That was my point, too. I’ve been absolutely flabbergasted at how contentious threads over, say, knives can get, and that’s about as far from political as possible (?).
People who join a specific forum do so because they feel passionately about its specific topic. Passion can run high (both positive and negative), and people’s personal disposition to fight or flight (or agree with one another >gasp<) adds to the mix.
Not sure calling anyone–even banana eaters–racist is ok.
Yes, I noted relatively recently just how baffled I am by the vitriol that cookware can induce.
I’m too far from a nerd to geek out on cookware, let alone get into heated arguments over it.
Now, whether caraway belongs in sauerkraut… that’s a whole other story 
Some might argue that everyone here is a food nerd of some variety or other.
Mute is a remarkably helpful feature, both for threads that one finds irksome or doesn’t like the direction of, and also for users.
That said, there’s a difference between aspects of food being inherently political and wanting to make every discussion on a food forum political.
For those who seek the latter, there must exist political fora that can include a discussion of food politics. Moderators there are likely more willing to deal with how charged the discussions might inevitably get.
How to tell if someone is more interested in a political discussion than a food discussion? If they mostly participate in threads that veer that way, or intentionally take other threads there (and then complain that others don’t want to engage in a political discussion, which is what started us down this particular road).
Easy to check one’s own posts and figure out if they are more about food or more about the politics of food and spend one’s time accordingly.
Let’s face it. A bunch of cookware/knife enthusiasts migrated here from CH. Brought their “enthusiasm” with them. It didn’t quite mesh with people here. Beats me how who I assume are grown men can argue back and forth in depth over knives and pots and pans.
It’s all fun & games as long as nobody loses an eye
In the generic, hypothetical sense, it would be.
Just like it is copacetic to say “those that hate green people are racist” it would be ok to say “banana eaters are racists”.
You aren’t necessarily saying anyone in particular is racist, just that if anyone were to hate green people, then they would be racist.
So to bring it back full circle, one could presumably say here “if anyone eats bananas then they must be a flaming leftist liberal” without it being an automatic red flag, but it would not be ok to say “if you gaffk believe that people who eat bananas are flaming leftist liberals then you are the fecal matter of feral pigs.”
hmmmmm . . .
Now this thread has gone down the hell hole. Thanks to you. A moderator.
I try my best!
I have to hand it to you. Good comeback.
Interestingly, caraway was contentious in my house because my mom (Scottish/English extraction) didn’t like it, but my dad (half Polish/French-Canadian) thought it was fine. My grandmother, fully first generation Polish American, made food that had caraway where it was supposed to be (as far as she was concerned, anyway). It was one of the first (but not last) disagreements with my mother.
Forking and knifing you feels just not enough, yet I have nothing better to say at the moment but forks and knifes up!
Was just thinking about caraway the other night, and how little of it I use. I do like it sparingly in appropriate things, but it’s definitely been an acquired taste. Went out to dinner at a new place the other night, and for the first time ever, had beef on weck, after hearing about it for years. The wreck had a lot of caraway, but would say I did like the sandwich quite a bit, and finally got to try it. It was the first time I’ve seen it on a menu, in all the places I’ve lived. Admittedly these places just include the west, southwest, and Alaska pretty much. Far away from beef on weck territory!
ETA: sorry for the thread drift…
I’m mostly in agreement with all that you wrote. My observation leads me to believe that of the people who want to ward off any discussion that hints at politics, some of them
are apprehensive about things getting heated and angry words being exchanged, which interferes with the generally congenial tone of this site. This is a legit worry - we’ve all seen it happen. But the way to avoid things getting heated is to…not get heated.
enjoy the luxury of being relatively unaffected by politics and don’t like being reminded that others don’t. This is less legit, according to me. Because, as many have pointed out, we are capable of ignoring posts* we’d rather not engage with or even read all the way through. But to complain that people are discussing something you’d prefer not to think about - and I’ve seen that here, too - seems like asking the world to protect you when you’re perfectly capable of protecting yourself.
*and here I’ll throw in the obligatory exception for personal insults and abusive language
Thank you. I am in full agreement with your observations, and am grateful for the eloquence of point 2.
It’s one of very few things I don’t like very much, or only in very few contexts - like a pastrami on rye. That might actually be the only occasion I can abide caraway. Otherwise, that nasty shit ruins everything it touches. Seulement pour moi, natch
It is an essential flavor of the classic:
https://www.schwabls.com/menu/
The second classic stop of tourist Buffalo two-step is Frank and Terresa’s:
