I honestly dont get it

Yep, under the existing economic framework I would support removing tax on all essential products, including healthy food. In fact, VAT in general is a very regressive form of taxation because it's a completely flat rate.

Of course the feminists only care about finding ways to pretend that women have it worse than men. Economic reform which benefits both sides equally isn't of interest to them.

Reminder that when Americans tried doing this they reclassified pizza as a vegetable.

The surest evidence that sexism is dying is that feminists have to make minor inconveniences like air conditioning and paying slightly more for tampons than men do for razors (which is a retarded comparison because women use razors too) into political issues. Meanwhile black people are protesting being murdered by cops and workers protest not being able to put food on the table.

I actually agree with her.

What is VAT?

nvm.
value added tax
duh.

Yup, it's hilariously pathetic. Boohoo, muh 25p.

Dude all you have to do is show a patriarchy gold card when you bring your razors to check out. How can you not know that? Lmao retard.

the blacks are being more retarded than feminists are. the core of their argument is that they are specially killed by the police more yet the opposite is true and the ones who have it the worst are native americans and whites

BLM's central premise that cops are specifically targeting blacks for death is simply not true.

No racial bias in police shootings, study by Black Harvard professor shows
washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/

‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie
washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?utm_term=.8e078105f4b9

“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police … Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/

The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds
washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/

Well yes, that's the problem. The government (and most medical professionals) don't have a fucking clue what is actually healthy. They think exercise and low-fat diets are the cure for obesity, and when it doesn't work they blame the patients for being lazy.

It's not a contest, and implying otherwise will not discourage these people, which WT knows. Mass hysteria is notoriously hard to dispel.

What is wrong with the basic advice of 'eat more vegetables but not if you're full and less sweets and red meat, you fat fuck, also try go for a jog every once in a while', it's not like the recipe for healthy living is that complicated

i will say that this is misleading.
A white kid in his early 20's war unarmed and shot by cops in Fresno, CA. as he laid on the ground bleeding out, a second cop came up with a shotgun and finished him off.

Nobody talked about it because he wasnt black.

BLM were the ONLY ones talking about. You have no idea what you're talking about.

were they?
by 'nobody talked about it' I meant I didnt hear about it at all on news

hmm a quick google search shows your right.
I live in california, and none of the local news covered it around me

That kid's retarded and those cops are pussies.

What do you do when your nation is full of mongs?

purge

Basically fats (especially saturated ones) are healthy while carbohydrates (especially sugars) are unhealthy. It's okay to have some complex carbs in your diet, but they shouldn't be your only source of energy. Veggies are good, but exercise does nothing to help with weight loss.

In fact the whole "energy in vs. energy out" idea is completely backwards. The body is extremely good at automatically regulating that balance when it's being fed the right foods. It should take zero conscious effort to get that balance right on a healthy diet. Eating lots of carbs (especially sugars) messes up that automatic regulation mechanism by causing blood sugar spikes. The body compensates for those spikes by releasing insulin, but it overcompensates slightly and causes a dip in blood sugar which makes you feel hungry again. Exercising causes a similar dip in blood sugar, also encouraging you to eat more and replace the fat you just burned.

I've attached a couple of books which go into more detail.

That only accounts for shootings specifically, ie in an altercation with the police you are more likely to be shot if you're white. It ignores the fact that police presence in black communities is disproportionately large and heavy handed.

Still, even if what you're saying is true, protesting police abuses are still a more worthwhile cause than protesting a video game character whose tits are too big.

This. Any opposition to the police is good because the police exist to defend the bourgeois from the working class. Any revolution will necessarily come into conflict with the police.

I refute this.
I am very physically active, at the gym 3-4 times a week and cycling (from 20 - 40 miles) 2-3 times a week.
weightlifting at the gym, does nothing to lose weight.
But…
Cycling/cardio will absolutely work to lose weight… Since I started cycling (from 1000-2000 calories per ride) I have gone from 200lb to 190lb in about 2 months.

I 100% agree with this. Carbs should be sugar free, and complex as possible. I normally do steel cut oats.

This is true. but the trick is to have sustained, long periods of exercise (such as a 2 or 4 hour cycling trip)… as your blood sugar dips, your body will begin breaking down its own glycogen stores in order to maintain blood sugar levels. This is how weight is effectively lost.

lol, comrade.
we are /leftyfit/

if you wanna lose weight

go tree planting in canada

Were you actively counting calories? I'd have thought that to actually lose weight through exercise rather than simply as a by-product of diet you'd have to be going hungry after exercising.
I could be wrong though.

I have a bike computer that counts calories for me. it cost $10 on amazon. called a "enkeeo bicycle computer". This would count calories for me on my ride.

I dont count my calories throughout the day tho, I basically just eat healthy, and I dont gain weight. but with the addition of cycling, I started loosing a good bit of body fat, its definately toned me up alot.

I eat a meal before I cycle and then by the time im done cycling im hungry again. but it is quite hard to consume an extra 1000 - 2000 calories a day if you are eating a healthy diet

Oh, that sounds like it did work then.

Don't read pop sci shit. Carbs are not evil either, they have their place like fat. Yes you can lose weight without exercise and diet is the most important part but you can't be truly healthy without regular exercise. The old good pyramids that put wheat etc on the bottom we wrong but for years it's been understood that the bottom should be fruit and vegetables. There is not some medical conspiracy to cover up the secrets of good health.

No it was changed because business wanted to make sure that people kept on buying pizza. It has nothing to do with knowledge or expertise.

The last time I went to the doctor they still had one of those old food pyramid posters on display. The supermarkets still sell low-fat food labeled as "the healthy alternative". The whole US government anti-obesity campaign focuses on exercise as the sole solution thanks to lobbying from the sugar industry.

The medical research community might have it all figured out, but it's funny that "pop-sci shit" seem to be a lot more rigorous and up to date than the official fucking advice from hospitals and the government.

The businesses were allowed to get their way because of ignorance on the part of the people who should have been speaking out against them. They encourage public ignorance through advertising and lobbying.

Maybe things are worse in the US, I wouldn't be that surprised, but over here (UK) the government is pretty sensible about it. The advice is to eat less and eat more vegetables etc. as well as exercise. I don't think you should totally rule out the role of exercise though.

I seriously could give less of a shit about a classification that results in a difference if pennies on the dollar for low-cost items you buy less than once a month. Fuck off all of you discussing this or saying its something you should have two shits about at all.

They're talking about VAT.

Razors aren't taxed with VAT in lots of places, because they are seen as a necessity (like food, children's clothing etc. - the list is arbitrary but so is capitalism).

But they are

Exercise is good for you, but it isn't a solution to obesity on its own. You can't outrun a bad diet.

I think what I dislike about this sign is that instead of the person asking for tampons to be taxed as a necessity– pretty reasonable– they have to frame in this conflict driven, battle-of-the-sexes way. It's completely stupid, but it makes it obvious that their understanding of feminism is a zero-sum game when it doesn't have to be.

Here. Just because it's not important doesn't mean it should be intentionally disregarded.

Are you saying women's issues are not important? What a shitty thing to say!!

200% true.
Even if you go out and cycle for 3 hours and burn off 2000 calories, if you go back home and binge on cookies, pizza and microwave dinners, the calories are comming right back

Then they should just say: tax tampons as a necessity. Why include some contrast with razors, when it's this confused and not really at issue at all? I gauraneete you this woman didn't come up with it on her own. She's repeating something she read on a hub of feminist thought, such as Jezebel

The point being made poorly doesn't invalidate the point.

dumb ketoposter

It does though: the point "tax tampons as a necessity" is actually a different argument than that sign is advancing.

problem: there is a silly tax on a basic necessity

feminist solution: tax this other necessity to make it fair and let everyone know that my pits and legs are covered in wiry hair while we are are at it

I think that, as good communists, we should not neglect to evacuate inane liberal conflicts of meaning.

I for one would like free tampons and free razors and a bunch of other free things. There you go. Communism solves the problem, yet again.

maybe the problem is with porky, and not 'them' for having 'free' razors

I don't think anyone in BLM would be pissed off if white and native american people decided to hold their own rallies against police killings. Just as long as it doesn't turn into some kind of ethnic pissing match or a supremacy thing.

Or they could take the pill continuously and not need tampons anymore.

tbqh, this whole planned parent hood and abortion thing…
they should just make people who dont want to be pregnant (or bleed of the vajayjay) take the pill the whole time.
if they just have people on contraceptives then abortion is a moot point

Just because it's trivial doesn't mean it's wrong.

We need male birth control too. Condoms work like shit. Some women have really negative reactions to birth control. My sister had fibroids ( Tumors in the uterus). They grow rapidly when exposed to the hormones in birth control. She was bleeding so much she had to get blood transfusions before they just took out her uterus. So a lot of women just plain can't use it.

see>> 1272663

Welcome to bourgeois feminism. Same thing happened with equal pay.

Uh … the pill doesn't end menstruation. Women on the pill still have periods.

this is the dumbest post i've seen on 8ch recently and i've been trolling Holla Forums a lot recently

But women use razors too? Yeah I think it's shitty that tampons are taxed but this is suppose to be a rally against a fascist president, not feminism horseshit. This is going to be another occupy wallstreet, something with good intentions turned into a clusterfuck of people on their soapboxes, drunk with the power of an audience, peddling their ideologies. Capitalist will capitalize on it, interview some hippy "leaders" of the movement an make everyone embarrassed to be out there, and it will all fall apart and the US population will just kinda get in line and forget about it.

They're not doin' it rite.

Don't blame me if Big Pad has kept this information from you.

Sums it up pretty well. It's just a feel good circle jerk for the upper middle class, career activists and celebrities.

I'm starting to like Natbols even more

Was it part of an anti-Trump rally? OP's pic is from the UK, outside the National Gallery, taken some time after 28 September 2016.
https:[email protected]/* */,-0.1289748,3a,29.6y,46.98h,100.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skRhJZA2oaS5uV66llG6Xdg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
nationalgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibitions/maínos-adorations-heaven-on-earth
I don't know if there were any anti-trump marches there, although it wouldn't surprise me.

Actually, it seems there was an anti-Trump march in that location within the time frame:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38700123

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/
so one study (this isn't linked to in the article btw) of 300 cops. I'm skeptical but want to see this study (looking for it but can't find it so far

Heres another study you might find interesting:
Abstract
Objectives

This study experimentally examined the joint influence of suspect race and mental illness status on the public’s support for police use of force, and whether participants’ race and social attitudes moderated these findings.

Methods

A diverse sample of community members (n = 259) from Portland, OR completed a survey with an imbedded experiment. Participants read a case file describing a police officer using force against a suspect who varied in race (Black vs. White) and mental illness status (history of mental illness vs. not), and indicated their level of support for the officer’s use of force.

Results

While overall support for use of force was low, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed a significant interaction between suspect mental illness status and race on the public’s support for police force. Mental illness was a mitigating factor against support for police use of force, but only for White suspects. For Black suspects, mental illness instead increased support for police force, although support remained relatively low. These results were not influenced by participants’ race. Instead, effects were moderated by participants’ pre-existing affect about Blacks, such that positive affect decreased support for force against mentally ill Black suspects.