Advertisements

Category Archives: culture

How do you say “Crazy Fucking Bitch” in West African?

That would be more appropriate than “Nkechi Amare Diallo,” which is the new name of Rachel Dolezal, which apparently means “Gift of God” in West African.

The 39-year-old filed to adopt the West African moniker in Washington State … according to Daily Mail. Nkechi is short for Nkechinyere in the Nigerian language of Igbo, and translates to “gift of god.”

Her new last name, Diallo, comes from the Fula people of West Africa and means “bold” … which seems all too fitting for the artist formerly known as Rachel.

This lying psycho is the gift that keeps on giving. Like a bad case of the herp, she just continues her outbreaks of stupid – as if no one will figure out who she is when she applies for jobs with this new moniker!

She started a Change.org petition in October urging the TEDx organization to post one of her controversial speeches from April, 2016 at the University of Idaho. She listed the petition under Nkechi Diallo, never mentioning her birth name.

Instead of learning from the experience and doing some serious introspection, this mental case has decided to double down on the stupid. She’s not sorry. She doesn’t care that she lied to thousands, while faking the African American experience. She just wants to continue lying and pretending to be something she’s not.

crazy-bitchShe’s better off doing the porn she claims she was offered. I’m sure there are severely damaged freaks who are into spray tan crazy chick pretending to be black. It’s a limited market, but she’d be a big fish in a small pond.

Kind of like Lobster Porn Crazy McZucchini Tits.

Advertisements

Yes, People are Stupid

shirtIf you haven’t heard, there’s another “The Walking Dead” controversy brewing. Because perpetually offended, howling snowflakes have apparently run out of things about which to be outraged, they are now screeching about a T-Shirt. Thankfully, the shrieking outragery is in the UK… for now. But there are almost certainly aggrieved social justice zealots in the United States who are standing in solidarity with their squealing comrades in the UK in their indignation. Hell, I’ve seen quite a few of them on social media!

The “offensive” language revolves around TWD baddie Negan’s use of the old rhyme “Eeny meeny miny moe, catch a tiger by the toe…” to select the victim he would violently bash over the head with his trusted, barbed-wire baseball bat Lucille..

Now, when I was a kid, we used that rhyme all the time. Most Americans, I would wager, are not and have never been aware of the rhyme’s history, which apparently used the N-bomb instead of “tiger.” I certainly had no idea. But apparently, that’s what it was, and because most of us didn’t know about the rhyme’s history, we’re obviously steeped in white privilege… or something.

Yeah, I know. I had black friends in school, and when we used the rhyme, none of them were insulted, probably because like most Americans, they had no idea about the rhyme’s history.

But in their search for things to get offended about the SJW howler monkeys have now decided to target the TWD t-shirt.

It doesn’t matter that the show is not even close to racist.

It doesn’t matter that Negan ever used the word, and has never, as a character, been shown to be racist in any way.

It doesn’t matter that the show’s and comic book’s creators almost certainly didn’t know the rhyme’s history and meant exactly zero connotations to be gleaned from Negan’s taunts.

And it certainly doesn’t matter that the alleged “insult” wasn’t aimed at anyone.

You see, intent doesn’t matter, because according to one zealot, “the people at the tail end of the insult are the ones who get to decide if it’s offensive.”

Which basically means that anything we do or say can be constituted as offensive to someone.

Which essentially surpasses “thought crime” and lands directly into “insensitivity crime.”

morganLiterally stupidest claim ever.

TWD’s Jeffrey Dean Morgan agrees, this is stupid, and I can’t blame him.

A rhyme that’s been used for decades, and apparently at some point (in the 1800s) contained a word that was common then, but we now  – after more than 100 fucking years – find unacceptable. A t-shirt that doesn’t even contain that line. A show that is in no way racist. A scene that in no way had racial connotations.

Imbeciles are literally getting offended at a t-shirt referring to a fictional character’s use of a rhyme that more than 100 years ago contained a word that was commonly-used then, but that is considered unacceptable now, that the t-shirt doesn’t even contain.

And apparently, it doesn’t matter if no insult was actually intended, that the rhyme wasn’t hurled at anyone, because the only thing that matters is pwecious feewings.

