IMO TMR is the best font for any kind of pure technical documentation. To me a document written in TNR feels like pure and useful form of information without trying to sell something or force some opinion on me.
I was just looking up some recipes the other day and my goodness, does this website feel like a breath of fresh air.
Today's web just utterly buries even the simplest content underneath a mountain of shit, whether it's ads or fancy banners or a long-winded speech about god-knows-what before getting to the point.
It was made by a linux youtuber who occasionally (often) complains about bloat, the the point that 'bloat' became an overused meme by commenters on his channel. Looks like he practices what he preaches!
I love thermomix [0] recipes because of their simplicity. Most recipes are 5 or 6 lines, each with symbol, ingredient, time, temperature. Super tight shorthand.
[0] thermomix is basically the non American alternative to the Vitamix blender. Except that it has a scale and has temperature control built in.
Maybe I'm in a minority, because everyone always hoots and hollers about how they hate modern recipe web sites -- and I get it, 6 pages of memories of trips to grandma or whatever is ridiculous -- but I can't see myself ever using a plain-text recipe with no clue as to who the author is and no reason to suspect that they know what they're talking about. At that point I would probably go to SimplyRecipes, where at least recipes are voted on.
The sites that keep me are the ones that don't blather on about grandmas but do subtly give me some reason for why I should trust them, they explain that this technique makes the most sense, they describe how they've tweaked it from this cookbook or whatever. I also read the comments. In the end, though, my pre-existing trust of the site and author makes the most difference.
> but I can't see myself ever using a plain-text recipe with no clue as to who the author is and no reason to suspect that they know what they're talking about.
Isn't this how recipes - outside of friends and family - have worked forever?
Celebrity chefs are the minority. People normally just Google "air fryer fried okra" and click on one of the first three.
A meandering SEO tale doesn't prove this person cook, it proves they know how to game Google.
It's not that recipes with meandering SEO tales necessarily have better recipes. It's that recipes without any explanation usually suck. If you pick something with a meandering SEO tale, it _might_ not be terrible. Possibly not terrible is better than definitely terrible.
I'd argue that recipes themselves are why a lot of people's cooking sucks. The recipes tell you what how much and how long but fail to account for the basics of seasoning, preparation and tool selection.
If people apply a formal or acquired training to recipes they'd usually vary a lot from person to person much less the original recipe
The cookbooks I have I acquired thinking they were good sources of recipes, and they kind of are. But the real value I found, is the sections on "how to cook". Everything in those books on technique: from knowing how to convert tablespoons to volumetric ounces (yes, I'm American) to how to temper eggs. My favorite bread recipe book, for example, isn't my favorite because the recipes are the best, but because it taught me how to make bread, including things like creating a sourdough starter from scratch.
Recipes are easy to find, especially now with the internet.
Yeah, I’ve had the same experience. I really like the Salt Fat Acid Heat [0] book for this.
It does have a section on recipes, but a solid half or more of the book is on technique, why certain ways work and others don’t, etc.
Lots of stuff that I imagine one would pick up by working in a kitchen or going to school for it, but could take a long time to figure out on your own.
> Nope, people got recipes from books and magazines, which were considered reliable gatekeepers.
You're making my point - they were gatekeepers because they were discoverable and promoted. That's what gave them credibility. Just as showing in search results does now.
People didn't pick cookbooks because they had the most aimless stories that hid the actual recipe.
These days? Sure, but I was specially talking about pre internet. This is a rather new phenomenon that i believe comes mostly from SEO and a shift to things like cooking and organizing becoming commoditized "lifestyle" genres.
They were gate keepers because there was an editorial standard to uphold. That's what gave them credibility.
If you run the magazine Food & Wine and you just publish random recipes that you found for free in church-ladies' xeroxed recipe pamphlet, you're going to lose your readership pretty fast.
Of course, some magazines applied more standards than others, and so that's when the reader learns to trust the recipe in Food & Wine (or whatever, I'm not recommending them) over Reader's Digest.
>> "Looking back at some of the gelatin casseroles of the 60s, of course, casts doubt on some of that reliability."
The most convincing theory I heard was that the gelatin obsession was about status since it required refrigeration. Hosting a party where you served the latest, most elaborate gelatin dish said something about you.
If it's status I'd probably pick a different reason. Before commercial gelatin, making aspic was a fairly long and complicated process and it was part of high cuisine, especially in Europe. So that may have carried over to using it in middle class home-cooked dished when commercial gelatin became available.
I don't think OP talkes about polished SEO blogs or celebrities, but about experience and knowing the basics. If you e.g. quote Escoffier or Harold McGee etc, I trust you did your research.[0] Also, OP mentions techniques, which I agree are interesting and worth to share.
[0] (Of course you don't have to read and quote books, and a lot of good chefs didn't as well, but that is just one factor for me to decide how much experience you have/how trustworthy you are. Just showing some recipes don't tell me that much.)
Yeah, sometimes at least basic images are incredibly helpful. First time I tried to make mac and cheese from scratch I struggled finding decent instructions on how to make the roux as I had never made or seen a roux before. Eventually I kinda figured it out after piecing together pictures from like 4-5 recipe sites.
Unless it's something I never tried to make before and isn't like anything I have tried before, I just want an ingredient list and the directions with a color pic of the final dish to entice me.
When deciding between competing recipes I want the ingredient list and a pic of the final product to decide.
I don't want to have to browse and search through the clutter of irrelevant things. I like Punchfork[1] for this. Easy to search, it presents the ingredient list and a pic then you can click through to the site for the instructions --unfortunately the actual sites are usually cluttered with few exceptions.
I'm on your side. I need the author of a recipe to explain why their recipe is interesting, different, or better than others. And I need that to match with my own culinary reasoning and knowledge. Otherwise it's likely to be bland, boring, both, or worse.
That said, we are in the minority. Most people just Google the recipe they want to make and use the first result. This very very very rarely produces a good result. Most people don't care. And yet they wonder why their food sucks.
There's definitely some skill to cooking, but 80% of why I'm considering a good cook among my friends is because I only use recipes from people I trust, and I try to follow them as closely as possible.
> Most people just Google the recipe they want to make and use the first result. This very very very rarely produces a good result.
It depends on your skill level / experience. Some people have a knack for cooking and just need a rough list of ingredients to figure out a dish.
Some people need detailed instructions and rely more on recipes. I don't have any idea how to season things apart from a liberal use of buillon cubes, so my best dishes are when I closely follow recipe instructions from good cookbooks.
Since you mentioned seasoning, and I’ve got this in my clipboard from another reply...
Check out Salt Fat Acid Heat [0] if you haven’t seen it. It totally changed my idea of how to season things, to the point that I feel a lot more confident modifying existing recipes now.
One of the most eye opening things also sounds the most silly in retrospect: taste as you go. It makes such a huge difference! For whatever reason, I would always blindly follow a recipe until the very end, and hope that the “big reveal” turned out how I hoped. Now, I try to taste as I go (add a little salt; try it; add more). A related tip that blew my mind recently: if you’re making meatballs and want to check the seasoning, cook a tiny chunk of it and taste it before committing to a whole batch.
Sure, people who just need a rough recipe will be fine. But most people don't fall into this category.
And more importantly, lots of people really _think_ they fall into a category where they don't need recipes to "cook well". In reality, they started off following shitty recipes, and so now their "expertise" is built on shoddy foundations.
> There's definitely some skill to cooking, but 80% of why I'm considering a good cook among my friends is because I only use recipes from people I trust
I strongly agree with this. I consider myself a fairly accomplished cook, I've been cooking since I was tall enough to see over the table, but one of the big things that helps is that I will take the time to find the right recipe, mostly by looking at the recipe itself and being able to visualize and taste the food before I make it, but also but reading what the author writes and deciding if I trust them.
Besides, people looking for recipes are getting something of real value, sometimes hard won. That is hard to know, unless all that is shared too.
I play it like you do. The better sites offer context and serve up whatever AD helps them pay their way. Totally equitable.
One can always start really learning to cook too. Reasonable food is not too tough and being able to spiff up a recipe or substitute is the reward.
Great food is harder. I am getting there myself and I have a two generation body of recpies and notes to draw on.
My grannie was very sharp. Approached cooking like she did many things. She often had real mastery of stuff she wanted to do or was interested in. Similar values were present in my wife's side of the fam. A couple of those are over 100 years old! (Brought over on a boat from Europe)
In those books are notes, context, other info. Those are where the great was noted down, passed down.
That experience has given me a perspective on all this. People who share are doing something pretty damn high value.
It should be appreciated, funded, etc.
And no, our family books are getting scanned, but are not going online just yet. The women consider it personal.
I suppose it is.
It is also the food that brings people home every year too. I grok that.
Maybe the better people can end up on substack. Deliver the good recipes and context needed for people to get the great in them.
I may subscribe. Pretty sure my wife would, if it were someone she values somehow.
To me, being unable to be bothered some means maybe also not being all the concerned about the food.
I see what you mean, but one thing that site could use is to have the "Jump to the recipe" button follow you down the page. I mean, my god, I had scrolled to the equivalent of about page 30 when I suddenly really "how long does this thing go on for?" and had to scroll all the way back up to be able to jump back down to the recipe.
plug for Felicity Cloake’s “how to cook the perfect” recipes in the guardian. she makes multiple versions of common recipes talking about the effects of the different ingredients and methods before giving her take on it. you learn about how the recipe works and are able to make substitutions/ changes much more easily. of course you can always skip to the last section where she gives her version concisely and with note a word about her grandmother.
The advice to eschew iodized salt in favor of kosher salt is dangerous. Iodo-deficiency is a significant number of IQ points, and in the first world, iodized salt costs the same as non-iodized. It helps thyroid function too, please do not go out of your way to avoid free iodine in your diet!
Fun fact: Australia, quite by accident, had iodized milk up to the 80s, because of the sanitisers used in dairy processing which contained iodophors. And now that we have started phasing them out, it turns out that iodine deficiency has started occurring again.
I like the idea of a simple recipe site generally, but I also like reading the user feedback on recipe sites. Is a recipe any good? Are there improvements? There is no way to tell on this site.
IMO it's not worth the hassle to add user feedback, because A) it takes a lot of work from the website admin B) it's usually extremely low (maybe negative) value.
A friend of mine who frequents recipe sites pointed out to me once how often the comments are some variation of "I made this except I didn't have any X, Y, or Z so I used M, N, and O", which is great for them but it doesn't really tell you if the recipe, as written, is any good.
I suspect the recipe sites care about comments and other user-generate stuff because that's how they track "engagement" and collect data to feed into their SEO/ad targeting/sales pipeline.
Yes, unless the recipe called for sugar and the "chef" who tried it was clueless and subbed something dumb like sweet curry powder and then complained the recipe sucked.
having read through them all i’d say the recipes range from ‘fine’ to ‘probably not that great but if you’ve just moved out of your parents home its not a bad place to start’. most of the recipes seem robust and would be hard to really mess up. the salt thing as others have pointed out is nonsense.
having spent many hours scrolling through ad laden recipe sites though i really do appreciate the straight forward approach.
In the last few years I’ve learnt that there really is nothing better than a good cook book. Vibrant colors, techniques, stories - these can all really add to your experience if their presence is not solely for the purpose of including additional ads. I’ve also found that the recipe alone is truly not enough - the techniques and background are incredibly important !
> the techniques and background are incredibly important
As someone who admittedly loathes _and_ is bad at cooking - it sounds like you are describing a combination recipe book _and_ cooking-instruction/cooking-history book. I wonder if people are frustrated because the two are getting conflated - they _just_ want the recipe, but they are being given both recipes and background?
Often people are deeply frustrated because they're getting pages and pages of irrelevant SEO-bait and then the recipe. It's rarely meaningful, substantive, informative, educational, or helpful. I don't care how much someone's son/partner/dog loves this gluten-free/low-carb/vegan recipe, and most people seem to also not care.
I genuinely truly wouldn’t mind it if all the filler were easy to skip if the reader so desires. Some (and increasingly more) sites offer a “skip to recipe” link but for a long long LONG time that wasn’t the case.
Couldn't agree more. A good cookbook is well laid out and organized in a logical manner, rather than organized to optimize search rankings.
And while I'm grateful for youtube, blogs, reddit, etc for reducing the barriers for folks to share information about topics like cooking and home improvement, they've also taught me to appreciate a good editor.
To learn the techniques, history and scientific background, "On Food and Cooking" [0] is great. His second book, "The Curious Cook" [1] is entertaining and interesting as well.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4901819-la-cuisine-raiso... , it's in French and I don't know of a translation but if you can read it, it is one of the best book on cooking. It covers techniques and timeless traditional French and French Canadian recipes. It's a reference as much as it is a cookbook and it's a lot cheaper, and accessible than Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking from Nathan Myhrvold
The first edition is over 100year old, my grandmother gave the second edition of that book to my mother who gave it to my sister.
I got mildly obsessed with modernist cooking a few years back and got a copy of Myhrvold's At Home book.
It's a beautiful book and is an interesting read. That said, I don't really use it much although I have a few go tos. A lot of the recipes are way more work than I'm going to put in for, say, an omelette.
Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat by Samin Nosrat is great, as is The Food Lab by J. Kenji Lopez Alt. I also love The Food of Sichuan by Fuchsia Dunlop but that's more Sichuan cuisine than general cooking.
I was a professional chef for 17 years, 11 in Michelin star restaurants and 6 as a private yacht chef. I used Cooks Illustrated America's Test Kitchen's[0] cookbooks on the yacht, mostly The Best Recipe. [1] That set of recipes was perfect for what I was doing and freed me from having to think about what to make. There are was so much available I was doing a different dish every night and day for months on end. I always enjoy doing stuff I haven't done before. Bobbing around in the ocean one week in from the last supermarket and another week before access to another decent one, it is nice to have a reliable source of new recipes to plan with. What is really important is that it is one thing that every recipe in a cookbook works, often they don't, and it is another thing that not only does every recipe work but they always have fantastic results. More or less that set of cookbooks made my life so easy, I found a new hobby on the yacht writing code. As for a monthly source, Cook Illustrated and Cooking Light are my favorite sources. As a private chef, I can't make restaurant food everyday for my clients because restaurant food is more or less an unhealthy drug that makes people fat so I'd use Cooking Light for inspiration although the recipes are not as guaranteed for perfect results as the Cooks Illustrated recipes.
Second the recommendation. It's been my go to recipe book for a good decade now. Nothing too adventurous but very solid and reliable. (I think ATK has generally pushed a little further out of a traditional American comfort zone since Kimball departed.)
If I have a criticism of them, it's that they make some things more complex than they need to be for little gain in the final product. They have you cook everything three different ways as a friend puts it. I think they've probably gotten a bit better on this front as well.
- Every grain of rice ( Fuschia Dunlop ) is close to what I’d consider a perfect cookbook.
- Franklin BBQ ( Aaron Franklin ) is a definitive guide to how to use an offset smoker. I’ve read through portions over and over again - it’s only got about 10 recipes.
- My two south’s ( Asha Gomez ) - A wonderful collection of recipes inspired by South India, the south.
A good cook book will usually have a section that introduces new ingredients, tells you how to source them, introduces new techniques or methods, and also introduce some shorter recipes that can be used as dependencies for others. At the end of the day - you want good building blocks.
I have Dunlop's Hunan and Szechuan books which I really like, especially the latter. The one caveat I have is that, if you don't live somewhere with a good Oriental supermarket, you're probably going to be frustrated.
Modern blog-y recipe websites do tend to go and on about things I really do not care about (e.g. the worst I've seen is a recipe that included 68 wedding pictures before anything related to the recipe came up [0]), but they also tend to include some helpful hints/tips/pictures of some of the techniques used.
There's a good middle point to be struck between the starkly minimalist based.cooking and the excessively backstory heavy recipe blogs.
I also became frustrated with recipes sites and made my own: https://nononsense.recipes - free to browse, or you can make an account to add your own recipes, curate a list of favorites, and leave and read comments.
You’ve made this exact comment more than once - you seem to have a pretty personal bone to pick with Luke, given that your assessment of “alt-right unabomber” is about as hilariously off the mark as it gets.
Luke is not the reincarnation of the unabomber, but he's heavily influenced by Ted's writing and tries to live a life devoid of leftists and rational thinking.
I've watched Luke for years -- his Linux and Unix tutorials are some of the best on YouTube -- but his non-tech videos and live streams are where he goes off the rails.
He's a racist. It's not obvious, but there are many times on his livestreams, in particular, where his language and beliefs hint to that. He often refers to Indian American as "pajeets," which is their equivalent of the n-word.
He's also delusional. He constantly eslewed thst the coronavirus was a hoax and once described the guy who killed the woman in Charlottesville after crashing his car into a group of protestors
-- what law enforcement considered a domestic terrorist attack -- nothing but a "car accident."
The word "based" in slang has come to mean "not caring what others think", usually applied to being outrageous, controversial, or in some cases just outright offensive. So based cooking would be "I cook what I want". I offer up, as an example, "sketti": https://www.bakespace.com/recipes/detail/Honey-Boo-Boo-Skett... as "based" cooking.
It does not just mean "cool". What you think is cool I might think is stupid or offensive. Either way, we do what we want, we are based. The fact that Honey Boo Boo is reviled just shows that she epitomizes based.
Based is in the eye of the beholder, yes, exactly like what's 'cool' or not. Two different groups can disagree about which words apply to particular things or people while still holding the same usage/meaning for the words themselves. Like 'cool' and 'lame'.
"based and redpilled" is quite literally the opposite of "cringe and bluepilled" in common usage. Based definitely is not a synonym for cringe. It often shows approval of some sort, or being impressed when someone acts like a "mad lad".
I'm sure interpretations differ, but yours seemed a bit too far off the mark.
FWIW, that video doesn't change the meaning of the word to me. Still means cringe/unpleasant/racist to me. Every time I've seen 'based' used, it is nearly always followed by something cringe, unpleasant, or racist.
I do understand words have multiple meanings and people interpret things differently. I'm willing to accept that other people interpret 'based' as 'cool', but that is not what the word means to me, or to a lot of other people, I'm sure.
That’s not what the word means to you, that’s how you feel about content that the word is associated with. Just like “homeopathy” generally makes me think “pseudoscience” but really means “dilute a bunch of stuff and use it as medicine”. It’s natural to feel that content that is “based” to people who use that word is “cringe” to you because you disagree with their opinions on what is “based”, but it doesn’t change the meaning of based but instead means “I just think that thing is cringe myself”.
I think you've got the definition of homeopathy incorrect. I checked wikipedia and it says, "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine." It does mean pseudoscience, specifically medicine, just like your association with it.
As far as I can tell from on the usage of based I've seen, it means cringe/unpleasant/racist (depending on context).
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It mentions that homeopathy is a pseudoscience because it would be a glaring omission for an encyclopedia if it didn’t. Homeopathy is a medical system that works as I described above, and it just so happens that it’s totally junk as well. Its usage in the context of those that practice homeopathy is not the definition that describes it as being bunk.
Similarly, “based” is used to mean the opposite of “cringe”. It just so happens that most “based” content is what others might call cringe; the video I posted above is satire of exactly this. However, it doesn’t change the meaning of the word, and in fact the joke falls apart if you redefine it this way.
I don't know. You cited a youtube clip with usage of a word as a definition of a word, which I accept, actually, as an interesting and useful source. But you deny the wikipedia language I quoted as acceptable input to this conversation? Why is your youtube context more right than my wikipedia context?
Words have multiple meanings. Clearly based is one of them.
If someone calls a "cringe/unpleasant/racist" thing "cool", then does that mean that one of the meaning of the word "cool" is something "cringe/unpleasant/racist"?
I cited it as usage of the word in context, not as a definition. I rejected your Wikipedia link because it was not an example of usage, but rather an explanation of what the thing is rather than its definition (I would expect a Wikipedia article on "based", if there ever was one, to mention that it's associated with the far right, etc. Words do have multiple meanings, but those meanings grow organically from their usage; you can't just come along and say "I associate this word with xyz therefore it means xyz". That's just how you feel about the word.
> As far as I can tell from on the usage of based I've seen, it means cringe/unpleasant/racist (depending on context).
Again, you need to separate your feelings about the things being described as “based” with the meaning intended by the people using the word. If I hate hippies and think anything they call “groovy” is really ugly and uncool, that doesn’t mean I get to just declare that “groovy means ugly and uncool”. That’s what you’re doing.
