Do people on this board genuinely believe the way they cook/eat their food makes them better than other people?
For example:
Steak
Coffee
Sandwichs
Chopsticks
Fork scooping
Duel wield fork
'za
etc.
I mean there is nothing less important in the world than these things yet you are all so obstinate over your opinions
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
>people on the cooking board care about food and cooking and have opinions
You could literally make this exact thread on any other board.
no one thinks any one given opinion makes them better than other people. the issue is that other people are daring to have opinions in the first place. how can someone disagree with me if i am right about everything? they need to learn some fucking respect, and i'll earn it from them by making wildly censorious extrapolations about their intelligence, upbringing and worldliness from the fact that they put mayonnaise in their ham sandwiches.
No other board is as autistic as this board
>If you don't drink coffee black you don't like coffee
>if you cook your steak you've ruined it and not even ketchup will save it
I try not to be a snob about things, but part of what's fun about boring dogshit life is learning how to make things really well and sometimes the best way to get there is by arguing
>no other board is as autistic as this board
As Veeky Forums is my home board, I'll take that as a compliment. Though we could definitely use a far higher level of self-moderation.
Those are all class "tells". Doesn't make any man better than another, but does clearly show one's social standing. Which some folks do perceive as better or worse. And these things were designed to do just that.
There's a great scene from "Tampopo" (which should be required viewing before you're allowed to post on Veeky Forums) that shows just the opposite.
doing it right doesn't make you good, but doing it wrong sure as fuck makes you bad
You live in a fantasy world. How you use your utensils at the table is very much designed to be a signal of class distinction. You might think it doesn't matter, but those above you will notice, just like those below you will mock you for your pretentiousness.
Here's the scene I was referring to (it should be at the right time, but if it isn't just click the link instead of using the embedded version). The point is that people into food might know more and have better etiquette than people of higher social status (think Trump).
Human beings need three basic things to survive. In order of importance, they are:
>1) Water
>2) Shelter
>3) Food
The refinement of these most essential of needs is the highest calling one can have, as (through will and creativity) crafting mere survival into beauty of existence is the means of transcending our base nature, shaping biology to serve pleasure.
Water and food fall under cooking. Shelter can be construed as clothing and architecture, and while these pursuits are very satisfying to man, they do not begin to approach the universal pleasure of food and drink. These are our most basic needs, our deepest desires, the things we will satisfy before anything else. They are the universal reason for living.
Huh?
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face.
wuh...
Everything is unimportant, so yes why not?
>Everything is unimportant
More like this
Never fucking allude to my post again.
I get it and agree. It's like the food nerd who chuckles walking past a Cipriani restaurant because he knows a place down the street that's just as good or better for one third the price.
But the food is not the reason the ultra rich eat at Cipriani restaurants. They eat there because their peers do - the place is suited to their social class. They don't have better taste than anybody else, but they have more money to spend, so the level of decor and service they expect is much higher, and the food has to at least be good because these people eat out often. They might not be able to tell the difference between good and great food, but they won't settle for mediocre unless the setting and service is exceptional (and very exclusive).
But at the end of the day the food nerds aren't going to keep the fine dining industry in business. It's going to be rich people who don't give a shit as long as they have some assurance that whatever they're getting is "the best". Because to everyone except the food nerd the class stuff is as or more important than the food when choosing a place to eat.
The food nerd knows that the tacos from this particular truck washed down with a Jarritos refresco de toronja are every bit as good as foie gras and vintage Champagne. But he can only say that when talking with other food nerds.
Huh?
>food nerds
Can we stop saying shit like this? It's why "foodie" has become a term of derision.
>/v/ isn't as opinionated about video games as Veeky Forums is on food
>Veeky Forums isn't as opinionated about literature and prose as Veeky Forums is about food
you are 100% factually wrong
youve fucked this up in many ways.
cooking is the knowledge of ingredients and how to facilitate their creation into a meal,
with a sociocultural context.
all this bullshit about "the best" is some kind of capitalistic bullshit woven into your mind
no food nerd would say that taco is `every bit as good as foie gras and vintage champagne`
there is no reason to compare them
your presumptions about "rich people" is also complete shit
and im also assuming this "fine dining" crap is something relative to america where idk fast food is the norm?