And if you disagree, you’re wrong.

If you refuse to bow down to the subjective snowflakery and confirm that what you say and what you mean doesn’t matter, but what the grievance mongers claim offends them does, you’re a racist… or privileged… or something.

The content of the rhyme doesn’t matter. The indisputable fact that the rhyme as said by a fictional character did not contain any racially charged language doesn’t matter. The fact that the majority of people involved with the show, with the manufacture of the shirt and its sale, and in the world writ large, were not aware of the rhyme’s history doesn’t matter.

What matters to these whining, sniveling fucktards is that their subjective feelings be accepted as fact, because apparently, their offense somehow gives them moral superiority over the rest of us.

Yeah. stupid.

Nope. I refuse to play these games. It’s an intellectual (or in this case, sub-intellectual) trap that marginalizes everyone except those seeking indignation and gives them license to accuse anyone and everyone of facism/racism/sexism/*insert ism here, regardless of whether their interlocutors really are guilty of fitting those descriptions. It allows the perpetually affronted to offend, denigrate, and demean anyone they don’t like merely by claiming offense. And yes, I find it insulting and and downright abusive to be called those things – especially since I’ve spent my life fighting them.

There’s no justice in this – social or otherwise. It’s a disgusting, biased, discriminatory retaliation tactic against those whom the snowflakes seek to marginalize – those evil, cis/het, white people, whom they believe to be deserving of retribution for the “crime” of being privileged. And while they treat the rest of us like something smelly that attached itself to the bottom of their shoes, they treat minorities like fragile morons, who have to be protected from anything that can even remotely be viewed as “offensive.” Dog forbid someone’s delicate labia get chafed – even unintentionally! MICROAGGRESSION!

Here’s an idea, snowflakes: go fuck yourselves. With a barbed-wire bat. There is no “right” not to be offended.

A Short Note on Milo (UPDATED WITH AN INTERESTING NEW VIDEO)

There will be a longer guest post probably sometime this weekend on the subject of free speech writ large, so I debated whether to address this on the blog today. But given the gleeful crowing on both the left and the right about the so-called “fall” of Milo Yiannopoulos, I wanted to quickly address the issue from my perspective.

I see those on the left cheering Simon and Schuster’s decision not to publish Milo’s book, titled “Dangerous” after a video surfaced in which he “appeared to condone” (notice, nowhere is it written that he did so) pedophilia. The left hates Milo, because he revels in his Internet troll persona, because he ridicules social justice warriors, because he refuses to bow to the gods of political correctness, because he got on the Trump Train early, because… well, you know.

Milo also resigned from his position at Breitbart, to which I say, “Good!” He’s much too good for them.

I see those on the right gloating that the American Conservative Union disinvited Milo from CPAC this year, where he was supposed to be giving the keynote address after this video emerged, because he’s gay, because he’s flamboyant, because he’s not what a typical, nice, Christian, conservative should be. He’s *clutch pearls* GHEY!!! And he’s in a relationship with a black man! OH NOEZ!

Here’s the full video and that includes those comments. If you haven’t seen the unedited version of the video in which Milo purportedly “supports” pedophilia, you might want to take a look before screeching about how he deserved it.

 

Here’s a transcript of the part that was edited out.

Milo: “This is a controversial point of view I accept. We get hung up on this kind of child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing even relationships between consenting adults, you know grad students and professors at universities.”

The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.

Another man says: “The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably…”

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”

Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

Milo:
“And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

So what did Milo really say here?

He said that child abuse charges have been inflated to such a degree, that we are now even policing relationships between consenting adults, because we disapprove of them.

He said that, generally speaking, the age of consent laws in the United States are proper and right.

He admits there are some people (including himself) who reach emotional maturity at a younger age, and are capable of giving consent at a younger age and points out that relationships are generally complex and nuanced things, completely unsuited for a “one size fits all” mentality.

He said that SOME of those “coming of age” relationships can help gay men feel safe and secure.

And he correctly defined pedophilia as an attraction to pre-pubescent children and made the distinction between the discussion about cross-generational relationships, which could happen between a 17-year-old and his 40-year-old partner, and the gross attraction of a full, legal adult to a pre-pubescent child.

