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

Show
No

  • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • SadArtemis [she/her]
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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).

      The less you eat, drink and read books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save-the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor dust will devour-your capital. The less you are, the more you have; the less you express your own life, the greater is your alienated life-the greater is the store of your estranged being

      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).

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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?

      They kinda did with Breaking Bad

      • barrbaric [he/him]
        ·
        2 hours ago

        At least in that case you're supposed to think Walter's the bad guy.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Why are you getting mad a position I wasn't even taking in my post? If you want to be mad at @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net go for it, though that's also probably silly.

            • UlyssesT [he/him]
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Read it again. Direct quote.

              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.

              Again, I stated the take I could do instead of a take that I didn't agree with.

              absurd take lmao

              Foaming with rage at anyone even vaguely adjacent to someone that set you off is more absurd. "lmao."

              Show

                • UlyssesT [he/him]
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  i won't be embarrassed for having emotions, even over silly things

                  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 @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net '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.

                  how literally everyone on the internet phrases it

                  Look at your entire delivery system so far, including the "lmao," and remove that fucking plank from your eye first.

                  Show

                  textbook Redditor way to enforce an echo chamber

                  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.

                    • UlyssesT [he/him]
                      ·
                      2 hours ago

                      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 @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net'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."

                      i was more concerned about the implication it just shouldn't be in baked goods at all, like straight up banned, because of the context of the weird anime and the whole 'if you can't make it taste good without sugar' sort of vibe. criticizing it as an industry as well as it's pervasiveness in almost every product produced that people eat is not just reasonable but an obligation we all have.

                      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.

                      • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]
                        ·
                        2 hours ago

                        well, thank you for replying to me despite my hostility. at this point i highly doubt dirt_owl intended to make any point like the one i was saying i was concerned with. this seems like a classic case of my inner reactionary falling for the framing of cringe propaganda like the weird anime, as i realize i was thinking in that sense (as in, accepting it's inflammatory rhetoric) this entire time despite disagreeing with the depiction of regulation it seems to have. i'm considering deleting my comments but i don't want to remove that responsibility or shame entirely. i might just leave this one up only, so that dirt_owl doesn't have to come back to three or four comments yelling at them.

                        • UlyssesT [he/him]
                          ·
                          2 hours ago

                          I appreciate your reply. I can only speak for my own take, but maybe there is something worth arguing with with @Dirt_Owl@hexbear.net 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?).

                          • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]
                            ·
                            44 minutes ago

                            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.

                          • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]
                            ·
                            2 hours ago

                            there ARE genuinely tasty vegan non-sugar sweeteners that afaik don't even feed into diabetic conditions so i have no idea what i'm arguing about in the first place

                            • UlyssesT [he/him]
                              ·
                              2 hours ago

                              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.

                              • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]
                                ·
                                47 minutes ago

                                ok, maybe there is a point to be made about banning Big Sugar

                                edit: ok, but seriously, neither you nor @Dirt_Owl deserved that. I'm really sorry. I hope both of you are happy and safe and don't let my cringeposting drag you down or hurt you. Thank you all for being patient