I mean - who cares? It depends on the questions and the alternatives. It depends on if and how the facts are presented. Public opinion isn't something objective and suceptible to influencing. Generally spoken, the more abstract a pupose is, the bigger the majority for or against it. The more concrete the means are to reach that purpose, the flimsier the majoities become.
Example: MAGA is a positive (demanding to do something as opposed to NOT to do sth.) abstract purpose. Demanding control of Greenland is a concrete means.."
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 04:30 AM |
|
|
It's called passenger seat driving. 
As in, ***** and moan about how good you would be if you were in the driver's seat instead of the others.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 10:32 AM |
|
|
You misunderstand me.
It's just called impatience.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 02:24 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 14:31, 29 May 2025.
|
I guess impatience, but mostly MAGA is good at buttering people up with how much better things are going to be when theyre in the driver's seat, hence the name, make America great again.
Like back in the 90s, when it sucked. Or back in the 70s when it sucked more. They're just totally oblivious that things are better in the 2020s for America (for the average person) than they have ever been before in history.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 02:35 PM |
|
|
|
MAGA is thesis.. So voters vote MAGA.. Because no other better alternative.. You know that MAGA can't working..
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 05:31 PM |
|
|
blizzard said:
I guess impatience, but mostly MAGA is good at buttering people up with how much better things are going to be when theyre in the driver's seat, hence the name, make America great again.
Like back in the 90s, when it sucked. Or back in the 70s when it sucked more. They're just totally oblivious that things are better in the 2020s for America (for the average person) than they have ever been before in history.
Haven't you still understood how propaganda works and why? It's basic stuff, votefishing 101. Find a platform everyone can agree with - and never talk about the how (except abstractly), only about the what and ever in a positive way.
You just say something like, "Work must pay off again, even for the simple worker, so that they can afford high quality food for their family." You won't mention that you plan to double the minimum wage, and introduce a billionaire tax, a sugar tax and tax on highly-processed food.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 05:56 PM |
|
|
Now that I really think about, Trump has had an interest in political office since at least the 1990s, and he hasn't stopped trying since, so I wouldn't call MAGA impatient. I like my first comparison better: passenger seat driving.
Also, you're exaggerating there. Politicians DO have to have an actual platform because they will still get regularly grilled on that kind of stuff by journalists. You also NEED to do fundraising for your campaign, and you cant haul in donors if you're going to be super vague about everything. It wont work.
So no, what you are saying is a dumbed down comic book version of how it works in real life.
|
|
blizzard
Famous Hero
Urban Legend
|
|
posted May 29, 2025 06:00 PM |
|
Edited by blizzard at 18:06, 29 May 2025.
|
Now that I really think about, Trump has had an interest in political office since at least the 1990s, and he hasn't stopped trying since, so I wouldn't call MAGA impatient. I like my first comparison better: passenger seat driving.
Also, you're exaggerating there. Politicians DO have to have an actual platform because they will still get regularly grilled on that kind of stuff by journalists. You also NEED to do fundraising for your campaign, and you cant haul in donors if you're going to be super vague about everything. It wont work.
So no, what you are saying is a dumbed down comic book version of how it works. You can wiggle and spin and dodge some, but there are a lot of limits to how far that can go. Like, Obama was famous for somewhat generic messages, but be also had a concrete platform that was on his website the entire time, which is where he got his money and where he got people to sign up to be grassroots organizers.
In general, you're kind of polemic about politics. The way you describe stuff is pretty cartoonish. I.e. The Penguin vs Batwoman. The devil vs Eve (lol). These were the actual analogies you used here in the OSM to describe Donald and Kamala, as if it were a holy war of good vs evil.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
