- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1635 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 12576
Is cultural appropriation even possible when it comes to cooking?
|>>|| No. 12577
I don't think so. I don't get the offence over cultural appropriation at all, but particularly not when it comes to food.
|>>|| No. 12579
No, absolutely not. You might offend someone by cooking their national dish 'wrong' but 'offend' in that case just means 'slightly annoy'. Unless they're italian, in which case you'll never hear the fucking end of it.
I'm not particularly convinced cultural appropriation is anything other than blackface or literally pretending you're from somewhere you're not (I'm including all the americans who tell me they're irish here)
The point of food, art, music, dance, and all other parts of a culture should surely be to be freely shared and practiced with anyone, rather than keeping it segregated and telling people they're 'not allowed' to make rice and beans or play a zither or do flamenco if they're not from the place it originates. What a fucking boring world to live in, that you can't be influenced or inspired or even just able to replicate something wonderful you've discovered from a distant land, or more accurately in this day and age, your neighbour three doors down.
Fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. This is the closest I'll ever get to defending Jamie Oliver.
|>>|| No. 12582
Broadly agree, but I think there are also more subtle iterations of what you might call 'cultural appropriation' (though can't say I really like the term) that are valid.
I think problems arise a) when someone profits massively from something specific that they did not invent, or to take something from a culture they do not belong to, particularly if they monopolise it and prevent anyone from the original culture doing so, b) when someone deliberately cheapens the culture they're taking from for the sake of mass marketing (this actually gets on my tits, it's a long and ugly road from ingeniously simple peasant food to Mars Incorporated asking you 'whensa your Dolmio day?'), c) when a culture has been so close to eradicated that any further 'borrowing' by more pervasive cultures risks destroying or permanently distorting the original altogether, as with indigenous Americans.
Obviously, these things really need to be taken on a case by case basis. I suppose what I'm getting at is, while the ideal you're expressing is absolutely correct -- human cultures borrow from one another and develop the same ideas in different ways, and always have -- there are still considerations to be made when you introduce real world politics and power. Sometimes things can be distasteful but morally acceptable, or vice versa.
|>>|| No. 12583
I HAVE VERY FORTHRIGHT OPINIONS ABOUT THIS INCREDIBLY NICHE ISSUE AS WELL.
All this saging is a bad omen.
|>>|| No. 12584
I think the Jamaicans have suffered enough without being referred to as niche. First Marco Pierre White cooking rice and peas in a racist manner and now this.
|>>|| No. 12586
I just fucking hate the Dolmio puppets, alright? I HATE THEM AND THEIR FELT GUTS
|>>|| No. 12587
The only issue here is that it has a white persons name and picture as the branding, If you called it Nana Mojo's and had a picture of an obese black woman on the packet no one would give a shit.
|>>|| No. 12589
Audible mirth. This is a bad effort, even as a joke obese black granny name.
|>>|| No. 12590
>Unless they're italian, in which case you'll never hear the fucking end of it.
If you'd stop putting sugar in a fucking Bolognese I'd stop, but you keep insulting my ancestors, so here we all are.
|>>|| No. 12591
Isn't spaghetti bolognese an example of fusion cuisine rather than actual Italian food?
I'm sure it was created by Italians in America, the same with Germans in America creating hot dogs because Seppos didn't like all the weird würst sausages.
|>>|| No. 12592
>Obviously, these things really need to be taken on a case by case basis. I suppose what I'm getting at is, while the ideal you're expressing is absolutely correct -- human cultures borrow from one another and develop the same ideas in different ways, and always have -- there are still considerations to be made when you introduce real world politics and power. Sometimes things can be distasteful but morally acceptable, or vice versa.
I think you're spot on and I don't really disagree at all with that. Perhaps I was a bit too dramatic in my post to get that across, but you're fully right when you say it should be on a case-by-case basis.
The recent E3 thing was a perfect example. Sony got a white bloke to play japanese flute at the conference, and people were calling that appropriation. The defendants of it pointed out said white bloke was one of the only masters of the instrument alive today, and had dedicated much of his life to the craft, white or not. But either way I think the appropriation comes from a huge corporation using a niche cultural art to sell their video games. It doesn't particularity matter that Sony is a japanese company, they're still using something quite interesting and beautiful and using it to grease their infernal industrial cogs.
I feel the same way whenever UK companies exploit whatever might be left of our culture.
|>>|| No. 12593
A traditional ragu alla Bolognese is served with tagliatelle, is a relatively dry sauce and is usually made with a mix of meats. Spaghetti Bolognese was adapted for English tastes and the limited availability of Italian ingredients back in the 70s.
|>>|| No. 12594
Spag Bol is not even really italian to start with, so by pointing that out you've sort of short yourself in the foot.
There's something insidious about the 'proper' way to make any italian food, that somehow even manages to surpass the French. A frenchman might have an opinion on the best way to make Beef Bourginon, but he understands that even within his own country there is more than one way to make it. Italians for some reason love to shout at you about how IT'S NOT CARBONARA IF YOU PUT GARLIC IN IT! Which is just a little bit silly, especially when it's said the way that an italian grandma says it, with such christ-powered malice and conviction.
I understand that there is cause to be annoyed when someone puts cream in carbonara or nestles a dollop of sauce on top of plain, soft spaghetti but the sheer exacting traditionalism of following 'THE' recipe is mental, particularly when every italian has their own recipe anyway, and obviously theirs is the only correct one.
I had to hear this shite quite often from an italian cook who I used to work with, so maybe I'm just fed up of it because of her (probably, tbh). Eventually I got sick of it and couldn't wait for every Sunday to roll around so I could criticise her Yorkshire puds. "no no, this is not a Yorkshire! This is a cake! My grandmother is rolling in her grave!" and all the shit I'd hear from her if I dared look at a meatball the wrong way.
I didn't really notice this post becoming a rant, but there you go. Blame Stefania.
|>>|| No. 12595
>It doesn't particularity matter that Sony is a japanese company, they're still using something quite interesting and beautiful and using it to grease their infernal industrial cogs.