I think you kind of missed the point about "the best". He put it in scare quotes for a reason.
Also rich people do eat at places like Cipriani, I don't think you know many rich people
many do, but in the context we are talking about its for the exact same reason as however many people actually eat mcdonalds or whatever crap
enjoying food is about your appreciation of the food
"rich people" dont magically have higher standards, dont magically care about food
keep it limited at "They eat there because their peers do"
fucking forget "social class"
there are very many fucking "rich people" who eat fast food and couldnt care less about "decor and service"
You're now arguing against a straw man that only exists in your head
Of course there are people who are rich because they won the lottery, or because they clawed their way out of the trailer park through luck, hard work, and good choices
The argument up earlier in this thread is about class, and eating habits have always been, and remain, closely tied to social class
Just because there are 90,000 millionaires in the US who don't act according to that stereotype doesn't mean there isn't a population of old money types (or newer money types who have weaseled their way into that circle) who choose restaurants because they won't have to rub shoulders with the lower classes
hey guys is this a go'za thread just stumbled in for some good homemade 'za is this the thread?
stop making out "rich people" are not humans or something
yes many go to expensive restaurants because they have money to do so, that doesnt mean they have higher standards or some shit
read this anons words properly> The point is that people into food might know more and have better etiquette than people of higher social status
and stop with this bullshit of "luck, hard work, and good choices"
99.999% of "rich people" became rich by exploiting other people. thats what having more than someone else is. are you a fcuking republican voter or something
>stop making out "rich people" are not humans or something
I'm curious what line made you even think that's what I was saying. Can you explain your train of thought coherently?
>yes many go to expensive restaurants because they have money to do so, that doesnt mean they have higher standards or some shit
You're intentionally (or perhaps unintentionally) conflating multiple definitions of "higher standards" in order to make this out to be something other than it is
>and stop with this bullshit of "luck, hard work, and good choices"
Why is it bullshit?
>99.999% of "rich people" became rich by exploiting other people.
No, mostly they became rich because they had rich parents
>thats what having more than someone else is.
That's not true at all now
>are you a fcuking republican voter or something
I'm a registered Democrat and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. Most of the rich people I know are also registered Democrats. I live in what you might call a liberal elitist bubble, I hope you can wrap your mind around that.
>, that doesnt mean they have higher standards or some shit
It doesn't always mean that, but it often does.
My father, for example, is not what you would call rich. He grew up fairly poor and landed a decent job in petroleum engineering. He owns a house, but he's by no means what I would call "rich". He's nowhere near a millionaire. But he makes a point of only eating at restaurants "with a white tablecloth and cloth napkins". He most certainly holds to that standard (as silly as it might be).
So I can totally see how other people might have their own standards too.
What term would you use? I like gastronome, but French words have a tendency of coming off pretentious in English. And we don't really have a good word for it in English.
>all this bullshit about "the best" is some kind of capitalistic bullshit woven into your mind
lol no. I know in two weeks when my heirloom tomatoes come in I will be eating the best tomato salads and gazpacho, because I will have access to the best quality ingredients, and will be showing them off simply. There's no capitalism involved, just access to quality and knowledge of what to do with it.
But some things do require a high cost of entry. If I wanted to drive the best race car ever made I'd need access to a private track and a restored Mercedes W154. I do not have the money to buy that experience, so I will not experience it.
Fine dining has a cost of entry. And those of us who find that cost a little on the splurgy side are going to choose places where the food is the star of the show over places that make their business based on WHO eats there. But even places in the latter camp have to maintain minimum standards, because rich people hate the idea of being ripped off, even if they really can't tell the difference.
>no food nerd would say that taco is `every bit as good as foie gras and vintage champagne`
Depends on the taco. Very often the most lowbrow foods are as tasty as the most highbrow. This is why so many chefs have been inspired by street food over the last two decades. It's in the middle ground where things fall apart. As sure as the taco and the foie gras are sure bets for deliciousness a dinner at Romano's Macaroni Grill is a sure bet for disappointment.
>this "fine dining" crap
Meaning a place with servers, a proper chef and a sommelier. Often with a tasting menu as an option.
>I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary
Given that your voting choice proves you have a very poor understanding of economics, why should we be listening to you? (and FWIW, the republican front-runners weren't any better)
i had thought "rich people" meant millionaires / people w over 200k an annum or something,
i dont know many, actually any, people who regularly eat somewhere with a sommelier who wouldnt have at least that amount of money
if they dont appreciate the food why would they be wasting a significant amount of their disposable capital on such a thing
sanders is a millionaire,
who eats hot dogs out of dumpsters
sanders wouldnt appreciate your bullshit here of pretending that rich people, no matter what arbitrary line youre drawing in the sand, magically care about food more or have higher standards
So tell me who should I have voted for? Trump? We'll just kick out all the minorities and that fixes everything?
You're the one complaining about rich people "exploiting" the non-rich, so maybe you can explain how to fix the system.
Gastronome sounds less pretentious than "food nerd"
Even "foodie" is better
>blaming user for what [other] user said
>i had thought "rich people" meant millionaires / people w over 200k an annum or something,
Sure. But if someone who isn't even that rich has standards, doesn't that imply that people who are far richer might have even stricter standards?
>>magically care about food more or have higher standards
I never claimed that. I simply pointed out an example of a person who has standards, so clearly there might be others who do too. It's certainly not definitive.
This wasn't an economics debate until user started raving about exploitation and rich people screwing everyone over and saying I must be a republican because I disagreed with him.
What do you propose, other than "everything sucks I'm so clever and above it all"
HERP DERP WHO WAS KEYNES?!?!?!?!
I voted for Bernie, have a minor in econ. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
?...
i suggest voting for sanders.
>So tell me who should I have voted for?
A write-in.
>>Trump?
I already stated that the republican front-runners weren't any better.
>>You're the one complaining about rich people "exploiting" the non-rich, so maybe you can explain how to fix the system.
No, that was someone else. I never made that claim. In my opinion the only explotiation going on by the rich is tax loopholes, which can be corrected via legislative action. People who are rich and stay rich are doing something right. The fools who win the lottery or inherit wealth usually end up bankrupt in a couple years because they don't know how to handle their money. The system is self-correcting. I don't see the existance of "rich" and "poor" being a problem. You can take any subject you want to study and there will always be some data points at the "high" end and there will always be some at the "low" end. It's a simple fact of life.
Keynes is the problem; that's the whole damn point.
Austrian school economics FTW.
Right. So the other user calling you a republican was meant to be an insult.
>A write-in
We'll agree to disagree on that one
>weren't any better
Yes, see "everything sucks I'm so clever and above it all"
>the only exploitation going on by the rich is tax loopholes
Hence why I voted for Sanders, whose platform included a strong (but still weaker than past presidents) progressive tax policy going over said loopholes. Trumpies want everyone to think he's some kind of moonbat who wants to kill all the rich, but nothing could be further from the case.
Hillary is owned by the banking cartels, the best we can hope coming from her is that our current foreign relations don't get any worse than they are, and that race relations in this country don't get any worse. She is not going to do anything about rich people hoarding the overwhelming proportion of the GDP and either doing nothing with it, or spending it on non-productive economic activity.
You're getting confused. I'm the one who was being called a republican. The guy you replied to is probably the guy who called me the republican.
>Do people on this board genuinely believe the way they cook/eat their food makes them better than other people?
I don't, but I think a lot of people here do.
Veeky Forums is the worst though. They think they're better than everyone because they went the gym once, or refused to eat a piece of Shavon's birthday cake at work last week.
Twats.
>for Sanders, whose platform included...
Too bad his education plan is so incredibly impossible that it reveals he has no grasp of economic reality.