"Based" is a positive adjective in 4chan-ese. It's roughly analogous to "redpilled," and is used primarily (but not exclusively) by reactionaries and people in that general sphere.
The owner of this website is one such person; the use of "based" is meant to be a (not so) subtle nod to his knowing audience.
Didn't "based" come from Lil B initially? I've heard the phrase "based and redpilled," but I've heard it separately. I interpret "based" as a compliment given to radical viewpoints that are completely impractical, without signaling assent. See Political Compass Memes for numerous examples.
For example: anarcho-monarchism is based. It's a ridiculous ideology, and I wouldn't support it, but it'd be cool to meet someone who actually believes in it.
It’s a reference to freebasing cocaine. Lil B’s detractors (apocryphally) used to call him based as an insult (analogous to crackhead) and he then started calling himself the Based God.
That makes sense, thanks. I kind of like the idea of based meaning grounded... too bad I didn’t get there first.
“Should we split this out into microservices?”
“Only when we’ve identified an acute need for the increased complexity in our architecture.”
“Based thinking”
Both of these viewpoints are true. While I wholeheartedly support the use of the word "based" in the sense that you put it, it is also slang in a certain online subculture and a nod to that subculture. OP was dead on about that in this case: the author's other works include "Why I don't use Cuck Licenses" and "Science vs. Soyence."
From the existence of the phrase "based and redpilled", we can see they're different things- or why mention them?
To be based is to have a certain effortless confident, self-assured fearless character and disposition towards the world. Someone who's based doesn't care if what they say is controversial, because they're too cool to care, but they won't say controversial things for the sake of it- attention-seeking is cringe, it's the act of a weakling who has to scramble for whatever power he can filch off others. The Based one simply says what he believes to be true when he wills, irrespective of social norms. He could pretend, but has no need for pretense, because he does not fear reprisal.
Being red-pilled is something else; it's a certain kind of enlightenment, a disturbing revelation about the nature of the world. When you take the red pill, you're throwing aside comforting lies and confronting the hidden/evil truth.
What exactly that enlightenment is varies from subculture to subculture- the imagery of the red pill has been used by lots of people, and there's a whole range of pills now; the bluepilled are normal people who still accept the lie, blackpilled people are redpillers who have fallen into despair and hopelessness (where it's implied that the red pill usually implies a call to action, the black pill implies apathy- 'just let it all burn', and blackpillers view redpillers as naive in their desire towards action, which will be pointless at best and counterproductive at worst), the white pill which is a hopeful rejoinder to the black pill, the iron pill which says you should work out more...
A lot of these pills act as revelations to previous revelations that recontextualize the previous pill's lessons and worldview, and in the face of all this uncertainty and flux, you can imagine there's a lot of anxiety.
This is where 'based and redpilled' comes in. The based attitude quenches the neurotic anxiety of the pill-seeker's revelation, while the information in the revelation itself- paired with the confidence, self-assurence, and courage to act on it- lets the Based and Redpilled avoid the pitfalls others fall into, and stride forth as more than their peers, as the union of chad and virgin, as the guy who says the n-word on twitter and doesn't get fired because he's his own boss.
Everyone's using 'redpilled' & 'bluepilled' to explain 'based'.. I think it's just too long since I've seen The Matrix for it to be clear how that applies to cooking, or even to a person's attitude towards cooking.
> Being "redpilled" means you've come to accept some reality that differs from the mainstream interpretation, but is the factual and correct one. This can range from more serious issues ("there are only two genders") to more shitposty/comedic ones ("The Room is a cinematic masterpiece"). Whereas "bluepilled" is the opposite--you failed to understand the true reality of things and are stuck believing a false idea.
> Redpill and Bluepill are just another way of saying "My personal opinion is objective fact and what you think is objectively wrong"
It still seems like an odd adjective ('objectively correct') for cooking though, to me.
Based is really hard to define if we're being honest. It kind of means a Libertarian sort of self-righteous fearlessness of going against the grain. Like being anti lockdown because lockdowns are unconstitutional? Based. In this example there's a certain macho-ness to this site, there's no fluff, narrative, ads, CSS, or pictures, just recipes, dammit! Based.
This is not at all what the OP link is using the word to mean. "Based" has become a meme word to mean good, agreeable, against the norms, and often controversial.
The owner of this website is a reactionary with a relatively popular YouTube channel in which he openly espouses and trades in racist talking points[1].
I’m always fascinated by people complaining about ‘woke identity politics’ usually when coming in defense of people who define their whole identity... as anti-woke. Maybe let’s admit that everyone is playing identity politics, it’s just that one side is too embarrassed to admit it after decades of virtue signaling ‘independent thought’.
The term 'based' is only used by a very tiny group of people. I'll let you figure out why one of their heroes was a guy they called 'based stickman' that ended in prison for assaulting people with a weapon.
I know what 'based' means. The term originated in hip-hop and now it's used by all sorts of people ranging from nationalists, through moderate conservatives and apolitical people, all the way to communists, in places like imageboards, twitter and social media in general. It's just like the term 'thot'. It's generally used by young people on the internet.
Please, when you start with a bad faith attempt at whitewashing Luke's YouTube as not being full of edgelord shit trying to 'own the libs', I don't think I can take your opinion seriously about what people do to define their identity.
With such great things as having a picture of 'soydevs', or such titles as 'Schooling a beta GNUTard', 'Virgin social media vs. chad RSS', 'Orderly dissolution of the United States into its component parts' and you know, about half of his videos having thumbnails with pepes and the kind of alt-right shit you used to see in r/TheDonald'... I'm sure he's just a nice Linux nerd who would never associate with the kind of people that idolized 'based stickman'.
I'm not denying the memes and the edginess, as you can just look at the YouTube channel. But believe it or not, not everything is about you and the 'wokeness'. You think too much of yourself if you think everyone has to define himself as in how do they relate to you.
> Right?
Actually yes, I've seen plenty of people like that. You're missing a relevant fact that it's funny. Just to give an example, another Linux channel, MentalOutlaw.
ROFL, you think too much of yourself if you don't realize that the whole 'I don't care about your feelings, I'm gonna be a very aggressive boy, you just watch me!' isn't a cry for attention. In fact, that kind of behavior is all about people's wokeness or whatever you wanna call it.
Most people get over that kind of mentality by the time they are 20 something and working. Some don't, I guess.
Yeah, I understand how it can be confusing that a community that defines itself by being an explicit rejection of the norms of society and calls people they disagree with 'normies' could possibly concern itself with what other people think. It's OK, if you haven't figured it out by now, there's nothing I can do to help you. Have a good one.
I don't see that he's trying to own the libs. He points out what problems he sees with aspects of modernity- we all do that- in a comedic way, in the style of internet subculture, and advocates seperation from that modernity and its problems. Hence moving out of cities to small towns, moving off of big tech platforms and having your own personal website, growing and cooking your own food, etc. In general, becoming progressively more independent from macroscopic society.
