I recently found out that “fanny” has a completely different meaning across the pond too! Here it’s a fairly innocuous term for backside.
I agree. MZ probably meant well though. However, I do think the threat of “you will do this, or I will be gone” can come across a bit undipolmatic.
@MZ . While what you said is probably 100% correct (that you will leave if words are banning), it actually put the other person in a strange position. I don’t even mean HungryOnion or Chowhound. I mean this is true for most things in life. Maybe the person is already willing to do what you have asked, but if you say this, then it comes off as a threat, and the other person may dig in his/her heels. Afterall, the person does not want to appear doing this because you made a threat.
Just imagine this. If some strangers say to me “You will pass the salt to me, or I will leave this restaurant”. I probably would have passed the salt, but now I don’t want to anymore. If you are some kind of a movie star and negotiating a contract, then it is different.
However, I do understand where you are coming from.
I don’t have many positive things to say about Nigella Lawson Inc. Nor Anthony Bourdain Inc. I expect to be disagreed with, and for people to come to their defense — if I ever post anything of substance about it.
But here I was outlining the type of discussion I don’t think should be disallowed, and using opinions about Nigella Lawson as an example, especially the topic is the food industry exploiting ideas about breasts in pursuit of business success. I hope the website it not going to stop people from criticising Lawson or anyone in the food business because some people might think the criticism is “negative” or insulting to Nigella Lawson.
I don’t think people actually did fight except about whether the wings were any good. A point was raised about showing cleavage getting you bigger tips, and others posted an interview with a Hooter’s waitress saying it wasn’t true. It wasn’t much of a fight. Or maybe I stopped reading too early.
But here you seem to regard “racially offensive” and “insulting” as synonyms.
How is it then okay to insult Nigella? I’m genuinely confused. And for the record, I’d be very distressed if slurs of any kind started popping up on this board, but I doubt they will. It doesn’t seem like that kind of crowd.
1 Like
You can be pointedly critical and withering about someone’s behaviour and its negative effects without trading in racial insults.
And it isn’t a racial insult if somebody with, say, an Hispanic surname, lands a cooking show where they peddle crap recipes as authentic Mexican fare, and you call them on it.
If you are trying to say you don’t ever want to read derogatory things about Nigella Lawson on Hungry Onion, maybe you will get your wish, but I hope not!
This whole thread reads like a bunch of drunks sitting at a bar talking about of what to call tits . LOL .
7 Likes
That’s true, and you can also use racial slurs without intending to offend anyone of that race (especially if you yourself are of that race). But some of the trashiest trash on Chowhound* involved trashing cooking show hosts because of the way they looked, especially if they were perceived to be “using” the way they looked. That’s what I hope doesn’t happen here, no matter what language is employed.
*so much that there was an actual please-just-stop sticky pasted to the Food Media board
2 Likes
Agree so much with NOT trashing cooking show hosts for their appearance. What does that accomplish besides being petty and mean? You made a recipe that didn’t work for you, that’s fair game, but I share your hope as this site continues to build/grow.
1 Like
I very rarely looked at Chowhound threads – I found Hungry Onion reading a website called “Mouthfuls”.
But normally, anyone who inadvertently uses a racial/stereotype slur innocently, not knowing it is despicable, will instantly withdraw it.
Our point of disagreement is that you think specific words should not be disallowed on Hungry Onion. I think some should, of the nature I described. My criticisms of Nigella Lawson don’t fall in that category, as scathing as my criticisms would be (were I to write a post making them!) Even if I never write such a post, I hope people on Hungry Onion feel free to critique celebrity chefs.
I agree with this too – up to a point, and that point is whether the cooking show host uses their appearance, gender, ethnicity, and other things unrelated to their recipes to become influential in the food industry and sell fantasies that are culturally damaging. It’s an interesting phenomenon, not just confined to cooking shows or today’s hosts. It shouldn’t be beyond examination or criticism on message boards. I really don’t think what everybody ate for dinner is all THAT interesting all the time.
1 Like
Administering / moderating any community, but especially online, is a balancing act: you want to maintain a happy, active user base that’s civil and welcoming to all. (Generally speaking.) But you can’t make everyone happy all the time. It’s not possible.
So you aim for a happy medium - some are thrilled, most are content, some barely tolerate the environment, and others leave.
Setting guidelines and enforcing them is essential. But arriving at those guidelines is a challenge and is why, I take it, the site owner came to the community and has asked for input.
In reference to the Hooters thread, I can understand why people were offended by some of the terms and why others weren’t. We all have different tolerances and sensitivities.
As a food board, I think we should focus on that: the food.
However, the environment in which food is served plays a valid part in one’s experience. Whether it’s the clothing worn by the staff, the lighting, the noise level, or the size / placement of tables, they all affect one’s takeaway perception of the food.
I don’t want to see excessive profanity for the sake of having the freedom to swear, but I don’t want profanity to be verboten, either. There are times when it’s acceptable and even appropriate, I feel.
What I really don’t want is a focus on body parts (and slang for them) or racist, sexist, or derogatory / offensive comments directed at individuals or groups.
That saying from CH, about criticizing the chow and not the Hound, resonates with me. In reference to the Hooters thread, I’m a lot more interested in the food than what the servers are wearing. The same is true for food celebrities: I don’t give a damn about their looks - I want to know if they know their stuff.
(I had more than one unpleasant exchange back on CH and also recently on FTC regarding comments on the relative attractiveness of certain female food journalists. All I care about is if they can do their job and provide me with useful, reliable information.)
I think we’re a decent group of people who share a common passion. I also think we’re all capable of acting like adults and interacting civilly, even when we disagree.