That has nothing to do with cultural appropriation then, that is you considering something to be somehow sacred. You are just the millennial equivalent of old people complaining about shops being open on Sunday. Come to think of it most cultural appropriation arguments are.
|>>|| No. 12596
Just try asking a bunch of northerners what these things are called. The arguments make Northern Irish politics look reasonable.
|>>|| No. 12597
Shit like this puts me in mind of the thing about language evolving. Every time you moan about some silly word the young 'uns are using nowadays some smart arse points out how language evolves and that's just a new meaning for the word etc- 99% of people recognise that creamy, cheesy ham and mushroom sauce to be what carbonara means. So that's what a carbonara is.
|>>|| No. 12598
I'm in agreement with you despite my post perhaps not sounding that way. I was trying to say that even though the Sony thing wasn't cultural appropriation, it's still a bit naff.
|>>|| No. 12599
I feel a similar way about the treatment Disney films and other general Hollywood rubbish gives to traditional fairy tales and folklore.
I can hardly exactly say I find it offensive, but you just know there are plenty of sheltered Yanks out there who literally think that's what European history was like. Then they come to visit the real place and expect the continent to basically be a theme park full of majestic castles and unspoiled forest.
|>>|| No. 12601
That was otherlad, M7, I knew what you were getting at.
I don't know why, it's important to me for you to know.
She does blow that Muppets pig out of the water, you have to admit.
|>>|| No. 12602
Why is this site so fucking white? Posts about political correctness gone mad are now being made on /nom/ of all places. I'm so fucking bored of this. The mods should do something. Wordfilter cultural appropriation to circus tricks or something.
|>>|| No. 12605
Yes, which makes it doubly insulting, and the joke better.
Although clearly not obvious enough to not fly straight over >>12594's head. Mamma mia!
|>>|| No. 12606
I feel stupid now for not realising it was a joke, but I do assume any Italian comment about traditional recipes is fully sincere after a lifetime of working with italian chefs.
Anyway, I'm going to English up a pot of sacrificial penne just to get back at you. It's literally going to be mush. I might even put it in the slow cooker.
|>>|| No. 12607
My mate told me the other day about "curry pasta", which is a meal he's invented involving a jar of Patak's and some fusilli. I think we can both look past our differences in this thread and agree that eating his creation willingly is beyond the fucking pale.
|>>|| No. 12609
Fucking hell that's distressing.
I suspect that even the best curry in the world would taste decidedly 'council' mixed with pasta, let alone Patak's.
I've seen a housemate years ago regularly make a similarly themed stir fry. It was diced chicken breast that she seemed to cook for about 20 minutes in the pan, a bag of beansprouts, some frozen 'stir fry veg mix' and about half a litre of chip shop curry sauce.
Smelled great obviously, but I never dared try it.
|>>|| No. 12614
I think I could cope with pasta and curry, but I don't think I could mix curry with cheddar cheese.
|>>|| No. 12617
That's true, she's terrified of hot foods, even the mildest chicken tikka you can imagine.
|>>|| No. 12618
I've never really understood the appeal of hot curries. It might just be the ones I've tried but it largely seems like it's adding heat just for the sake of it as it doesn't add much to the flavour.
|>>|| No. 12621
So it's more like a dick waving contest? Machismo about how much heat you can tolerate?
|>>|| No. 12622
For some maybe. For me it is more like chasing the dragon. I want to feel that perfect heat like I did the first time.
|>>|| No. 12623
The sensation of heat in the mouth releases endorphins in the body, which as I'm sure you know is something a lot of people enjoy.
There's probably some element of macho bollocks for some people, but I think others like myself just enjoy the sensation.
|>>|| No. 12624
Also, different chillis do add lots of flavour, but you don't tend to notice it until you build up tolerance. One of my favourite snacks is just whole raw Birdseye chillies. It was something an Indian lad I worked with used to do all the time so I appropriated it off him. Chillies taste fantastic though, I think.
|>>|| No. 12625
>It was something an Indian lad I worked with used to do all the time so I appropriated it off him.
Insidious casual racism is taking over.
|>>|| No. 12626
This is why I don't like eating spicy foods around people, because I'm worried It will appear as though I'm trying to look "hard". My entire personality exists around my laissez-fair outlook and it's a lot of effort to maintain that.
|>>|| No. 12627
>My entire personality exists around my laissez-fair outlook and it's a lot of effort to maintain that.
I would think that eating a sufficiently spicy curry while exhibiting no outward effects from it would bolster that image.
|>>|| No. 12629
>The chef and entrepreneur Levi Roots has described Jamie Oliver’s decision to launch a jerk rice dish as a mistake, as a row over cultural appropriation widened.
>Oliver was called out on the product by the shadow equalities minister, Dawn Butler, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, who questioned whether the chef knew what jerk was. His “punchy” jerk rice dish contains garlic, ginger and jalapeños, whereas traditional jerk seasoning – which was developed by escaped African slaves on the Caribbean island – relies principally on two ingredients: allspice and scotch bonnet peppers.
>During his appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Monday, Roots said he had already shown Oliver how to make “the real deal” jerk chicken during a segment for Oliver’s YouTube channel filmed several years ago. Roots said: “I do think it was a mistake by Jamie – either by him or by his team. Maybe he wasn’t actually involved in this,” he said.
