RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:I'm a bit puzzled as to why anyone would see a retailer seeking to exploit a market opportunity as being even slightly contentious.
Is it the word "vegan" that triggers some people?

As a rule, I don't each sausage rolls as they give me heartburn, but I think it's the pastry that's the cause so a vegan filling rather than something that's been waved near meat isn't going to solve the problem.

You're not deep frying them for long enough mun.

That'll be it. Cheers.

Stick a mars bar in the fryer with your sausage roll and wash it down with an Iron Bru.

Puja wrote:If you are part of a heavily privleged group and a marginalised group gets something, then there is a tendency by some to see it as them losing. Which, in a way, they are - they're getting 97% of the attention rather than 99%. So anything extra for the marginalised group is "pandering", "special treatment", "catering to snowflakes", because it's a change that's not in their favour and attention that's being taken away from them.

See also, "Why isn't there an International Men's Day?", "I want a Straight Pride Parade", "Where's the White History Month?", "Why are there dark people on Doctor Who?", and other such jollities.

Puja

Talk about over-analysing something.

Do you really think that some people believe that Greggs are now restricting people's ability to purchase normal sausage rolls just because vegan sausage rolls have joined them on the shelf?
Perhaps some folk really are that stupid.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Numbers wrote:
You're not deep frying them for long enough mun.

That'll be it. Cheers.

Stick a mars bar in the fryer with your sausage roll and wash it down with an Iron Bru.

Have you been keeking through my kitchen window?

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:If you are part of a heavily privleged group and a marginalised group gets something, then there is a tendency by some to see it as them losing. Which, in a way, they are - they're getting 97% of the attention rather than 99%. So anything extra for the marginalised group is "pandering", "special treatment", "catering to snowflakes", because it's a change that's not in their favour and attention that's being taken away from them.

See also, "Why isn't there an International Men's Day?", "I want a Straight Pride Parade", "Where's the White History Month?", "Why are there dark people on Doctor Who?", and other such jollities.

Puja

Talk about over-analysing something.

Do you really think that some people believe that Greggs are now restricting people's ability to purchase normal sausage rolls just because vegan sausage rolls have joined them on the shelf?
Perhaps some folk really are that stupid.

I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Saying vegans is about as useful as that often used and highly idiotic phrase, scientists say.

Most vegans like most people are fine, but the extreme actions of a minority attacking butchers, abattoirs, farms and those who work in/on such is disgusting

Has Morrissey weighed in yet?

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:If you are part of a heavily privleged group and a marginalised group gets something, then there is a tendency by some to see it as them losing. Which, in a way, they are - they're getting 97% of the attention rather than 99%. So anything extra for the marginalised group is "pandering", "special treatment", "catering to snowflakes", because it's a change that's not in their favour and attention that's being taken away from them.

See also, "Why isn't there an International Men's Day?", "I want a Straight Pride Parade", "Where's the White History Month?", "Why are there dark people on Doctor Who?", and other such jollities.

Puja

Talk about over-analysing something.

Do you really think that some people believe that Greggs are now restricting people's ability to purchase normal sausage rolls just because vegan sausage rolls have joined them on the shelf?
Perhaps some folk really are that stupid.

I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:If you are part of a heavily privleged group and a marginalised group gets something, then there is a tendency by some to see it as them losing. Which, in a way, they are - they're getting 97% of the attention rather than 99%. So anything extra for the marginalised group is "pandering", "special treatment", "catering to snowflakes", because it's a change that's not in their favour and attention that's being taken away from them.

See also, "Why isn't there an International Men's Day?", "I want a Straight Pride Parade", "Where's the White History Month?", "Why are there dark people on Doctor Who?", and other such jollities.

Puja

Talk about over-analysing something.

Do you really think that some people believe that Greggs are now restricting people's ability to purchase normal sausage rolls just because vegan sausage rolls have joined them on the shelf?
Perhaps some folk really are that stupid.

I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Bingo. Usually there's an element of misogyny and racism towards it, although I haven't really picked up on with this one, but yeah, anything that doesn't cater directly to their interests is apparently a direct assault upon them, apparently.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Talk about over-analysing something.

Do you really think that some people believe that Greggs are now restricting people's ability to purchase normal sausage rolls just because vegan sausage rolls have joined them on the shelf?
Perhaps some folk really are that stupid.

I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

The second is that the bolded bit is unintentionally amusing. The media might not single out white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males much except to tell you what a bunch of cunts you are, but that's because it rarely singles your kind out at all - you are the default option for just about every single story. I mean, look at Brexit - May aside, that is almost entirely wall-to-wall white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males, on every side. When a protagonist is a WMAOEHM (which I believe is the official acronym), that's not worth mentioning - it's just standard. Every story is about you unless otherwise mentioned.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

Puja

Isn’t this the demographic that whines the most, though, regardless of their social status, income bracket, sexual orientation or gender - the phenomenal dickhole.

