I still find the whole bottled water thing odd. I remember a time when there was just Poland Spring and Deer Park and you only bought a bottle of water if you were absolutely dying. From my vantage point, it seems like consumerism, across the board, has skyrocketed in the past 20 years.

I was just having conversation with a fellow Gen Xer about how people just don’t know how or don’t care to do things for themselves anymore. As I look at all the subscriptions and consumer goods and delivery services that make headlines, it seems like we, as a culture, are spending a lot more money on what used to be called luxury expenses.

Some people legitimately have bad municipal water. They need to put pressure on their civic leaders to fix their gross negligence. For most other people, I would really recommend a filter system you can install either at the source of your water, under your kitchen sink, or in a pitcher in your fridge.

It’s worth noting that even the aluminum water bottles (Stanley, etc.) come with some health concerns. If you’re getting something from China, I’ve heard their manufacturing and raw material quality control isn’t up to US standards. Regardless, most if not all aluminum water bottles have a plastic liner. Your best bet is glass. If you have an aluminum bottle, don’t use it for hot liquids and try to keep it out of the sunlight for too long.

Although they’re a bit better than plastic bottles, all aluminum cans require a plastic inner liner.

https://www.plasticstoday.com/business/liquid-death-may-murder-your-thirst-but-it-won-t-kill-plastic-no-matter-what-the-ads-say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W05yBVq18cY

You’re tripling down on this? This is the hill you want to die on?

Do you think a grocer would stock 18 eggs next to 12 eggs without any clear indication until you took it off the top shelf? Or do you think they’d stack it differently, on a lower shelf, so you could easy discern the difference?

What the fuck does this have to do with the fucking point of this story? You want to argue over a fucking dollar? That’s important to you?

Ok. Simple observation of the image would inform you that you’re wrong. I’m not sure how one person can say the sky is blue and the other look at the same sky and claim it’s “obviously red”.

I wasn’t insulting you. I was speaking generally about the internet’s strange insistence to focus on pointless semantics for the sake of pride. Although, this conversation informs me that maybe there is some elementary education left to discuss among grown adults. I’m going to do us both the favor and assume you’re trolling me.

You’re twisting the reality you’ve already twisted to continue to fit your narrative. I will not follow you down that rabbit hole.

If you’d like to discuss the real story, the “inflation explosion act” and even the lack of policy proposals by the Trump campaign (to my knowledge) to reduce the costs of goods, I’d be happy to do so.

I fail to see how that is relevant at all. He could be holding a steak or a roll of paper towels standing in front of bananas or at a car dealership and speak about the cost of a dozen eggs.

What is relevant is his claim that “Harris’ inflationary policies” had an impact on the price of items at grocery stores. This is untrue.

I think I get it. The internet wants to call out every detail in an image as if they’re true crime detectives. They want to be more right than everyone else. But only based on the most simple piece of content possible. If it requires reading a few paragraphs, or finding your own source material that a news outlet fails to provide, or using a middle school degree of reading / listening comprehension that’s too much work. I did that here, and hate that it needed to be done, to back up my previous comments elsewhere in this thread.

Now a dozen eggs will cost you around $4.

Right there.

So, now you want to ignore the signs behind him and use statistics for the country?

Just stop. You are not contributing to any valuable discourse.

Strong agree. I think most people just go for the low hanging fruit because they don’t actually care enough to be invested in policy. The vast majority of “news” is just trash to generate clicks and engagement and we all suck it up like calorie-free frappaccinos.

I posted earlier in response to his full comment regarding the “inflation explosion act”. This is something worth reading about - that the Inflation Reduction Act has not had any immediate impact on inflation to date (up or down). Others here have accurately commented about the disease spreading across poultry farms which has most impacted the costs of eggs in particular.

It’s also worth pointing out that bird flu is increasingly having an impact on cattle. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/09/bird-flu-is-spreading-rapidly-in-california-infected-herds-double-over-weekend/ So, expect dairy prices to slowly and steadily increase.

Evidence has been presented to you which you are ignoring for the sake of your own narrative. You are so obsessed with your political agenda that you can not admit that your “opponent” might be right for once. The average price of the eggs he is standing in front of is $4.10. Vances’ statement about the price of eggs is 100% accurate.

Regardless, the story is not about the price of eggs. The story is about a political candidate making remarks about policy which may or may not have impacted the price of eggs and other consumer goods. These specific remarks are a mixed bag as the price of eggs are impacted more by disease and the price of other goods were not impacted by the Inflation Reduction Act.

I don’t understand how people are so blinded by their politics that they twist reality to turn the truth into fiction. You are disseminating “fake news” and deepening the divide between us.

This is exactly what’s wrong with us. When one side makes a claim that the other side sees very clearly to be false then we attack each other over something (a meme) that’s whole irrelevant to our lives. We should be discussing inflation. Because clearly, not enough people have a clue about how it works. We should be discussing this candidates claim that an Act of Congress caused the price of consumer goods to increase. Is that true or is it not? What is it that this administration has actually done?

This is what should guide us at the polls and in our political discourse, not if a quick glance at the price of eggs in one store in one part of one state is accurate to the dollar or not.

Quote: “now a dozen eggs will cost you around four dollars thanks to Kamala Harris’ inflationary policies”.
Checks source: Average cost $4.10.

Edit: I’ve updated this post to reflect the point of it being posted in News.

The problem? When footage of the visit emerged, Vance was quickly called out by viewers who spotted the price tag of a dozen eggs behind him was actually $2.99.

– Vance is being called out for saying eggs cost around $4 while standing in front of eggs that costs $3 when in fact the average cost for eggs he is standing in front of is $4.10.

I hate that this is the bullshit we spend our time arguing over.

I edited my comment with an image of the source since you didn’t care to look for yourself.

