Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:27 pm

They could be being sensitive to Fanta's Nazi history. Or maybe liking Fanta is code for being racist. Probly not the latter.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:43 pm

"Fanta's Nazi history"??

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:52 pm

Shrapnel wrote:"Fanta's Nazi history"??

It's a thing. Coca-Cola was already a global corporation during WWII. For reasons that should be obvious, the Nazi's couldn't get everything they needed to make Coca-Cola. Fanta was their alternative made with fruit flavors they did have available.

I mean, it's only Nazi in the sense that it was made by Germans in Germany during WWII and on some level that was impossible without complicity.

Edit: Link

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:39 am

I think it's more likely that people are expecting Sunkist, which is objectively tastier but also usually more expensive (based on personal anecdote).

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:27 am

Sunkist probably doesn't crack my top 3 or 4 orange sodas. And yeah, I think it's a regional brain disease.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:36 am

I genuinely don't care about orange soda brands. We have one at work, and I honestly could not say what kind it is, because it's fucking orange soda, and all that shit pretty much tastes the same to me.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:47 am

Some taste a bit more like an orange cream soda than others, so it can be pretty noticeable.

Count Arioch the 28th · Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:50 am

Orange soda is inferior to strawberry soda.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:55 am

Faygo, bitches. Or whatever is generic at the local supermarket.

Jefepato · Post by **Jefepato** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:58 am

Orange sodas all taste pretty much the same to me, but the important distinction is that Sunkist is caffeinated and most others are not.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:29 am

Sunkist probably doesn't crack my top 3 or 4 orange sodas.

How dare you.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:36 am

If someone asked for a Cola at a restaurant, I would expect the waiter or cashier to clarify whether it was OK if they got Pepsi, Coke, RC, Ginseng Cola, or whatever the fuck Cola brand they actually had. Orange sodas are even more distinct one from another, and it's absolutely mandatory to clarify.

It's not just the caffeine in SunKist versus no caffeine in most others. You also got things like how Tango is made with fake sugar and causes me to shit uncontrollably. Or how some orange sodas taste like they are made with orange juice and some taste like they are made with orange water. There's also orange sodas that aren't even orange in color - Hansen's is fucking clear, although the flavor is sufficiently on-point that I give it a passing grade. You got luxury brands like Henry Weinhard's.

The best places have Jarritos or Stewart's. Other orange sodas range from acceptable to unacceptable. But there's so much variance in quality and contents of orange soda that it would be absolutely unacceptable to spring one on a paying customer without verifying that they knew what they were getting.

Fanta is a minimally acceptable orange soda. It doesn't have any specific glaring issues and I would drink it if a fast food place didn't have Mountain Dew or 7Up.

-Username17

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:16 am

I liked green fanta but now it all feels too sweet. In Thailand the local brand EST is even more sweet than pepsi and makes my heart flutter. It's really meant to be served in a baby head sized bag of ice to dilute it, not straight from the can or with a few cubes.

I just drink soda water for soda, or that coffee with carbonation jetted in, or water.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:23 pm

In germany, i can't even GET the caffeinated Sunkist . .
Over here, that is just a kind of fruit juice. Not a soda.

Count Arioch the 28th · Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:31 pm

erik wrote:Faygo, bitches. Or whatever is generic at the local supermarket.

I tried Faygo, and it didn't do it for me. Normally I like cheap off-brand soda (in some cases I like it better than the expensive brand they're trying to mimic, Dr thunder 4 life!), but Faygo didn't float my scrote.

Iduno · Post by **Iduno** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:39 pm

To answer a page or so of stuff (thank you for replies):
We do have Jarritos here, so maybe that's it.
Strawberry is better than orange, but nobody seems to carry it.
I'm in Texas, so being made by Nazis is a plus in most people's books.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:31 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote: I tried Faygo, and it didn't do it for me.

In general Faygo sodas actually aren't that bad despite being repped by Juggalos. The company is older than people think and if you're from certain corners of the midwest you know that not all of their flavors are just a rip off of what other companies were doing (their root beer in particular is way different from A&W but pretty legit). Faygo Orange isn't as cloyingly sweet as a lot of other brands but it also has this hint of orange cream soda thing going on and for many people that's verboten. If your standard is "Sunkist or death" then it's a bad choice but otherwise I think people should give Faygo Orange a shot.

Also, +1 to Frank for repping Jarritos. Jarritos has a number of good flavors. In the event that I need to get drunk as quickly as I can manage my go-to move is to mix cheap tequila with some grapefruit jarritos and an (un)healthy dash of salt.

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:58 am

I like a Jarritos every now and then.

Zaranthan · Post by **Zaranthan** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:14 pm

Whipstitch wrote:Faygo Orange isn't as cloyingly sweet as a lot of other brands but it also has this hint of orange cream soda thing going on and for many people that's verboten.

I may have to give it a try. I'm a huge fan of both orange and cream sodas, and haven't met a variety of either I didn't enjoy.

Oh gods, my friends are going to give me so much shit if they find out. ICP memes for days.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:38 pm

Lets say a guy goes to the police station, claiming to have been attacked. He's obviously injured. He claims to know the identity of his attacker. When the police investigate, there's no physical evidence on the attacker, and the attacker rejects the accusations.

Is that it? Without anything other than differing claims, the prosecution wouldn't have a case?

I'm asking to see how this works in cases that aren't sexual assault cases. Our justice system isn't set up to handle he-said-she-said cases, and I'm curious if there's a double standard for when we aren't talking about rape.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:00 pm

There are a number of instances where something similar has happened, and the person with injuries has been charged with filing a false police report.

In those cases it was determined that the assault 'victim' arranged for the assault themselves.

There are people who will use the legal system as a bludgeon for their own purposes, whether that's 'swatting' or making spurious claims.

Regardless, rape and sexual assault are still handled differently, and such a double standard does apply. If an assault happens, police investigate. If a sexual assault happens, police often counsel on why investigating and pursuing it isn't a good idea. Prosecutors are often evaluated by their conviction rate and it's hard to get a conviction in many sexual assault cases. Unless it is a nun being raped by a stranger that jumped out of the bushes (and maybe even then) there's a lot of victim blaming that goes on. But even if you go through everything and get a conviction, the offender gets a 6-month sentence.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:18 am

Saying "it wasn't me" just doesn't work when they point to you in court after the prosecution lays out how they identified you initially. Most false convictions are bad identifications, but that's because a clear id is normally a conviction against a person whose only defence is "it wasn't me".

Most false complaints (and bad id) break down very quickly, because people have lives and when you say they were somewhere they weren't, it turns out they were actually somewhere else, usually with someone else. Maybe liked something on twitter. The same problem for fake alibis, your alibi was probably somewhere else, usually with someone else, unless you arrange it first, and that is it's own evidence trail to find and anther person needs to lie. False testimony is very difficult to pull off when people are literally checking every little thing you say.

But mostly, the thing with sexual assault is the attacker will agree that there was sexual contact, but suggest that the victim has changed their mind about consenting after the fact. Attackers don't take the stand, it's just asking a jury to think it reasonable that the victim could have been willing at the time.

Defence can attack victims with suggestions of drunkenness and revealing dress style and past sexual habits, the question is simply one of reasonableness around the idea that the victim may have wanted sexual contact then.

So, "he wanted me to kick him in the head" usually doesn't work, but "she wanted cock, but then regretted it" usually does, because almost no one wants kicked in the head at any time, but most folk want cock pretty regularly and also sometimes regret it.

The Kavenaugh defence of "an international Jewish conspiracy paid former acquaintances of mine to lie about my actually angelic past on behalf of a former president of the US", well, the police would check for payments and then your lawyer might just push for an insanity defence due to a client who is unsuitable to stand trial.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:51 am

So, uh big personal decision coming up, and it makes for an interesting hypothetical to poll strangers on the internet about:

Is it better to buy a house you love that's located in a neighborhood that you are just barely lukewarm on or to buy a house you're just barely lukewarm on that's located in a neighborhood you love?

For the purposes of the hypothetical, assume all other factors are equal, and please remember that both houses and neighborhoods are places you'd still be willing to live - the worse choice is significantly less pleasant in each category but not unlivable.

Pariah Dog · Post by **Pariah Dog** » Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:10 am

As someone that has been househunting themselves, I'd go with A because I could always just go full hermit unless the issues with the neighborhood is people playing music loudly at hours when I'm trying to sleep (night job) or being serenaded daily by the Trans Siberian Husky Orchestra rendition of "Hey, there's a squirrel"

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:12 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:So, uh big personal decision coming up, and it makes for an interesting hypothetical to poll strangers on the internet about:

Is it better to buy a house you love that's located in a neighborhood that you are just barely lukewarm on or to buy a house you're just barely lukewarm on that's located in a neighborhood you love?

For the purposes of the hypothetical, assume all other factors are equal, and please remember that both houses and neighborhoods are places you'd still be willing to live - the worse choice is significantly less pleasant in each category but not unlivable.

It depends on how much time you speed in each. If you're an agoraphobic shutin, the neighborhood doesn't matter but the house is of the utmost importance. If you're hyper-social, then the neighborhood is vastly more important than the house.