#and it isn't just this post either ive seen news articles where they're all like

[c-130jsuperhercules]

so this is just nothing but misinformation, but when I said as much on the post, they blocked me, so I'm gonna make my own post I guess.

I'm not trying to go to bat for panera, mislabeling and not appropriately labeling a potentially harmful product is a high sin, especially in the food industry. I'm just saying all this because I'm a busybody, and people saying blatantly wrong stuff like this is annoying. However,

400mg of caffeine is not anywhere close to a lethal amount of caffeine. From the text Caffeine Toxicity, on PubMed: "Lethal doses of caffeine have been reported at blood concentrations of 80 to 100 micrograms/ml, which can be reached with ingestion of approximately 10 grams or greater." That's ten thousand milligrams. It would take drinking 25 of these 30oz lemonades, 750ozs in all, to be universally lethal. Furthermore, there are a decent number of energy drinks, like Reign or Bang, that have more like 300mg of caffeine per 16oz can. However,

The distinction between these energy drinks and the lemonade seems to be labeling. Of the two energy drinks I mentioned, both have a label on the can warning minors, pregnant people, those with a caffeine sensitivity, etc. against drinking it, while Panera, at least not at the time, didn't have an as such appropriate warning for the lemonade, despite having a similar(while less) concentration of caffeine.

A girl with a severe shellfish allergy goes into a restaurant and orders the soup of the day, the name of which is written on a whiteboard as "Not Your Dad's Toothpaste". The soup is made with vegetable stock, bananas, lamb, lambcress, and shrimp puree. However, none of this information is available on the board, and the waiter taking her order doesn't describe it either. The girl eats it, has an allergic reaction to the shrimp inside, and passes away. Later on, a man with a more mild shellfish allergy comes in, and orders the same, still unaware of the shrimp inside, but eats three bowls of it, and also passes away. Neither of these people died due to an inherent poisonous quality of the soup, but from ingesting something harmful for them, because they didn't know what was inside the soup. Later on still, people find out about the incident, and begin to joke about going to the restaurant and ordering the soup that kills you. This current situation is the same. Panera should have given more information about the lemonade, and warned people for whom it would be dangerous against drinking it. But also, can everyone shut up for a second about the "lemonade that kills you".

ANYWAY. rant over but I just hope I got my point across.

[mailorderfictionalcharacter]

I actually wanna thank you for your text post about the weird trend (that is still very much ongoing) about writing articles or talking about Rory as a product of how she was raised or her privilege. Tbh I never really took any of those arguments or even people saying that Logan somehow "taught her about her privilege" seriously because even after their argument over the article, this never happens? And frankly he was more angry with her over the fact that she criticized people that he considers similar to himself, I highly doubt that if Rory was a lower-middle class person on a scholarship to Yale that he even would've extended any support or interest in the article beyond being angry over it in general. Anyway, I think viewers give the show way too much credit sometimes in how it deals with class differences because the truth is it never really does. It never brings up class differences as a topic in Rory's relationships with Dean and Jess or even with Logan, since yeah, Rory does have rich grandparents, but she never lives the rich life the way he does, and you could even argue she's less sheltered than he is since given her and Lorelai's history, as you mentioned they pretty much went through three social classes in different times. The most she does live it is in about 3 months in that period in season 6 when she took a break, and like you mentioned, she never treats it as a fully conscious "I'll be a rich person doing rich people things now", it's literally just her taking up anything because she doesn't know what to to with herself. And aside from having her tuition fees being paid for firstly by her grandparents and then by her father later on, we never really see either of those people have to pull strings in order for Rory to get a job. Sure, her grandparents WANT her to meet people and make connections, but this is never really brought forth as a reason for Rory to like, get a big job she wanted at the New York Times or anything of the sort. And yeah, Rory gets into Yale pretty much because of her grandfather's connections, but even this is never framed in a way that is conscious of how even with the Chilton education and her hard work, you'd need a connection to get into such a prestigious and pretty exclusive Ive League. It's pretty much the same situation in the revival as well, people immediately guessed that she MUST HAVE spent through her allowance left for her by her grandparents, but we literally never see that happen? I believe that even when the head writer was asked as to how Rory was able to fly so frequently between London and Connecticut, her response was "she has a lot of flyer miles saved up". And considering how these writers went back and forth between "Luke has a LOT of money" to "Luke can't even afford a car", they obviously sooner forgot about Rory having a large sum of money prepared for her by her grandparents than make some very Deep message that Rory actually spent all of it because she's a spoiled rich brat or something. In general the show would always bring up class differences as a way to insert relationship drama, and this isn't even framed as a "you have more money than me" scenario, it's often instigated by the grandparents and it's always based around the idea of someone being lesser just because they're not rich, but just as this is quickly inserted is this taken away because the drama has ran it's course now, we don't need any more of it, bye. So yeah, that's my two cents on the matter.

I feel like the way people argue over Gilmore Girls or make jokes about how Lorelai is actually very spoiled because "ugh its just dinner with her family she's asking for all this money and can't even sit through that", or just the general way in which a LOT of people seem to love viewing Rory (which I chalk partly up to them just being desperate to follow this ongoing trend now where we all 'consciously' reassess media we used to love when we were younger and its actually horrible and all these characters that we liked turned into terrible people with bad politics because Subversiveness or whatever. And its not to say that Rory is only ever perfect because she isn't, her story just isn't about a kid turning evil) is a combination of today's times where we're obviously a lot more aware of certain issues and topics than most people used to be 20 years ago, but it's also this weird trend where we have to bash everything that doesn't remotely uphold these bizarre standards that aren't even set right. Yes, Gilmore Girls isn't perfect by far, but 20 years ago it was significant because it featured a cast of women that were in the forefront. Obviously its a product of its own time as everything else is, but it's also pretty unchangeable and even the revival made it clear that the material has just aged and more or less belongs in its own time. And that doesn't mean it's exempt from being criticized, but even it's own awareness of its characters is pretty limited based off of when it aired and was created.

Like.. also thank you very much for sharing this moment of taking Gilmore Girls seriously with me. 

In response to:

I feel like the way people argue over Gilmore Girls or make jokes about how Lorelai is actually very spoiled because "ugh its just dinner with her family she's asking for all this money and can't even sit through that"

Honestly there seemed to be a somewhat emotionally abusive element to the Emily-Lorelai relationship. Like, not the type where someone is consciously manipulative or disregards their child’s feelings on purpose, but the type where you try to raise a kid to live a good life without ever reassessing or allowing your child to have agency in deciding what their good life should look like. 

For example, I’m thinking about Lorelai’s parent’s trying to force her to marry Christopher but also the little things we’ve seen in flashbacks. Like, the scene where she doesn’t fit her dress because of her secret teen pregnancy and when Emily notices Emily is very critical and tells her to run around the block (because oh, the horror of gaining ~5 pounds and not fitting a dress). 

**

Gilmore Girls isn’t the Perfect Text but it holds a special place in my heart for showing a multigenerational complicated family dynamic. In my own life, my family is complicated with generations of trauma, social norms, discomforts, and what have you regularly clashing and Gilmore Girls will always hold a special place in my heart for embracing messy family dynamics instead of creating sanitized characters.