Lmao what do white people eat everyday, educate me.

[Captante]

Come to the light, you will see the truth to this culinary rule.

The only "rule" in the food-world is that people can eat whatever they want and what tastes "good" to any one individual is 100% subjective.

Having said that, it's pretty obvious that anyone who prefers beef cooked to the point that 90% of the flavor is gone really doesn't like the way beef tastes anyway and they should just stick to veggie-burgers.

 

[nakedfrog]

If there's a "plus" to preparing beef in this fashion it's that the cheap cuts will taste pretty much just like the expensive stuff once you've cooked all the life out of them.

This way you can safely grab your ground beef from the bargain-rack since it's all going to taste just like a "Steak-Umm" anyway!

This is not true.

The only "rule" in the food-world is that people can eat whatever they want and what tastes "good" to any one individual is 100% subjective.

Having said that, it's pretty obvious that anyone who prefers beef cooked to the point that 90% of the flavor is gone really doesn't like the way beef tastes anyway and they should just stick to veggie-burgers.

I guess it's good that I don't prefer it cooked that way, I just want it to be cooked the way I like it! I love beef, you think I don't, well, you're welcome to stick that opinion in whichever orifice of yours you prefer

There are some rules in the food world. Some rules and lots of no rules too, as in mix and match foods as you like. But, good quality beef, whether a steak or a burger, should be cooked medium at the most. Otherwise it's just not doing the ingredient justice. It's just that simple.

Come to the light, you will see the truth to this culinary rule.

No, it isn't that simple. I've had enough steaks cooked medium and burgers that weren't well done to know that's not what I enjoy. I'm not eating it for your enjoyment. Worse than the "no ketchup on hot dogs" people, I tell you...
You think the ingredient is better a different way?

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

A burger doesn't have to be rare. Thin patty burgers like you'd get at 5 guys are always served well done. It just depends on the style. I mean you aren't making a smash burger with 93% lean beef.

 

[MrSquished]

This is not true.

I guess it's good that I don't prefer it cooked that way, I just want it to be cooked the way I like it! I love beef, you think I don't, well, you're welcome to stick that opinion in whichever orifice of yours you prefer

No, it isn't that simple. I've had enough steaks cooked medium and burgers that weren't well done to know that's not what I enjoy. I'm not eating it for your enjoyment. Worse than the "no ketchup on hot dogs" people, I tell you...
You think the ingredient is better a different way?

View attachment 68411

Actually I'm not like the no ketchup on hot dogs people, and I forgive Obama for it too

There are some rules in the food world. Some rules and lots of no rules too, as in mix and match foods as you like.

Mix and match whatever foods you like, go ahead put ketchup on a Chicago dog that already has mustard on it , I don't judge - but there are certain ingredients that should be treated a certain way when cooked a certain way. That's all I'm saying

 

[nakedfrog]

Mix and match whatever foods you like, go ahead put ketchup on a Chicago dog that already has mustard on it , I don't judge - but there are certain ingredients that should be treated a certain way when cooked a certain way. That's all I'm saying

What I'm saying is... you're wrong, in the same way/reason as the hot dog people

 

[Captante]

This is not true

No worries.... just giving you a hard time!

(I have no issues confusing the meaning of: "the BEST!!1!" with "my favorite" lol)

 

[MrSquished]

What I'm saying is... you're wrong, in the same way/reason as the hot dog people

What about getting a gorgeous piece of sushi grade tuna in an entrée and asking for it well done. Does that not hurt you?

 

[Captante]

What about getting a gorgeous piece of sushi grade tuna in an entrée and asking for it well done. Does that not hurt you?

He thinks all raw sushi is "gross" so I'm going with no.

 

[MrSquished]

He thinks all raw sushi is "gross and slimey" so I'm going with no.

That's totally cool, as long as he doesn't disrespect a sushi grade piece of tuna by asking for it medium or higher

I'm just fucking with him, I really don't lose any sleep over people overcooking certain ingredients, you do you. But....