Look at it this way. Let's say you went to the doctor because you're not feeling well. He tells you that you need a shot (reasonable) and some pills (also reasonable). Then he goes on to discuss how he's going to cut open your skull and implant chipmunks inside your brain. (completely off-the-cuff irrational). Would you then trust his competency on the shot or the pills, or do you label him a quack and move on?
I don't disagree with your criticisms of Trump or Hillary.
im having a good laugh at all of your fucking foolish antics, anons.
There isn't a presidential candidate in history whose policy positions line up 100% with me, you, or anyone else except that candidate, and even then, 2/3 of his positions are those of his constituency, not his own
Sanders was still better than Hillary
I get the impression that I'm the only guy who regularly posts here that will vote for Trump.
Average Veeky Forums user is pretty much you're generic edgemaster lefty faggot cunt type.
You're still missing the point. It has nothing to do with "yeah, I like this policy but not those". Of course no candidate's policies would match your preferences 100%.
But this is beyond that. This isn't "oh, I don't like that policy". This is the fact that the policy in question is so incredibly ludicrous that it calls into question the competency of the individual involved.
what the fuck
It's not really all that ludicrous. Public universities already have lower tuition than private ones, and subsidized higher education is not some radical untested policy that no other country has ever tried.
I'm not that enthusiastic about that part of his platform but I see nothing bad enough that I'd choose not to vote for him.
>see nothing bad enough that I'd choose not to vote for him.
And that's why I told you that your understanding of economics was poor.
You're a person who would listen to the chipmunk doctor and say "go ahead, doc".
The problem is, Trump is allowed to win. The game is rigged.
Because anything the American government touches turns into a corrupt, woefully inefficient, boondoggle while we have an exploded defect that will be even more destroyed once the majority of boomers go on social security.
The same logic of...
>self admitted and campaigned on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are broken
>VA Medical scandal
Hey let's just let the government take over more of it!
Fucking stupid.
I think trump will be simultaneously the best and worst president in America's history.
>And that's why I told you that your understanding of economics was poor.
That's just a fancy way of saying "ur dum". If you can take the trouble to type out a chipmunk analogy, you can explain the problem in a few sentences. Waving your hands and going "economics MAAAAN" is called "appeal to complexity" and it weakens your argument.
>the majority of boomers go on social security.
The funding for Sanders' education plan had nothing to do with social security. You can apply your "logic" to literally any policy proposal from any candidate and it applies equally.
i think i am better than people who don't have good table manners, but i don't care otherwise
>adding to the deficit by giving the government control to another boondoggle doesn't have anything to do with this new public program
And we haven't even talked about the mess that is state universities, with professors that don't teach, runaway benefit programs, incestuous relationships between faculty and the people who determine the funding, nor worthless degrees that should not receive any public funding and do nothing to benefit the students. But yeah, free school, don't be a meanie! I don't have to pay for it, so I don't give a shit!
Sanders voters, everyone.
Those problems are not in any way unique to state schools. You didn't go to college, did you.
>Austrian school economics FTW.
Yeah, I figured.
So you can't do math, can't model, and have no data. But want to be taken seriously in critiquing economic plans of others.
Austrian is not econ, it's just a fucking meme of bad stoner analogies. And the real-world experiment of post 2008 austerity has factually disproven most of its assertions, and supported the Keynesian view.
tl;dr; Say's law ain't a thing, so you need to be quiet and let grownups talk from now on.
I did, but it's nice to see that you're going for personal attacks.
The main difference, and it's huge, is that private institutions aren't publically funded, and therefore are not directly accountable to the American people. They can determine to do as they please in accordance with their boards and student body.
Once again, Sanders voters, everyone.
>real-world experiment of post 2008 austerity
Is this nigga serious?
Thomas Sowell weeps.
>Because anything the American government touches turns into a corrupt, woefully inefficient, boondoggle
That must be why Medicare covers people for about 3% overhead, while private insurance takes 20%.
There's government waste, primarily due to overregulation of agencies, but it's not the hard and fast rule that right wing idiots want to pretend it is, nor are private large institutions like corporations immune from waste.
But hey, bumper stickers are easier than data I guess.
