Chocolate Underground
With the establishment of the Good For You Party's authoritarian regime, unhealthy foods and sugar have been banned. As a result, the bakery Smudger Moore's father owns is suffering financially from being unable to sell any of their typical sweet menu items. Smudger's friend Huntley Hunter is also frustrated by the prohibition, as he cannot keep a promise he made to his late father. Angered by the unjust world they live in, the two young boys set out to break the new social order—but the uphill battle they are faced with is a lot more than they bargained for.
-MAL
No
Lmao the "boohoo my treats are more important than everyone's health and safety" types will always be the most pathetic brand of privileged person that think's they're oppressed. I wonder if they would make the same kind of show but about a poor widdle smol bean cocaine pusher being oppressed because he can't sell his addictive drugs to the people?
"LOOK PEOPLE LIKE MY ADDICTIVE UNHEALTHY SLOP, THEREFORE IT MUST BE GOOD!"
Also like, if you can't make your slop taste good without sugar than maybe you're a just shitty baker.
I'm pretty sure Marx had some things to say about "treats" (not the "opiates of the masses" and whatnot, but the genuine enjoyment of and engagement with life and good things).
Humans are genuinely designed to like and seek out foods with sugar (though the modern refined version is absolutely disastrous, I agree), and foods with sugar/sweetness exist in nature all around us. Just like how most humans (and even some animals and plants) have an appreciation for, I dunno, the beauty of nature and art and music. Similarly, coca has its own history within the indigenous peoples of Latin America (as do other addictive substances, or substances that get refined to such an extent that they become addictive because of capital and capitalism). Sugarcane has a long and delicious history without being refined into white sugar, and if you've ever had sugarcane juice it's absolutely delicious.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be limitations on things that can take on addictive and harmful qualities- because there absolutely should be (sugar, coca, and other such drugs being around the top of that list for needing considerable management- though sugar certainly can't feasibly be just erased from human culture within the foreseeable future- hell, it's part of our biology, it's literally how our bodies are fueled).
Yeah, I think the biggest problem isn't that some foods are calorie dense, it's that "calorie dense to make shelf-stable, cheap slop palatable, and as not-filling as possible to drive more sales" is the norm and a serious systemic problem with large parts of the modern food supply. That and that people are actively taught and conditioned to eat pure sugar for breakfast and then snack on pure sugar in between meals and drink straight corn syrup for hydration and then cap dinner off with more tasty desert treats.
The problem goes so far beyond "some foods are fatty and sweet" that the notion that improving the situation would have to involve getting rid of the smallest and rarest of rich and sugary treats instead of just getting literal syrup out of the staple foods and not teaching people that they should start the day with sweet fried cakes drenched in syrup and cuts of meat that are 50% fat and not allowing "it's literally just syrup you're drinking syrup instead of water" to be the norm for hydration. Western consumption patterns have been driven by a century of companies trying to sell as much of the cheapest slop they possibly can, with catastrophic results.
None of the overly rich foods (except filling everything with syrup to try to make cheaper slop more palatable which is bad and should stop completely) are even really a problem on their own, they just shouldn't be the standard and should be occasional treats instead of regular parts of people's diet.
At least in that case you're supposed to think Walter's the bad guy.
That may be a fairly hot take for some people here, but I could do a slightly cooler one with the treatbrains that simply must blast out high bass floor-rattling BWOOMBWOOMBWOOMS well after midnight. Unlike the sugar, it instantly becomes everyone's experience in a wide radius.
Pretty sure this was the plot of every other direct to video move in the 90s.
I remember during the Chapo podcast episode where they're reviewing Ready Player One movie and Amber is mentioning that it's an improvement over past movies because it has a slight increase in class consciousness by having the villain be a corporation over the concept of government regulation or whatever movies like it before would have had.
Amber.
Why are you getting mad a position I wasn't even taking in my post? If you want to be mad at @[email protected] go for it, though that's also probably silly.
Read it again. Direct quote.
Again, I stated the take I could do instead of a take that I didn't agree with.
Foaming with rage at anyone even vaguely adjacent to someone that set you off is more absurd. "lmao."
Then spare me the "lmao" while you're firing rage posts off at the hip. Just say you're mad because sugar was criticized.
I could have said there's some grounds to do just that, especially considering where it's harvested and under what conditions and how much suffering and exploitation is involved in a capitalist system, but I didn't because that wasn't directly related to @[email protected] 's take.
Considering how reactive and volatile you're being over fucking sugar, I just made that take just now anyway. Because I don't back down from bullies, especially over something as petty and divisive as treats.
Look at your entire delivery system so far, including the "lmao," and remove that fucking plank from your eye first.
Trying to scream someone down for criticizing fucking sugar is a demand to do just that. Again, remove that fucking plank from your eye first.
I'm not being evasive here. I do not support the banning of sugar. It'd be almost entirely futile to try even if I wanted to and had some sort of political position where I could try to make it happen. The production of sugar is a concern of mine, as is the corporate empires that command its production and distribution, but that falls outside of @[email protected]'s take, though perhaps it still fits within the basis of this thread's topic considering the heavy-handed "no veggies at dinner, no bedtimes" baby libertarian idealism that seems apparent at a glance in "Chocolate Underground."
None of that is my take, even now. When the person you're arguing with comes back from exams, feel free to direct that anger there. Or don't. I'd suggest the latter.
I appreciate your reply. I can only speak for my own take, but maybe there is something worth arguing with with @[email protected] after all, if hopefully from a less incendiary position. It isn't my take to argue; I don't even know what western baking goods would look like without sugar (pre-colonial honey, maybe?).
I somehow forgot about those myself until now.
I'm not actually that big into sweets in general; I prefer other flavors overall, even for pleasure/comfort food.
Yeah, go for it guys. I'm more than okay with people educating me when I say something silly. People are more than welcome to disagree with me on this one.