How many of you, screeching that Milo condoned pedophilia took the time to read and analyze what he really said before condemning him?

And how many of you denigrated and ridiculed him and cheered the cancellation of his book and his unceremonious booting from CPAC merely because you don’t like him or what he stands for?

Be honest with yourselves.

For what it’s worth, Milo never was accused of pedophilia. He never condoned kiddie diddlers. As a matter of fact, he spent a lot of time exposing and shaming them – fighting the very thing he is now accused of defending.

He exposed creepy, white nationalist gamergate critic Sarah Nyberg/Nicholas Nyberg/Sarah Butts.

Two years ago, he went after repugnant child molester Chris Leydon.

I would venture to say, Milo has done more to fight child sexual abuse than any of the critics jerks now eulogizing his silencing.

By the way, Milo’s full statement about this incident is here. I emphasize the following, and note that Milo himself was a victim of sexual abuse as a child.

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is “about right.” I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.

I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That’s perfectly true and every gay man knows it.

I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.

Do I think that Milo is very often over-the-top? Yes.

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Oh, no! Poor Harambe! Is nothing sacred?

Do I think that his gallows humor is many times inappropriate? Yes. Vicious? Yes.

Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. (I note here our differences in whom we liked for POTUS, for one.)

But am I going to cheer concerted efforts to silence him by those who disagree with what he says and how he says it? No, I’m going to slam them hard, as I would any attempts to silence dissent and opposition.

I see the glee and exhilaration with which Milo’s critics applaud his supposed “downfall,” and I’m sickened by it.

Were you upset that someone like Milo, to whom nothing is sacred enough to avoid making fun of, was gaining a huge following?

Were you irritated that someone like Milo – a flamboyant faggot in an interracial relationship, who freely talks about blow jobs – all of a sudden became someone to admire in your precious, oh-so-holier-than-thou “conservative” movement?

Did you not like that Milo essentially told Leslie Jones to man up after she got a bunch of racist Tweets in her direction, because “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS!”

Did you hate his description of feminism as a “cancer?”

Did you think he was racist/homophobic/xenophobic, even though he’s in a relationship with a black man, has a Jewish mother, and repeatedly denied being a member of the “alt-right?”

And that’s why you’re cheering that someone finally found – AND DOCTORED – a video to silence him? How repulsively fascist of you!

You don’t care that the allegations are false.

You don’t care that the recording of Milo supposedly “advocating” child abuse was selectively edited and spliced, and you certainly won’t listen to the unedited version, because that would force you to do some introspective navel gazing to figure out why you were so anxious to believe the worst about someone with whom you disagree politically, that you’re cheering his gagging and the impact on his employment and his bottom line.

You don’t care about freedom or truth.

You’re no different than the shit snorting dick weasels who work to destroy those who do not toe their ideological line. You’re morally reprehensible, petty little tyrants who want to see your ideological adversaries silenced and, ultimately destroyed, instead of fighting them with ideas and reason.

You are gleefully cheering, because someone you don’t like has ostensibly been silenced.

And that makes you exactly the type of person people like Milo and his supporters have dedicated themselves to fighting.

You are the reason he exists.

UPDATE: And if you find Milo’s words to be a problem, but still loves you some Uncle George, you’re a repulsive hypocrite.

Here’s how NOT to treat a customer

There’s this woman named Anne Mahlum, who runs a Solidcore gym in DC. When Ivanka Trump signed up for a class in one of her gyms under an alias, Mahlum went public, calling out the young mother, castigating her on social media for the world to see, and claiming that Ivanka Trump’s father is somehow “threatening the rights of many” of her “beloved” clients and coaches.

Just how many illegal aliens does Anne Mahlum employ? What rights are getting violated?

Oh, she didn’t elaborate on that part. She simply publicly called out Ivanka Trump for having the unmitigated gall to enter a place of business and pay for a service!

anne2And for this – because the President’s daughter dared to take a fitness class in her studio – she was publicly harassed by this Muppet on meth lookalike!