How did you get to that part while ignoring the preceding sentence?

Here’s a link to the video I presume this trash article is referring to https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1837581418329002260 You can see, like every grocery store I’ve ever been to, a number of different prices for eggs, including at least three for $4.99 and one for $3.99.

Every store has eggs tagged at different prices depending on what kind they are. If you look quickly and see more signs that start with $4 than $2, would you say eggs are $2.99 or “around $4”?

I’m really amazed at the ignorance, be it willful or not, all Americans are capable of.

I mean… all you had to do was look.

Awesome. Thank you for that!!

This story is absolutely trash. Here’s a link to the video I presume this trash article is referring to https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1837581418329002260 You can see, like every grocery store I’ve ever been to, a number of different prices for eggs, including at least three for $4.99 and one for $3.99.

EDIT: Here’s the photo op since some people prefer to comment on headlines rather than source material.
The average price of visible price tags is $4.10. Though I still argue that the literal price tag on these eggs is far from the relevant point of his words. Arguing over the average value in the background of an image is wholly irrelevant to a politician making claims about policy.

The take away from this video shouldn’t be hurdur the tag says $2.99 but the discussion of his claim about “Kamala Harris’ inflationary policies” and “because she cast a deciding vote on the Inflation Explosion Act”. At least, that’s what a reputably news organization would give a shit about discussing.

This article from PBS quotes Alex Arnon, an economic and budget analyst for the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, “We can say with pretty strong confidence that it was mostly other factors that have brought inflation down,’’ he said. “The IRA has just not been a significant factor.’’

This bit from Wiki says “the benefits of the Act will likely not be felt before the 2024 election, but that the Act is a great long-term strategy to decouple from volatile energy markets that drive inflation and that the Act will reduce inflation over the medium to long-term.”

The Inflation Reduction Act actually had very little to do with inflation or the price of eggs. The price of eggs has been mostly dictated by disease and the need to slaughter millions of birds.

Moreover, I understand the (under/misinformed) complaint people have about rising egg prices as it pertains to kitchen table economics. However, from the perspective of what we’re putting into our bodies and paying people a fair wage to do honest work, we should be complaining that eggs are too cheap.

Of all things, it continues to shock me how inexpensive eggs are. I’ve been paying $5-$7 for a dozen eggs from local producers for about ten years. They’re noticeably more delicious, it’s less impactful to the environment, the chickens are far less prone to disease, I assume the chickens are healthier and have a better diet, my dollars go towards a local economy not some billion dollar corporation on the other side of the country.

authorities believe the shooting targeted one of the people who was killed, possibly in a murder-for-hire. A vehicle pulled up and “multiple shooters” got out and began firing, then fled the scene, he said.

As someone who lives in Philadelphia, these are usually the kinds of stories that get ignored. Targeted shootings have little to no threat on the general population. This sort of event happens at least once a month around here, if not once a week.

What’s most surprising about this story is the source. I would have thought this was a local paper. Apparently this VOA organization has been around since the '40s?

MacGyver
The Secret City
Mr. Wizard

Great question. I could list dozens of shows that were favorites, or have special meaning to me, or that I watched the most, or ones that had a more longterm impact on who I am. But, specifically about impacting my world as a young person, I’ll say these three.

Honorable mentions: Looney Tunes, Cheers, MASH, Family Ties, The Young Ones, Doctor Who, You Can’t Do That on Television, Ren and Stimpy.

How do you decide on which news sources to read?

If a news outlet has indicated to me that they care more about ad revenue than reporting news, I avoid them.
If the only way an outlet feels they can get readership is with use of clickbait headlines, I avoid them.
If the headline is something like “you’ll never guess why ___ hates this” or “the reason you can’t blahblahblah” or some other salacious bullshit or they have a super cringe thumbnail on their YT video, I avoid them.
If a writer misconstrues the words of a celebrity or political leader for their own narrative, I avoid them.
If their bias prevents them from reporting the facts of an event, I avoid them.
“Avoid” does not mean never visit. It means I try not to and if I do I proceed with caution and skepticism with the intent to get another source.

If I’m searching for a news story, it’s probably because I came across it on social media (Lemmy) or a blog and want to get credible information. Or because someone here is quoting a story and I have a hunch they’re misinformed. I use DuckDuckGo and generally get decent reputable results at the top. At its face, I will never trust Google for fact checking. If I end up at a wiki page, I often check their sources.

I have an extensive list of reputable and/or diverse outlets in my RSS reader. The only “mainstream” American sources are NYT, AP, NPR, and Reuters. I’ve been using BigNews as my RSS reader for a year or so now. I really like its simple interface and ability to subscribe to newsletters. Newsletters are sometimes the best way to get a blurb off the news without subscribing to something like NYT. If I’m compelled enough, I’ll run a paywalled article through archive.is.

I don’t feel that people publishing on substack or medium, etc are reputable outlets for general news. That’s great for specific topics, opinions, and focused reporting.

The only news I pay for is my local newspaper. In addition to local reporting, they curate AP articles.

Thank you.

I’d like to know seven years after when.

Thanks.

I’m just here thinking, someone is asking a small group of people what they believe to be the definition of a word rather than use the vast wealth of knowledge published by experts in their field on these here internets.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/articles-heterodoxy/202208/inside-the-minds-the-incels

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06236-6

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/new-paper-explores-the-rise-of-incels/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/

Wiki: A portmanteau of “involuntary celibate”. A term associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white, male, and heterosexual who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, and blame, objectify and denigrate women and girls as a result. The movement is strongly linked to misogyny. Originally coined as “invcel” around 1997 by a queer Canadian female student known as Alana, the spelling had shifted to “incel” by 1999, and the term later rose to prominence in the 2010s, following the influence of misogynistic terrorists Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian.