Human Rights Watch Warns of 'Authoritarian Drift' in Turkey

[Berkut]

It is like ordering 'cooked beef tartare'.  Beef tartare is, by definition, raw.

Yes, you can put cooked ingredients on top of rice and call it sushi.  Eel is a good example.  A lot of sushi places do set menus only.  The chef gives you, say, 12 pieces of sushi.  1-2 of them is cooked, the rest is raw.  Walking into those places and demanding the whole set be cooked is like ordering cooked beef tartare.  It doesn't work.  Want sushi with cooked ingredients only?  Then go to places that actually do that. 

You just said that some sushi is in fact cooked, so by definition it cannot be like having cooked steak tartare, since there is no steak tartare that is cooked. It is an oxymoron.

If some places only do raw sushi, that is fine, but that has nothing to do with the idea that sushi MUST be raw.

Your analogy is like saying you go into a steak restaurant that serves steak tartare along with cooked steak as well, ask for only the cooked steak, and the chef throws a fit because damnit, you have to eat the raw stuff to enjoy the not raw stuff.

I've been in a lot of sushi restaurants, including some really excellent ones, and I have yet to be in one that has no sushi without raw fish in it. There is plenty with no fish at all, for example.

So no, it is obviously not at all similar to cooked steak tartare.


The bitching over this is just food snobbery. "Oh look at me, I am so sophisticated! I can't stand those peasants who won't eat thing the way I eat them!"


Who cares if someone people don't like raw fish? More raw fish for me.

[Monoriu]

It is like ordering 'cooked beef tartare'.  Beef tartare is, by definition, raw.

Yes, you can put cooked ingredients on top of rice and call it sushi.  Eel is a good example.  A lot of sushi places do set menus only.  The chef gives you, say, 12 pieces of sushi.  1-2 of them is cooked, the rest is raw.  Walking into those places and demanding the whole set be cooked is like ordering cooked beef tartare.  It doesn't work.  Want sushi with cooked ingredients only?  Then go to places that actually do that. 

You just said that some sushi is in fact cooked, so by definition it cannot be like having cooked steak tartare, since there is no steak tartare that is cooked. It is an oxymoron.

If some places only do raw sushi, that is fine, but that has nothing to do with the idea that sushi MUST be raw.

Your analogy is like saying you go into a steak restaurant that serves steak tartare along with cooked steak as well, ask for only the cooked steak, and the chef throws a fit because damnit, you have to eat the raw stuff to enjoy the not raw stuff.

I've been in a lot of sushi restaurants, including some really excellent ones, and I have yet to be in one that has no sushi without raw fish in it. There is plenty with no fish at all, for example.

So no, it is obviously not at all similar to cooked steak tartare.


The bitching over this is just food snobbery. "Oh look at me, I am so sophisticated! I can't stand those peasants who won't eat thing the way I eat them!"


Who cares if someone people don't like raw fish? More raw fish for me.

The way a traditional sushi place works is like this.  The place has several sets on offer.  Could be 8 pieces a set, 10 pieces a set, and 12 pieces a set.  You choose from set A, B, or C.  The ingredients for each set is, well, set.  Usually, one or two pieces in each set is cooked.  Usually eel or prawns.  The rest is raw fish.  Or raw shellfish. 

You walk into this place, the chef asks you if you want set A, B, or C.  You reply that you want none of the above, because you want all the fish and shellfish be cooked.  Chef says I can't do it, and throws you out.  That's not food snobbery.  That's demanding cooked beef tartare. 

If you don't want raw fish, there is nothing wrong with that.  Just don't go to these places.  Plenty of sushi places do cooked stuff.  What made the Japanese headlines is Chinese tourists going to Jiro.  They do raw fish, and that's all they do, with few exceptions that usually form a small part of a set. 

[Berkut]

Yes, I am sure what made Japanese headlines had nothing to do with food snobbery or mocking the peasants for not liking things the way the food snobs insist they must be enjoyed. Because that is clearly headline making news otherwise. "Tourist asks for food restaurant does serve! Details at 11!!!"

If some places only serve their sushi raw, then yes, one should probably avoid those places if one only wants cooked fish. Mocking people for doing so, however, says more about the douchebags who think it is mock worthy than the people who (gasp!) want their food the way they like, and may not be aware that some particular restaurant specifically specializes in food they do NOT like.

But none of this is my point, which is far more a general observation that there is nothing about "sushi" in general that demands that it be only served with raw fish. It is perfectly reasonable to find sushi to be something very enjoyable to eat while at the same time NOT liking raw fish. And that is nothing like saying you want cooked steak tartare, which simply doesn't make sense at all.

Finally, I don't know what a "traditional" sushi place operates like, since I've been in a huge number of sushi places that operate in radically different manners. Is "traditional" more code for "food served the way food snobs think it ought to be served"?