Just my two (or more) cents.
4 Likes
In phrasing it this way, you just pretty much delegitimise the opinion of everyone else who recognises Hooters for what it is – and also anyone who would be shocked to walk into a Michelin star restaurant and find female servers in provocative clothes, obviously demanded by their bosses.
People should be allowed to say on Hungry Onion, I think, what Hooters ia about and why they don’t go there, and not be treated as if they were somehow failing to see what’s important about dining out.
1 Like
Right there with you, ElsieDee. And everything you said seems to comport with the site guidelines, which I quote here:
“Civility – ‘Is it kind/ helpful?’ Please support a civil and respectful environment and use the forum to share knowledge skills and interests. Please no
personal attacks, e.g. name calling, disparaging remarks
harassment, e.g. stalking, bullying, verbal abuse, active and passive intimidation
offensive language and content, e.g. profanities directed at others, excessive profanities, bickering
hate speech around e.g. race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or other traits,
sexual content, e.g. sexually explicit content, avatars, pictures, innuendos.”
And if anyone doesn’t feel like reading the longer version, this image sums it up perfectly.
1 Like
At this point I’m fairly sure of a few things:
1.) If reading this thread Marssy is probably sitting back laughing her t*ts off while saying; “It’s not as easy as it looks is it”
2.) That harder you beat a dead horse has never made it go faster.
3.) It’s probably better to re-lock this thread and make our decisions and move on.
4.) I’m pretty sure George Carlin already debated both sides of this argument way back in 1972.
2 Likes
I don’t think anything about promoting Hooter’s is kind or helpful or civil to the community at large.
Well, folks, it has been a short and interesting experiment, but I’ve heard enough here to not make me want to post on Hungry Onion anymore.
I think all of you do actually have lines you would draw about where you would eat based on what the servers were wearing. Fair bet none of you would dine at Injun’ Joe’s if the help were all Hispanic males made to dress up like “braves” when they brought you and your kids your “wampum fries”.
Hooters doesn’t cross a line for you, but it crosses a line for some people, and I think rightly so. And what was begun as a discussion of specific words that might offend, has morphed into several people defining “civility” on the site as banning content and even clear disagreement against a majority consensus, and telling people who stick to their guns about offensive marketing tactics in the food industry that they are being against the Hungry Onion “community”. If you go look at the Hooter’s thread now, people are forbidden from talking about anything but the “food.”
I saw enough of Chowhound to see the same attitude. Not interesting to me. Not inspiring.
It is necessary to criticise things like Hooters and Injun Joes, and that might not feel kind, but trust me, the world would be a much kinder place without stuff like that and it is helpful to say so.
Ciao.
1 Like
I hope so. I think she seriously mishandled a lot of the complaints, but the way she’s been maligned here and at Chowhound is pretty disgraceful when you think about what’s actually at stake. (Not a whole hell of a lot.)
3 Likes
What Hooters is is a business with a particular shtick. Whether or not it’s a place someone would choose to patronize, based on the shtick and the food, is up to them.
I also said:
1 Like
Thank you all for the feedback. Let me get back to what I meant by PG-13 when I came up with the site guideline
The intent is that profanities and more salty language can be used in ways they are used in a PG-13 movie (instead of PG/ G). Drunk sailor language that creates an unwelcoming/ hostile environment for fellow participants and potential participants are meant to be excluded from the site. Attacks on others using these words are meant to be excluded.
I am not in favor of auto censor that blanks out words deemed ‘offensive’ by default. Besides being ineffective, I am of the opinion that one should take responsibility of his/her own language in the interaction with others.
I am not in favor of censorship because of saltiness. I certainly recognize the irony that this came from me given of what many perceived to be excessive censorship on the Hooters thread. When the salty language definitely wades into offensive territory like racism, sexism, etc then it should be removed. The grey area is what should be debated- the area where it may be offensive or has the potential to get into offensive territory but not there yet dependent on whom you ask.
The hooters thread- food should be a topic to discuss of course. The attire of the servers as its business model and impact on tips to me, and this is a personal opinion, is fair game as long as the discussion is done in a respectful manner, to correct on a statement made earlier.
If you go look at the Hooter’s thread now, people are forbidden from talking about anything but the “food.”
Some potential solutions for threads with explicit language that has concerns:
- Label the thread title with Explicit language once complaints are received to warn people of language and enter at your own risk. I am leaning towards this one.
- Move all those threads into one board where these things go. Similar idea, just put them all one place. More work and seems more random to have various topics on cooking, cookware, restaurants all lumped into this place just because of the language)
- Censor with various method like (which I am not a big fan of)
- asterisks,
- word replacement,
- with the spoiler feature
I am all for intelligent discussions, like this one. Its certainly not easy, but I’d rather have an honest discussion as the site grows and figures things out, than to just hurl a new rule out that may or may not make sense.
Thanks.
One additional clarification, once the label is labeled Explicit language, that a reminder be posted to posters to keep it respectful. It doesn’t mean its a free-for-all afterwards. Offensive stuff is still offensive and should be dealt with.
3 Likes
I think this is the best way forward – then once that “explicit” label goes up, the reader really has no way to complain about language – there’s a warning. There might also be a higher threshold for complaints – someone is going to be offended to just about anything that could ever appear on any forum – when it becomes a trend (what number? don’t know – probably depends on the context and the activity on the thread) then it gets the warning.
This does not, however apply to gratuitous or anything motivated by hatred or ignorance. Obnoxious and antisocial should still not be tolerated, whether it’s in Shakepeare’s English or Tupac’s.
2 Likes