>Thomas Sowell
The same Sowell that couldn't actually explain the housing crisis, and pretended it was an effect of the CRA when it became obvious his religion (since calling his beliefs econ is a disservice to econ) couldn't handle the plain market failure in front of him?
PROTIP - Ireland didn't have a CRA but had the same housing bubble.
Fuck outta here, you fucking Austring chumps . . . .
If public schools are accountable, then that means they should be easier to "reform", yes?
Unless, of course, you have an agenda and your way of getting re-elected is to fuck up the government on purpose and then bleat about how the government can't do anything right, like the Republicans love to do
Medicare legally forces hospitals to take patients at reduced rates, passing on the charge to others. No side, left or right, ever took the stand that healthcare did not need reform, and I haven't mentioned a damn thing about corporations this entire time, claiming that they're somehow immaculate and without their own problems. You call me a right wing idiot when the Obama administration campaigned on the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are broken. You are seriously asserting that our government programs are not bloated, corrupt, and inefficient? And we don't have an exploded deficit that has doubled over the course of this current administration?
You've just been resorting to personal attacks now and straight strawmen instead of having an actual argument. You're a fucking joke, I'm bowing out of this discussion.
Sanders voters, everyone!
>I'm bowing out
Hehe
You're arguing with several people
Trump voters, everyone
>I mean there is nothing less important in the world than these things
>there is nothing less important in the world than nutrition and aesthetics
Then starve in ugliness. Anti-elitists are anti-competition, and therefore anti-thriving. But all life is a competition between lifeforms. They are anti-life. Comfort and the mediocre are a lifeforms attempts at self-preservation whenever they do not have the strength to go even higher, to be more elite.
But anyway, elitism and aggression over everyday interests is the only interesting about this website. In questioning that, OP is either self-hating (in visiting a place that only reminds him of bad things) or trolling himself!
>If public schools are accountable, then that means they should be easier to "reform", yes?
I take it you have no idea about public unions, school boards who take on opposite stands of their constituents, incestuous relationships within civic funding positions and faculty, top-down federal platitudes, or any of the other fuckery that goes on that factors in public education in America. All politics are local.
Damn you are one ignorant fuck.
>I take it you have no idea about
I take it you have no idea about trustees, faculty groups, alumni donors, sports departments, or any of the other fuckery that goes in in private education in America
There is nothing uniquely difficult about public institutions, you're just enamored with the idea of radical privatization because you read too many Ayn Rand novels
>Damn you are one ignorant fuck.
For someone who keeps complaining about "personal attacks" you sure seem to love them. Also weren't you "bowing out"?
>Medicare legally forces hospitals to take patients at reduced rates, passing on the charge to others.
That's absolutely incorrect, fucko. Medicare caps prices they'll pay. And that has nothing to do with administrative costs, which is what I posted.
>And we don't have an exploded deficit that has doubled over the course of this current administration?
Wow the stupid. Go take a look at when the deficit went up - might be due to that little something in 2008. See how it's been getting smaller ever since midway through 09?
Did you know when receipts go down, and service use up, that deficits get bigger? And did you know that's what happen in massive recessions?
Probably not. You can also check out both Lousiana and Kansas, that tried Austrian approved methods of supply side. And are massively fucked now because of it.
You're not qualified to run a checking account, much less economic policy it seems. So again, shut up, grownups are talking.
Oops I meant Trump may not be allowed to win. Those leaked emails show how much collusion is going on in the background.
Cooking food a certain way does not make you instantly superior. However, there is often a huge correlation between how a person is in other areas of their life, and how cultured is their awareness of food. It points to a curiosity and tendency for development in general. It's like how reading doesn't make you automatically smarter, but that smart people often read more compared to the less intelligent. Of course it's all on a case by case basis, but it's not unfounded that when seeing someone go to an upscale restaurant and ordering chicken tenders you assume the worst of them.
Don't even get started on /mu/
Holy shit, I cannot wait until whoever the fuck becomes president becomes president already, so everyone can stop paying attention to politics at all for another golden four years. If you want to discuss politics, fuck off of the food and cooking board.