Is it any wonder Ivanka Trump used an alias? Good lord! The woman wanted to take a fitness class. She wanted some anonymity, for a damn change, after being harassed by hysterical, virtue signaling leftist shit swizzles. And instead of affording the young woman some respect as a customer and understanding as a human being, Mahlum decided to call her out.

In a follow-up email, Mahlum, ostensibly after being slammed not just on her social media page, but also in the media, tried to mitigate the situation.

“…Solidcore is an organization founded on inclusivity” and apologized if her Facebook post didn’t make that clear. She stressed that Ivanka was not denied services, and she had not said the First Daughter could not attend Solidcore. She says she wanted to meet with Ivanka to suggest private classes and “in hopes of having a discussion about our community.”

Bullshit!

The woman paid you to work out. She has zero obligation to discuss anything with you! She’s not her father. She wasn’t elected to anything. She’s not living on the taxpayer dime, and like you, she is an accomplished businesswoman, who is successful in her own right, and is and should be a role model to women. As Piers Morgan reminds us (HOLY SHIT I’M QUOTING PIERS MORGAN IN A BLOG POST IN A POSITIVE WAY!):

She graduated cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania.

In 2007, she launched Trump Fine Jewelry and the brand sells available throughout the US and Canada, as well as the Middle East.

She then launched her own fashion line that sells in major US department stores.

She was also, until recently, Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions at the Trump Organisation, and served on the board of 100 Women in Hedge Funds, an industry organisation that provides support to women professionals in finance.

As I wrote recently, Ivanka Trump is involved in multiple charities and has been a rock of support for women worldwide.

Some of the charities she supports are Habitat for Humanity, AIDS Life, the Children’s Aid Society, United Cerebral Palsy, and the Walkabout Foundation. And in 2010, Ivanka designed and sold a bracelet specifically to benefit the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up campaign, which “aims to raise money and awareness to educate and propel adolescent girls in need to the next generation of leadership.”

And yet, she has been harassed, her business has been the target of boycotts, and she has been denigrated by the “tolerant” compatriots of Anne Mahlum for something as innocent as tweeting a photo of herself holding her baby – merely because they don’t like her dad.

And now, she can’t even take a fitness class in peace without being harassed by this rude harpy.

Anne Mahlum doesn’t just not comprehend the concept of fair treatment of her customers, she also doesn’t seem to understand what it means to be a decent human being and business owner.

She outed a client, who was obviously looking for some privacy and paid her to provide a service: fitness training.

She harassed her customer on social media, for no other reason than who her father is, and because apparently she had the gall to come into her place of business thinking she would… you know… pay for a service.

She virtue signaled her disdain for the President by publicly abusing his daughter, and when called out on her shitbaggery, backpedaled and fell back on the “inclusivity” damage control trope. Did she not think her jerkery would have consequences?

Inclusivity, my aching ass! She’s “inclusive,” as long as her clients toe her ideological line. And if they don’t, she compromises their privacy, calls them out publicly, and makes it difficult for them to do something as simple as take an exercise class!

You don’t have to agree with 45’s policies. You don’t have to like him personally. But there’s a way to do so without being a shit human being.

Maybe Anne Mahlum missed that memo.

Salon Shrewsplains Paella

paellaSome screeching, cunt-chafed harridan at Salon recently took to the Interwebz to shrewsplain to us why celebrities making paella in the wrong dish is apparently cultural appropriation. Mireia Triguero Roura sniffily tells us that while we were enjoying “unnecessarily gigantic meals” in our homes over the holidays (because she and her band of unshaven, rainbow-haired, perpetually offended harpies are ultimately the arbiters of what is necessary and what isn’t in other people’s lives), actor Rob Schneider was committing an act of nefarious cultural appropriation against Spain in his own home.

Spaniards were outraged. Some replied with angry, insulting tweets. Many sent pictures of their own paellas as inspiration. Others created fake, outrageous variations on the classic hot dog. A Spanish chef kindly took it upon himself to show the American actor what paella is and what it isn’t. For some hours, this became a trending topic in some regions in Spain. Schneider finally apologized and vowed to try to make it again, with all the new paella knowledge forced on to him through social media.

