Some 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.
Well, 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.
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!
Sometimes you have to wonder if celebutards and MSNBC “journalists” attend the same school of undefuckable derpitude. After reading this shit this morning, I would have to say they probably do.
We’re also very very lucky that the attackers tried to use explosives rather than guns.
— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) September 19, 2016
First, there was MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, who after the explosions in New York and New Jersey this weekend, waxed retarded about how it was a good thing that the terrorist used bombs instead of guns. Because, you know… bombs are so much… uh…
Well, you know…
Something, something, something derp.
The social media reaction was swift, and Hayes at first was pleased with the attention he was getting, because any kind of attention is preferable to no attention at all – especially to an MSNBC journaljizzer, whose network is more of a punchline than an actual news station. After a while, however, Hayes walked back his douchery by proclaiming he didn’t really mean anything anti-gun, and he was just happy that no one died, that’s all.
Just when I thought this was the stupidest thing I’d read all month, out comes the wretched “comedienne” – and to call her that would be charitable – Sarah Silverman with the claim that Hillary Clinton somehow “captured” Osama bin Ladin.
UPDATE: Apparently, after a whole lot of ridicule, Silverman pusillanimously deleted her tweet. But the Internets is forever, bitch! For those of you wondering what she said, here it is – in its full asshatted glory.
Well, it occurs to me that snorting lead paint chips and guzzling rail vodka mixed with Clorox likely leads to an uncontrollable urge to lick windows and Tweet stupid shit, and here she is. Proof.
I guess watching bin Ladin get his ass capped by Navy SEALs in the White House Situation Room is equivalent to “capturing” him?
Much like landing in Tuzla airport and being greeted by a little Bosnian girl really equates to ducking and running from sniper fire. Hell, if it was a Republican, they would have gotten like 1,000 Purple Hearts for that! And maybe a Legion of Merit! And a CIB!
I can’t even today.
Yeah. She captured bin Ladin. And Brian Williams was there with Harambe, the cast of Hamilton, and Kevin Bacon.
Seriously, Silverman. Stop snorting meth.
So I’ll leave it up to you guys to decide which Tweet was dumber.
I’m leaning toward Silverman, but it’s a photo finish.
Esquire – the formerly men’s magazine that has become a trumpet for SJW Howler Monkey retardery and gun control wankery, and is now the spokeshole for every Omega male who thinks the only way to get laid is to be a feminist doormat – is virtue signalling this year’s Olympic scandals like a horny chimp on a mission. Specifically, Esquire’s Sarah Rense has decided – with no proof whatsoever to back up her analysis – that the reason Olympic soccer player Hope Solo’s punishment is so much worse for being a shitty sportsman and a lousy representative of the United States than Ryan Lochte’s for ostensibly making up a weird story about being robbed at gunpoint in Rio, was because Solo has a vagoo.
Yes, Solo’s comments were, without a doubt, unsportsmanlike. They were an ugly low blow to add to the disappointment of a a Team USA loss. Solo herself—with a previous ban, domestic violence charges, and nasty Twitter rants to her name—is often a disappointment. But, like the general counsel for the U.S. team’s players’ association said, “She was fired for making comments that a man never would have been fired for.”
Rense admits Solo was unsportsmanlike during the Olympics, and had not just a previous ban, but also domestic violence charges and combative, nasty behavior toward police officers during the arrest on said domestic violence charges. It’s no wonder she was shitcanned! She’s got a history of being a dick, so to speak.
In other words, Solo has already been an embarrassment to women’s soccer, except now she took that shame international.
So maybe, it’s not about her plumbing?
BUT… BUT… BUT… LOCHTE!
What about him? After a bizarre story about being robbed at gunpoint, Lochte was excoriated and embarrassed after he returned to the United States. I’ve seen comments criticizing everything from his hair to his attitude, to his lies about the incident in Rio in which he and other U.S. swimmers were accused of vandalizing a bathroom and concocting a story to cover their asses. I’ve seen calls for his expulsion from swimming. But a USA Today investigation shows that the Rio police lied, and that Lochte, while having exaggerated the events of the incident, did not.
Lochte has admitted he exaggerated his initial description of how the four men were stopped in their taxi and robbed by men who flashed badges, as well as his sensational allegation of a gun being held to his forehead.
But a narrative of the night’s events – constructed by USA TODAY Sports from witness statements, official investigations, surveillance videos and media reports – supports Lochte’s later account in which he said he thought the swimmers were being robbed when they were approached at a gas station by armed men who flashed badges, pointed guns at them and demanded money.
A Brazilian judge says police might have been hasty in determining the security guards, by how they dealt with the swimmers, did not commit a robbery. A lawyer who has practiced in Brazil for 25 years says she does not think the actions of Lochte and teammate Jimmy Feigen constitute the filing of a false police report as defined under Brazilian law.
An extensive review of surveillance footage by a USA TODAY Sports videographer who also visited the gas station supports swimmer Gunnar Bentz’s claim that he did not see anyone vandalize the restroom, an allegation that in particular heightened media portrayals of the four as obnoxious Americans behaving recklessly in a foreign country. Meanwhile, Rio authorities have declined to identify the guards or offer any details beyond confirming they are members of law enforcement who were working a private security detail.
So, no. There doesn’t appear to have been any misogyny going on here, and it wasn’t Solo’s plumbing that got her booted. It was her embarrassing behavior after the loss to Sweden coupled with prior crappy behavior.
But hey, virtue signalling is en vogue, so why not?
If there’s anything I’ve learned in my years on the Interwebz, it’s that the Internet loves outrage! Outrage goes beyond the old media adage, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Outrage gives people purpose, notoriety, and attention. It’s virtue signalling that provides the veneer of caring for the victim, or helps paint the outraged themselves into a victim. Outrage is everywhere, because it sounds more urgent and interesting than plain anger.
Witness the Trigglypuff phenomenon. That’s what outrage gets you nowadays, no matter how ludicrous. Worldwide attention, some sympathy, and notoriety.
During the past year, we’ve seen outrage at cops. Riots. Black Lives Matter protests against police officers. And yes, even murders. The perpetually outraged have denied police officers service in restaurants and stores, tainted their food, and treated them like pariahs.
Are there bad cops? Yeah. There are criminal cops. There are negligent cops. There are cops who don’t give a shit. There are cops who are paranoid and incompetent. There are cops who are racist as well – just like in any other profession.
There are also police officers who have dedicated their lives to protecting and serving and to working to make their cities and neighborhoods safe for peaceable citizens. They put on a uniform, leave families behind every single day, and go to work knowing full well that they may not return. They kiss their loved ones “goodbye,” with the full understanding that it may be the last time they do so. They could be your neighbors. They could be your friends. They could be your family members.
Many times there is more than one side to one story, and opportunistic swine who seek to manufacture outrage to draw attention to themselves or their causes tend to take advantage of their bully pulpit, their access to social media, their microphones – real and metaphorical – to foment contempt, to pit the populace against police, to arouse rage and foster animosity between the “victims” and those they perceive to be in power.
This sounds like one of those cases.
Dad Pens Harrowing Facebook Post After Cop Points Gun at His 7-year-old!
Yes, it certainly does sound harrowing and outrageous. How could a police officer threaten to shoot a father and his child who were guilty of nothing more than traveling home on vacation! The father details the frightening tale in a lengthy Facebook post in which he recounts how this “particularly aggressive” officer tapped on the rear passenger side window with his pistol, scaring his child, how he wouldn’t listen when the concerned dad tried to explain they were in a rental car and were just coming back from vacation, how he “leered at me down the barrel of his pistol” and pointed his pistol at the child threatening to shoot her, how he threatened to “murder” him.
And of course, there’s the usual “I love you all. I’m thinking of suing.” conclusion.
It certainly does sound like the police officer overreacted, but I did want to see what the other side had to say. It’s only fair to objectively take a look at both sides of the story.
It does appear correct that the officer stopped the vehicle. The license plate on the vehicle had been reported as stolen, and the car rental company had not replaced the vehicle plates when the front plate was reported stolen.
The officer also reports that the dad – identified as Kenneth Walton – “was not responding to officer’s commands while seated in his vehicle so the trooper moved up the passenger-side window and got the occupant’s attention by tapping on the window with his hand. It was at this time the trooper realized there was a child in the car as she sat up into view. Mr. Walton was ordered out of the car and detained in handcuffs while the trooper conducted his investigation.”
I can see why he ordered Walton out of the car. Last thing you want is for anything to escalate in close quarters when there’s a child in the back seat. It made sense to immobilize the potential criminal while you figure out what the hell is going on.
Especially during a high risk stop, in a high-trafficked area!
Yes, it does appear the officer was being risk-averse until he concluded his investigation of the situation, and he probably was aggressive and more than a bit frightened, given that it was night time, and the stop took place on a road known for drug trafficking and other shit. That said, once he concluded that the vehicle wasn’t stolen, that the rental company simply forgot to replace the plates, he released Walton, who by all accounts was cooperative.
“AZ DPS understands and sympathizes with the concerns the family has regarding this situation,” says Captain Ezekiel Zesiger, Flagstaff District Commander. “Anytime a police contact is made for a possibly stolen vehicle our troopers are trained to take all necessary precautions. In this instance, the vehicle’s license plate was reported as stolen. Troopers must adhere to their training in regards to conducting a high risk traffic stop in these types of situations. Training and protocols are in place for the safety of the Trooper as well as the safety of citizens. Fortunately, the subject in this case was compliant with the trooper and the situation ended peacefully with no one being harmed.”
It was a tense situation for all involved. Both the officer and Walton, I’m sure, were nervous – both with good reason. Other officers were at the scene, and by Walton’s own admission, were comforting his daughter while the investigation was going on. Of course, she was nervous! There were bright lights and a bunch of nervous police officers. It was dark, and her father was nervous.
But all’s well that ends well. Walton got the name and badge number of the officer, as well as the name of his supervisor. He admits the entire ordeal lasted only a few minutes until the mystery of the stolen license plate was solved. And once released, he was on his way to the rest of his vacation.
Shitty situation, to be sure, but ultimately resolved peaceably.
But Walton is apparently one of those opportunists who can’t let a situation go without using it to advance his cause.
The first thing he does is screech that his story NEEDS TO BE SHARED! SHARE IT! NOW!
Second, he recounts the story, and inserts a bit of his own editorializing – assessments that have no basis in fact.
He was in the back of the car, detained and immobilized, and he personally heard the dispatcher tell the police officer that the man he had in the back of his vehicle was not a suspect. He was released after that revelation.
And yet, he claims to know the state of mind of the officer, whom he assesses to have been out of control.
He admits in another post that he “relied on my daughter’s recollection of the officer knocking on the window with his weapon. If it was his wedding ring, it was very loud. It caught me by surprise and I turned to see the gun just inches from her window, so it appeared he’d used it to rap on the window, but my daughter’s recollection could be wrong. I’m not sure if this part really matters.”
So the claim that the officer “pointed the gun” at his child was based on the recollection of a terrified 7-year-old, and he believed it, because the officer knocked really loudly! Got it.
He also claims that the only reason he’s still alive is because he’s a white guy.
I realized it was very possible that the only reason I was alive was because I am a scrawny 48-year-old white man wearing a Micky Mouse t-shirt and cargo shorts and hiking boots. The officer that arrested me was so pumped up on adrenaline and eager to get a “bad guy” that he could barely control himself, and if I’d looked just a little bit more threatening to him – because I was black, or young, or long-haired, or tattooed, or didn’t speak English – I believe he might have pulled the trigger.
I guess Walton is a mind reader? A psychiatrist?
No. Definitely not a shrink or a psychic. But he is a criminal and a thief, who apparently is looking to cash in on the outrage he manufactured.
On April 28, 2000 he posted an auction on eBay for an oil painting that attracted a closing bid of US$135,805 and which bidders speculated might be a work by Richard Diebenkorn due to its resemblance to the artist’s work, the existence of the monogram “RD52” on the canvas, and the fact that the seller claimed to have found it at a garage sale in Berkeley, California, where Diebenkorn had lived. In the description accompanying the auction, Walton seemed to have no knowledge of art and claimed to have no idea of the painting’s value. The auction generated international headlines and, after a series of investigative reports by Judith H. Dobrzynski in the New York Times revealed that Walton was in fact an experienced art seller who had sold several forged paintings and worked with other sellers who bid on each other’s items, Walton was banned from eBay, and the FBI launched an investigation into his trading activities.
He’s already asking people on social media to help him research the disposition of a civil rights violation case.
He’s got thousands of BLM supporters egging him on in the original post, propping up their own agenda with hackneyed BLM shibboleths. After all, if you don’t wallow in your own white privilege, you won’t get nearly as much support, now will you?
Everything about this screams “OPPORTUNISTIC SWINE TRYING TO PROFIT FROM A SUIT!”
Let’s hope the justice system gives Walton the finger for manufacturing outrage, using his daughter’s fear, and the BLM movement agitprop and stirring shit up in an environment where relations between the races and between the police and citizens are already wrought with tension.
There was a dust-up a couple of days ago, because some NBC dick weasel sportscaster was forced to apologize publicly for suggesting that Olympic superstar Simone Biles’ adopted parents weren’t really her parents.
Ron and Nellie Biles adopted Simone and her younger sister, Adria, in 2001. The girls had spent time in foster care as Shanon Biles, their biological mother and Ron’s daughter, struggled with drugs and alcohol.
[Al] Trautwig referred to Ron and Nellie as Biles’ grandparents on Sunday’s NBC primetime broadcast. When a woman tweeted Trautwig to say that he should call them her parents, he tweeted: “They may be mom and dad but they are NOT her parents.”
For those of you who don’t know, Daniel is my biological son, but Sarah is adopted. She and her sister came to live with us after my now-deceased junkie half-brother and his wife gave them up. Things were not easy – especially with the older child. There was counseling, tears, terror, malnutrition and neglect that needed to be addressed. I’m not telling you this because I somehow am demanding credit for my struggles.
Sarah turned out to be an incredible person! She’s bright, kind, determined, intelligent, honorable, and intent on bettering herself. She’s a US Marine. She’s a pillar of strength and integrity, and she loves her family. I couldn’t be prouder to be her mom if I actually gave birth to her myself! (Actually, I’m glad I didn’t. She was kind of a chubster as a baby! *joking!*)
Sarah started calling me “Mom” when she was about 8 years old. Her sister, on the other hand, alternated between “mom,” “bitch,” and “my dad’s kid sister.” (I’m OK with it. I did the best I could with that one.) Not once did I think Sarah was any different from Daniel as far as my children were concerned. Not once did I consider her any less my child! She was mine. I raised her. I loved and cared for her. She is just as much my kid as Daniel.
And frankly, while I don’t get upset at much – I’m certainly not a perpetually offended snowflake – this is one issue that really grates on me. Adoptive parents open their hearts. They don’t have to love a child. They choose to. It doesn’t matter that the child doesn’t have our biology, our heart embraces them just the same.
Shitting out a kid isn’t enough. They’re not just some parasite that falls out of you to be allowed to grow like a weed on their own. They are human beings who deserve nurture, guidance, care, comfort, and love. They deserve to have someone wipe their tears when they hurt, kiss their boo-boos, praise them when they succeed, hold their hand when they need support, read with them, teach them the right path, and prepare them for the life they have ahead.
That’s what makes a parent. It’s not just squirting your DNA into a woman and winding up with a little hungry human 40 weeks later. It’s everything that comes with it, and by refusing to acknowledge this simple fact, Trautwig slapped Biles’ parents in the face. He slapped her in the face. And he spat in the face of every parent who opened his or her heart to a child to whom they did not give birth.
NBC – after a backlash on social media – had Trautwig delete his tweet and issue an apology. I just hope didn’t taint Simone Biles’ shining moment. She’s incredible!