[Berkut]

You walk into this place, the chef asks you if you want set A, B, or C.  You reply that you want none of the above, because you want all the fish and shellfish be cooked.  Chef says I can't do it, and throws you out.  That's not food snobbery.  That's demanding cooked beef tartare. 

And no, that is demanding something from a restaurant they don't serve. It is not demanding something from a restaurant that they could not serve, because by definition the dish itself cannot actually exist in any restaurant.

It is not food snobbery, but making fun of someone who doesn't want to eat some particular food is certainly food snobbery. I don't fault the restaurant for not giving them what they want, but the idea that that is headlines worthy news just shows that people who find such headlines worthy are douchebags.

Someone goes into a restaurant, a foreigner nonetheless who likely doesn't know the language, and asks for something the restaurant doesn't serve. Restaurant says "Sorry, we don't serve that - these are the choices".

How the fuck is that news anywhere? The only reason it could possibly be interesting is the desire to make fun of the dirty Chinese peasants who don't know how to eat right. If that isn't food snobbery, then nothing is.

[Monoriu]

Surely there must be limits on what counts as reasonable?  I mean, I may personally like wine that has been boiled.  That's what I do at home, for argument's sake.  I go to a restaurant and demand to drink boiled wine.  Restaurant says it can't do it.  That is food snobbery?  I go to a steakhouse, refuse to stick to the menu, and demand only raw vegetables.  A steakhouse must have vegetables too, and they must be able to do it raw, right?  If I do that in a steakhouse, made the headlines, do I get to call the steakhouse food snobs?

There are sushi places that do cooked stuff for sure.  Then there are traditional sushi places that, well, do the traditional stuff.  Traditional stuff is mostly raw fish and shellfish, plus maybe one or two cooked items.  Going to a known traditional place and demanding 100% cooked stuff is reasonable?

[Zanza]

Erdogan probably has his Sushi with Kebab.

[Berkut]

Are you reading my posts at all?

[Berkut]

Surely there must be limits on what counts as reasonable?  I mean, I may personally like wine that has been boiled.  That's what I do at home, for argument's sake.  I go to a restaurant and demand to drink boiled wine.  Restaurant says it can't do it.  That is food snobbery?  I go to a steakhouse, refuse to stick to the menu, and demand only raw vegetables.  A steakhouse must have vegetables too, and they must be able to do it raw, right?  If I do that in a steakhouse, made the headlines, do I get to call the steakhouse food snobs?

There are sushi places that do cooked stuff for sure.  Then there are traditional sushi places that, well, do the traditional stuff.  Traditional stuff is mostly raw fish and shellfish, plus maybe one or two cooked items.  Going to a known traditional place and demanding 100% cooked stuff is reasonable?

You equate not liking raw sushi to wanting to drink boiled wine?

WTF?

[Monoriu]

Surely there must be limits on what counts as reasonable?  I mean, I may personally like wine that has been boiled.  That's what I do at home, for argument's sake.  I go to a restaurant and demand to drink boiled wine.  Restaurant says it can't do it.  That is food snobbery?  I go to a steakhouse, refuse to stick to the menu, and demand only raw vegetables.  A steakhouse must have vegetables too, and they must be able to do it raw, right?  If I do that in a steakhouse, made the headlines, do I get to call the steakhouse food snobs?

There are sushi places that do cooked stuff for sure.  Then there are traditional sushi places that, well, do the traditional stuff.  Traditional stuff is mostly raw fish and shellfish, plus maybe one or two cooked items.  Going to a known traditional place and demanding 100% cooked stuff is reasonable?

You equate not liking raw sushi to wanting to drink boiled wine?

WTF?

Well, there are people in the world who think drinking boiled wine is odd.  Just like there are people in the world who think going to Jiro, one of the most well known places to eat raw fish in Japan, and demand all fish be cooked is odd. 

[CountDeMoney]

Watching those little yellow bastards endlessly torment each other with their superiority complexes is hilarious.

[Monoriu]

You walk into this place, the chef asks you if you want set A, B, or C.  You reply that you want none of the above, because you want all the fish and shellfish be cooked.  Chef says I can't do it, and throws you out.  That's not food snobbery.  That's demanding cooked beef tartare. 

And no, that is demanding something from a restaurant they don't serve. It is not demanding something from a restaurant that they could not serve, because by definition the dish itself cannot actually exist in any restaurant.

It is not food snobbery, but making fun of someone who doesn't want to eat some particular food is certainly food snobbery. I don't fault the restaurant for not giving them what they want, but the idea that that is headlines worthy news just shows that people who find such headlines worthy are douchebags.

Someone goes into a restaurant, a foreigner nonetheless who likely doesn't know the language, and asks for something the restaurant doesn't serve. Restaurant says "Sorry, we don't serve that - these are the choices".

How the fuck is that news anywhere? The only reason it could possibly be interesting is the desire to make fun of the dirty Chinese peasants who don't know how to eat right. If that isn't food snobbery, then nothing is.

I am not talking about making fun of people who don't want to eat a particular food.  I am talking about people who go to places that are specialised to do something, and demand the exact opposite.  How about I go to Hooters and make a fuss about the clothes of the waitresses, because I think they all should be covered from top to bottom?  If the news report that, is that snobbery now?  Going to a place that does the best raw fish in the world, and demand cooked fish?  Going to a place with the best wine list, and demand the wine be boiled to make them alcohol free?  You don't see the irony?

[celedhring]

Watching those little yellow bastards endlessly torment each other with their superiority complexes is hilarious.

Even when they get carried away and bomb your naval bases?

[CountDeMoney]

Watching those little yellow bastards endlessly torment each other with their superiority complexes is hilarious.

Even when they get carried away and bomb your naval bases?

They never do anything in moderation, either.

[alfred russel]

Yes, I am sure what made Japanese headlines had nothing to do with food snobbery or mocking the peasants for not liking things the way the food snobs insist they must be enjoyed. Because that is clearly headline making news otherwise. "Tourist asks for food restaurant does serve! Details at 11!!!"

If some places only serve their sushi raw, then yes, one should probably avoid those places if one only wants cooked fish. Mocking people for doing so, however, says more about the douchebags who think it is mock worthy than the people who (gasp!) want their food the way they like, and may not be aware that some particular restaurant specifically specializes in food they do NOT like.

But none of this is my point, which is far more a general observation that there is nothing about "sushi" in general that demands that it be only served with raw fish. It is perfectly reasonable to find sushi to be something very enjoyable to eat while at the same time NOT liking raw fish. And that is nothing like saying you want cooked steak tartare, which simply doesn't make sense at all.

Finally, I don't know what a "traditional" sushi place operates like, since I've been in a huge number of sushi places that operate in radically different manners. Is "traditional" more code for "food served the way food snobs think it ought to be served"?

I agree with Mono. Basic standards aren't food snobbery. If someone wants sushi with cooked tuna or salmon, he is a savage. That isn't food snobbery--that is just the way things are. It is like going into a steak restaurant and ordering a well done steak and eating it with lots of ketchup. Sure there are lots of places that will accommodate such requests, but those that care how their food is consumed and expect more from their customers than the ability to pay a bill will not, and in all cases the customers deserve to be mocked.

[Berkut]

You walk into this place, the chef asks you if you want set A, B, or C.  You reply that you want none of the above, because you want all the fish and shellfish be cooked.  Chef says I can't do it, and throws you out.  That's not food snobbery.  That's demanding cooked beef tartare. 

And no, that is demanding something from a restaurant they don't serve. It is not demanding something from a restaurant that they could not serve, because by definition the dish itself cannot actually exist in any restaurant.

It is not food snobbery, but making fun of someone who doesn't want to eat some particular food is certainly food snobbery. I don't fault the restaurant for not giving them what they want, but the idea that that is headlines worthy news just shows that people who find such headlines worthy are douchebags.

Someone goes into a restaurant, a foreigner nonetheless who likely doesn't know the language, and asks for something the restaurant doesn't serve. Restaurant says "Sorry, we don't serve that - these are the choices".

How the fuck is that news anywhere? The only reason it could possibly be interesting is the desire to make fun of the dirty Chinese peasants who don't know how to eat right. If that isn't food snobbery, then nothing is.

I am not talking about making fun of people who don't want to eat a particular food. 

I think that is *exactly* what you are doing.

I am talking about people who go to places that are specialised to do something, and demand the exact opposite. 

So what you are really mocking is their stupidity for not knowing what kind of food was served at some particular restaurant?

And given the quality of journalism that thinks "Peasant tourists don't want to eat raw fish at famous raw fish restaurant" is "headline news", I suspect that the actual reporting is likely total bulllshit anyway.

How about I go to Hooters and make a fuss about the clothes of the waitresses, because I think they all should be covered from top to bottom?

Go right ahead.

If the news report that, is that snobbery now? 

It is pretty shitty journalism at least. And if people think someone finding the way waitresses dress at Hooters objectionable is some kind of newsworthy event, and everyone gets a good life at the provincial tool who found themselves in Hooters, then yeah, that is pretty snobbish.

Someone goes into Hooters not knowing the waitresses dress that way, and is offended. So what?

Yeah, they probably should not go to Hooters then, but clearly they did not know before hand, so why is that interesting, unless you just like to feel superior?

Going to a place that does the best raw fish in the world, and demand cooked fish?  Going to a place with the best wine list, and demand the wine be boiled to make them alcohol free?  You don't see the irony?

I don't see the "headline news story" without their being some pretty serious snobbery about it.

Some tourist did not know that Jiro is all about raw fish. So what?

*I* didn't know that before this back and forth, and I really like sushi.