It's just not the right way to treat it

 

[nakedfrog]

She thinks all raw sushi is "gross" so I'm going with no.

Yes, she does, the texture is appalling. Cooked fish is better in that regard.

That's totally cool, as long as she doesn't disrespect a sushi grade piece of tuna by asking for it medium or higher

I'm just fucking with her, I really don't lose any sleep over people overcooking certain ingredients, you do you. But....

It's just not the right way to treat it

TBH she doesn't really care for seafood at all, tried lobster and Alaskan king crab and ahi tuna and salmon sushi, etc, even when the texture is okay it's still got that "sea" flavor to it.

 

[MrSquished]

Yes, she does, the texture is appalling. Cooked fish is better in that regard.

TBH she doesn't really care for seafood at all, tried lobster and Alaskan king crab and ahi tuna and salmon sushi, etc, even when the texture is okay it's still got that "sea" flavor to it.

Apologies on the pronouns. Honestly I think everybody is a guy unless their handle hints at being slightly feminine. Just have to get over pre-conceived sexist notions like that in a tech dominated forum. My bad.

 

[Captante]

Yes, she does, the texture is appalling. Cooked fish is better in that regard.

Pardon me. (sincerely)

 

[IronWing]

There are some rules in the food world. Some rules and lots of no rules too, as in mix and match foods as you like. But, good quality beef, whether a steak or a burger, should be cooked medium at the most. Otherwise it's just not doing the ingredient justice. It's just that simple.

Come to the light, you will see the truth to this culinary rule.

This would be true if people understood that medium means cooked, not raw in the middle.

 

[Torn Mind]

LOL I literally have zero roots of any kind to Beijing so that's at least the third ludicrous comment you've made in this thread. I'll concede you have fair points of the CCP's attacks on regional dialects. That's actually happened worldwide (i.e. suppression of Catalan and Occitan), so it's not a uniquely Chinese phenomenon.

What's nonsense is you claimed the regional Chinese are essentially "foreigners" who share a common script. This is garbage on many levels. It's wrong on a linguistic level: the Sinitic dialects all descended from Ancient or Middle Chinese, and have diverged tremendously over many centuries. You're correct that geography had a lot to do with this.

On a genetic level, DNA analysis has shown that the Han Chinese are very similar genetically. I'm not speaking to any "ethnic purity" because a meaningful portion of Han Chinese DNA has come from "outsiders" to the north. But all modern ethnic Chinese (in China) are quite similar genetically, even though northerners happen to be slightly taller. You can read Wikipedia yourself to confirm this.

Finally, you blanket said you can't get authentic Chinese food in America, which is also horseshit. You're entitled to your own opinions, but we can poke holes in them when they are utterly bonkers. If that makes me a "pretentious prick," then so be it.

Simply defined, a foreigner is someone from another "country". But a foreigner also carries other properties that usually come about from coming from another country, linguistic differences being one such feature. Even someone from the UK can speak English but if he comes to America, the accent(and some local slang) alone can indicate he comes from elsewhere. So-called Chinese "dialects' are a few degrees more separated than American and British English.

My point is based the practical aspects of communication needed to basically live and function in the community/society. In this sense, I believe I'm the correct one here. One substantial test would be If an interpreter is needed to function in society... the person is not going to get the same level of function and access as a fluent speaker. Another test is whether it is necessary to switch to the "third universal" language to achieve communication. When it comes to "dialects"(which doesn't carry the presumption of intelligibility as when used for English), speakers of different Chinese "dialects" would need such translation assistance in the case one of the parties do not understand Mandarin.
Since the dialects are unintelligible, they can be used to code-switch for "secrecy and privacy" in an ongoing conversation, no different than a Spanish-speaker switching to Spanish from English to discuss things with other Spanish-speakers, and the English speaker doesn't have a clue what they are saying.

For example, my aunt needed her son to translate for her. They live in Hong Kong, thus the native language is Cantonese. She went to a doc a few months ago. The doc only speaks Cantonese. So her son has to translate the doc's words into Mandarin. Her son, growing up in Hong Kong, doesn't know Shanghainese. Meanwhile, while my mom and my aunt converse, it's for hours in full blown Shanghainese.

Does it matter if English now has some French elements from the invasion of the Normans? Not enough to drop an American in Paris and expect him to get by like a Parisian who spoke the language from birth. Or a speaker of one Romance language like French being able to understand Spanish without learning the other language. Yeah, their ancestors all had Latin shoved down their throats but things have deviated from those times.


That there is a common origin in the past would speed up learning the other language to an extent but it still requires the effort of learning all the quirks, intonation, and vocab of the new language. An "accent" will still present itself, as the other language's quirks simply cannot be learned well once someone passes a certain point in time.
"Wu" Chinese, which includes Shanghainese, still has a "v" sound while other "dialects" have lost that sound, for example. Thus, someone coming from a different dialect will have issue with enunciation and it will be noticeable.

The effects are pretty evident, with Wikipedia noting that there is not much an oral political tradition. Also, Mao empahiszed his Hunan origin when speaking Mandarin...making his speech unintelligible.

Historically, many of the people who promoted Chinese nationalism were from southern China and did not natively speak Mandarin, and even leaders from northern China rarely spoke with the standard accent. For example, Mao Zedong often emphasized his origins in Hunan in speaking, rendering much of what he said incomprehensible to many Chinese.[citation needed] Chiang Kai-shek and Sun Yat-sen were also from southern China, and this is reflected in their conventional English names reflecting Cantonese pronunciations for their given names, and differing from their Mandarin pinyin spellings Jiǎng Jièshí and Sūn Yìxiān. One consequence of this is that China does not have a well-developed tradition of spoken political rhetoric, and most Chinese political works are intended primarily as written works rather than spoken works. Another factor that limits the political implications of dialect is that it is very common within an extended family for different people to know and use different dialects.

I'm not the only one who has given the distinction of language and dialect much thought. https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...1/difference-between-language-dialect/424704/

Meanwhile, one generally hears Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taiwanese described as “dialects” of something called Chinese. But the only single “Chinese” language that exists is on paper, in that all of its varieties have the same writing system, where each word has its own symbol that (more or less) stays the same from one Chinese “dialect” to another. Mandarin and Cantonese, for example, are more different than Spanish and Italian. I, you, and he in Mandarin are wǒ, nǐ, and tā, but in Cantonese they are, respectively, ngóh, léih, and kéuih. Dialects? A Mandarin-speaker can no more “adjust” to Cantonese than a Swede could “adjust” to German.

 

[MrSquished]

This would be true if people understood that medium means cooked, not raw in the middle.

Yes medium should have just that streak of pink in the middle. I find that only the nicer steakhouses around here tend to 'undercook' their steaks. If you want MR get medium. Any just good to nice restaurant they cook it properly. At the cheaper restaurants if you say medium, it's probably gonna be overcooked. The one time I went to Texas Roadhouse I asked the waitress and the MR was the exact correct MR.

I don't get steaks out too often besides some more slightly special outings - they are pricey and often overpriced, I'd rather get something else more interesting. I can make an insanely good ribeye at home using Alton Brown's method very easily. If you haven't tried it, strongly recommend it. If you don't do a sous-vide reverse sear, etc...

 

[manly]

Simply defined, a foreigner is someone from another "country". But a foreigner also carries other properties that usually come about from coming from another country, linguistic differences being one such feature. Even someone from the UK can speak English but if he comes to America, the accent(and some local slang) alone can indicate he comes from elsewhere. So-called Chinese "dialects' are a few degrees more separated than American and British English.

My point is based the practical aspects of communication needed to basically live and function in the community/society. In this sense, I believe I'm the correct one here. One substantial test would be If an interpreter is needed to function in society... the person is not going to get the same level of function and access as a fluent speaker. Another test is whether it is necessary to switch to the "third universal" language to achieve communication. When it comes to "dialects"(which doesn't carry the presumption of intelligibility as when used for English), speakers of different Chinese "dialects" would need such translation assistance in the case one of the parties do not understand Mandarin.
Since the dialects are unintelligible, they can be used to code-switch for "secrecy and privacy" in an ongoing conversation, no different than a Spanish-speaker switching to Spanish from English to discuss things with other Spanish-speakers, and the English speaker doesn't have a clue what they are saying.

For example, my aunt needed her son to translate for her. They live in Hong Kong, thus the native language is Cantonese. She went to a doc a few months ago. The doc only speaks Cantonese. So her son has to translate the doc's words into Mandarin. Her son, growing up in Hong Kong, doesn't know Shanghainese. Meanwhile, while my mom and my aunt converse, it's for hours in full blown Shanghainese.

Does it matter if English now has some French elements from the invasion of the Normans? Not enough to drop an American in Paris and expect him to get by like a Parisian who spoke the language from birth. Or a speaker of one Romance language like French being able to understand Spanish without learning the other language. Yeah, their ancestors all had Latin shoved down their throats but things have deviated from those times.


That there is a common origin in the past would speed up learning the other language to an extent but it still requires the effort of learning all the quirks, intonation, and vocab of the new language. An "accent" will still present itself, as the other language's quirks simply cannot be learned well once someone passes a certain point in time.
"Wu" Chinese, which includes Shanghainese, still has a "v" sound while other "dialects" have lost that sound, for example. Thus, someone coming from a different dialect will have issue with enunciation and it will be noticeable.

The effects are pretty evident, with Wikipedia noting that there is not much an oral political tradition. Also, Mao empahiszed his Hunan origin when speaking Mandarin...making his speech unintelligible.


I'm not the only one who has given the distinction of language and dialect much thought. https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...1/difference-between-language-dialect/424704/

You wrote a lot about the Sinitic dialects trying to prove a rubbish point. China has been more or less unified since the Han dynasty (technically Qin, which was smaller), with numerous interregnums when dynasties fell. Just because the dialects have diverged drastically over 2 millennia doesn't mean that a Shanghai resident is "foreign" w.r.t. to a Guangdong resident. If you're sticking to that nonsense, then it's pointless for us to even debate.

I never said the modern dialects are mutually intelligible; many certainly are not, which is WHY the politically minded Southerners even decided to promote Mandarin as a lingua franca when they established the republic a century ago. They actually considered Cantonese as the common language, but realized that was not a sensible option when a majority of Chinese (many poor/uneducated) spoke a Mandarin dialect.

Like I said previously, the fact is Han Chinese are genetically homogeneous. China is certainly a unified country as opposed to some weird confederation of "foreigners" as you suggest.

By your reckoning, the southern French who speak Occitan aren't actually French but foreigners.
And those who speak Catalan or Valencian aren't Spanish nationals at all. Well if you asked some of them, they would actually concur, but that isn't my point.

As the saying goes, a language is a dialect with an army and navy. By that definition, Taiwanese could be considered a language of its own.

Sorry to everyone else for derailing this thread LOL.

 

[Torn Mind]

You wrote a lot about the Sinitic dialects trying to prove a rubbish point. China has been more or less unified since the Han dynasty (technically Qin, which was smaller), with numerous interregnums when dynasties fell. Just because the dialects have diverged drastically over 2 millennia doesn't mean that a Shanghai resident is "foreign" w.r.t. to a Guangdong resident. If you're sticking to that nonsense, then it's pointless for us to even debate.


I never said the modern dialects are mutually intelligible; many certainly are not, which is WHY the politically minded Southerners even decided to promote Mandarin as a lingua franca when they established the republic a century ago. They actually considered Cantonese as the common language, but realized that was not a sensible option when a majority of Chinese (many poor/uneducated) spoke a Mandarin dialect.

Like I said previously, the fact is Han Chinese are genetically homogeneous. China is certainly a unified country as opposed to some weird confederation of "foreigners" as you suggest.

By your reckoning, the southern French who speak Occitan aren't actually French but foreigners.
And those who speak Catalan or Valencian aren't Spanish nationals at all. Well if you asked some of them, they would actually concur, but that isn't my point.

As the saying goes, a language is a dialect with an army and navy. By that definition, Taiwanese could be considered a language of its own.

Sorry to everyone else for derailing this thread LOL.

You know, you could have simply asked me "did you mean outsider?"?

But, true to the hints of antagonism you have hinted at towards me in the past, you decided to throw a few vague shots.
I believe I made more than just one point. The matter that I might be in error for is simply a matter of diction or sense of a term, as my sense corresponds the the informal sense of the term foreigner, which is listed .

Perhaps you should look in the U.S's backyard. Being a "native' does not entail full uniformity of treatment, and there was quite a spectrum of who occupied the top and who were below.

I never alleged you didn't know about the lack of intelligbility. The point I was trying to make was that this lack of intelligibility is not an insignificant factor in the day-to-day lives of Chinese from different locales or emigrating to some other place.
Dialects in China are not English dialects. The lack of intelligibility in general either leads to difficulty in functioning in the "dominant" society. There is a clear greater initial "connection" between two speakers of the same vernacular compared to both parities switching to the lingua franca crutch.

And sometimes the cuisine is indeed too difficult to accommodate. Sichuan food is spicy and those who can only eat mild food simply cannot switch over.

I also have dark olive skin while my sister is pale white, and I have a 3rd molar root. So yeah, "homogenous" but still enough to distinguish.

 

[BudAshes]

I committed treason today and overcooked steaks for my friends 😢

It's OK, there is always seppuku.

 

[Zeze]

It's OK, there is always seppuku.

That's the only option he has left at this point.

My wife made galbi jim for hosting. I can smell it mmm.

You serve this with 5-10+ banchans (side dishes). Beef short rib isn't cheap. It's prime rib cut sliced vertically. This is a treat for the guests.

It wouldn't be this elaborate as below, but this is a good example of a great Korean lunch / dinner (KBBQ).

 

[brianmanahan]

I committed treason today and overcooked steaks for my friends 😢

i used to order my steaks well done from ponderosa

 

[WelshBloke]

I've had well done burgers that are dry, and ones that are still juicy. And I've had burgers that were not cooked to my liking, and that extra "moistness and tenderness" is not appealing. It's irritating they get branded as "very overcooked" just because they're not cooked the way someone else prefers to eat them, and being told "you probably just don't know"

Yeah. I eat my steaks rare or medium rare for context.

Rare burgers aren't juicy, they are mushy. You've destroyed the natural texture of the meat by mincing it then not allowed it to develop texture by cooking.

If you want a juicy burger use mince that has a lot of fat content.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah. I eat my steaks rare or medium rare for context.

Rare burgers aren't juicy, they are mushy. You've destroyed the natural texture of the meat by mincing it then not allowed it to develop texture by cooking.

If you want a juicy burger use mince that has a lot of fat content.

Agreed. That's why a good medium rare just approaching medium is perfection for burgers.

 

[brianmanahan]

This way you can safely grab your ground beef from the bargain-rack since it's all going to taste just like a "Steak-Umm" anyway!

oh man steakumms are so good, i used to eat one of these every day:

- fry a couple steakumms in a pan with some onions
- put them on a hamburger bun
- throw a slice of velveeta on the steakumms
- spread miracle whip and bbq sauce on the top bun
- assemble and enjoy

🤌

 

[BudAshes]

oh man steakumms are so good, i used to eat one of these every day:

- fry a couple steakumms in a pan with some onions
- put them on a hamburger bun
- throw a slice of velveeta on the steakumms
- spread miracle whip and bbq sauce on the top bun
- assemble and enjoy

🤌

No

 

[WelshBloke]

oh man steakumms are so good, i used to eat one of these every day:

- fry a couple steakumms in a pan with some onions
- put them on a hamburger bun
- throw a slice of velveeta on the steakumms
- spread miracle whip and bbq sauce on the top bun
- assemble and enjoy

🤌

What's a steakumm?