Massive raw lobster tails aside, Spaniards were reacting to what they felt was cultural appropriation of their cuisine.

Spaniards are certainly very proud of their cuisine, and we can be regionalists to a fault. No two towns can fully agree on what exactly you need to put in a paella. Some argue that onions give it the better flavor, but many will say that there is no place for them in the dish. Some take their issue with peas and fava beans, and others have unearthed family recipes going back to the 19th century to show that snails have a place on the rice. But small battles aside, there’s one thing everyone can agree on, and that is that one must cook paella in, well, a paella pan.

That’s right. Rob Schneider insensitively put stuff that he likes in his paella – in his own home – using the WRONG. FUCKING. PAN. – using ingredients he liked – and Spaniards lost their collective shit. Perhaps they should worry more about their abominable more than 18 percent unemployment rate, rather than soil themselves on Twitter because some celebrity posted a picture of his dinner, but that’s none of my business.

But then we have this Mireia Triguero Roura explaining just why it’s so offensive to cook what you want and how you want it in your own home, and I have to once again point to the fact that this cultural appropriation and perpetual offense garbage has jumped the shark. Hard.

The shallow and wide pan, with two handles in opposite sides, gives the name to this rice dish. And to some extent any rice dish cooked on such pan could qualify to be a paella. So even if we take this very low bar for defining paella, Schneider’s dish failed the test. As a twitter user pointed out he just made “rice with things,” or perhaps more accurately, things with rice.

Well… technically, that’s what paella is – rice with things. There’s vegetable paella. There’s seafood paella. There’s chicken paella, meat paella, mixed paella, you name it! There are also green beans, artichokes, and peppers – all depends on how you want to make it. So yeah – it’s rice with things, no matter how much snobbery you want to inject into your criticism.

To Schneider’s credit, where could he have turned to for a paella recipe that wouldn’t have infuriated most Spaniards? Just a few months ago, the famous chef Jamie Oliver failed the paella test again when he proposed a recipe that not only was again not made in the proper pan, but it also added something no Spaniard has ever seen in paella: chorizo. Just like Schneider, Oliver received his fair share of criticism on social media, and even newspapers reported the story as some outrageous insult to Spanish culture.

And why should Schneider give a shit if something he makes in his own home, for his friends and family, that he will consume “infuriates” anyone? Is he trying to sell it? No. Is he a chef in a Spanish restaurant? No. He’s a celebrity who posted a picture of his fucking dinner. Get over yourselves.

But unlike Schneider, Oliver is a chef, and a widely recognized one. So people will turn to him for advice. What are a celebrity chef’s responsibilities when writing a recipe for a dish that hails from a different cultural tradition than their own? How much should they stay close to the original dish and how much room do they have to be as creative as they want to be?

A chef is an artist with food. His only responsibility is to his customers, who will either love or hate his dish. He certainly has no responsibility to ask permission from the perpetually aggrieved about how he chooses to create. If they don’t like it, you know what they can do? Not spend money in his restaurant. Not buy the dish.

Did the Moors in ancient Spain, who began cultivating rice around the 10th century ask the Chinese in the Pearl River valley region who originated rice for permission to cultivate rice and use it in their dishes how they wished?

Did the Spaniards, who imported pepper seeds from Mexico in the 15th century ask them for permission to use them in their national dishes?

Saffron, a common spice in paella, is native to Southwest Asia and was likely cultivated in or near Greece. I don’t see the Greeks flinging “cultural appropriation” turds at the Spaniards for using that particular spice in their paella.

Food evolves, much like other art. Chefs explore new flavors, new spices, and new ingredients to make tasty dishes that stand out to their customers. Countries import various fruits, vegetables, and spices, and create new, interesting, innovative meals that vary with each individual palettes.

I’m guessing Mireia Triguero Roura is not that adventurous, nor is she open minded enough to understand diversity in that context, because when faced with a lack of things to be outraged about, these nags must dig deep to keep the indignation alive.

And she admits it.

It is hard to talk about cultural appropriation in food. For one, most cuisines have been developed as a result of the influences of many peoples, and hail from particular territories rather than countries.

Then perhaps she should stop talking about cultural appropriation in food. But no, she wastes many more paragraphs doing just that in the most inane, imbecilic manner!

