ITT stupid shit that people parrot all the time that is not true. I'll start

ITT stupid shit that people parrot all the time that is not true. I'll start.

>America beer is pisswater
>French wine is the best
>British cuisine is Fish 'n' Chips
>Bacon goes well with everything

>OP is not a faggot

Usually I find something to disagree with in these OPs but this is spot on, especially the first one. We have the largest, most accessible craft market in the world while Europe is busy copy pasting the same lager

>...x... is a superfood

But your (((craft))) beer is itself a rip off

How so? Give me a detailed explanation with sources please.

You say that but when I say accessible, I mean reasonably priced

Your largest, most accessible craft beer market isn't really that large when you consider that it is basically only IPA's, Lager and Ale.

>Your largest, most accessible craft beer market isn't really that large when you consider that it is basically only IPA's, Lager and Ale.
Please do tell me of your experiences studying the American craft beer market. I can leave my house right now, drive 5 minutes, and find a bar that serves everything from American Pale Ales to Saisons and none of it is considered rare.

Not even close. There are breweries serving their own dozens of unique brews in every town/city I've lived in over the past few years. Nowhere in the world can compete with America's east coast for beer quality and variety.

>>British cuisine is Fish 'n' Chips
That is indeed wrong. It's shit.

>America beer is pisswater
it is though, texan beer is superior

>Sriracha is the best thing ever

It's okay, but I feel like it's just the only kind of "spicy" white flyovers can handle.

Not tied it myself, is it even spicy at all?

Still piss. Doesn't even come close to the low level brews from Europe. Lots of shitty chemical IPA and nothing else.

Yep, Carlsberg is fucking great. It's certainly not pisswater. Neither is Heineken, for that matter.

You're right. Every beer in Europe is a shining, 10,000 year old example of brewing history, right from a monk's cock in Shangri-La. It's not like there's shit beer in both regions and good beer in both regions, no.

I loathe IPAs and there are still enough local breweries in my shitty, mid-sized American city to provide me with a 5-day rotation of beers I love, and way more than that for beers I can happily drink.

You gotta be pretty new to expect grounded arguments on Veeky Forums

A lot of this stuff is in the popular consciousness because it used to be true. From the repeal of Prohibition until the mid-1980's American beer was piss. Think about what your grandfather drank. As for French wine France has produced some of the world's most desirable wines for centuries under a pretty strict quality control system. Many other wine producing countries really only caught up to them in the last handful of decades.Before that if you knew little about wine a French bottle was most likely to be a safe bet, and if you knew a lot about wine you were buying mostly French wine anyways, unless you lived in a wine growing region outside of France. And fish and chips was as symbolic of Brit food as a burger and fries was to American. These things at least all used to be somewhat true.

>Pineapple doesn't belong on a pizza
I've never heard a sound logical argument for this.

B8

It's just a cheap spice that isn't tobasco that young people can put on their food to make it hotter

Technically French wine WAS the best wine until the fires happened, then it was all replanted with California grapes.

French wine is now California wine.

It's mostly the authentic italian pizza only and the picky eaters of the world forming a coalition.

woops

German wines have always been better than French wines. Germans are known for their beer for some weird reason considering the Purity Law means there's next to no experimentation or differences between beers of the same style.

Their whites are too sweet, Reisling is like the Kool-Aid of wines. German Pino Noir is solid though.

You just have to get a dry Riesling or a good Silvaner then, because I agree German whites can be sweeter (later picking season). I wish Silvaners were more popular in the States. I can't find them anywhere.

1. It's TABASCO, YOU TARD. I'm so sick of seeing people misspell such an easy fucking word, that's also a brand name PRINTED RIGHT ON THE FUCKING BOTTLE.
2. Sriracha is more like a chili ketchup than a hot sauce, there are other asian chili sauces that are hotter, better, and more resemble a regular hot sauce instead of a ketchup.
3. Tabasco isn't expensive, if young people wanted to buy it, there's no reason why they couldn't. I've never seen any hot sauce that was unreasonably priced.

Whatever, nerd

>Peanut butter is tasty

Think about it. There are many different styles of pizza, some traditional, others 20th Century creations. The kind of bready pizza loaded up with low moisture mozzarella that you find in the US and Canadian Midwest is the style pineapple originated on. It makes sense on that kind of pizza along with ham or Canadian bacon. But it makes absolutely no sense on a traditional Neapolitan or Roman style pizza.

Tabas is pretty pricey considering how small the bottles usually are

God damn you are an ignorant dumbfuck

2/10 bait, I replied

>only IPA's, Lager and Ale
What else would it be?

