Do you really think that I'm the only person for which it is more of a chore than an art — Sapientia

Chore or bore, artful or martyrdom, every body has to eat. There are, basically, 3 ways of feeding yourself:

Get it raw and cook it; get it pre-cooked and reheat it; or let somebody else do it for you. Gardens, stores, and restaurants pretty much answer our needs.

I used to like to cook, but like most things, if one doesn't do it regularly, one loses skills. When I have the recipe in front of me, things come out OK. But I just don't like cooking much, anymore -- especially foods that require a lot of attention: measuring, mixing, seasoning, cooking in several steps, stuff that is touchy about too much or not enough heat, all that.

One forgets things. For a decade or so, the pancakes I made were not especially good. Then the New York Times had an article on pancakes, and it mentioned cultured buttermilk. Right, the missing link! It makes all the difference in the world. But then the last time I forgot to add melted butter to the batter and that also made all the difference in the world in the other direction.

Tonight's meal will mostly be reheated. Everything will be done in the microwave.

Yes, quite as predicted, the question of "is Bannon an anti-Semite" is being answered by telling me Israel sucks.

No it wasn't – I'm sorry if you read it that way. In the context of the post, those were clearly suggestions for someone like-minded, of what I thought were good ideas. If you think they're not, okay, you disagree with me, but I don't see why that is grounds for outrage. I think you're wrong, but last I checked, I'm allowed to think that without there being an outrage over it, as if I personally offended you. — The Great Whatever

I didn't find that to be clear. It seemed like general advice, not aimed at anyone in particular.

I don't just disagree. The grounds for outrage is your judgemental attitude. If I publicly suggested to someone like-minded in a mixed audience that he stop going to shitty church or reading trash like the Bible, then I wouldn't be surprised if that provoked outrage for other members of the audience.

If you're free to say that sort of thing, in the way that you did, then why aren't I similarly free to object to it or express outrage? Doesn't it work both ways?

Considering I wasn't addressing you or talking about you, I don't know why you'd think that. — The Great Whatever

Like I said, it indirectly related to me - meaning it didn't have to be addressed to me or specifically about me.

But you haven't explained why an individual's opinion on what it is should matter to me. — The Great Whatever

Well, I thought that you were just telling people what they should do or care about or appreciate or how they should see things, when, for me, that sort of thing is more a matter of personal preference, taste, what you find appealing, or enjoy doing. Hobbies and such. And I got the impression that you were looking down your nose at others who don't share your opinion or preferences or whatever.

I'm not sure your thoughts address the question of whether I, as an American Jew, should fear Bannon as an anti-Semite. I don't think I have cause to based upon what he said.

But the flip side of what you said is simply that the media has lost its power to set the tone or direction of the Democracy.

If you knowingly provide a place for racists, xenophobes, anti-semites and sexists to loudly proclaim their views to a large audience, and express no remorse over those views, and profit from them - well, yes, it's possible that you may share none of their passionate hatreds. — csalisbury

Well, yeah, it's possible that someone has racist, sexist, etc. views in any situation we could describe.

But, if you don't, and still publish, that makes you one deeply cynical son of a bitch. And someone that cynical isn't likely to balk at anything, should it serve him. — csalisbury

In my case, part of why I'd do it (that is, function as Bannon did in his position at Breitbart) is because I'm a free speech absolutist, and I feel that an important aspect of that is people expressing speech that is controversial, that others are uncomfortable with, that offends others, etc.

Like the claim that if Bannon's anti semitic that's ok bc everyone hates each other anyway! lol)

I think it's okay for someone to have anti-semitic beliefs and to express those beliefs, because I think it's okay for someone to have ANY conceivable beliefs and to express anything conceivable. I'm not in favor of belief/thought/expression policing, even if it's just via social pressure. In my opinion, (especially widespread) social pressure for such things is just as bad as making them illegal. That would go just as well for widespread discriminatory social pressure of course. My objection there isn't the content or expression of beliefs but the act of socially pressuring others to conform to something.

If you're free to say that sort of thing, in the way that you did, then why aren't I similarly free to object to it or express outrage? Doesn't it work both ways? — Sapientia

You're free to, sure, but I just don't see what relevance or argumentative force it has on the conversation.

Well, I thought that you were just telling people what they should do or care about or appreciate, when, for me, that sort of thing is more a matter of personal preference, taste, what you find appealing, or enjoy doing. Hobbies and such. And I got the impression that you were looking down your nose at others who don't share your opinion or preferences or whatever. — Sapientia

OK, well, I disagree. These things aren't just a matter of personal preference or taste, and transcend the individual. And culture transcends hobbies, and is more important than them.

