Gene Weingarten is being DRAGGED for his article hating on indian food

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find him a better non-fiction writer than comedian. Fatal Distraction is some of the finest writing out there, IMO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-distraction-forgetting-a-child-in-thebackseat-of-a-car-is-a-horrifying-mistake-is-it-a-crime/2014/06/16/8ae0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

+1

His nonfiction writing is nuanced. This column isn't, which is why it lands with a thud. Aside from the fact that this isn't really an original, or funny, take.

yes, the hot car series is why he gets away with everything else -- including piles of bad/boring columns/tweets, and being a jerk. I stopped reading the Post when they did Tom Toles dirty. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Rasika is undercooked and rubbery although the spinach chatt appetizer is okay. The staff is likely racist as Indians commonly report bad service....hmmmm. Nobody cares that Gene doesn't like the food. Defining the food as one spice means he's no culinary expert and is ignorant. Tandoor tastes different from raisin which tastes different from kalonji. -Source had Indian from reknowned chefs, and families, but hate Indian restaurants like Rasika. Blech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used to be a good journalist; I have liked some of his serious articles.

His column was never all that funny, and I think it didn't help that he was awash in self-congratulations even when he pretended not to be. Maybe the Pulitzer committee would like to give him an award for perfecting the humblebrag.

But now he's just a divorced guy with a much younger girlfriend who thinks being a curmudgeon in the same way a million other white guys is a curmudgeon is somehow edgy, and the only way someone would dislike him is if they misunderstand his edginess or just aren't as cool as he is.

His column is taking up space that could go to someone good. Does he need the money and the Post is taking pity on him, or what?

How *DARE* the paper publish something I don't like! Off to the gallows! He must be banished, cancelled, and utterly shut down and forced out of sight! HOW DARE HE EVEN BE ALLOWED TO EXIST!

If reading comprehension is not your strong suit (and it doesn't appear to be), go do something else before you blow a blood vessel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used to be a good journalist; I have liked some of his serious articles.

His column was never all that funny, and I think it didn't help that he was awash in self-congratulations even when he pretended not to be. Maybe the Pulitzer committee would like to give him an award for perfecting the humblebrag.

But now he's just a divorced guy with a much younger girlfriend who thinks being a curmudgeon in the same way a million other white guys is a curmudgeon is somehow edgy, and the only way someone would dislike him is if they misunderstand his edginess or just aren't as cool as he is.

His column is taking up space that could go to someone good. Does he need the money and the Post is taking pity on him, or what?

How *DARE* the paper publish something I don't like! Off to the gallows! He must be banished, cancelled, and utterly shut down and forced out of sight! HOW DARE HE EVEN BE ALLOWED TO EXIST!

If reading comprehension is not your strong suit (and it doesn't appear to be), go do something else before you blow a blood vessel.

How *DARE* anyone disagree with me. THEY MUST BE IDIOTS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

[Anonymous]

There, there.

Poor little bunny.

[Anonymous]

This dude seems like he’s stayed too long at this gig.

[Anonymous]

Funny, just the other day I was just listening to that 90s song "Summer Girls" by LFAO that has that line "Chinese food makes me sick," and my DD and I were talking about how bad it was to write off an entire country's cuisine, like ALL Chinese food makes one sick? Really?! Same flawed underlying principle as this article, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He used to be a good journalist; I have liked some of his serious articles.

His column was never all that funny, and I think it didn't help that he was awash in self-congratulations even when he pretended not to be. Maybe the Pulitzer committee would like to give him an award for perfecting the humblebrag.

But now he's just a divorced guy with a much younger girlfriend who thinks being a curmudgeon in the same way a million other white guys is a curmudgeon is somehow edgy, and the only way someone would dislike him is if they misunderstand his edginess or just aren't as cool as he is.

His column is taking up space that could go to someone good. Does he need the money and the Post is taking pity on him, or what?

How *DARE* the paper publish something I don't like! Off to the gallows! He must be banished, cancelled, and utterly shut down and forced out of sight! HOW DARE HE EVEN BE ALLOWED TO EXIST!

If reading comprehension is not your strong suit (and it doesn't appear to be), go do something else before you blow a blood vessel.

How *DARE* anyone disagree with me. THEY MUST BE IDIOTS.

It was factually incorrect not something to agree or disagree about.

[Anonymous]

I thought Weingarten took a buyout from the Post long ago and only writes guest columns now? He recently wrote in excruciating detail about how he prepared a meal of cicadas and that received a fair amount of blowback so this sounds like a calculated controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the column looked like BEFORE they changed it.

That original version just makes him look like an a truly big idiot. Anyone who has made even a passing glance at indian food knows it has a gazillion different spices. Was the WAPo editor asleep that day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Weingarten took a buyout from the Post long ago and only writes guest columns now? He recently wrote in excruciating detail about how he prepared a meal of cicadas and that received a fair amount of blowback so this sounds like a calculated controversy.

Yup. He writes clickbait. Given that I haven’t read anything he has written in the past, it seems to be working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

True. I did a junior year in England and I was invited to have a “curry” and it just means going out for indian food. I was confused about why I could only choose curry from the menu, but it’s just a catch all.

[Anonymous]

Pakistani writer Shireen Ahmed tweeted at Weingarten: “May your rice be clumpy, roti dry, your chilies unforgivable, your chai cold, and your papadams soft.”

[Anonymous]

I love Indian food.
I thought the paragraph was kinda funny.
Not offensive but stupid in the days of cancel culture.