Are You Cut Out for Social Media?

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

is everybody high in here?

no but my mask briefly cut off oxygen briefly

-briefly

no, this is the kind of thing I think about virtually every hour of every day

Whether it's ok to dislike onions?

again, this is just one example of something that there are thousands of accumulated examples of, this is just one that happened to materialize today

substitute "being a fan of lana del rey" if you want

I think the confusion is that no one seems to know why you're giving hundreds of strangers with an opinion (out of like 7.5 billion) any weight at all?

There are tens or hundreds of thousands of Flat Earthers and 40% of the US thinks abortion is a mortal sin but lol fuck both those groups IMO.

I just don’t know why replies on twitter should gain any moral weight, especially regarding something that just seems on its face to not have much substance. There are millions of people whose politics align with mine on issues of substance - civil rights, war, economic and social justice, etc. Some small minority of those people adapt those views to make moral judgments based on celebrity Twitter drama, but plenty of others ignore it completely, and I don’t think they’re turning their backs on a moral obligation by doing so. Occasionally I’ll dig into some twitter controversy out of curiosity but I rarely feel like I’ve improved myself in any way, I usually just feel gross and vaguely depressed.

because, if you were to ask any one of those strangers, they would surely say that others should give that opinion moral weight, and I do not believe in writing people off like that because "strangers"

No, they wouldn't! Have you never talked shit about... pineapple pizza? Or rolled your eyes at Twilight fans?

Should you go through life with a deep worry about the lizard people who control the one world government because David Icke and Alex Jones have large followings?

xp you should write them off because it doesn't matter what they think about whether you like shallots, that's totally your own personal private affair

a) no, why would I do that, it's just food and it's just a book

b) no, because that would also require becoming -- or at least endorsing, which pretty much is becoming -- a raging anti-semite, crypto-fascist, etc.

But twitter by its nature elevates the angriest and loudest voices, right?

angry and loud does not necessarily equal wrong, oftentimes people are angry and loud because they have something worth being angry or loud about

Shallots?

Yes, and it's worth paying attention to those voices when they're discussing internment camps and police brutality and various underreported evils in the world. But when the subject is shallots or celebrity chefs I think it's fair to assume that they might just like yelling on the internet and getting attention.

is there like a moral dimension to this? are shallots a food of the oppressor????

Just a food and just a book is why people are trash talking on Twitter. No one actually thinks you're a baby for not eating onions or sardines or whatever, there is no Shallot Army building to defend anyone's honor.
The only people drawing actual honest to God moral lines in the sand based on fandoms and tastebuds are insane.

And yeah - you use your judgement to decide that just because a mass of people believes something, that doesn't mean you need to give it any moral weight or let it intrude on your thoughts at all.

Shallots are bougie onions.

No one actually thinks you're a baby for not eating onions or sardines or whatever

but then why are they saying this

Like, sure, there is too much awfulness in the world for anyone to be completely fair-minded about what they devote their energy to. But if someone is lecturing people for days about Alison Roman in May 2020 I don't think you have any reason to view them as a voice of moral authority.

xp because they're idiots! or assholes! who cares why they are saying something that you don't have to listen to

"someone dissed me yesterday, what I'posed to do? Go cry?"

-Gucci Mane

Because they’re talking shit (or they’re assholes/idiots). That’s not even a Twitter thing, trash talking seems to be universally human.