Yet if you look at the recipe for what Oliver and Roots cooked together:
>3 cm piece fresh ginger , peeled
>2 spring onions , trimmed and finely sliced
>1 jalapeno chilli , finely sliced
Remember, kids. Calling a recipe 'jerk' even if it includes untraditional ingredients is fine if Levi Roots stands to gain from it. Calling a recipe 'jerk' with untraditional ingredients if Levi Roots doesn't stand to gain from it is a 'mistake'.
|>>|| No. 12630
You're full of shit mate. Their recipe also contains the ingredients said to be the distinguishing requirement:
>1 tablespoon allspice berries
>2 scotch bonnet chillies
Levi said in 2016 when cooking the recipe that you can't call it jerk without allspice (though he uses the West Indian term pimento).
|>>|| No. 12631
Surely this becoming national news is going to increase sales of the bloody rice beyond their most optimistic of hopes. That'll learn 'em.
|>>|| No. 12632
Nobody complains when African Uncle Ben profits off Latin American Mexican rice. It's one rule for POC, and another for poor old whitey.
|>>|| No. 12633
>he uses the West Indian term pimento
Oh my days. Pimento isn't a spice. Pimento is a pepper. Have a word with yourself, lad. You watch a Levi Roots video and all of a sudden you're an expert on Jamaican cuisine. Seriously, you need to sort yourself out. Using Levi Roots as your go-to Jamaican, just like using David Baddiel as your go-to Jew for all matters anti-Semitic. It's bad enough referring to him as West Indian; calling them Indians is derogatory to the extreme. I bet you call Native Americans 'Red Indians' too, you're that backwards. I bet instead of dub music you listen to scrub music because that's all you are, a scrub. Sitting there being a scrub and sucking your teeth like a bad man.
|>>|| No. 12634
I'm sure he means pimenta.
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>Allspice, also called pimenta,[a] Jamaica pimenta, or myrtle pepper, is the dried unripe fruit (berries, used as a spice) of Pimenta dioica
|>>|| No. 12636
I know full well he does, but it was such a rookie mistake to make. The kind of thing a scrub would say. I bet he also boasts to people about how he used to eat at Nando's before it was popular and he was the only white boy in there.
|>>|| No. 12637
I'd prefer to think of cultural appropriation as complete bollocks, but then you've got whitey reading a sentence on Wikipedia and thinking he can then educate natives how to speak their language.
Why are you living in a TLC song?
|>>|| No. 12638
Fucking hell, you lot take your pimintos seriously don't you
|>>|| No. 12641
I would have put money on that being a destiny's child song. In fact, I was not aware they were different groups until this very moment.
|>>|| No. 12644
Genuinely not being funny but I was with a black girl once and from certain angles in bed her face did look like it could be a belong to a black bloke and I found I had to focus on her hair. I'll preempt the inevitable jokes; she was most definitely a lady. Anyway why have people suddenly started complaining about this sort of thing? Has Lloyd Grossman been pilloried yet for not actually being of Thai or Italian ethnicity? I swear it's become a perverse contest to see who can be the most offended as some sort of racially aware moral one-upmanship.
|>>|| No. 12645
Fuck white people with dreadlocks.
I don't give a shit about food, I'll eat what the fuck I like.
|>>|| No. 12646
Everyone has a mix of features we perceive as masculine and feminine, I suppose. Throw in race as a factor, where we may be less familiar, and you get those kind of perceptions.
Reminds me a bit of how people aren't as good at guessing age outside their own race (or at least, the race of the people they see the most), because we don't have as much of mental bank of the more subtle features to draw from.
|>>|| No. 12647
People just like to complain these days. It's sort of become a bit of the hobby, being offended on the internet. I think it gives them a sense of community and belonging. Apparently Gordon Ramsay's new show is racist because he's going around the globe learning about various styles of cooking before competing with a local chef to make one of their speciality dishes.
I give it a few days before someone complains about the lack of black contestants in this year's Bake Off.
|>>|| No. 12648
There are three brown ones and a Malaysian transsexual. They'll be alright.
|>>|| No. 12649
>three brown ones
I count two. Antony and Rahul. Darkest after that is Ruby but I think she's just caked in foundation.
|>>|| No. 12651
She doesn't have the great big desi Concorde nose. Pretty sure it's foundation; her face looks a lot oranger than the rest of her.
|>>|| No. 12652
And I'm pretty sure when she describes being part of an Indian family she's not recounting how she learned to apply makeup.
|>>|| No. 12653
Being Indian doesn't necessarily mean you're brown. Would we say that Idris Elba must be white because he's British?
|>>|| No. 12657
> Reminds me a bit of how people aren't as good at guessing age outside their own race (or at least, the race of the people they see the most), because we don't have as much of mental bank of the more subtle features to draw from.
That's my excuse, officer.
|>>|| No. 12658
Am I the only one that thinks cultural appropriation is always okay?
Not only okay, but an actual complement. If somebody is trying to copy another culture, like the Dolmio shit, than It's a direct compliment to the host of the culture that people are trying to mimic your shit. Even if they do it badly.
I don't get all offended when the yanks get shit faced for St. Paddy's day while throwing on leprechaun hats and all. People need to quit their bitching.
|>>|| No. 12659
>If somebody is trying to copy another culture, like the Dolmio shit
Dolmio was originally made by Italians in Australia. Just be glad they didn't try putting Vegemite or pea soup in it.
|>>|| No. 12662
It's not always OK. Al Jolson was a mensch and did a great service to the many black performers he worked with, but his blackface performances are obviously unacceptable to modern audiences.
|>>|| No. 12663
It seems a strange standard to hold him to really. Blackface wasn't considered racist at the time he wasn't doing it to be racist, and the American black community of the time considered him something of a hero for doing it. If anything it throws doubt on taking such an arbitrary stance on the matter (blackface=racism). I'm certainly not about to protest for my right to black face, but in his time blackface could be used as a device to draw attention to black social causes rather than just to ridicule them.
Of course I doubt you can deliver the history lesson necessary to everyone to make them appreciate what he was doing and the virtues of blackface, and I doubt there is anyone who has investment in making that case.
|>>|| No. 12664
There's a reasonable case to be made that Jolson's blackface performances were well-intentioned and helped introduce segregated white audiences to black culture, but it's absolutely clear that blackface is unacceptable today. In a modern context, adopting someone else's racial identity for entertainment is blatantly disrespectful and implicitly racist.
The arguments over Jamie Oliver's rice seem a bit silly, but they differ from blackface in degree rather than type. Calling something "jerk" that is nothing of the sort implies a casual disregard for Jamaican culture.
I find this image to be profoundly irritating, and I haven't suffered from the legacy of centuries of slavery and oppression. While I have no time for people who want to get offended on someone else's behalf, I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone who says that their own culture is being disrespected.
|>>|| No. 12665
>I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone who says that their own culture is being disrespected.
I agree with most of your post but this conclusion I consider to be the path to madness. It is built on the premise that the individual shouldn't making a judgement for themselves on events they have not directly experienced themselves but defer to others. (Stop me if you feel that is a strawman but I think that is a fair analysis).
It invites two villains into a Diarchy, the terminally offended, whose victim complex means they can infer and construct a narrative of discrimination out of nearly anything. And the cultural apologist, who will insist that we not hold others to the stands that we hold ourselves.
Both have been on the rise in strength lately in the public arena, and I think it is the willingness to defer our own judgement and take their word that has empowered them.
|>>|| No. 12666
>it's absolutely clear that blackface is unacceptable today
You know the quote that goes along with this image, presumably? I would respectfully suggest you are thinking in, if you'll forgive the pun, unhelpfully black and white terms.
|>>|| No. 12667
I don't think we have to bow to the whims of the loudest and unreasonable voices, but I think we should at least listen when people respectfully say "this is hurtful to me". I don't think I am qualified to make a judgement on many things. I don't know what it's like to be a woman or an ethnic minority. I've only experienced life through the prism of being a straight-ish white man. My world view is blinkered in all sorts of ways that are imperceptible to me.
I do know that many people who talk about people like me often get it badly wrong. I know that when I read about my own industry in the newspaper, it's usually uninformed bollocks. I see all sorts of people talking absolute shite on social media about stuff that I'm a bit of an expert on. I try to remain open to the possibility that my opinions of stuff I'm not massively well informed about might be equally wrong. On a huge range of social and cultural issues, I just don't have the background knowledge to say anything with any degree of confidence.
I don't know the quote, but my understanding is that the character you're referring to is a parody; the joke only works because of the cultural unacceptability of blackface. I'm happy to discuss the issue further if you'd like to elaborate on your point.
|>>|| No. 12669
> course I doubt you can deliver the history lesson necessary to everyone to make them appreciate what he was doing and the virtues of blackface, and I doubt there is anyone who has investment in making that case.
It's just one little symptom of a huge problem.
In the present day there are a great number of forces, some intentional and some not, moving to re-write, censor or forget history. And a the main thrust of that is to re-frame everything in black-and-white (sorry) terms. And part of this is just simple human nature.
Every historical figure is now evil or a saint. Few people seem able or willing to comprehend that other people could be capable of both good and bad actions, just as few people are willing to believe that they themselves could be capable of doing evil were they to find themselves in the same situation.
>adopting someone else's racial identity for entertainment is blatantly disrespectful and implicitly racist.
Can we make an exception where the entertainment is a joke about being racist?
|>>|| No. 12670
>adopting someone else's racial identity for entertainment is blatantly disrespectful and implicitly racist.
Yes it is, and racism is okay, for as long as It's funny enough, and the audience has a sense of humor. The problem is when there hyper sensitive types who can't take a joke. The film is relevant, I'd recommend it, for as long as you can laugh at the piss taking of a sub section of white Western culture.
>I haven't suffered from the legacy of centuries of slavery and oppression
Chances are historically, your race/ethnicity has at at least one point in time. Why don't we see the Irish or the Scottish complaining about oppression I wonder, their historic slavery is hardly a secret. Everyone has seen Brave Heart right? You don't see them throwing on a teary at the existence of Willy in the Simpsons being a cliche Scotsman.
The truth is, the real oppression hasn't really been between races throughout history, It has been between the wealthy and powerful minority, and the poverty stricken toothless majority. I feel like people are slowly trying to re-write history to "white/men=bad". If people start believing that trollop, it won't end well. We don't need to give white people collectively a reason to feel scared or angry. And let's not assume that the lives of white men are necessarily better than other sexes and races. What happened to human beings laughing to themselves, fuck me.
|>>|| No. 12671
The problem with race is that the civil war is a defining part of the story of America's creation as a nation. They're never going to get over it, it would be like asking us to get over not liking the French, or telling the Germans they're allowed to be militaristic again.
Can't shake the feeling America is exporting their shit race relations to the rest of the English-speaking world. I always get the impression that there's a big undertone of that when you see British discussion of race, that there's more outrage over George Wallace than Enoch Powell. People getting angry about colonialism, statues of Rhodes, whatever - fair enough, I mean, we actually did that, that's our history of doing not very nice things. But slavery and segregation in the South of the USA? What were Brits supposed to do, politely ask Canada to burn the White House down a second time?
|>>|| No. 12672
>What were Brits supposed to do, politely ask Canada to burn the White House down a second time?
Never say never.
|>>|| No. 12673
Do you really watch the film 'White Chicks' and think, 'Oh no, my race is under attack, this will fuel more of that widespread anti-white violence'? Because that's incredibly insecure.
|>>|| No. 12675
Some of that just seemed to be black people in early film rather than a negative potrail of them which makes me question the point of the montage, is it the role they played potentially reflecting the reality of the time which he took grevance with? That isn't racist to portray that's just uncomfortable history.
|>>|| No. 12676
I think the point he's making is that Hollywood spent decades producing overtly racist propaganda, depicting black people as essentially subhuman. The grinning picaninnies, the cannibals with bones through their noses, the docile house negroes. Hollywood wasn't merely passively portraying the attitudes of the time, but playing an active role in perpetuating racist attitudes and justifying the worst excesses of a systematically racist society. Any discussion of how the media portrays race can only be meaningful if it's informed by that context.
|>>|| No. 12677
> Hollywood spent decades producing overtly racist propaganda, depicting black people as essentially subhuman. The grinning picaninnies, the cannibals with bones through their noses
For a person talking about informed context you don’t seem to know the context of what you are talking about.
That has literally nothing to do with Africans, that is a portrayal of the people of Papua New Guinea. And It is accurate, it was certainly accurate in the 1940s and 50s when that portrayal was most prevalent after exposure to them by Americans from the second world war, The gentlemen in the picture is described by Wikipedia as “a resident of Boga-Boga” a description I'm sure you would presume to be racist.