This stickman guy seems to be the opposite of that. Hanging around in cities, headbutting with antifa losers, makes you just as much of a loser. None of it's real, it's all performative- it's all cringe, a waste of time, a distraction when you could be building something better. LS definitely wouldn't consider stickman 'based'.
I don't see the edginess, either. Something edgy is trying to be transgressive and out there, but LS's thumbnails and titles are just standard /g/ vernacular. To his audience- internet-goers who are used to /g/-style vernacular- there's nothing edgy or transgressive about the language/imagery used, it's just standard memes.
Speaking your subculture's language to your subculture isn't edgy. Black rappers don't say digger to offend white suburban moms, LS isn't going to left-wing people's facebook/twitter pages and posting soyboy memes at them; he's mocking those people in his own space, among his subculture. Of course they can be edgy and offensive to you, but you're the suburban white woman in this scenario.
I certainly don't think anyone should aspire to being 'a nice linux nerd', or to go out of their way to appease suburban white moms' overactive sensitivities and imaginations, for that matter. That would be very cringe and bluepilled, so to speak.
That's a lot of text to try to justify being a shithead.
My favorite ridiculous bit is when you pretend that all the stupid /g/ slang isn't designed around shock value. By your own argument, I guess pedophilia is acceptable and not transgressive of social norms as long as your audience is a group of pedophiles. I wish I could kiss that juicy multi-dimensional galaxy brain of yours!
BTW, there's nothing wrong about trying to be nice. Like, literally there's nothing more acceptable than being agreeable. But I guess that's too much to ask from someone like you who is clearly too cool for school and 'so based'.
I used to think like that when I was an edgy teen. I'm so glad I grew the fuck up.
If all the time I've wasted on 4chan has taught me anything, it's that calling people shitheads, or more colorful variants, does little to change their mind.
The problem with pedophilia isn't that it's offensive, it's the harm caused. As you well know... If you can make a good case that soydev memes are as bad as, you know, molesting kids, then please do.
The point about niceness is that agreeableness alone isn't indicative of morality. The bureaucrats managing the death trains were as agreeable as anyone. Niceness is nice to have, and some degree of agreeableness is needed to operate in society, but niceness for niceness' sake is just vapid. Successful sociopaths are nice. Niceness, politeness, these are all social ceasefires/tools. Nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn't be the fundament of your personality- there should be something more to you than "I'm a nice guy". And "I'm a nice linux nerd" just sounds especially vapid.
If I met you in real life, I'd be nice and polite (according to the social rules of our current culture), of course. And LS is being nice and polite according to the social rules of /g/ culture. That space isn't really meant for you and doesn't have to conform to the rules of politeness of mainstream culture, much as you wouldn't go into, I don't know, a punk rock concert and ask them to tone down their language a bit. Would you deny these weirdos their safe space, where they can joke about wagecucks and gnutards?
That language was born of attempts to be edgy, yes, but once it became fixed it was no longer mutually offensive to interlocutors.
Ironically, you're being more interpersonally combative/abrasive than anyone I've seen on LS's channel!
Less nice, in other words.
With your attitude, and your sailor's mouth, you might belong on 4chan, after all.
> If all the time I've wasted on 4chan has taught me anything, it's that calling people shitheads, or more colorful variants, does little to change their mind.
I'm not here to convert anyone. Catharsis is also a perfectly valid reason to do something.
> The problem with pedophilia isn't that it's offensive, it's the harm caused. As you well know... If you can make a good case that soydev memes are as bad as, you know, molesting kids, then please do.
Filling people's heads with 'edgy' stuff has led us to the current situation were we have self-declared incels shooting up public places while live-streaming their violence 'for the lulz'. The Christchurch massacre was the perfect example of the logical conclusion of the nihilistic onanism that is 4chan shitposting.
I'd argue that setting people into the edgy -> racist to be edgy -> conspiracy theories about replacement -> violence sausage machine, on the premise of laughing at 'soydevs' (whatever that is supposed to mean) has real-life consequences just as bad as pedophilia.
> That space isn't really meant for you and doesn't have to conform to the rules of politeness of mainstream culture, much as you wouldn't go into, I don't know, a punk rock concert and ask them to tone down their language a bit.
> Would you deny these weirdos their safe space, where they can joke about wagecucks and gnutards?
As I said, the problem with these weirdos' safe-space is that it is increasingly leading to consequences in the real world. They can say whatever the hell they want in their safe-space, but you can't ask me to not tell them how stupid and/or deranged they sound when they come to my space. That's the only way to adjust their expectations ``
> Ironically, you're being more interpersonally combative/abrasive than anyone I've seen on LS's channel! Less nice, in other words. With your attitude, and your sailor's mouth, you might belong on 4chan, after all.
Almost like people can have strong opinions without having to resort to calling others 'soydevs' and 'suburban white women'.
>Catharsis is a perfectly valid reason to do something
Yes, /b/, /pol/ and /g/ agree completely. Like I said, you'd fit in there- the emotional zealotry, the insults, you're a 4chan poster in spirit already.
>Almost like people can have strong opinions without having to resort to calling others 'soydevs' and 'suburban white women'.
I'd take being called a soydev or a suburban white woman over being called a shithead or being compared to pedophiles, thanks! Are those really the most horrible words you can accuse me of using...? They seem pretty tame.
I'm not here to convert either, and I leave filled with a sense of relief that you aren't able to more strongly impose your will on the world and others.
Again, you view those culturally/politically opposed to you as a monolith, and so lump people together who don't fit together, like a southerner saying all muslims are terrorists. There's a difference between your local imam and an al-qaeda follower who murders a bunch of people, and in the same way there's a difference between LS and and the christchurch shooter. Lumping them together is inaccurate, and if you think the latter is a pipeline to the former, well, 'islamophobe' is a word. I guess 'chanophobe' is next...
Well surely the author is the one pushing identity politics into his videos about technology, complete with an obsession about "modernist degenerate marxist egalitarian values" (I'm paraphrasing)
I don't care what other things the author does. I came for the recipes and that's all that matters.
It used to be pretty common to find independent sites that had all sorts of interesting information and if you dug further you'd find the author has very extremist political or religious views, which you mostly ignored. Now it's all gone or replaced with a fake politically-correct "personality" out of fear of offending anyone.
> Long story short, a bugman is someone who rejects the purpose and role of humans in their natural environment. They reject tradition, religion, their family, gender roles.
Ah, I can smell the rank mold from here.
> you're given for your acceptance some inane religious platitudes like "equality" and "rights" along with vaguely Marxist notions of "exploitation" and "slavery" and "oppressed classes,"
Plus the usual inane stuff about vegans being fundamentalist skinny soybois who will die at 40 and become impotent from their diet. Oh, and also global warming is a myth. Lovely stuff.
Source on the racist thing? I’ve watched a number of his videos, mostly to learn various Linux tools. I’ve generally enjoyed his content and found it inoffensive; just way off the beaten path.