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

The second is that the bolded bit is unintentionally amusing. The media might not single out white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males much except to tell you what a bunch of cunts you are, but that's because it rarely singles your kind out at all - you are the default option for just about every single story. I mean, look at Brexit - May aside, that is almost entirely wall-to-wall white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males, on every side. When a protagonist is a WMAOEHM (which I believe is the official acronym), that's not worth mentioning - it's just standard. Every story is about you unless otherwise mentioned.

Puja

Fair points, except it was meant to be intentionally amusing. I need to work on that.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

The second is that the bolded bit is unintentionally amusing. The media might not single out white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males much except to tell you what a bunch of cunts you are, but that's because it rarely singles your kind out at all - you are the default option for just about every single story. I mean, look at Brexit - May aside, that is almost entirely wall-to-wall white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males, on every side. When a protagonist is a WMAOEHM (which I believe is the official acronym), that's not worth mentioning - it's just standard. Every story is about you unless otherwise mentioned.

Puja

Fair points, except it was meant to be intentionally amusing. I need to work on that.

In which case, I need to note a third thing, which is that I'm not very bright.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
I really think the reason people are getting exercised over it is because they're giving attention to someone that's not them, who doesn't normally get attention and therefore this goss against the natural order of things. That's what these people mean when they complain about "pandering".

Puja

Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

The second is that the bolded bit is unintentionally amusing. The media might not single out white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males much except to tell you what a bunch of cunts you are, but that's because it rarely singles your kind out at all - you are the default option for just about every single story. I mean, look at Brexit - May aside, that is almost entirely wall-to-wall white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males, on every side. When a protagonist is a WMAOEHM (which I believe is the official acronym), that's not worth mentioning - it's just standard. Every story is about you unless otherwise mentioned.

Puja

FFS, if there are two things we should be able to unite behind it's that Stones is obviously a phenomenal knob end, and that WHAOEHM whatever the feck it means isn't a fecking acronym

Also maybe it's just me but in coverage from the Times and the BBC I come across plenty of women involved in and commenting on brexit

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

The second is that the bolded bit is unintentionally amusing. The media might not single out white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males much except to tell you what a bunch of cunts you are, but that's because it rarely singles your kind out at all - you are the default option for just about every single story. I mean, look at Brexit - May aside, that is almost entirely wall-to-wall white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males, on every side. When a protagonist is a WMAOEHM (which I believe is the official acronym), that's not worth mentioning - it's just standard. Every story is about you unless otherwise mentioned.

Puja

FFS, if there are two things we should be able to unite behind it's that Stones is obviously a phenomenal knob end, and that WHAOEHM whatever the feck it means isn't a fecking acronym

Also maybe it's just me but in coverage from the Times and the BBC I come across plenty of women involved in and commenting on brexit

That's true, there are a fair few WMAOEHW around, too. But you also forgot the C. It's more like WMAOEHC. And that's good because you can always replace Christians with Cunts in your mind.

Replace? They're synonymous

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Interesting. I am a self-confessed white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual male, and therefore about as “privileged” as it is possible to get without being an actual member of the aristocracy. The impression that I have had for several years now is that the media has reported very litlle about my ‘kimd’ except to tell us what a bunch of cunts we are. I sort of understand some of the reasons for this, and frankly I don’t give a shit (an advantage of “privilege” I guess) but to think I am suddenly going to fire up the outrage bus because a baker has seen a business opportunity is stretching things a bit.

I would note two things here. Firstly, the reason that you aren't going to fire up the outrage bus is because you are not a phenomenal knob end. It's a particular type of dickhole who gets upset about marginalised groups having even so small a thing as a baked good tailored for them. It is on a sliding scale though - there's not just decent people and Piers Morgan, but a lot of points inbetween where most people fall.

The second is that the bolded bit is unintentionally amusing. The media might not single out white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males much except to tell you what a bunch of cunts you are, but that's because it rarely singles your kind out at all - you are the default option for just about every single story. I mean, look at Brexit - May aside, that is almost entirely wall-to-wall white, middle-aged, omnivorous, employed, heterosexual males, on every side. When a protagonist is a WMAOEHM (which I believe is the official acronym), that's not worth mentioning - it's just standard. Every story is about you unless otherwise mentioned.

Puja

FFS, if there are two things we should be able to unite behind it's that Stones is obviously a phenomenal knob end, and that WHAOEHM whatever the feck it means isn't a fecking acronym

Yes, we can agree on both these points.
From now on I'm going to refer to myself as WOMEC (white, omnivirous, middle-aged, employed, cisgender) so that we can solve the acronym issue.
I'll still be a phenomenal knob, though.

Also maybe it's just me but in coverage from the Times and the BBC I come across plenty of women involved in and commenting on brexit

[/quote]
On how it may affect the supply of ingredients for cooking, one assumes....

Digby wrote:
Also maybe it's just me but in coverage from the Times and the BBC I come across plenty of women involved in and commenting on brexit

As I implied, I found this a bit hard to believe, so I searched the internet and found something. It seems you're right a woman has commented on brexit. NOT SAFE FOR WORK

Not sure I approve, but I did watch

(Worth noting it's not suitable for work)

You say that but that’s how employees at Google dress at work these days.