Are You Cut Out for Social Media?

Shallot pasta only has to bother you if you willingly engage in the posting wars. Whatever the controversy is there just treat it like the tabloid headlines in the supermarket checkout line. You never had to argue with anyone about Bat Boy’s predictions.

Ok a cursory look at that lets me know this controversy is 100% not something I care about at all.

Who has the energy to argue about shallots or even recipes rn??

apologies for not wanting to do something I've been told is wrong, I guess

I don't understand where you're coming from, I think? Why do any of those people mad on Twitter - in either direction, people who think it's an issue of racism or people who think it's an issue of performative identity politics - have moral authority to tell you anything is wrong? The people on both sides of that war should spend 48 hours in a padded cell IMO.

the counterpoint to that, though, is why do you -- or me, or anyone else -- have the moral authority to say that they're wrong and not worth paying attention to?

well, judgment

Because what you pay attention to is a personal decision. You're exerting moral authority over yourself, which I think is a pretty fair application of it.

off topic, incidentally I cooked alison roman's chickpea stew with coconut milk recipe today, it turned out good after I added a bunch of madras curry and some more red pepper flakes, but it has 33 gm of saturated fat per serving! I liked it but I'm not going to make that again often in the future

xp -- I doubt if you told someone staking a moral stance on something that "I'm making a personal decision" would be given literally any credence at all. nor is it a principle that holds up with anything else that's a more clear-cut moral issue ("sorry I murdered your buddy, but I just don't have the mental and emotional bandwidth to pay attention to people saying murder is wrong, you know?")

are we still talking about whether or not it's okay to like the pasta made from the recipe by the newspaper lady who made a boo-boo with the celebrity??

yes, but it is just the latest example of something where it feels like dozens more rules materialize by the week in ways that are not predictable in advance

just as you can use your own judgment about whether to pay attention to those, you can also use it to determine whether to pay attention to people who think you should or shouldn't pay attention to them in specific ways? you can also use it not to voice any opinions that would elicit adverse attention from them?? idgi

the most evergreen headline in the world is "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people"

I doubt if you told someone staking a moral stance on something that "I'm making a personal decision" would be given literally any credence at all.

That's what I mean, though, what gives this person taking their moral stance any authority over you? Just because they care doesn't mean you have to. The people fighting on Twitter are mad about something with zero stakes - no one involved has any influence on Roman's job or Marie Kondo's wealth.

For it to weigh on someone's mind, they have to let it in. At that point it's hard to feel bad for someone if the Twitter controversy upsets them - they made the choice to play the game.

it feels like dozens more rules materialize by the week in ways that are not predictable in advance

if this troubles you, perhaps it is an indication that social media and you may be somewhat incompatible. one good strategy might be to confine your first 'dates' with social media to group dates which include some trusted friends, or maybe a low-key, low risk meeting with social media at a coffee shop for a skinny latte and splitting a muffin. it may be too early to exchange phone numbers or addresses until you feel more sure you get along.

it is a psychologically hazardous inference to think that if you don't care about some thing (e.g. a hot topic of the day that 'everyone' urges you to 'care' about) then you 'don't care about other people'.

also to think that there are rules, that can be predicted in advance, about how one is to care if one cares. what people can and should care about isn't given by rules, that's the whole point of caring. you have to let your concerns guide you and stay open to having them changed.

taking one's lead from the conformist drives of the daily internet mob is not a way to be guided by one's concerns, and it's not something one should be open to.

I think maybe the problem is the second level nature of Twitter controversies that makes them ignorable IMO.

If a momentarily famous TikTok person misgendered someone - snipe at TikTok person on Twitter, okay, comfort the person misgendered if you know them and it upset them, absolutely. But then when it devolves into two teams and the argument is about social positioning as being on the right or wrong team, ruuuuuuuuuun.

"yes, but it is just the latest example of something where it feels like dozens more rules materialize by the week in ways that are not predictable in advance"

Who gives a fuuuuuuck

people who care about not doing something that people have said causes harm?

that's not what you're doing is it?

people have said that it would be! (it just happens in this case that the "wrong" thing intersects with a food dislike I have. but as above, having that dislike is also wrong)

how?!?!?!?!?!? i think there is a calibration issue here, the harms you should be concerned about first are the ones that you cause by your actions or by what it is up to you to choose. harms 'people' say are being caused (to whom? by whose actions, when?) are not something that it is fruitful to prioritize on the level of day-to-day attention to the internet

and DISLIKING A FOOD IS WRONG? katherine, this is a difficult conversation to take seriously

I do think people who dislike empanadas are cum tbf

*scum

xp -- whenever it is uncovered on twitter that a person doesn't like ingredients like, in this case, shallots, they are relentlessly mocked with the implication that they are a bad person

so ignore it. i mean I'm someone who lets things get to him way way way too much but you can control who you do and don't engage with. if you try to take a side in every internet, twitter, Facebook ,Instagram, Glooper (it's not invented yet, but that's the next social media site), and feel as if you have less value if someone on any of those platforms has cast judgment about you....you're going to be miserable fast.

I have to force myself off of all of these platforms for hours a day to avoid constantly driving myself insane. and I have to accept that somewhere, a greasy dude with hair like the guy from Eraserhead thinks I'm a piece of shit. and that's ok.

Cum empanadas

That’s a mental image that’s never leaving

representative is the replies to this tweet -- a little inaccurate since I do like garlic a lot (and probably use more of it to compensate) but not once is there a "it's okay not to like a certain food, it's just a food."

Garlic and onions are staples for many home cooks. But do these plants actually add any health benefits to your dishes? Or are they purely for flavor? https://t.co/3a5m2klpkv pic.twitter.com/aGzIMkjgZK

— TIME (@TIME) February 24, 2020

"Fucking learn to cook god damn"

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6O_6tDOcUNQ/T2BNB7cPZWI/AAAAAAAACrc/gSkeJ-K3sYw/s1600/Penguin+no.+1670.jpg

All of the replies I see are basically “who gives a fuck, they taste good”?

with a lot of "you must hate food that tastes good," "I don't trust you or your cooking," "learn to cook," "you're a child," etc.

Shallot pasta only has to bother you if you willingly engage in the posting wars. Whatever the controversy is there just treat it like the tabloid headlines in the supermarket checkout line. You never had to argue with anyone about Bat Boy’s predictions.

― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z)

the last time i accidentally clicked on a guardian link - i think i wanted to read some old story about classical music or something - the top trending story was what lilly wachowski said to elon musk on twitter. now, i have a tremendous amount of personal respect for lilly. i am glad she has a voice. for a long time people like us didn't have a voice, and that fucking sucked. i do not, however, particularly enjoy, fuck it, i'll just say it, LIVING IN A SOCIETY where how we talk to each other is all filtered through the spectrum of twitter trash talk. it's not a healthy medium, most places on the internet aren't, and while usenet was no great shakes it's social media that, more than anything else, makes me believe that this world is hell.

xp

Well, why would there be “it’s ok not to like x” replies? The tweet is goofy bc it implies that people would only use ingredients for their health benefits, and approaches cooking from a viewpoint that seems bizarre to most people who cook regularly. I’m sure if the tweet was “onions are bad imo” there would be assholish replies (though likely the majority would be outrage in animated gif form with no real malice) but also people agreeing or saying “seems weird but whatever, like what you like”

I’m sure if the tweet was “onions are bad imo” there would be assholish replies (though likely the majority would be outrage in animated gif form with no real malice) but also people agreeing or saying “seems weird but whatever, like what you like”

― JoeStork, Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:34 PM (nine seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

you would be incorrect, I just haven't dug up any of the tweets proving this wrong (but they all do)

with a lot of "you must hate food that tastes good," "I don't trust you or your cooking," "learn to cook," "you're a child," etc.

I see much less of that but still, I don’t know how this relates to the rules and morals you were referring to? I don’t even see two sides developing there for a good war, just randos drive-by shit talking.

I'm very confused, are we saying that the Allison Roman controversy has devolved into an argument about whether it's ok to eat shallot pasta, and the morality of liking shallots and onions in general, or conversely, whether it is morally acceptable to dislike onions? That seems to be what we are talking about, but I really can't quite parse it.

(the depressing thing is I don't like recipes that are bland, either; there's a whole planet full of ingredients, many quite strong/spicy/fermented/bitter/sour/earthy/etc., that don't make me have to wash my mouth out for several minutes to get rid of the taste. and yet according to the discourse that isn't true)

Random people on Twitter are not "the discourse"

xp -- the commonality is that they are both points in the ever-expanding constellation of things that don't fit into any predictable moral framework, and yet are deemed to be morally wrong with no wiggle room, and to always have been morally wrong, and morally wrong enough that anyone who likes/dislikes/does/doesn't do the proper thing is fair game to mock en masse

Deemed by whom?

Phil Collins

Like, you can literally find any shitty point of view you want on Twitter

hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, all of whom generally have correct moral stances on other things (aka why "sure, some random MAGA says it's wrong to vote Trump, but their entire moral framework is essentially concentrated evil" isn't a counterargument

sorry -- why "some random MAGA says it's wrong not to vote Trump!" isn't a counterargument

seems like it's the anchovies and tomato paste that make that pasta what it is, not as much the shallots. I think I would like it but then get sick of it after a couple of servings (there are always multiple leftover servings to be consumed as a single person)

the lady of shallot

the other counterargument is "they don't actually mean that!" but if they don't mean something, then why say it? if they meant something else, they would have said something else.

Dan S lol