484 comments
[ 84.7 ms ] story [ 7189 ms ] threadThis isn't based cooking, this is meatporn for carnivores.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/based
Today's web just utterly buries even the simplest content underneath a mountain of shit, whether it's ads or fancy banners or a long-winded speech about god-knows-what before getting to the point.
Kudos to whoever made this.
[0] thermomix is basically the non American alternative to the Vitamix blender. Except that it has a scale and has temperature control built in.
The sites that keep me are the ones that don't blather on about grandmas but do subtly give me some reason for why I should trust them, they explain that this technique makes the most sense, they describe how they've tweaked it from this cookbook or whatever. I also read the comments. In the end, though, my pre-existing trust of the site and author makes the most difference.
Isn't this how recipes - outside of friends and family - have worked forever?
Celebrity chefs are the minority. People normally just Google "air fryer fried okra" and click on one of the first three.
A meandering SEO tale doesn't prove this person cook, it proves they know how to game Google.
It's not that recipes with meandering SEO tales necessarily have better recipes. It's that recipes without any explanation usually suck. If you pick something with a meandering SEO tale, it _might_ not be terrible. Possibly not terrible is better than definitely terrible.
I'd argue that recipes themselves are why a lot of people's cooking sucks. The recipes tell you what how much and how long but fail to account for the basics of seasoning, preparation and tool selection.
If people apply a formal or acquired training to recipes they'd usually vary a lot from person to person much less the original recipe
Recipes are easy to find, especially now with the internet.
It does have a section on recipes, but a solid half or more of the book is on technique, why certain ways work and others don’t, etc.
Lots of stuff that I imagine one would pick up by working in a kitchen or going to school for it, but could take a long time to figure out on your own.
0: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Fat-Acid-Heat-Mastering/dp/14767...
Looking back at some of the gelatin casseroles of the 60s, of course, casts doubt on some of that reliability.
You're making my point - they were gatekeepers because they were discoverable and promoted. That's what gave them credibility. Just as showing in search results does now.
People didn't pick cookbooks because they had the most aimless stories that hid the actual recipe.
a) tell if it looks like something you'd enjoy
b) tell if it turned out right after it's done.
None of the recipes on this site have any pictures, which I think will hold it back.
If you run the magazine Food & Wine and you just publish random recipes that you found for free in church-ladies' xeroxed recipe pamphlet, you're going to lose your readership pretty fast.
Of course, some magazines applied more standards than others, and so that's when the reader learns to trust the recipe in Food & Wine (or whatever, I'm not recommending them) over Reader's Digest.
The most convincing theory I heard was that the gelatin obsession was about status since it required refrigeration. Hosting a party where you served the latest, most elaborate gelatin dish said something about you.
[0] (Of course you don't have to read and quote books, and a lot of good chefs didn't as well, but that is just one factor for me to decide how much experience you have/how trustworthy you are. Just showing some recipes don't tell me that much.)
When deciding between competing recipes I want the ingredient list and a pic of the final product to decide.
I don't want to have to browse and search through the clutter of irrelevant things. I like Punchfork[1] for this. Easy to search, it presents the ingredient list and a pic then you can click through to the site for the instructions --unfortunately the actual sites are usually cluttered with few exceptions.
[1] https://www.punchfork.com/
Recipe website de-cruft-ifier
That said, we are in the minority. Most people just Google the recipe they want to make and use the first result. This very very very rarely produces a good result. Most people don't care. And yet they wonder why their food sucks.
There's definitely some skill to cooking, but 80% of why I'm considering a good cook among my friends is because I only use recipes from people I trust, and I try to follow them as closely as possible.
It depends on your skill level / experience. Some people have a knack for cooking and just need a rough list of ingredients to figure out a dish.
Some people need detailed instructions and rely more on recipes. I don't have any idea how to season things apart from a liberal use of buillon cubes, so my best dishes are when I closely follow recipe instructions from good cookbooks.
Check out Salt Fat Acid Heat [0] if you haven’t seen it. It totally changed my idea of how to season things, to the point that I feel a lot more confident modifying existing recipes now.
One of the most eye opening things also sounds the most silly in retrospect: taste as you go. It makes such a huge difference! For whatever reason, I would always blindly follow a recipe until the very end, and hope that the “big reveal” turned out how I hoped. Now, I try to taste as I go (add a little salt; try it; add more). A related tip that blew my mind recently: if you’re making meatballs and want to check the seasoning, cook a tiny chunk of it and taste it before committing to a whole batch.
Anyway, I really like that book :D
0: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Fat-Acid-Heat-Mastering/dp/14767...
And more importantly, lots of people really _think_ they fall into a category where they don't need recipes to "cook well". In reality, they started off following shitty recipes, and so now their "expertise" is built on shoddy foundations.
I strongly agree with this. I consider myself a fairly accomplished cook, I've been cooking since I was tall enough to see over the table, but one of the big things that helps is that I will take the time to find the right recipe, mostly by looking at the recipe itself and being able to visualize and taste the food before I make it, but also but reading what the author writes and deciding if I trust them.
Besides, people looking for recipes are getting something of real value, sometimes hard won. That is hard to know, unless all that is shared too.
I play it like you do. The better sites offer context and serve up whatever AD helps them pay their way. Totally equitable.
One can always start really learning to cook too. Reasonable food is not too tough and being able to spiff up a recipe or substitute is the reward.
Great food is harder. I am getting there myself and I have a two generation body of recpies and notes to draw on.
My grannie was very sharp. Approached cooking like she did many things. She often had real mastery of stuff she wanted to do or was interested in. Similar values were present in my wife's side of the fam. A couple of those are over 100 years old! (Brought over on a boat from Europe)
In those books are notes, context, other info. Those are where the great was noted down, passed down.
That experience has given me a perspective on all this. People who share are doing something pretty damn high value.
It should be appreciated, funded, etc.
And no, our family books are getting scanned, but are not going online just yet. The women consider it personal.
I suppose it is.
It is also the food that brings people home every year too. I grok that.
Maybe the better people can end up on substack. Deliver the good recipes and context needed for people to get the great in them.
I may subscribe. Pretty sure my wife would, if it were someone she values somehow.
To me, being unable to be bothered some means maybe also not being all the concerned about the food.
Self correcting, IMHO.
1. Jump to recipe link right at the top (almost all recipe sites I regularly use have this).
2. Ingredients are described with extra hints or reasons for using them
3. Equipment used
4. Tips for the recipe, sometimes possible substitutes
5. Storage tips
No annoying background, just a short intro and pictures for the basics and otherwise helpful text.
[0]: https://mouthwateringmotivation.com/2021/03/08/no-bake-keto-...
https://www.theguardian.com/food/series/how-to-cook-the-perf...
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00K66HivcI
With this method, you can be sure there won't be any low-effort comments.
having spent many hours scrolling through ad laden recipe sites though i really do appreciate the straight forward approach.
As someone who admittedly loathes _and_ is bad at cooking - it sounds like you are describing a combination recipe book _and_ cooking-instruction/cooking-history book. I wonder if people are frustrated because the two are getting conflated - they _just_ want the recipe, but they are being given both recipes and background?
And while I'm grateful for youtube, blogs, reddit, etc for reducing the barriers for folks to share information about topics like cooking and home improvement, they've also taught me to appreciate a good editor.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Food_and_Cooking
Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/101255.On_Food_and_Cooki...
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/117144.The_Curious_Cook
The first edition is over 100year old, my grandmother gave the second edition of that book to my mother who gave it to my sister.
Have you read Modernist Cuisine at Home and can you compare?
It's a beautiful book and is an interesting read. That said, I don't really use it much although I have a few go tos. A lot of the recipes are way more work than I'm going to put in for, say, an omelette.
[0] https://www.americastestkitchen.com/
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Recipe-Editors-Cooks-Illustrated-Maga...
If I have a criticism of them, it's that they make some things more complex than they need to be for little gain in the final product. They have you cook everything three different ways as a friend puts it. I think they've probably gotten a bit better on this front as well.
- Every grain of rice ( Fuschia Dunlop ) is close to what I’d consider a perfect cookbook.
- Franklin BBQ ( Aaron Franklin ) is a definitive guide to how to use an offset smoker. I’ve read through portions over and over again - it’s only got about 10 recipes.
- My two south’s ( Asha Gomez ) - A wonderful collection of recipes inspired by South India, the south.
A good cook book will usually have a section that introduces new ingredients, tells you how to source them, introduces new techniques or methods, and also introduce some shorter recipes that can be used as dependencies for others. At the end of the day - you want good building blocks.
There's a good middle point to be struck between the starkly minimalist based.cooking and the excessively backstory heavy recipe blogs.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180522221942/https://adventure... (author has since pared back the number of images; see https://adventuresincooking.com/spiced-pear-bundt-cake-with-... )
Can someone shed light on what "based cooking" is? It's rather tricky to Google for and am unable to figure out what the site's author means by that.
Luke is not the reincarnation of the unabomber, but he's heavily influenced by Ted's writing and tries to live a life devoid of leftists and rational thinking.
I've watched Luke for years -- his Linux and Unix tutorials are some of the best on YouTube -- but his non-tech videos and live streams are where he goes off the rails.
He's a racist. It's not obvious, but there are many times on his livestreams, in particular, where his language and beliefs hint to that. He often refers to Indian American as "pajeets," which is their equivalent of the n-word.
He's also delusional. He constantly eslewed thst the coronavirus was a hoax and once described the guy who killed the woman in Charlottesville after crashing his car into a group of protestors -- what law enforcement considered a domestic terrorist attack -- nothing but a "car accident."
Also, it's perfectly acceptable to appreciate the technical stuff but strongly dislike the person. Which is the case here.
Then again, there have been based vegetarians! So go and contribute your recipes!
An example would be:
"I think you should be able to shoot sales people for ringing your doorbell"
"Based"
But what online subculture? A cringe subculture? Isn't something that is positive to a cringe subculture cringe to everyone else?
Honey Boo Boo is not based.
I do understand words have multiple meanings and people interpret things differently. I'm willing to accept that other people interpret 'based' as 'cool', but that is not what the word means to me, or to a lot of other people, I'm sure.
As far as I can tell from on the usage of based I've seen, it means cringe/unpleasant/racist (depending on context).
Similarly, “based” is used to mean the opposite of “cringe”. It just so happens that most “based” content is what others might call cringe; the video I posted above is satire of exactly this. However, it doesn’t change the meaning of the word, and in fact the joke falls apart if you redefine it this way.
Words have multiple meanings. Clearly based is one of them.
Again, you need to separate your feelings about the things being described as “based” with the meaning intended by the people using the word. If I hate hippies and think anything they call “groovy” is really ugly and uncool, that doesn’t mean I get to just declare that “groovy means ugly and uncool”. That’s what you’re doing.
If you are worried about whether you are cool, you aren't.
The owner of this website is one such person; the use of "based" is meant to be a (not so) subtle nod to his knowing audience.
For example: anarcho-monarchism is based. It's a ridiculous ideology, and I wouldn't support it, but it'd be cool to meet someone who actually believes in it.
I think it was something with Lil Wayne a long time ago.
Most slang I can suss out but I don’t think I ever had any idea what it meant to be based then or now.
Grounded?
“Should we split this out into microservices?” “Only when we’ve identified an acute need for the increased complexity in our architecture.” “Based thinking”
To be based is to have a certain effortless confident, self-assured fearless character and disposition towards the world. Someone who's based doesn't care if what they say is controversial, because they're too cool to care, but they won't say controversial things for the sake of it- attention-seeking is cringe, it's the act of a weakling who has to scramble for whatever power he can filch off others. The Based one simply says what he believes to be true when he wills, irrespective of social norms. He could pretend, but has no need for pretense, because he does not fear reprisal.
Being red-pilled is something else; it's a certain kind of enlightenment, a disturbing revelation about the nature of the world. When you take the red pill, you're throwing aside comforting lies and confronting the hidden/evil truth.
What exactly that enlightenment is varies from subculture to subculture- the imagery of the red pill has been used by lots of people, and there's a whole range of pills now; the bluepilled are normal people who still accept the lie, blackpilled people are redpillers who have fallen into despair and hopelessness (where it's implied that the red pill usually implies a call to action, the black pill implies apathy- 'just let it all burn', and blackpillers view redpillers as naive in their desire towards action, which will be pointless at best and counterproductive at worst), the white pill which is a hopeful rejoinder to the black pill, the iron pill which says you should work out more...
A lot of these pills act as revelations to previous revelations that recontextualize the previous pill's lessons and worldview, and in the face of all this uncertainty and flux, you can imagine there's a lot of anxiety.
This is where 'based and redpilled' comes in. The based attitude quenches the neurotic anxiety of the pill-seeker's revelation, while the information in the revelation itself- paired with the confidence, self-assurence, and courage to act on it- lets the Based and Redpilled avoid the pitfalls others fall into, and stride forth as more than their peers, as the union of chad and virgin, as the guy who says the n-word on twitter and doesn't get fired because he's his own boss.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/based-god
This explains: https://knowyourmeme.com/forums/meme-research/topics/57812-c...
> Being "redpilled" means you've come to accept some reality that differs from the mainstream interpretation, but is the factual and correct one. This can range from more serious issues ("there are only two genders") to more shitposty/comedic ones ("The Room is a cinematic masterpiece"). Whereas "bluepilled" is the opposite--you failed to understand the true reality of things and are stuck believing a false idea.
> Redpill and Bluepill are just another way of saying "My personal opinion is objective fact and what you think is objectively wrong"
It still seems like an odd adjective ('objectively correct') for cooking though, to me.
"The quality of having an opinion without regard for what other people think, often a controversial opinion but not always."
In this context, not having ads or unnecesary javascript is based.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvDyQUpaFf4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY70NCW98Is
Love the project, will follow along!