A quick browse through the big food magazines in English reveals that virtually all have at least one paella recipe that includes chorizo—and most include other big no-nos among paella chefs. But most of them fail to mention that “chorizo” cannot be found in the dish in Spain. And in fact, most Spaniards felt even disgusted by the thought of it.

So what? Does that mean that others aren’t free to enjoy chorizo in their paella? Normal people just let others enjoy what they like, as long as it doesn’t infringe on their right to do the same. But apparently certain Special Snowflakes™ in Spain are unable to allow others to simply enjoy their own creations, so they have to destroy everyone else’s happiness, because it’s the only way they can validate their sad existences.

And yet if the nature of paella changes regionally inside Spain (even inside Valencia region), why should we allow those discrepancies only inside the borders of Spain? Shouldn’t we embrace, as David Rosengarten suggested in a Saveur article, the “changing nature of the dish” and “focus on the singular pleasure of eating it” instead? One could argue it should be a source of pride to see your cuisine become a source of inspiration for many around the world.

Unless one is a pretentious fuck weasel, in which case one writes entire articles waxing hysterical about “cultural appropriation.”

But at the heart of Spaniards’ battle to keep chorizo out of paellas around the world is the sense of protecting a sacred identity.

Sacred identity? What sort of fuckery is this? It’s food, ferpetessake! It’s rice mixed with olive oil, some veggies, spices, and proteins! It’s not like it came out of the Virgin Mary’s untapped asshole. It’s FOOD! Get over yourselves!

Earlier this year at Oberlin College, some students protested against a coleslaw and pulled-pork sandwich that was being sold under the name “banh mi,” which is a Vietnamese sandwich consisting of none of those ingredients.

manateeWell, color me shocked! Oberlin students – the mental institution that spawned the feminazi, child molesting landwhale Lena Dunham – are protesting something?

Take, however, two of the big immigrant cuisines in the U.S.: Mexican and Italian. Arguably, tacos ordered in Texas are quite different from a carnitas taco found in Jalisco. And “marinara” sauce in the United States has come to mean a whole different world from the original Italian word. But unlike Mexican-American and Italian-American food in the U.S., which are the result of large populations of immigrants settling in the country and bringing with them their food and recipes and adapting both to the ingredients and the palates of the land, the chorizo-paella (or the Oberlin “banh mi”) seems rather the result of non-Spanish chefs in a test kitchen deciding what belongs in a dish with what seems like little research or respect to the country of origin. And unlike most creations that are a result of culinary cross-pollination (think: the ramen burger), no one is changing the name to suggest this is a new creation. (I suggest we call this “choriella” from “chorizo” and “paella”).

So ultimately, what Mireia Triguero Roura is offended by is the word “paella.” Just like any other Special Snowflake™ she just haz teh sadz that someone has the temerity to use a word with which she disagrees to describe something as basic as food, made by someone other than she and her band of perpetually aggrieved shrews find acceptable, and therefore, since her delicate labia are bruised by mere words, she can’t help but publicly shame them for it. Nagging – it’s like Vagisil for the SJW soul.

Krishnendu Ray, a New York University professor of food studies, argues in “The Ethnic Restaurateur” that white chefs have more freedom to play with other people’s food than chefs of color do, which creates an inherent inequality in the field. To that, I would add that in a world where most people turn to the Internet to find recipes — and English is the de facto lingua franca of the online world — English-speaking chefs not only have more freedom to play around, but they also have the power to ultimately transform traditional dishes from other countries, without so much as an acknowledgement.

And of course, no Salon article would be complete without quoting some obscure, perpetually victimized “professor” of food studies, claiming “white privilege,” to give the drivel what passes for gravitas in the world of the culture jihadists.

Outrage? Check.

Cultural appropriation? Check.

White privilege? Check.

Ah! The recipe for progtard butthurt is complete!

Now, go enjoy your paella, heathens! Add some corn, tuna, and mayonnaise to it, and microwave it on high. And don’t forget to post a photo on Twitter and brag about your paella attempt, to really give this squealing nag something to gripe about!

%d bloggers like this: