this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
258 points (99.6% liked)
food
22637 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/food!
The place for all kinds of food discussion: from photos of dishes you've made to recipes or even advice on how to eat healthier.
Animal liberation is essential to any leftist movement.
Image posts containing animal products must have nfsw tag and add a content warning (CW:Meat/Cheese/Egg) ,and try to post recipes easily adaptable for vegan.
Posts that contain animal products may receive informative comments regarding animal liberation, and users may disengage by telling a commenter that the original poster wants to, "disengage".
Off-topic, Toxic, inflammatory, aggressive debating, and meta (community rules, site rules, moderators,etc ) posts or comments will be removed.
Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and remember we are all comrades here. Share all your delicious food secrets.
Ingredients of the week: Mushrooms,Cranberries, Brassica, Beetroot, Potatoes, Cabbage, Carrots, Nutritional Yeast, Miso, Buckwheat
Cuisine of the month:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok
Look if you want me to feel bad for thinking we shouldn't be making dubious arguments I don't know what to tell ya.
You're trying to take organic human communication and abstract it into the realm of pure ideas and reason, thinking you can escape nuances such as context and intent. Ignoring half the substance.
I take issue with your attitude, flippant, rude dismissal of cultural knowledge that you have no connection to as a white americuck.
In short, you're using academic prestige and "correctness" as an excuse to be a condescending asshole.
I'm Arab, and you're being way more of an asshole than B. Slate
You're being obnoxious and your reaction is completely disproportionate. They acted in good faith, and the one with the problematic attitude here is you.
In his defense, we have a history.
Ah, should've guessed.
Being arrogantly dismissive isn't "good faith" to me but I accept that my reaction was disproportionate.
I'm not doing any of that. The crux of the OP is correct; it's just that the provided etymology is considered a folk etymology and not one attested in the historical record.
If I'd jumped into the facebook posters DM's and called him all manner of unkind things for using a folk etymology, that would make me a condescending asshole, but good thing I didn't do that. I pointed out that it was a folk etymology so that people here can attach a little context to this tidbit of information that was missing in the original post.
Like honestly, you're saying I shouldn't have said anything on finding that this claim is disputed? At least now people here can use this argument with the added etymology context and not look as though they don't know what they're talking about.
Akshdueidldhrjely this statement is folk etymology and not attested in the historical record. 🤓🤓🤓
See figure 1. below:
Here we can see our bloodless bugperson dismissively label someones cultural history that was likely passed down to them by their precious family members as "nonsense", all with the arrogant swagger of a white academic. Unintentionally displaying the embarassing level of shallowness of its own research with "muh 20 seconds of Googling".
Like fr what the fuck man, the medium scholar can be arrogant about it because he's fishing for clicks, it's a debate he's passionate about with a cultural connection to so it's all in good fun, and he's actually done the work.
It's just strange when some random angloid from America takes up the same attitude for literally no other reason than being rude and dismissive to give themselves an aura of someone who needs to be "taken seriously".
"Hey based on my limited cultural knowledge and shallow research, I found that the Coptic origins of the word Falafel may not be entirely accurate. However it is still an arabic dish and the twitter user Khalil's point still stands, death to Israel."
Would have been better.
You assume that your dismissive arrogance is the default mode of human communication, you're a tiresome person.
Look if you're just going to invent scenarios so that my pointing out some rando on the internet might have said something untrue is equivalent to me spiting on the graves of their loved ones so that you can claim I'm being "rude and dismissive" to someone I'm not interacting with, have at it, but don't expect me to take it seriously.
Coptic, and this dish, have been around for thousands of years. The word falafel less than a hundred and fifty. Arab linguists scholars have claimed it as Arabic for over half that time and have provided an etymology for it.
They could absolutely wrong, but I'm not going to take flack as the asshole for pointing out they've made a much stronger case.
Humorously, the Coptic origin claim got some play on twitter years ago as an argument by Israelis that it isn't a Palestinian dish.
"Gotta maintain my prestige on hexbear dot net otherwise I'll never make tenure" and other common concerns of the learned scholar.
I mean do you actually want to see the order of my browser history timestamps? I didn't stop reading about it after my first post, and yeah my second post was informed by my having read the Arabic source, which is when I introduced the word nonsense, perhaps a bit too lightly, but not to extent that I'll feel bad about.
Look you've already given up the game that you're just being an asshole for the sake of it. What you hope to accomplish by that I don't know but go off anyway king.
Yeah it's really silly and yet here you are using that type of language.
I'm talking about your first and second posts on this thread, Einstein, can't be fucked about what you do in the privacy of your own browser.
There's nothing wrong with correcting misinfo, I take issue with your dismissive tone and lack of earlier effort to clarify your intentions and case, especially in this case.
Nah it's because you're a very condescending white academic, I don't like you guys.
I know you're talking about my first and second posts on this thread. My first post offered a tentative questioning of this etymology (with a citation), and my second post mirrored the language used by a more thorough analysis that I had subsequently read. My browser history corroborates that and shows that your argument that I went scrambling for additional sources only after being challenged is nonsense.
Can't win em all. You can block me if you like. I'll block you once we wrap up our current pleasant interaction and that way we can both get on with our miserable lives.
JFL at your flowery academic jargon. Yeah tbh that was absolutely fine, I didn't care about it until...
"bro its fine that i chose not to think before i was pompous and arrogant, I was just copying the tone of someone else"
Think for yourself. Your tone was rude and uncalled for, its that simple.
Think about how ridiculous you look to anyone who doesn't live in your head.
Regardless of what research you did personally, this is an arrogant white pseudointellectual being rudely dismissive of a brown person's cultural lore based off of a surface level reading of wikipedia.
As stated earlier, my main grievance with your post was your dismissive tone and arrogance. Any sort of good faith or benefit of the doubt towards you goes right out the window due to it.
And I'm glad that in the end, you recognized that you perhaps had used language flippantly. I don't care whether you feel bad or not, just do better.
Thank you for bestowing upon me this great honor. I have a strong distaste for instructors who use their knowledge to arrogantly belittle and beat other people over the head, figuratively and literally.
Nah, you're just grinding an axe under this pretext.
This is internally incoherent. It wasn't Wikipedia that informed my view of it being nonsense, but reading what actual members of the culture of origin described it as, that being "ridiculous", "laughable". Next time I'm use more aseptic language and so you'll have to pivot to complaining that I'm talking too much like a fancylad.
You can't even decide if you think me citing Wikipedia originally is an object of scorn (your first point) or actually okay (your second). It's as if the content of what you're saying doesn't matter so long as you can pivot to trying to dunk on me. Well very good we're all impressed.
None of which happened here, apart from your ham-handed efforts at doing so. Am I belittling and beating the Facebook poster over the head? What do you think he thinks about the matter? I'm really straining at who is supposed to be the victim of my tone here. Surely someone has to have been wronged in or to justify this level of tone policing.
That's right, multiple people have gone out of their way in this thread to tell me about how much of a normal one I am having.
Think what you want, your language was dismissive and arrogant, such an approach throws any benefit of the doubt towards its user out the window.
That wasn't my argument. My argument isn't that you are X objectively, but you do indeed subjectively come off as X to someone just reading your first 2 posts.
Just because they did doesn't mean you can too. You can cite that they said so, but as a white you have no excuse to be condescending as such.
Proper sentence construction comes first.
Which comment did I originally reply to? The one where you cited wikipedia or the second one where you were rude? The fact that you were calling cultural lore nonsense based on what seemed to be nothing but wikipedia skimming is ridiculous in totality.
Fujitsu LPF-D711.
... and your effete attempts at condescension and dismissal? My hog is currently in my hand at the moment so touche.
Individualism. I don't care whether this user in particular is in the room at the current moment, its rude to call cultural lore "nonsense" as an outsider belonging to a group of people who have an ongoing history of colonization.
Oh man, we're at the "you made a typo" stage of internet discourse. I should just drop a redditbro emoji and ride off into the sunset hootin and hollerin.
Gonna have to disagree with you there. The folk etymology of picnic is nonsense, and I feel no compunctions about saying that in a discussion online about etymologies. Now if someone I know in person repeats that etymology as a fact, they are in fact entitled to a more gentle correction, doubly so if they come from the marginalized group relevant to the etymology. Even if it's someone I'm interacting with online, I'd feel obligated to be more conciliatory, which is why I haven't called you any number of unkind things.
But I'm not going to accept your tone policing like you're some kind of Lorax speaking for someone who isn't present, as though I've poopooed some touchstone of Coptic culture and not some random factiod the dude might have seen online. For one it smacks of racist paternalism.
You're the one who made a grammatical mistake when making an allusion to "aseptic language", it was too good to let slide.
Why are you so arrogant? What gives you the authority, intellectual or otherwise, to describe folk etymology as "nonsense", or to decree whether someone is "entitled to a more gentle correction"?
This is pure debate perversion because now we're talking about muh entymology when it's really about you being rude and condescending. Being correct about something is no excuse to be an asshole. This is why I don't like you white academics.
Individualism again. It's not about any singular person, it's about you crackers not being so arrogant and dismissive towards cultural lore. You can say that something is factually right or wrong, but being an asshole about it is uncalled for. And yes I am tone policing because of your behaviour.
It's not your culture so do be respectful about "correcting" it as a white, or do kindly shut up.
I don't need authority to decide what an appropriate mode of interaction in various settings is. The same way you don't need to be invested by any authority to decide you're the scourge of the western academic. You can just do that and weird everyone out in the process.
And as we've already established, I was mirroring what members of the actual culture of origin described it as.
Who was I an asshole to?
I will, as ever, do what I think is best.
Individualism yet again.
Ok so you switched from chauvinistically making normative statements about folk entymology being objectively "nonsense", to, when asked about what "authority" you have to make such arrogant claims, "that's just how I talk in this setting bro".
That's too grandiose, I'm not unky ted. And not "western academics" in general JFL reading comprehension not found.
Being a normie is overrated.
You, as a white person, only get to cite their descriptions as such and nothing more. We addressed this earlier.
Ok.
And yet, I did otherwise.
Aaaand now we're going to go into more debate perversion about the definition of proper citation methods and timelines to avoid the fact that your 2nd post was literally just you calling the lore "nonsense" without any such descriptive receipts included within. Good job buddy boyo, way to weasel your way out of this one.
I'd be very interested to know what constitutes your definition of lore, actually.
:smuglord:
JFL nice try, Jack, but not a chance, go have a wank somewhere else.
Is it possible to move further and further away from things that don't exist?
"It is impossible for one to see even a mountain in front of him when his head is firmly burrowed into his own ass."
This kind of thing is why I prefer Laozi.
Indeed, to taste the Vinegar and find sweetness, what a man he was. His teachings should be remembered for 10,000 years at least.