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA
Then again, I'm not a subscriber to this whole new-age identity politics wokeness mess.
But it still does not answer my question.
With such great things as having a picture of 'soydevs', or such titles as 'Schooling a beta GNUTard', 'Virgin social media vs. chad RSS', 'Orderly dissolution of the United States into its component parts' and you know, about half of his videos having thumbnails with pepes and the kind of alt-right shit you used to see in r/TheDonald'... I'm sure he's just a nice Linux nerd who would never associate with the kind of people that idolized 'based stickman'.
Right?
> Right?
Actually yes, I've seen plenty of people like that. You're missing a relevant fact that it's funny. Just to give an example, another Linux channel, MentalOutlaw.
Most people get over that kind of mentality by the time they are 20 something and working. Some don't, I guess.
I think the fact that you said 'owning the libs' speaks for itself.
We should end this discussion as it isn't going anywhere
down: defining yourself as either conformist or non-conformist is cringe, but ok
This stickman guy seems to be the opposite of that. Hanging around in cities, headbutting with antifa losers, makes you just as much of a loser. None of it's real, it's all performative- it's all cringe, a waste of time, a distraction when you could be building something better. LS definitely wouldn't consider stickman 'based'.
I don't see the edginess, either. Something edgy is trying to be transgressive and out there, but LS's thumbnails and titles are just standard /g/ vernacular. To his audience- internet-goers who are used to /g/-style vernacular- there's nothing edgy or transgressive about the language/imagery used, it's just standard memes. Speaking your subculture's language to your subculture isn't edgy. Black rappers don't say digger to offend white suburban moms, LS isn't going to left-wing people's facebook/twitter pages and posting soyboy memes at them; he's mocking those people in his own space, among his subculture. Of course they can be edgy and offensive to you, but you're the suburban white woman in this scenario.
I certainly don't think anyone should aspire to being 'a nice linux nerd', or to go out of their way to appease suburban white moms' overactive sensitivities and imaginations, for that matter. That would be very cringe and bluepilled, so to speak.
My favorite ridiculous bit is when you pretend that all the stupid /g/ slang isn't designed around shock value. By your own argument, I guess pedophilia is acceptable and not transgressive of social norms as long as your audience is a group of pedophiles. I wish I could kiss that juicy multi-dimensional galaxy brain of yours!
BTW, there's nothing wrong about trying to be nice. Like, literally there's nothing more acceptable than being agreeable. But I guess that's too much to ask from someone like you who is clearly too cool for school and 'so based'.
I used to think like that when I was an edgy teen. I'm so glad I grew the fuck up.
The problem with pedophilia isn't that it's offensive, it's the harm caused. As you well know... If you can make a good case that soydev memes are as bad as, you know, molesting kids, then please do.
The point about niceness is that agreeableness alone isn't indicative of morality. The bureaucrats managing the death trains were as agreeable as anyone. Niceness is nice to have, and some degree of agreeableness is needed to operate in society, but niceness for niceness' sake is just vapid. Successful sociopaths are nice. Niceness, politeness, these are all social ceasefires/tools. Nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn't be the fundament of your personality- there should be something more to you than "I'm a nice guy". And "I'm a nice linux nerd" just sounds especially vapid.
If I met you in real life, I'd be nice and polite (according to the social rules of our current culture), of course. And LS is being nice and polite according to the social rules of /g/ culture. That space isn't really meant for you and doesn't have to conform to the rules of politeness of mainstream culture, much as you wouldn't go into, I don't know, a punk rock concert and ask them to tone down their language a bit. Would you deny these weirdos their safe space, where they can joke about wagecucks and gnutards? That language was born of attempts to be edgy, yes, but once it became fixed it was no longer mutually offensive to interlocutors.
Ironically, you're being more interpersonally combative/abrasive than anyone I've seen on LS's channel! Less nice, in other words. With your attitude, and your sailor's mouth, you might belong on 4chan, after all.
I'm not here to convert anyone. Catharsis is also a perfectly valid reason to do something.
> The problem with pedophilia isn't that it's offensive, it's the harm caused. As you well know... If you can make a good case that soydev memes are as bad as, you know, molesting kids, then please do.
Filling people's heads with 'edgy' stuff has led us to the current situation were we have self-declared incels shooting up public places while live-streaming their violence 'for the lulz'. The Christchurch massacre was the perfect example of the logical conclusion of the nihilistic onanism that is 4chan shitposting.
I'd argue that setting people into the edgy -> racist to be edgy -> conspiracy theories about replacement -> violence sausage machine, on the premise of laughing at 'soydevs' (whatever that is supposed to mean) has real-life consequences just as bad as pedophilia.
> That space isn't really meant for you and doesn't have to conform to the rules of politeness of mainstream culture, much as you wouldn't go into, I don't know, a punk rock concert and ask them to tone down their language a bit.
> Would you deny these weirdos their safe space, where they can joke about wagecucks and gnutards?
As I said, the problem with these weirdos' safe-space is that it is increasingly leading to consequences in the real world. They can say whatever the hell they want in their safe-space, but you can't ask me to not tell them how stupid and/or deranged they sound when they come to my space. That's the only way to adjust their expectations ``
> Ironically, you're being more interpersonally combative/abrasive than anyone I've seen on LS's channel! Less nice, in other words. With your attitude, and your sailor's mouth, you might belong on 4chan, after all.
Almost like people can have strong opinions without having to resort to calling others 'soydevs' and 'suburban white women'.
>Almost like people can have strong opinions without having to resort to calling others 'soydevs' and 'suburban white women'.
I'd take being called a soydev or a suburban white woman over being called a shithead or being compared to pedophiles, thanks! Are those really the most horrible words you can accuse me of using...? They seem pretty tame.
I'm not here to convert either, and I leave filled with a sense of relief that you aren't able to more strongly impose your will on the world and others.
Again, you view those culturally/politically opposed to you as a monolith, and so lump people together who don't fit together, like a southerner saying all muslims are terrorists. There's a difference between your local imam and an al-qaeda follower who murders a bunch of people, and in the same way there's a difference between LS and and the christchurch shooter. Lumping them together is inaccurate, and if you think the latter is a pipeline to the former, well, 'islamophobe' is a word. I guess 'chanophobe' is next...
It used to be pretty common to find independent sites that had all sorts of interesting information and if you dug further you'd find the author has very extremist political or religious views, which you mostly ignored. Now it's all gone or replaced with a fake politically-correct "personality" out of fear of offending anyone.
> Long story short, a bugman is someone who rejects the purpose and role of humans in their natural environment. They reject tradition, religion, their family, gender roles.
Ah, I can smell the rank mold from here.
> you're given for your acceptance some inane religious platitudes like "equality" and "rights" along with vaguely Marxist notions of "exploitation" and "slavery" and "oppressed classes,"
Plus the usual inane stuff about vegans being fundamentalist skinny soybois who will die at 40 and become impotent from their diet. Oh, and also global warming is a myth. Lovely stuff.