SC - Niceties of debate, was - food bashing

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Catherine Deville wrote:
> 
> Adamantius said:
> > I happen not to like it, which is actually irrelevant. Any criticism of
> > it that I have made, and the entirety of it is quoted above, other than
> > the question of egg content, has been in response to direct and
> > unwarranted value judgement. Person A says, "I use MW." Person B says,
> > "I don't care for MW, thanks, I prefer mayo." Person A, assuming a
> > personal attack when there has been none, responds with "Mayo bites the
> > wax tadpole!" Person B says, "Wax tadpole? Are you insane? It's much
> > better than that pale imitation with an inferiority complex!" Etc. etc.,
> > und so weiter. Who is the basher here? One can argue that both have
> > bashed, but ultimate responsibility is with Person A. Armed camps were
> > formed after the fact, and this is how wars begin. It is through
> > saber-rattling that they continue, and often that is disguised as a plea
> > for peace.
> 
> Hmmm... interesting how you take specific comments of analysis based on
> personal preference as "value judgements".

Interesting, perhaps, but untrue. What I referred to as a value judgment
is a statement of fact. For example, "Mayonnaise is bland." Not, "I
think mayonnaise is bland," or, "Most of the mayonnaise I've had was,
IMO, bland," or even, "I don't like it." Personal preferences are not
quantitative, and while they can be used to analyze themselves, to some
extent, they are not applicable in discussions of what something is or
is not, because in stating our preferences we are almost invariably
discussing not the item theoretically under consideration, but
ourselves.  
 
> Also interesting is the fact that you see person A as being responsible for
> offering offense when perhaps none was intended rather than analyzing
> whether or not person B might have been simply a tad too sensitive and
> defensive and *took* offense where none was offered :-)   

Unfortunately, intention is not all that matters. When an opinion is
offered, but stated as empirical fact, as in "Thing X stinks on ice," it
is irresponsible debate, and saying, "Gawrsh, I didn't mean it," begins
to wear a little thin after a while, especially when it is, effectively,
used as one's sig line. If I don't like black jelly beans, I can say
that, but if I say, "Black jelly beans are raccoon droppings," it is
more than a measure of my emphatic dislike, it is also, regardless of my
intent, perfectly reasonable to assume that what is meant (whether it is
or not) that anyone who would eat black jelly beans would eat raccoon
droppings. Simple equivocation. Assuming, of course, that words in
English have any even remote consistency. In short, if I don't want to
offer offense, it behooves me to speak in a non-offensive manner,
doesn't it? And if I have not taken sufficient care to avoid
inflammatory speech, should I blame the listener for being too sensitive?
   
> But perhaps, just
> as you assumed that Lady Tyrca was biased because (using her analogy) from
> your pov she belongs in 'Camp' A while you belong in 'Camp' B.

No, she doesn't belong in Camp A, and I made no such assumption. I
suggested a possibility that there was some bias, and conversely the
possibility exists that there is none. The division I was drawing had
nothing to do with preference, but the means used to express them. I
think I do belong in group B, but not because of my preferences.
 
> Some of us, however, regardless of our preferences, have simply been trying
> to *share* our experiences and our own analysis of the taste components of
> the two substances as we percieve them.  Just from a purely personal
> standpoint (of course, and it should go without saying), I see a
> qualitative difference between saying that you find something bland and
> comparing it to bathroom caulking.

Certainly there is a difference. However, note that you've mentioned my
reference to bathtub caulking (which I should not have made), but not
the fact that the majority of those who stated a preference did not say
they found their non-preferred item bland, but said it _was_ bland, and
it was even suggested that only mental illness could explain any
preference contrary to that of the speaker. If you want to discuss
qualitative differences, perhaps we can start there, since they came
before any unfortunate comments of mine, chronologically.  

>  But perhaps that's just my perception
> or calling it "insipid" or "upstart" or other such emotionally charged
> words.  But then, apparently "bland" is an emotionally charged word to some
> cooks ;-)

To a cook, it can be. It implies underseasoning, and in a product that,
in theory, contains almost nothing but highly flavored ingredients, it
is inexplicable. Examples of underseasoned brands do not constitute a
valid criticism of the genre. To state that another product, similarly
made but for a higher proportion of water and some added sugar is
somehow _less_ bland, and to suggest that the sugar is not the reason
for it, is kind of naive, at best. Yes, "insipid" and "upstart" are
emotionally charged, probably intentionally so. If I had used either
word, before now, in this discussion, it would have been wrong, but
perhaps understandable, if not condonable, given that such words were
used in response to other, previous, inflammatory terms. See above.   
 
> > By the way, jam omelettes are part of the same _classical_ tradition
> > that mayonnaise belongs to...
 
> hmmmm.... by "classical", so you mean historically so (i.e., Greco-Roman in
> origin?)  I'd be interested in what you mean by this statement as I'm
> intrigued to learn more.

In culinary parlance, "classical" is a reference to a synthetic,
pan-regional cuisine, mostly but not exclusively French, of the
eighteenth through the early twentieth centuries. See works by
Escoffier, Careme, Dumas, Curnonsky, Diat, Ranhofer, the Larousse
Gastronomique, and a plethora of others for more info.  In this case it
has nothing to do with Greece or Rome, but with, for example, Careme's
and Escoffier's work with the classification of greater (a.k.a.
"mother") and smaller ("daughter") sauces, the development of the
brigade system of kitchen organization, a standardized terminology, etc.

Any resemblance between this discussion and inflammatory arguments on
Miracle Whip are purely accidental.

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com