Boneless doesn’t mean boneless? Oh, okay. Words don’t mean things anymore. Cool.
But also, imagine inhaling your nuggies so fucking fast that you don’t notice a fucking bone in your mouth. Do you just not chew your food? Pour that slop right down my esophagus, fuck yeah.
You’re right, it’s ableist of me to criticize people for chugging meat like it’s a smoothie. I’m a bad comrade. There’s actually no other sources of protein that don’t have bones.
people who are disabled, old people, people with textural issues
This is the carnist equivalent of a lib criticizing a communist for using a cell phone
I’m not going to delete your carnist apologism but I’m also not going to act on your report of this post. There’s nothing in the story to suggest that the chicken bone guy is anything more than a bog standard meat eater. Don’t shelter carnist apologism with baseless accusations of ableism.
i’m sorry but maybe i’m not understanding - I’m not in any way defending carnism, hell im not even trying to defend the guy but the original commenter came out the gate about ‘nuggies’ and not digesting and chewing food and all i said is that some people have problems chewing or digesting food, which is why they might not chew or they might go for something without bones. As someone who works in healthcare and in aged care, i just thought it was worth piping up and saying that. They then responded to me, implying that I’m trying to call them ableist (which i never did in my first comment, so they’re jacketing me - i am literally just trying to make sure all angles are fairly considered) and that I’m trying to insinuate they’re a ‘bad comrade’ and then tying this to me defending carnism, which again I am not. and again i am not trying to defend this guy in any way. i get it if I misunderstood something here, but this genuinely feels like its coming at me for something im not trying to imply at all, but if I’m missing something I’m sorry
edited to add: the reason the report says ‘doubling down on ableism’ is because i never brought up ableism, they did, and then in the next sentence dismissed me for calling them ableist, which again I never did, which seems to imply to me that they don’t care about ableism. maybe I’m wrong, I’d be willing to accept that, but again i never pulled any of these accusations first.
This is stupid from every direction imaginable.
Boneless doesn’t mean boneless? Oh, okay. Words don’t mean things anymore. Cool.
But also, imagine inhaling your nuggies so fucking fast that you don’t notice a fucking bone in your mouth. Do you just not chew your food? Pour that slop right down my esophagus, fuck yeah.
plenty of people have problems chewing or digesting food, which is why they’d go for something softer and guaranteed to be safer like boneless chicken
You’re right, it’s ableist of me to criticize people for chugging meat like it’s a smoothie. I’m a bad comrade. There’s actually no other sources of protein that don’t have bones.
people who are disabled, old people, people with textural issues
but im glad you responded in good faith to what i was saying and found a way we can just dismiss them all
This is the carnist equivalent of a lib criticizing a communist for using a cell phone
I’m not going to delete your carnist apologism but I’m also not going to act on your report of this post. There’s nothing in the story to suggest that the chicken bone guy is anything more than a bog standard meat eater. Don’t shelter carnist apologism with baseless accusations of ableism.
i’m sorry but maybe i’m not understanding - I’m not in any way defending carnism, hell im not even trying to defend the guy but the original commenter came out the gate about ‘nuggies’ and not digesting and chewing food and all i said is that some people have problems chewing or digesting food, which is why they might not chew or they might go for something without bones. As someone who works in healthcare and in aged care, i just thought it was worth piping up and saying that. They then responded to me, implying that I’m trying to call them ableist (which i never did in my first comment, so they’re jacketing me - i am literally just trying to make sure all angles are fairly considered) and that I’m trying to insinuate they’re a ‘bad comrade’ and then tying this to me defending carnism, which again I am not. and again i am not trying to defend this guy in any way. i get it if I misunderstood something here, but this genuinely feels like its coming at me for something im not trying to imply at all, but if I’m missing something I’m sorry
edited to add: the reason the report says ‘doubling down on ableism’ is because i never brought up ableism, they did, and then in the next sentence dismissed me for calling them ableist, which again I never did, which seems to imply to me that they don’t care about ableism. maybe I’m wrong, I’d be willing to accept that, but again i never pulled any of these accusations first.
they wouldn’t bother asking, why would such information be included unless the guy was literally an activist?
Don’t go around showing off your beanis.
Meh. Just because he’s disabled doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve to be happy and eat tasty food and not just vegan replacements.
DAE vegan food bad!? Updoots to the left!
Thanks kind stranger! Have an updoot! Happy updoot
that’s why i think we can all agree he should get to take a nice cut off of you
deleted by creator