I was responding to what you said. You're either being disingenuous or you have multiple loose screws. I didn't really expect either of those from you. Weird.

You're free to, sure, but I just don't see what relevance or argumentative force it has on the conversation. — The Great Whatever

The argumentative force behind my comment would have been the implication that for people like me, going to church or cooking might not be worthwhile or a better way of spending time. So any kind of general advice or demands that someone like me should go to church or spend more time cooking might be wrongheaded.

But that was before you clarified that you were only addressing someone of like mind.

OK, well, I disagree. These things aren't just a matter of personal preference or taste, and transcend the individual. And culture transcends hobbies, and is more important than them. — The Great Whatever

Yeah, we disagree. Whether or not a Marvel movie is crappy is very much a matter of personal preference or taste. Perhaps not entirely, but very much so.

The argumentative force behind my comment would have been the implication that for people like me, going to church or cooking might not be worthwhile or a better way of spending time. So any kind of general advice or demands that someone like me should go to church or spend more time cooking might be wrongheaded. — Sapientia

I don't think it has to be church specifically, but most human beings are not happy living a purely material existence and require some form of spiritual enrichment. Nothing of the sort, in my opinion, is provided by 'the open society' as it is in America now. The gambit of American culture is that we can live a purely material existence, and I think that's not so. And generally, I think Christianity is a richer and more interesting tradition than that coming out of its detractors.

Yeah, we disagree. Whether or not a Marvel movie is crappy is very much a matter of personal preference or taste. Perhaps not entirely, but very much so. — Sapientia

Nah, I think they're crappy. People might like them, but that doesn't make them not crappy. It's a matter of personal taste how you find the movie, but that's not the issue.

I don't think it has to be church specifically, but most human beings are not happy living a purely material existence and require some form of spiritual enrichment. — The Great Whatever

Then perhaps I'm simply not like most human beings. I don't ever feel the need to use mumbo-jumbo terms like "spiritual enrichment". Do I require it? Do I yearn for it? I'm not even sure what it is, but if it's anything like church, then I already have something of an opinion on it, and I trust my opinion more than I trust yours.

Nothing of the sort, in my opinion, is provided by 'the open society' as it is in America now. The gambit of American culture is that we can live a purely material existence, and I think that's not so. And generally, I think Christianity is a richer and more interesting tradition than that coming out of its detractors. — The Great Whatever

Well, these terms that you're using are a bit vague, so I'm not quite sure what you even mean. What's a purely material existence? I could live without Christianity, and I don't think that it would be such a great loss.

Nah, I think they're crappy. People might like them, but that doesn't make them not crappy. It's a matter of personal taste how you find the movie, but that's not the issue. — The Great Whatever

And you thinking they're crappy doesn't make them not good, either.

Then perhaps I'm simply not like most human beings. I don't ever feel the need to use mumbo-jumbo terms like "spiritual enrichment". Do I require it? Do I yearn for it? I'm not even sure what it is, but if it's anything like church, then I already have something of an opinion on it, and I trust my opinion more than I trust yours. — Sapientia

Okay? I don't know why you're telling me all this.

Well, these terms that you're using are a bit vague, so I'm not quite sure what you even mean. What's a purely material existence? I could live without Christianity, and I don't think that it would be such a great loss. — Sapientia

A material existence would involve the means for physical survival and maybe reproduction, lack of pain, and possibly entertainment and the experience of pleasure and comfort and interest. Most people find an existence consisting of only these things unsatisfactory, because they don't provide any context or method for living life self-consciously, with a narrative history and vision of what it means to live in a certain way as part of a certain people.

I think the dominant opinion among educated people in the West is now that some sort of nihilism is self-evident, and that meaning is something that must be projected onto the universe by individual effort. But this seems to be due to a lack of experience with meaning and culture, which people then take to be the normal state of things.

And you thinking they're crappy doesn't make them not good, either. — Sapientia

I never said it did. Their being crappy makes them crappy, obviously. I say it because it's true; it's not true because I say it.

Okay? I don't know why you're telling me all this. — The Great Whatever

I don't know why you're perplexed at my reply. What were you expecting?

A material existence would involve the means for physical survival and maybe reproduction, lack of pain, and possibly entertainment and the experience of pleasure and comfort and interest. Most people find an existence consisting of only these things unsatisfactory, because they don't provide any context or method for living life self-consciously, with a narrative history and vision of what it means to live in a certain way as part of a certain people. — The Great Whatever

I'm still not sure what you mean, to be honest. A context or method for living life self-consciously? What's a narrative history? I'm guessing you're counting religion, but I'm not sure what else would tick all of those boxes. Philosophy? Politics? Being part of some sort of club or group?

I think the dominant opinion among educated people in the West is now that some sort of nihilism is self-evident, and that meaning is something that must be projected onto the universe by individual effort. — The Great Whatever

I don't know if I'd put it quite like that, but I am a nihilist of some sort similar to what you describe, and I do think that there is good reason for that.

But this seems to be due to a lack of experience with meaning and culture, which people then take to be the normal state of things. — The Great Whatever

I don't agree with that assessment at all.

I never said it did. Their being crappy makes them crappy, obviously. I say it because it's true; it's not true because I say it. — The Great Whatever

How predicable. And boring.

I don't really understand what I'm supposed to get out of talking to you, Sapientia. Not to be rude or anything, but I just don't see what purpose this line of conversation is serving, or what point you're trying to make, so I'm going to desist. Taking snippets from people's posts and saying you disagree or that they outrage or confuse you, or calling them boring, just doesn't seem to be an interesting way to discuss anything, and I don't get why you do it.

I don't really understand what I'm supposed to get out of talking to you, Sapientia. Not to be rude or anything, but I just don't see what purpose this line of conversation is serving, or what point you're trying to make, so I'm going to desist. Taking snippets from people's posts and saying you disagree or that they outrage or confuse you, or calling them boring, just doesn't seem to be an interesting way to discuss anything, and I don't get why you do it. — The Great Whatever

That's fine. I was just making enquiries out of curiosity, and expressing my opinion, which is hardly out of place on a philosophy forum.

You do seem to be projecting, though. So, perhaps you should look inwards for answers.

I mean, how else am I supposed to react to comments like: "Nah, I think they're crappy". That sort of comment is boring (which, by the way, is pretty much just a more succinct way of saying "just doesn't seem to be an interesting way to discuss something").

I know this is a bit tangential but which gilmore girl do you like more - the old one or the young one? I think they both have their merits (and god knows they have their flaws - I'm thinking season 2 ep 4 in particular) but in the end they're both trying to get by in this crazy old world. That said, the older one has a sort of pragmatic wisdom the younger lacks and that seems to give the show a moral grounding. Tho the fierce but naive spirit of the young one (played by the always delightful Alexis Bledel) is endearing too - I guess it's the two together that makes the show so vibrant and it's hard to choose one or the other - but if i had a gun to your head, whom would you pick? (Be honest!)

In all fairness, you assumed I was talking about you, which seems to me to be projective behavior.

It indirectly related to me. Not quite the same. :-}

You do understand what that means, right?

Weird.

It means you care enough about Marvel movies to get really ruffled if someone suggests they're bad to someone else?

Look you and others routinely preen about how you recognize religion and spirituality as dumb "mumbo jumbo" that you won't be taken in by, but then you get instantly up in arms if people attack blockbusters and suggest cooking is more than a chore.

The idea seems to be that being above religion and its shallow mummery makes you a freethinker with no illusions and this is a philosophy forum so other freethinkers will naturally approve and applaud.

So this whole posture of being offended at people making cultural distinctions is silly.

No, not quite, but nice try.

Oh, my mistake

Cooking is complex... and I'm bad at it... so I get someone else to do it.

I think that we should all hug it out.

I have a close friend who is an amazing cook - he gave me some cooking lessons (I came over early before a dinner party to help make the meal and learn) and I sucked at it but it was still super rewarding.

Well, as long as you go to church and don't watch any Marvel films, you get the seal of approval. Otherwise you're complicit in the destruction of culture.

I should do something like that. I don't think that I've ever made anything where I used a recipe. I just kind of throw in the things I want, and cook them till they're done. They usually do look like art projects of sorts when I'm done... elementary school ones at least.

Hollywood needs to ruin Utena. I promise that I'll still like it. Even if they last airbender it.

Why go this far to defend Marvel films though? It was just an example, and why are they worth defending anyway?

I guess we can just decide not to hold ourselves to any standards and just live like plebs and animals, but that sounds lame, I'll choose a better worldview.

Yeah, I'm at a point where I get a kind of anxiety whenever I try to cook on my own (like the anxiety before a blank canvas or a blank page) and my cooking friend moved to another state soon after the first two lessons, so I haven't given it another stab since. My cooking is school-project level too. I have that classic perfectionist/flattered-as-a-child problem of being terrified of anything of I won't immediately excel at (which for me is 95% of the lifeskills I want and need to hone) and I'm trying to scheme up a way to tiptoe around my ridiculous superego in order to just go for it.

I like that an OP about Bannon has lead to a discussion of cooking.