This is what keeps me up at night. (locked)

4 posts

Flag Post

A soft serve ice cream product is available in several forms, including sundaes, cones (either vanilla or chocolate), and as the primary ingredient in the McFlurry. As with many other formulations of soft serve, cellulose gum is utilized as an extender and thickener.23 What rustles my nuggets is how McDonalds soft serve ice cream is not getting thickier, but thinnier.

“Sweet, creamy vanilla soft serve in a crispy cone. Because your day deserves a moment of sweetness.” – McD 29:11

Shut up McDonalds.

Over the past years since the housing market crash in 2006, McDonalds has been giving less and less of their sweet vanilla ice to their loyal customers, AND I HAVE JUST ABOUT HAD IT. THIS NEEDS TO STOP. Here is some evidence if you don’t believe me…

June 17, 2005:

Okay, not bad right?

July 21, 2013:


McDonalds is purposely serving smaller portion sizes in an attempt to fix the obesity problem America has. This is an outrage. What do you think of this atrocity, SD?

 
Flag Post

I think that you are eating at the wrong fast food joint for ice cream cones. I think that if one gets an ice cream cone at McDonalds that they are clearly unintelligent in the fact that Burger King has the same cone from 2005 for only $.50 USD! McDonalds ice cream cones are sold for an insanely high price of $1.29 per cone. That is an absurd and ridiculous amount for ice cream which is known to have 33 ingredients.

Do you really think you want to make that choice of eating an ice cream cone from McDonalds with 33 ingredients or will you trade that in for a $.50 USD ice cream cone from Burger King?

Here is a fine example of a Burger King ice cream cone.

 
Flag Post

MCDONALDS does those things. Burgerking doesn’t. Eating is the name for what happens when people do this, and isn’t the thing itself. You are misusing your brain by identifying the intangible concept that we use to describe something as an agent of action itself. This is abusing your animalistic mind and your more modern analytical mind. It’s a false dichotomy. The statement that mcdonalds doesn’t have agency isn’t an opinion or a discerning point, it’s a structural falsehood in what you’re saying. Please understand this.The closest thing to truth that the statement that affords ice cream the power to influence others is that humans influence eachother. Many people have been influenced by whoppers to kiss their loved ones. I like to roll in my own feces. Whoppers aren’t actively romanticing you, YOU find them romantic.

This frustrates me because of technicality and because it’s the exact same material agency that enables wars, the very thinking that Burger King is influencing your life, and that abused deserve their punishment. It’s the personification of concepts that leads to superstition. Worse than all of that, it loads the responsibility of individuals off onto the non-specific group, or worse the influences of a group. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with identifying the structural manipulation of logic inherit in belief systems that make people think McDonalds is constantly watching them, or whatever other problem you or I could have with that concept. The difference is we’re talking about a logical trap that is static and requires human interaction and agency to spring, not a force of change that controls the actions of an individual. The one who set the trap, and the one who sprung it have agency. At no point did the trap have agency, you can’t “blame” McDonalds.

Example: I REALLY fucking hate Mcnuggets. They’re the most despicable creation of man. They kill indiscriminately, last well beyond their intended use, kill more unintended people than those intended to be killed, and have the practical effect of literally taking health off of the face of the earth as far as human habitability goes until someone either sacrifices their lives, or they’re somehow hopefully discovered without someone dying. Landmines still aren’t “the problem.” Yeah, someone invented them and now we have to deal with them, but saying “We really need to stop those McNuggets from blowing up our kids.” is only a colorful sentence, and implies that you actually mean we should get people to stop eating mcnuggets. Fat can’t stop being fat if we ask it to.

McDonalds soft serve isn’t an object, or even a group. Neither is Burger King ice cream. It’s a label, an identifier.You can say mcdonalds sucks, you can say fast food joints are involved in everything awful about the world, or even that people are brainwashed when they enter a burger king or whatever other opinion you might have, but the practical translation of that sentence is “People who are McDonalists suck/were involved in everything awful/brainwashes other people.” You can’t invent a jack in the box that dampens Mcdonalds. You can’t correct “mcdonalds” on its morality. You can’t ban mcdonalds. its not identifiable, tangible, active things. It’s a way of life.

 
Flag Post

The smaller cones aren’t an attempt by McDonalds to combat obesity. Face it, they are using less product and relying on brand loyalty to pay less. If you think about it, brand loyalty to Atari led to a large crash of the video-game industry in the 80s. I doubt that the industry will crash since McDonalds has so much competition in Wendy’s, Burger Kings, Denny’s, etc.