There is a disease called Kuru that caused an epidemic in the late 50s in Papua New Guinea, it is spread by eating the brains of the infected, I presume that is explanatory enough.
I’m sure ignorant racists started twisting it into an attack on the black people of America, and the black people of America now presume it is an attack on them, so you can hardly be blamed for being swept along by the idea it is an attack on them.
It is weird for us to accept in the west because it seems like ancient history to us, or at least something of the times of Magellan but there are still Stone Age societies in the world, in Asia, the Americas and Africa. And In the early 20th century there were a lot of them, there obviously was a lot of racial prejudice at the time but the idea of the tribesman shaking a spear and chasing off outsiders isn’t some racist propaganda, it is something that still happens.
|>>|| No. 12678
The entirety of that post highlighted the ridiculousness of being offended by such things. Did you even read it?
|>>|| No. 12680
I love the Sentinelese. Before I found out about them I had this basically modernist idea of history - we're the advanced civilisation, we need to spread civilisation across the universe because it's oh-so-great, throw everything at technology, etc. Then I got pessimistic after the crash when a lot of the economic changes I thought would happen didn't. So at the lowest point of being unhappy at history not returning to the path it ought to be on, I find out they exist, and every time we've tried to contact them to so much as show them our civilisation they've told us to fuck off. I like that, even if I'm projecting an informed choice onto them when really they're probably just afraid we're going to kidnap and kill them (as the British Empire did once) again. Still, it raised a lot of interesting questions about progress as an idea. Would we really be any closer to the future if we gave them an Instagram?
|>>|| No. 12681
>I got pessimistic after the crash when a lot of the economic changes I thought would happen didn't
What changes were you hoping for?
|>>|| No. 12682
> Would we really be any closer to the future if we gave them an Instagram?
Nay, but if you could find a way to integrate them into your economy you would have made some additional cash. And that might be the underline of all such shows and spreads.
But perhaps I'm too cynical.
|>>|| No. 12686
I think there's a poster who basically says "she would DEFINITELY get it" about more or less every woman under the age of 70.
|>>|| No. 12688
Her smile freaks me out. It's like her lips are being stretched back by invisible hooks.
Further proof, it it was needed, that white father and oriental mother = ugly child.
|>>|| No. 12691
She looks so much like my (batshit) sister...
Sage for nobodygivesafuck, but it's creepy.
And no, 'would get it' lad - she's happily married with kids. Down, boy.
|>>|| No. 12695
An interesting article on the subject matter in full here:
"Do you think Jamie Oliver’s jerk rice is something that is worth a senior MP spending her time on?
Tony Sewell: No, it isn’t and I’m trying to understand why she ran with this. I have no personal beef with Dawn Butler – it seems that nobody has a sense of the right priorities, even when it comes to racism. But her comments came at the same time as London is experiencing a crime wave and young black men are being killed by other young black men. She has no answers for this. Labour has no answers and nor does the government. Instead, the target becomes Jamie Oliver with his microwaved rice, which is bizarre."
Tony Sewell is quite the chap, take a look at the organisation he's CEO of here:
Here he is at Oxford Union talking about more race baiting shit:
|>>|| No. 12698
Does he actually offer any solutions himself or just slag off others when they don't fix all of London's knife crime?
|>>|| No. 12699
Boy if there's one thing lefty virtue signallers really don't like, it's when one of their pet minorities calls them out on it.
|>>|| No. 12700
He's a uncle Tom for telling people they should be more worried about violent crime than rice? The fuck planet are you on?
|>>|| No. 12701
If you take a look into a lot of his public work, he's overly critical of bad parenting, and single parenthood. He's found that a lot of the difficulties that the kids he's worked with and helped can be laid at the feet of fathers/mothers who have walked out on them or parents that simply don't care. I think he has a lot of good things to say, and I'm interested on his perspective considering his background and life accomplishments.
|>>|| No. 12702
>he's overly critical of bad parenting, and single parenthood. He's found that a lot of the difficulties that the kids he's worked with and helped can be laid at the feet of fathers/mothers who have walked out on them or parents that simply don't care
Careful, lad. The "it must be somebody else's fault" brigade don't agree with the notion of agency and taking personal responsibility for your actions. Blame always must be apportioned, but elsewhere.
|>>|| No. 12703
Personal responsibility isn't actionable on a political or societal level. A government can fix poverty or underfunded schools, it can provide good antenatal care and parenting support, it can financially incentivise marriage, but it doesn't have many levers it can pull to force people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
"People should take responsibility for themselves" sounds perfectly plausible, but it's politically nihilistic. It's functionally equivalent to "this isn't our responsibility, just sort yourselves out". Appeals to personal responsibility are often just an abrogation of social responsibility. It's an easy way to avoid hard questions about systematic disadvantage. This person is doing alright, therefore all people like them have no excuse. It ignores the fact that many people have the odds stacked against them, for reasons entirely beyond their control.
|>>|| No. 12704
>"People should take responsibility for themselves" sounds perfectly plausible, but it's politically nihilistic.
If you carry a knife you are responsible for making that decision. If you stab someone you are responsible for making that decision. It's not societies fault if you go around on a moped throwing acid in people's faces if they won't give you their possessions.
Your post reeks of "these people are too dumb to think for themselves, they should listen to us as we know what's best for them."
|>>|| No. 12705
>Your post reeks of "these people are too dumb to think for themselves, they should listen to us as we know what's best for them."
I'm sorry you find the truth so threatening.
|>>|| No. 12706
Otherlad here, if you read the post closely, it's about the limitations of government. People are indeed responsible for carrying a knife if they choose to. The point is that the most that government can achieve is to make the circumstances in which people carry knives less likely. Often you find people in positions of political power using personal responsibility as a scapegoat for not making the efforts they could toward shaping those circumstances (indeed often making decisions that will worsen them).
|>>|| No. 12707
Oh, well if he thinks that about x, his opinion on y must be invalidated immediately.
|>>|| No. 12708
We're in the midst of a vast obesity epidemic; by some estimates, obesity is now the leading cause of preventable disease and premature death in the developed world. It's an issue that affects every part of society. We could just say "stop eating pies, you fat bastards" and in a sense we'd be correct to do so, but that's not particularly useful. We look at the root causes of obesity and try to steer society in a way that might reduce the rate of obesity. We teach healthy eating in schools, we tax sugary soft drinks, we ban the advertising of junk food to kids, we incentivise food manufacturers to make their products less fattening, we provide weight loss support on the NHS.
If you carry a knife, you're criminally culpable for that decision. That doesn't mean our response should start and end with arrests and prosecutions. If we're serious about reducing knife crime, we need to look at the root causes and make interventions that dissuade young people from carrying knives. We need to keep asking why, we need to experiment with interventions and stick with what works, we need an open mind as to what interventions might work.
|>>|| No. 12709
So... It is personal responsibility but we shouldn't let the government say it is personal responsibility because they're using it as a cop out for things like police cuts leading to more criminality as it emboldens people to think they can break the law and get away with it?
>We need to keep asking why, we need to experiment with interventions and stick with what works
Glasgow made it quite clear that stop and search works; a heavy crackdown and zero tolerance response in the early days was pivotal to reducing knife crime there.
|>>|| No. 12710
Glasgow isn't London though, you can prioritise searching chavs/spides/neds or whatever you call them and nobody would really call you out. Not so for black teens is it?
|>>|| No. 12711
If we follow the good doctor's logic further surely we should put solving knife crime among young black men on the back burner and prioritise the far more serious threat to society by tackling the obesity epidemic.
|>>|| No. 12712
Significantly more people die from obesity then knife crime by a long way, we just accept it because it is normalised. If the news reported every time someone died 15+ years younger than they should because of being fat there would be moral panic.
|>>|| No. 12713
It's probably because there aren't gangs of feral youths going around forcing Mars bars down people's throats.
|>>|| No. 12715
Well you can make it sound just as awful by picking emotionally charged language and focus,
'Mr. Tubbs needlessly died today of a calorie overdose at age of 55, leaving 2 children; 5, and 10, without a father, doctors say the death could have easily been prevented by regular exercise, and balanced diet "it is a tragedy when this kind of thing happens, it is always the children that suffer the most and needlessly" said doctor fake name.
Mr Tubbs had been warned by doctors of the dangers of his life style but refused to change, instead turning to internet fringe groups that promote the idea that excess body weight has no effect on health and should be embraced as beautiful "this is a dangerous phenomenon in our society that leads to needless deaths we must do everything in our power to stop the misinformation that being obese is acceptable and risk free life choice, it isn’t" said doctor fake name.'
|>>|| No. 12717
It's a good point but it still sounds better than kids pointing guns at each other, and you know it.
|>>|| No. 12718
You could fill all but the largest of Premiership football stadiums with the number of yearly deaths linked to being overweight. There'd be empty seats on a large sofa if you're relying on shot kids to sit on it.
|>>|| No. 12719
I prefer my units of measurements to involve double decker buses, Olympic swimming pools and Wales.
|>>|| No. 12721
There's still more empathy points directed towards the dead kid sofa than the fat cunt stadium.
I don't expect anyone to call my inevitable heart attack a tragedy. It's entirely my fault, or maybe McDonald's and cocaine's fault, but still.
|>>|| No. 12745
It's this sort of thing that really dilutes the actual positive work being done in the name of equality.
I suggest renaming it the Ladies Sandwich and putting 20% less filling in it
|>>|| No. 12747
>A spokesperson told the Telegraph: "It's never our intention to cause offence - we're not dictating who should eat this sandwich - we hope anyone who tries it will love the distinctive flavours. However we are planning to change the name of the sandwich soon."
I love how they managed to sneak some advertising for the product into their statement to the press.
|>>|| No. 12749
They would have been more honest if they had renamed them "Kleenex Wank Rags".
|>>|| No. 12750
unSurprisingly Waitrose allow me to buy tampons despite their not being marketed to me. Silly moo.
|>>|| No. 12751
>despite their not being marketed to me
Waitrose called it Gentlemen's Smoked Chicken Caesar Roll because it contains gentlemen's relish, or at least Heston's take on it, rather than because they were aiming it at men.
|>>|| No. 12752
Then the noise is even more stupid. Even if a sandwich were marketed at men it'd be no more sexist than having different shaving razors marketed to men and women.
I realise I'm preaching to the choir here guys, sorry. I'm just a bit flabbergasted - unless that twitter account is a troll account in which case well done them they got me to bite.
|>>|| No. 12792
A private email, eh? The article says the email was sent to a freelance vegan journalist. He played with fire and got burnt. An activist journalist! He lit a cigarette while lying in a bathtub of petrol.
|>>|| No. 12793
If nothing else, it suggests exceedingly poor judgement by a man who has editorial responsibility. There's a world of difference between a private joke between friends and a private joke sent to exactly the kind of twat who would incite an internet hate mob. Sitwell's only job was to make Waitrose look good, but he fucked that right up in a moment of thoughtlessness.
|>>|| No. 12795
He comes across as a small minded bully if you ask me. Obviously you can't divulge an entire person's character from one email, but given he's representing a company, not just himself, surely he knows better than to threaten to "kill" and "force-feed" someone? If the company doesn't want you doing that, then it's their call if you keep your job. Tough shit, I say.
|>>|| No. 12796
I got that very same vibe too.
I cannot, however, sign off on your misuse of the word 'divulge'.
|>>|| No. 12797
He made a bad joke in an email to a journalist, while working for a company who is currently undergoing a core marketing push to offer more vegan/vegetarian options. This isn't a question about a man losing his job for making a joke, it's about a man being so fucking incompetent at his job that he didn't realise the implications of sending an email to a JOURNALIST offending an entire important demographic of the company he works for.
It's also not a 'private email'. She pitched him an idea. That's a business email.
People are working very hard to make this anything other than him being incompetent. If you got an email from a client/supplier/potential customer and you replied sarcastically about killing them or people like them, how do you think it would go?
|>>|| No. 12798
>If you got an email from a client/supplier/potential customer and you replied sarcastically about killing them or people like them, how do you think it would go?
One would hope they aren't overly-sensitive card-carrying members of the Professionally Offended Brigade and can take a fucking joke.
|>>|| No. 12799
You don't have a job, do you? You seem to have no idea how the professional world works.
|>>|| No. 12859
Vegan activists storm Brighton steakhouse and blast diners with sounds of animal slaughter
Brighton activists from Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), an international animal rights network, descended on Brazilian restaurant Touro Steakhouse on West Street on Saturday evening (November 24).
Activists held signs with photos of animals and played audio of animals being slaughtered, telling diners to 'listen to their screams'. The group then stood outside the restaurant chanting: "What do we want? Animal liberation! When do we want it? Now."
A spokesperson for DxE Brighton said: "In a time where we are experiencing mass environmental destruction, largely due to our unsustainable and unethical food choices, it is paramount that we put our egos and selfishness aside and accept that we are all connected, we are all animals. We can no longer ignore the suffering and pain we cause. We are not the only sentient beings that inhabit this planet. We all have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and fight for the oppressed. Over 70 billion farm animals are reared for food globally every year, most of these intensively. We put them there. What animals are facing now is without a shadow of a doubt a great injustice. Animal exploitation has become so normalised it goes virtually unnoticed but we are paying attention. People and businesses should not be able to enjoy the product or profit of animal suffering."
Do these tactics actually work or do they simply backfire and make people less receptive to the point you're trying to make?
|>>|| No. 12860
Of course they backfire.
Also, the girl on the right would totally get a portion of my vegan sausage.
|>>|| No. 12861
>Do these tactics actually work or do they simply backfire and make people less receptive to the point you're trying to make?
The latter. People don't typically like to have their life choices directly attacked, particularly not in obnoxious ways by obnoxious people. And a typical response to this sort of attack is to double down, I really think they're making people less likely to consider the actual ecological issued that animal farming presents. Even if I was a vegetarian, I'm not sure I'd tell people, as the association with these sorts of twunts is just too common.
|>>|| No. 12862
Girls like that are ten a penny in animal rights circles, although usually they all have on the same pair of thick rimmed glasses.
|>>|| No. 12864
Given it makes me want to go out of my way to go to that restaurant just to upset them next time I'm in Brighton I'd say it has failed.
|>>|| No. 12865
There was a similar protest somewhere recently and the chef started butchering a pig or something in the window as a response.
|>>|| No. 12866
A vegan activist who stormed a steak house and Tesco meat aisle is the daughter of a millionaire meat selling CEO.
Morgan Kayleigh Giampaolo raided the Touro steak house in Brighton to play animal slaughter noises to diners last week. She also attended a Tesco in Hove with 'Direct Action Everywhere' as they held a 'silent disruption' event, standing in the meat aisle with signs saying: 'It's not food it's violence' and graphic images of abattoirs while mothers pushed toddlers past them in prams.
Last week Direct Action Everywhere entered Touro Steakhouse in Brighton and got into a chanting match with a carnivorous stag party who yelled back 'Stand up if you love meat.' Members of the stag party, including a £250 'Oompa Loompa impersonator', started chanting back at them and even persuaded fellow diners to join in. Most of the diners at the Brazilian-themed restaurant appeared unmoved by the protest and carried on talking and eating, even when the activists played the noise of a cow being killed and shouted 'It's not meat, it's violence' repeatedly.
It's all so depressingly predictable.
|>>|| No. 12867
The sheer level of filth she must get up to in the bedroom with anyone she thinks might piss her dad off, though. It's powerful stuff.
|>>|| No. 12869
I don't get it, are you saying it is wrong, or ridiculous, to hold views that differ to those of your parents? I for one think differently to mine on lots of things, and am even politically active about them. Does that shock or amuse you in some fashion?
|>>|| No. 12871
It's basically a stereotype for a teenager or student to go out and protest against something their parents believe in. Bonus points if it's something they've made a lot of money doing.
The fact you don't innately understand that is odd. Either you don't have a good understanding of human interactions, or you're being deliberately obtuse.
|>>|| No. 12872
The people I've known most active in pointless hippy activism, the kind which is never destined to achieve anything other than stroking your ego and making yourself feel very righteous, have all been from very wealthy backgrounds. They decide to 'slum it' for a bit before inevitably going back to rejoin their comfortable well off lifestyle. It's also noticeable how the people targeted by their protests, those going out for a meal or to the supermarket, are ordinary working class folk rather than those actually creating and entrenching inequality because they've no desire whatsoever to meaningfully address the class system they're benefiting from.
The last thing any movement needs is clueless rich twats using your cause as a hobby horse.
|>>|| No. 12873
Weirdly, it's sort of a consequence of benefits reforms under the Blair government. It's also the same reason why so many bands these days are incredibly posh.
Back in the 80s, you could sign on once a week, tell them "there are no jobs" and get your giro. There really weren't many jobs out there if you were young and unskilled, so what was the point of hassling you about it? Because unemployment benefit was so easy to claim, it acted as a de-facto minimum income - you could spend all week organising political protests or rehearsing with your band. It wasn't terribly difficult to sign on under two names for a bit if you needed some extra cash.
It was the Major government that renamed Unemployment Benefit to Jobseekers Allowance, but it was the Blair government that really started turning the screws on claimants. The amount of money you got fell in real terms and you had to spend more and more time jumping through hoops to get it. Stricter identity checks made it significantly harder to travel around the country and sign on wherever you were. The same rules that made life difficult for dossers also made life difficult for artists or political activists from working class backgrounds.
|>>|| No. 12874
This is one thing that's a pretty good argument for UBI; allowing people to afford to learn to make income from their creativity would be a hell of a thing in the current climate
|>>|| No. 12875
During the 80s there was an alternative stream to UB called Enterprise Allowance, for which you just claimed to be self-employed instead. A number of artists used it to get started.
|>>|| No. 12876
Seeing as the thread has moved on to 'bashing vegans' for now:-
>A tribunal is to be asked to decide whether veganism is a "philosophical belief" akin to a religion, in a landmark legal action.
>Jordi Casamitjana says he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sports after disclosing it invested pension funds in firms involved in animal testing. He claims he was discriminated against, and the tribunal will now decide if veganism should be protected in law.
>The League Against Cruel Sports says he was dismissed for gross misconduct. It denies the sacking was because of his veganism.
>Mr Casamitjana says he is an "ethical" vegan. "Some people only eat a vegan diet but they don't care about the environment or the animals, they only care about their health," he told the BBC. "I care about the animals and the environment and my health and everything. That's why I use this term 'ethical veganism' because for me veganism is a belief and affects every single aspect of my life."
>Dietary vegans and ethical vegans both eat a plant-based diet. However, ethical vegans try to exclude all forms of animal exploitation, for instance avoiding wearing or buying clothing made from wool or leather, or toiletries from companies that carry out animal testing. They may refer to "companion animals" rather than "pets", and will avoid zoos or other environments where they consider animals are exploited.
>Mr Casamitjana worked for the animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports and claims that, to his surprise, he discovered it was investing its pension funds in companies that carried out animal testing. He says he drew this to the attention of his managers. When nothing changed, he informed other employees and was sacked as a result. He is now bringing a legal case, claiming he was discriminated against on the basis of his vegan belief.
|>>|| No. 12878
What seems to have happened here is that he's found out that he can't claim protected disclosure and instead is trying to claim protected status. Not that I don't agree that it would be slightly hypocritical of LACS to choose to invest in such firms, but ultimately you can't go around disclosing confidential information and not expect to be fired.
|>>|| No. 12879
>he's found out that he can't claim protected disclosure and instead is trying to claim protected status
I don't understand what you're saying. He clearly believes LACS will be found to have dismissed him unlawfully, even though they say it was gross misconduct, so can you elaborate on his reasoning?
|>>|| No. 12880
>I don't understand what you're saying.
The Public Interest Disclosure Act provides protection for whistleblowers. My working theory is that he believes he was blowing the whistle, and has found out after the fact that the information he was revealing does not count under PIDA, and has tried to argue that he's being fired for being vegan, even though you generally don't get fired for gross misconduct on the spot.
Then again, I've just seen a clip on the news of him wearing a Mask of Shame so the whole thing could just be a stunt through which to get the information out.
|>>|| No. 12882
I'm quite sure PETA does this sort of thing simply to garner attention. All their other tactics are designed to be headline grabbing, so I don't think it's much of a stretch that they know fine well that everyone will be talking about PETA if they release something daft like this.
Of course it does make them look excessively daft, so maybe not.
|>>|| No. 12883
To play devil's advocate: why is it daft?
PETA's raison d'etre is to protect animals. And I'm sure neither of you are going to be so bold as to claim language has no effect on our behaviour. So in what way does this campaign not seek to achieve their aims?
|>>|| No. 12884
If language influences behaviour then why would you encourage people to feed birds scones? Baked goods are harmful for them.
|>>|| No. 12885
>And I'm sure neither of you are going to be so bold as to claim language has no effect on our behaviour.
I certainly am, particularly when it comes to proverbs, which are so far removed from the literal for anyone who understands them. Whens the last time you or anyone else for that matter threw a stone at a bird? If they did I can guarantee it's not because they heard someone say it.
|>>|| No. 12886
Why are you using terms like devil's advocate. Advocating for the devil. Do you hate God? Are you being deliberately proactive to christains. Don't you realise the power of language and the insensitivity of your words?
|>>|| No. 12888
>I certainly am
I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Any linguist will tell you there are reams of evidence showing that different words influence the way we think and act.
>Whens the last time you or anyone else for that matter threw a stone at a bird?
So you genuinely think that PETA's objective in encouraging people not to talk about throwing stones at birds is to stop their perceived epidemic of people literally throwing stones at birds? Maybe that explains why you think it's daft - you've totally misunderstood it?
|>>|| No. 12889
Do you genuinely think people are more likely to hurt birds because of that phrase? You've got to be having me on.
Show me the reams of evidence.
|>>|| No. 12890
Er... no, that's what I just said. It's not specifically about people throwing stones at birds. Are you a bit fick m9?
|>>|| No. 12891
Look, lad. Make yourself a cup of tea and have a bit of a think about how you're spending your Sunday. The linguistic evidence relates to grammatical structure (accusation sentences etc.) which impacts upon thinking patterns but that is a damn big difference to acting out given we have free will. If anything the very concept of this should be scary enough if we're outright doing brainwashing by calling a spade a teaspoon.
What goes beyond this i.e. words is a pseudo-science that dehumanises everyone (and in this case everything) and is only pursued by the most feckless HR graduates. People don't throw rocks at birds or go make lemonade when the tequila runs out because there is at the very least a complete divorce going on with what may have once been very practical proverbs.
|>>|| No. 12894
Left is a goer, middle likes anal but only occasionally, right won't even give you a blowie unless it's your birthday.
|>>|| No. 12895
Left looks like she'd be very loose and sloppy, with no firmness to her body whatsoever. She'd drive you up the wall with the inane things she frequently utters.
Middle looks like there's some hidden horror lurking beneath, like she's got a ridiculously hairy muff and it's all matted with discharge because she doesn't believe in washing.
Right is ice cold. She just lies there like a dead fish during sex.
|>>|| No. 12896
Left has an undiagnosed learning disability and is quick to anger.
Middle is a skinny-fat bloke who grew a vagina to go with those sad tits.
Right has an eating disorder and cutting scars - like shagging a greyhound.
Trust me, I have shit taste in women.
|>>|| No. 12898
Bad, since they are thin and not necessarily well cared for. A plumper dog from a loving family would be a much better shag.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]