like, it's caffeine and water and brown, who cares. i drink diet soda so it's no calories, no sugar. versus the stereotype starbucks order, why is soda so demonized

the whole sort of basically woo stuff about oh there's antioxidants there which give you a 3% lower risk of skin cancer after the age of 65 like come on that doesn't count

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Chemicals” is a description for literally everything.

[–] Jummit@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

In this context I guess non-natural chemicals? Maybe the artificial sweeteners.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In this context may also be relevant discussions among coffee enthusiasts who talk about this and that chemical process during the brewing process, lending it a bitter or rich taste -- the coffee is full of chemicals.

I'm allergic to the word "chemicals" in discussions such as this, because it is too vague to define anything specific. It generally is used as a degradation of a thing that the speaker doesn't like. But that's all there is to it. The speaker can just as well say "I'm suspicious of this thing that you hold there", and this communicates exactly the same thing, maybe with a bit more care about ones words.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The distinction between natural and artificial is just as arbitrary. All the "plant derived" non-sugar sweeteners taste super weird to me and some give me a headache

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly. That's just marketing to groom the naturalistic fallacy.

[–] Portosian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Additives?