Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >
Jun 7, 2011 12:27 PM

I'm getting sick of these "I don't get [insert food/restaurant]" threads!

I just read a thread regarding red velvet cake and the tone was extremely condescending. I can take or leave red velvet cake but these sort of threads have an extremely snotty "I'm better than you because I don't like [this crap]" air to them.

There are many such threads regarding restaurants as well.

I suggest the board police take a long hard look at these threads. The point of chowhound is not to make people feel uncomfortable or defensive about things or restaurants they like.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Just ignore them. I started posting on those threads and got deleted, so now I don't even bother. It's just noise as far as I'm concerned.

    4 Replies
    1. re: sunshine842

      I agree 100%. Ive been deleted from a few of those myself. I hate the attitude of "why would anyone eat that?". People eat what they like. What is so hard to understand about that?

      1. re: donovt

        or why it's necessary to so vehemently make the point...if you don't like it, don't eat it. You don't need anybody's permission to not like something if you're an adult no longer living under someone else's rules (and no, I'm not going down the road of kids and not liking things -- that's a whole other issue).

        Only caution I'll put out on that is then the corollary -- if someone says they don't like something, then shut up and let them not like it. Don't keep saying "oh but you haven't tried mine" or something as childish as asking if they're chicken (I've seen it more times than I care to count)

        1. re: sunshine842

          by the same token - why read a thread you know you won't like? some people enjoy those threads, and should be allowed to bitch and moan as much as they please. just ignore it

        2. re: donovt

          Agreed. Just looking at the sheer volume of the "things you like/hate that other hounds hate/like" should point out that you are not THE arbiter of good taste. I know I posted a few of those when I was new here but having read so many of the "I'm superior' posts and suddenly realizing that I was doing the same thing made me cower in shame and embarrassment.

      2. One thing that is interesting is how juvenile the very phrasing of, "I don't get red velvet cake", or whatever it is that they are denigrating.

        It is one thing if you actually "don't get" (i.e. don't understand) why some restaurant would purposely be rude to their customers (i.e. for the ridiculous, over the top, fun of it all), but, obviously, someone would "get" why others eat red velvet cake.

        1 Reply
        1. re: DougRisk

          Sounds like hipsters to me- and when I hear hipsterisms I generally roll my eyes, swear, and leave, at least mentally.
          I don't get hipsters- LOL!

        2. I agree. i think we could be kinder to each other. I've seen some people (and myself) feel intimidated about starting a new thread. It's scary when people reply only with *past* threads on that subject. It's like: ohmygod, what have i done? Probably, most topics have been covered here at one time or another; many are universal to us foodies, but it would be more polite to let the person know, yes, it has been brought up, here are the old threads, and why don't we discuss it again now. Right?

          6 Replies
          1. re: bayoucook

            Agree with bayoucook that most subjects have been discussed before. I hate it when people reply to a new thread with a dozen links to previous discussions.

            1. re: Samalicious

              but a significant amount of the time, the new poster hasn't done a search to see what's already available, and the existing information just might be *exactly* what they're looking for.

              And someone *other* than the OP just might find the old links valuable, too. I'm referred to as the Google Queen round these parts, but I can never find the amount of information that goodhealthgourmet digs up, so I'm happy when ghg posts a list of links.

              and theme? Don't yuck someone else's yum -- you can say you don't like it, but don't put someone down because they like something you can't stand.

              1. re: sunshine842

                Yes its annoying when people don't search for old threads, but I think there is a way though, to provide old information without being crusty about it. Simply regurgitating a list without any other comment to the thread is kind of crusty imho.

                1. re: sunshine842

                  I would point out that Chow's search engine isn't the strongest one i"ve ever seen. Hence the new query.

                  1. re: EWSflash

                    That’s for sure – googling the topic and chowhound as the search terms will always result in more on-topic results than the Chowhound search function does. That said, often the person asking the question is new to Chowhound and may not realize that there is additional info to be had from the archives. When I provide links it is to be helpful, not mean-spirited.
                    And there is definitely value to be had from old threads - just this week I searched for a recipe with Meyer lemons and found one on an old thread. Pretty delicious results even though the recipe was posted more than 3 years ago.

              2. re: bayoucook

                Its not just that. You get links to multiple discussions that happened in the Late Pleistocene era, they're that old. Maybe one would like some current posters to put some current discussion on the page? I'm sure every single topic has been covered, and if a poster chooses not to partake, fair enough. That takes less time than researching it and pasting multiple links.

              3. How are they different from the "I'm getting sick of..." threads?

                1 Reply
                1. I’m afraid there are lots of clumsy, annoying, or otherwise poor ways in which posters express their opinions. Although, I have no interest in defending the propriety of condescension or rudeness, I do think it inadvisable to preempt any form of submission. I’m sure we each have “fingernails on the blackboard” reactions to certain types of posts.* How do we decide which should be subject to blanket prohibition? That slope gets slippery.

                  *Personally, I’m really tired of “vibe.”

                  4 Replies
                  1. re: MGZ

                    +1 Exactly.

                    We all have things that set us off. I personally find it beyond obnoxious any time someone points to something trendy and makes an analogy to the Emperor's New Clothes fable (FFS, at least give most people credit for actually liking the things they claim to like; also if you want to accuse those around you of being mindless followers, don't appeal to such a lame, thoughtless cliche in doing so). So most of the time I see it, I ignore it. And every once in a while I give in to impulse and eviscerate their argument while subtly trying to make the responsible poster feel stupid for making it ;) ... But I don't want to ban any allusion to it. This site is moderated enough without removing any and all matter than anyone might find objectionable.

                    1. re: cowboyardee

                      Clumsy, annoying, subtle, tactful, etc. are subject to personal interpretation. I'm with you guys that some of the moderation is a bit heavy handed, leaning toward policing personality.

                      I recently had a brief exchange with someone who disagreed with the tone of my post, and that exchange was deleted. No name calling and civil language from both parties. If that exchange exposed me as a mean spirited person to some, and the other person as overly controlling to others, I think members of the forum can benefit from seeing the exchange as long as there's no clearly crude language or name-calling. Barring outrageous behavior, people should be left to make their own judgments about the quality or worthiness of what is expressed.

                      1. re: inaplasticcup

                        Keep in mind that reliance upon self-policing impacts the moderation significantly. If a 'hound reports such an exchange as "off topic," it is likely to be deleted. A nearly identical exchange in another thread that goes unreported, on the other hand, is preserved as a part of the discussion. While I agree that the "conversation" in and of itself, frequently is what makes for the interesting read, it is the fundamental exchange of information that remains the ostensible goal of the site.

                        1. re: MGZ

                          Absolutely. Those exchanges, if all were left intact, would skew the focus of the board, I'm sure. ;)