"American (style) Lager/Pilsner" or, Adjunct Lager is pisswater. Most North American macro-brews are. Easy drinking, light (at least in colour, usually in body, and often in alcohol content), and fun to crush with the lads.

French wine is generally pretty good, and their vinyards have certainly got preservation and terroir down. There are great wines made everywhere.

British pub food is fish n chips, meat pies, chips and curry, etc... grossly hearty meals that soak up ale nicely. The best thing I had there was pan-seared lamb and dandelion greens with flash-frozen crabapple-cider and rosemary reduction. I've tried a handful of times to cook lamb so perfectly, and to figure out what the trick is to making that sauce so perfect.

Bacon can be made to go with just about anything. It is versatile, but sometimes it's just beaten to death.

>German wines have always been better than French wines.
Only their dry whites, and they tend to favor sweetish whites. Yes, Germany makes excellent wine, but not nearly enough of it, nor is it what they're known for.

Kolsches and Steam beers could technically be considered outside the dichotomy. Lambics and other sours should also be given their own category due to the yeasts and bacteria used.

But yeah, 99% of beers are ales or lagers of some kind. IPAs and APAs sell, as do corn/rice syrup lagers.

>flyover meme

it's literally spicy vinegar
those small bottles are just people buying shit from the over priced grocery stores instead of costco

>All pizza is unhealthy
>Chicken noodle soup helps cure colds
>Coconut oil is healthy
>GMOs are all bad

>everywhere
No. If it's not from one of these regions you can throw it down the drain.

Effective top quality wine-growing requires a certain set of specific characteristics that not every country has.

1. Climate. The climate needs to be on the borderline range that the grape can grow. Certain grape vines need a specific latitude and soil type as well.

2. Terroir. The soil the vines grow in give specific characteristics to the wine that make it unique, even if you replicated the growing and maturing techniques in another country it wouldn't be the same.

3. "Wine Culture". The best wines come from cultures that are used to consuming wine regularly. Seems a no-brainer right.
Demanding markets and clienteles push the boundaries of quality higher, whereas non-discerning shoppers in countries that make shitty wine (like China) settle for the cheapest bottles.

4. Specific techniques that are passed from generation to generation. Some of these are trade secrets, and tie to point #3.

...

On this subject champagne is overpriced shit. A bottle of prosecco of the same quality is one fifth of the price. Don't give your money to those champagne bandits.

As much as i hate seppos, this is objectively wrong

monsanto shill hiding as relatable poster

Here is your (You)

Enjoy your charmat garbage, guido

please tell us, oh great one, the overwhelming differences

Think about it, turbo-tard.

The taste. You've obviously never had champagne or you wouldn't even think to compare it to prosecco

If you're poor and American, and there is literally nothing wrong with being poor and American, you can look for Gruet from New Mexico which is more or less champagne, but at a price point you can afford. There are also some wines from California produced by the same methods, they tend to cost a little more. Due to incredibly lax American laws some California wines say "champagne" on the label, this is generally a red flag that the wine is not good. A California wine with a taste that resembles champagne tends not to use the word champagne prominently in the branding, as this practice is stigmatized by people who know wine.

Once you've tried wine made in the style of champagne, and I will warn you, you may not like it, you can decide if you would prefer to continue drinking your charmat garbage. Many people don't like champagne or wines produced in the style of champagne. The high sales are because of the prestige. There is no shame in having a child's palate.

>America beer is pisswater
but american beer really is pisswater ?

>The sky is boring, its basically always the sun or the moon

And fried chicken is the only poultry that darkies can handle.
If this statement offended you more than the first one please slit your fucking wrists.

didnt think secondary fermentation in the bottle vs. secondary fermentation in stainless steel would make too much difference
unless you're going to lie about grapes

I'm the one who said i didn't like champagne originally. I'm european middle class, i like wine over beer and yet i cannot bring myself to buy champagne. A £10 bottle of prosecco is of the same quality to a £40 bottle of champagne. You pay for the name only, and the champagne producers know this.

omg I hate liberals now!

meant foralso not clapp

>is of the same quality
I think maybe we may have a language barrier issue here, despite your use of bongbux. What exactly do you mean by "quality"? It's like saying, and I hesitate to use a wine analogy because you seem pretty clueless, but it's like saying sauternes is the same quality as port. They're totally different wines and only if you were to describe them with hashtags and run them through a crude computer filter would they be erroneously mistaken as being comparable.

So which one is the best?

it makes a difference, if you can't taste the difference your mouth is broken. I think you just haven't tasted them side by side

also your statement about "lying about grapes" intrigues me. do you mean to suggest that a totally different blend of a totally different set of varietals, fermented in a totally different way, is likely to produce an identically tasting wine?

...

By quality i mean how nice it tastes overall. Fot example a nice stellenbosch compared to boxed fortified wine. Quality is quality. And it shows. I've bought bottles for £25 from wine merchants than were shit, one i found a malbec in aldi for £5 that was rich and had lovely notes of chocolate. Quality is quality. Sometimes the price reflects this sometimes it doesn't. Champagne is one of these areas, like you said you pay for the prestige of the name and they don't care about how the product tastes because retards always bang on about it being from the champagne region.

Follow your tastebuds, not the marketing.

>i mean how nice it tastes overall
well, as I said, there is no shame in having the palate of a child.
>Quality is quality
I know that seems DEEP to you but it's actually meaningless
>I've bought bottles for £25 from wine merchants than were shit, one i found a malbec in aldi for £5 that was rich and had lovely notes of chocolate.
I don't think anyone would contest that this is possible. Champagne prices, by which I specifically mean AOC champagne prices, are a function of supply and demand, and in this case demand is largely driven by prestige
>Follow your tastebuds, not the marketing.
I agree on that. Where I disagree with you is on your argument that champagne is equivalent to prosecco. They do not taste the same. You either prefer one or you prefer the other.

havent had them side by side
in the lying about grapes part, I was making sure you werent going to go full champagne nationalist, as if the grapes there are magically leagues above others in terms of quality

>in terms of quality
There you go again with that word. You really should say "I prefer" instead of "quality" as it gets really confusing when you use words in a non-standard way. Typically, in standard English, if you make a quality statement about a product it's assumed you are talking about products that can be compared in a meaningful way. For instance, you might compare a wine made of pinot noir to another wine made of pinot noir.

using quality as a characteristic, not a comparative in this context

>Nowhere in the world can compete with America's east coast for beer quality and variety.
Belgium
Germany

according to your usage I might just as easily say ethiopian coffee is higher quality than champagne because it's morning and I'm not in the mood to drink alcohol

thats exactly was what i was hoping you wouldnt do in response to

maybe it's keto

>he doesn't call it tibesca
Pleb

once again I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to get at

not higher and lower quality
as in this object possesses quality and this other object does not possess quality, i.e. a characteristic
is english your first language, because you write very well

>is english your first language, because you write very well
I find it odd you're making passive-aggressive snipes about my english skills when you are randomly shifting between alternate senses of the word "quality" because you're too stubborn to call a preference a preference

the point was hoping you wouldnt have some strange idea that grapes from the champagne region were somehow 'above' all other grapes
we even agreed in these posts
that this notion would silly

well, once again, I think we need to stop using vague terms like "above" and "quality" and talk about particulars

as I already mentioned there are other places in the world that create a wine that tastes a lot more like AOC champagne than prosecco which is nothing at all like champagne

you're making several mistakes, for instance, fixating on having any sort of bubbles at all as being the essential property of champagne, failing to pay attention to varietal character, and getting pre-emptively butthurt over GPS coordinates because of an argument about terroir that you don't even understand

and then, above all else, you're mistaking "I prefer" with "quality" while using the term "quality" in a way that is prone to misinterpretation

in short you're a good example of the concept of "not even wrong"

snobbery is not attractive
i recommend some visual learning

facts are snobbery now? do you even know what a varietal is? do you think pinot noir is the same as chardonnay too?

The sun and moon of beer is Obergäring and Untergärig, not three beer sorts out of thousands

im saying something can be identified as a quality product, even without liking it

ok so let's do that
when you say
>A £10 bottle of prosecco is of the same quality to a £40 bottle of champagne
what preference-independent traits make them the same quality?
the effectiveness at getting you drunk?
the ability to play the role of a prop when the occasion calls for a wine with bubbles?
because it certainly isn't the taste

There are two people you're arguing with moron i wrote what you're quoting but not the post you're replying to.

Ffs this is why we need IDs.

>the cheapest beers are the most popular
Really joggin my noggin

I should have chosen my words more carefully. Of course I meant wine-producing countries.

Although, to add to your list, I've had some pretty great Portuguese wines (and a lot of crap), and some better-than-alright dry reds and medium/sweet whites from Canada.

That list is wrong. Milwaukee's best ice sells harder than any product in any store I've ever seen. They ship 36x 40 oz bottles here per week and they're gone in 4-5 days. Every week they sell out.

