There are interesting, usually unasked, questions that are unintentionally answered in the course of discussion. I’m always fascinated by the views others provide you when they engage people. Those views always prove useful in future interactions/discussions.
To paraphrase George Orwell, white people have prejudices about people of color because American culture has normalized whiteness, but the fact that people of color act “differently” further entrenches the “obvious correctness” of a white cultural norm.
Why is it normal to eat with a fork instead of chopsticks?
Why is it normal for a man to wear a suit to a business meeting instead of a loose, colorfully printed robe?
Why is it normal to sit in a chair instead of on the floor?
Why is a woman in a long gown and a bonnet accepted — archaic, perhaps, but accepted? Why is a nun wearing a black gown and habit accepted? Why is a woman in a burka and hijab somehow threatening?
Why do we teach the way we do? Write our laws the way we do? In short, why is our society the way it is?
“When a white person says ‘It’s not about race,’ they are pretty much always saying it when a Black person, or a Latino person, or a Muslim person is not acting the way a white European would act or wants them to act.”
Apparently, Bon Appétit is a lot less chill than we previously thought. The knowledge of their white washing tendencies is pretty widespread at this point – especially after GQ scumbag Adam Rapoport took over as editor. Self-proclaimed connoisseurs of all things food related, the magazine’s publications don’t simply present, nor suggest recipes to their readers, but demand that every house wife, caterer, sous chef, and amateur cook toss out their generations old note cards and abide by the new rule of law. Such was the case on Tuesday.
Once the video (<– retained in article) was published, a massive wave of backlash descended upon both the featured chef and the magazine. After experiencing befuddlement that Vietnamese people the world over didn’t gasp in awe and fall over themselves, praising Tyler Atkin for his ingenuity and delight in a real live “expert” correcting their families’ culinary mistakes, the editor issued a non-apology (above) which blamed flamers both for not accepting colonialism and for having to remove the video as to no longer offend any delicate sensibilities. This, of course, produced a fresh wave of outrage.
After taking to Bon Appetit’s Facebook page to inform them of our thoughts concerning their handling of the entire situation, many such commentators were met with derision from the ill-informed masses of loyal Bon Appetit readers (white people). The page’s administrator allowed the back and forth to continue for less than a day before they began reporting users to Facebook.
Guess who got banned? LMFAO
That leads me to my question: How long is a three day ban? It may be very difficult to believe, but I’ve never actually banned from Facebook. I’ve been blocked, for a few hours, from sharing things after being a little too eager to share one piece of news or another. A 24-hour ban was instituted once, after my less than graceful, yet completely warranted, exit from a group I was a part of, but I had that lifted and placed, instead, on the one who was the main focus of my ire. This 72-hour ban is very new to me. Does it begin right after Facebook blocks you? Or does the countdown begin after you discover it? Because, for some reason, I believe it’s the latter.
Apparently, Ugly Food Is A Thing Supermarkets and people are unnecessarily discarding food because it's "ugly
". I can't even.
It’s interesting to see the complaints people have about these customers suing Starbucks for underfilled cups of coffee. Is this a symptom of people not knowing what an advertisement means? If you ask and pay for an eighteen ounce cup of coffee, and the server hands you fourteen ounces in a twenty ounce cup, you should, in a reasonable society, be entitled to those four ounces (either in the form of the purchased liquid or money back). That’s not a “first world problem”, that’s how monetary exchange functions. Do these people even understand that an eighteen ounce drink doesn’t go into an eighteen ounce cup, so there’s no way it’d spill on you? Keep in mind, by the way, that these people calling for Starbucks customers to get a reality check or “give money to the homeless” are the same ones who spend two to four hundred dollars on a cell phone, then cry like babies about how three of their sixty-four gigabytes are being taken up by a shitty U2 album. My math may very well be off, but I’m pretty sure you could feed way more people with two hundred dollars than you could with seven dollars and fifty cents. And, to my knowledge, not only can you not eat a cell phone, but that (most of your unnecessary electronics, actually) handheld device was brought to you by illegal child labor. So, yeah, people… Cool it with the hissy fit. And learn to multitask. Most adults can sue a company for not giving them what they paid for and contribute to several non-profits at the same time.
You CANNOT congratulate a company that has publicly funded bills to EXECUTE HOMOSEXUALS, when they open to feed people after an oppressed homophobe executes four dozen homosexuals! Do people understand what profiting off of ignorance is? Chik-fil-A claims they’re re-crafting their image (post 2012), yet haven’t changed any of their policies nor political leanings. When’s the last time they fed some homeless bi kids? Chik-fil-A backed Pam Bondi! They’re purposefully being hypocrites because they know that the monetary benefits of momentary hypocrisy outweigh the tidbit of anger the religious right will express at this move. Every time you eat one of those dry ass chicken sandwiches, you’re actively oppressing LGBTIA+ people. What the fuck is wrong is with you people?! You have the collective mind of a sieve. Double tie your tubes!
…So fucking stupid…
June 3rd is historically, a very bad luck day. That might be changing this year, though. Why? Because June 3rd is National Doughnut Day!