It's good stuff though. They have employed excellent tank cleaners and are brewing fine shit now. Bud light cleans probably every fifth run, while Milwaukee now cleans every run. No source, but you can taste it. Bud light is the nastiest shit on earth and it's only on the top of the list because bars buy all the stock. I mean I have never tasted anything so disgusting and I drink the beast every day.
You just have to give the cheap shit a shot. These plastic 40s have been traditionally avoided but the waste reduction and the doubled up brown plastic and the flavor are perfectly fine.
I use a 40 sock, a thermal long sock doubled up, to cover my 40s. Best idea I've ever had. All beer is shitty warm, but two layers of thermal sock destroys this problem.

A country limited to a handful of ingredients can't possibly compete. German beer is a meme.

>no Portugal
Buzz feed map discarded. Post not read.

Any idea that has survived to the present is a meme.

Some spices, flavourings, adjuncts, etc. make for fantastic beer, but for 500 years Germany's gotten by without them, and still managed to make clean, dry lagers, sweet dessert ales that can be fruit or caramel/vanilla forward, bittersweet darks, lagered ales, not to mention forcing the evolution of saccharomyces yeast into a strain that prefers cooler lagering temperatures.

You'd be amazed what you can get out of malted barley, water, hops, and yeast when you play with varieties, amounts, acidities, and cooking time.

He's european, bro. He's perpetually stuck in a cycle of denial, self-loathing, and bitter self-aggrandizing in spite of American hegemony.

>let me ignore Belgium
>let me display my ingorance of German beer making
Epischer Fehltritt

>You'd be amazed what you can get out of malted barley, water, hops, and yeast when you play with varieties, amounts, acidities, and cooking time.

Absolutely. But why limit yourself arbitrarily? What good does that do?

I agree that shortcuts or different ingredients which could harm the quality or the safety of the brew should be avoided. But there are plenty of other things that can be added which do not compromise quality or safety, and only improve it.

I think the quality of the finished product should be the gold standard, not some arbitrary rules of what ingredients you can or cannot use.

I'd bet he's far more widely traveled and experienced in tastes than your fat self.

It wasn't arbitrary when it was first enforced. Foodstuffs went toward food, barley went toward beer.

The law's relaxed a bit - the grain bill has to be malted grain, as opposed to only malted barley, some spices are now allowed... Basically wheat beers are Reinheitsgebot kosher.

Gruet is cheap, and good for being cheap. But, I buy pic related more often. It's not as cheap as Gruet, but I like the flavors better. I don't just buy the brut, but that was the first pic that popped up.
And yes, I do buy French champagnes, but not for every day drinking, because they're so overpriced in the US with import tax and all.

I'm glad you can vouch for the learned and traveled qualities of an anonymous poster on a weeaboo cooking forum, dumbass.

I've been all over North America, Europe and Asia. Europe has some great brews, especially Germany and the UK, but let's not pretend the regional, mass market staples across the continent aren't just as flavorless and entry level as Budweiser. That's simply you letting your anti-American bias show through, friend.

>It wasn't arbitrary when it was first enforced. Foodstuffs went toward food, barley went toward beer.

But why limit yourself at all?

I would have to disagree, Australia has a much larger and diverse craft beer culture.

Because brewing was mostly used to get something clean to drink at that time, there wasn't really that much water purification tech back then and these laws guaranteed that everyone had something clean to drink. Beer was mostly alcohol free back then.

Nowdays, it mostly forces companies and brewers to understand the brewing process if they want to make a shit ton of different beers. Also, they can't just use artifical taste or similar stuff and call it a beer. You can use other stuff but then you are not allowed to call it a beer, you have to use other terms to describe it.

You can ensure food safety without restriction of what ingredients may be used.

And these days we understand the brewing process just fine. It's an old, outdated law that does nothing but hold people back for no good reason. If the law were to be removed today, there would still be brewers producing old-school styles, and there would be new innovation as well.

Look at cooking, for example. There are all sorts of examples of fusion foods and changes from the tradition. Some are awful and some are great. Yet the traditional stuff still exists, and you're free to choose which you prefer.

Yeah sonoma is probably the best value for "better" champagne style wines in the US, I suggested gruet because captain butthurt seemed to have some kind of complex about prices or terroir and I was trying to help him understand that champagne style flavors are not just some kind of post-purchase rationalization hallucination. I mean for 12 bucks you have to be pretty poor to be afraid of giving it a shot. You can do an abx test between a secondary fermented wine made with the champagne varietals and a secondary ferment, vs italian varietals and a charmat treatment, and it doesn't take a trained somm to see they're different styles of wine.

People just have a need to believe that wine is a conspiracy to make them feel uncultured so they spout off with nonsense without trying things first