Jump to content


Photo

joe beef


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#166 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,928 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 01:54 PM

The second part responds to the idea that if an artifact was created by someone who is bad (whether by the standards of their time or ours) or is the fruit of a bad ideology or is somehow enjoyed by bad people then that artifact is itself bad.

Prevailing bullshit, but bullshit nonetheless.

 

Basically agree with everything you've said here, but not this. Restaurants (and music and movies) are entertainment products. If someone feels uncomfortable lining Ken Friedman's pockets, or no longer gets any pleasure from listening to "Bad", or Kevin Spacey's presence in LA Confidential breaks the spell of the movie, are all unrelated to whether the "art" is good based on some objective, context devoid, standard. I don't think that anyone (smart) is saying that the artifact is bad, it's that the artifact is no longer enjoyable because of the context, or that the ethics of financially supporting the person producing the artifact is questionable. The bad behaviour means that the entertainment is no longer entertaining.


I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#167 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,292 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 02:45 PM

I'm sure if you pay me I can find something disagreeable to you and to me about the creators, producers, financial backers, etc. of a significant percentage of popular entertainment works (not to mention the piles of terrible people who benefit from holding equity in them), so you're going to have to stop enjoying any of them preemptively. 

 

 

I do see a distinction between not supporting crooks who got away with their actions and saying that their work is bad, or not enjoyable, though.

 

p.s. every time you hear The Smiths somewhere, Mozz is getting paid, think about that  :D


sandwiches that are large and filling and do not contain tuna or prawns

#168 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,867 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 03:01 PM

a relevant possibility--one that can be confirmed or repudiated by people who've been eating at joe beef regularly for the last couple of years--is that they may already have transformed their "death by excess" aesthetic a bit. i note that the lobster spaghetti was a lot smaller in june than at previous meals. i don't think the foie gras double down or anything like that was even on the menu.

 

but, again, to be clear: i enjoyed my last dinner at joe beef and don't think people need to stop eating there. i just don't think--along the lines steve mentions--that they've fully accounted for their past (even if they've done more to account for it than other chefs/restaurants with likely similar issues have).


my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#169 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,928 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 04:55 PM

I'm sure if you pay me I can find something disagreeable to you and to me about the creators, producers, financial backers, etc. of a significant percentage of popular entertainment works (not to mention the piles of terrible people who benefit from holding equity in them), so you're going to have to stop enjoying any of them preemptively. 

 

 

I do see a distinction between not supporting crooks who got away with their actions and saying that their work is bad, or not enjoyable, though.

 

p.s. every time you hear The Smiths somewhere, Mozz is getting paid, think about that  :D

 

This is a bit of an absurd reduction of the case. The desire to direct your dollars to people who you don't know are awful exists side-by-side with the recognition that a lot of bad people will end up profiting from our consumption decisions. It is not purity or nothing, or a directive to preemptively avoid products on the assumption that people producing those products may be crummy. 

 

But these are entertainment products. Perhaps the charm of eating rollmops and sipping an ale upstairs at the Spotted Pig does not have the charm that it once did knowing what was going on in the room upstairs or in the kitchen below. How often did you see OJ Simpson on TV or in the movies after he was acquitted of murdering his wife? And was this related to him being a bad football broadcaster? 

 

This is a big reason why we should not hold McMillan's repentance against him - it's the tort law principle of not allowing voluntary remedial actions to be evidence of negligence.


I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.


#170 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24,867 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 05:05 PM

i certainly don't hold mcmillan's repentance against him. i only wish that repentance came with a fuller accounting. and i'm not willing to waive this wish because others have not repented at all about likely worse things.


my annoying opinions: whisky, food and occasional cultural commentary

 

current restaurant review: house of curry (sri lankan in rosemount, mn)

 

current whisky review: glen ord 28

 

current recipe: white bean curry with green peppers

 

 

facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson


 


#171 Steve R.

Steve R.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,044 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 05:51 PM

i certainly don't hold mcmillan's repentance against him. i only wish that repentance came with a fuller accounting. and i'm not willing to waive this wish because others have not repented at all about likely worse things.

yeah.... what he said.


This space available… contact owner.


#172 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,011 posts

Posted 29 December 2019 - 11:56 PM

@Orik I think we can agree that alcohol can be a contributing factor. I recall, in the legal environment, repeatedly having to deal with young men who did things at open bar work parties they would never have done sober. Also there were drunk men at those parties who still would not do those things.

Complicated. We’re certainly in agreement on what you say about artifacts.

#173 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,011 posts

Posted 30 December 2019 - 12:00 AM

Ezra Pound. Chuck Berry. Can’t go around them, can’t do without them, have to deal with them. (Not to equate the ways in which they failed to be decent human beings.)

#174 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,820 posts

Posted 30 December 2019 - 09:30 PM

Clark Kent lied to everyone.



#175 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,292 posts

Posted 01 January 2020 - 03:46 PM

a relevant possibility--one that can be confirmed or repudiated by people who've been eating at joe beef regularly for the last couple of years--is that they may already have transformed their "death by excess" aesthetic a bit. i note that the lobster spaghetti was a lot smaller in june than at previous meals. i don't think the foie gras double down or anything like that was even on the menu.

but, again, to be clear: i enjoyed my last dinner at joe beef and don't think people need to stop eating there. i just don't think--along the lines steve mentions--that they've fully accounted for their past (even if they've done more to account for it than other chefs/restaurants with likely similar issues have).


I dunno, but with Vanya and MOF gone (and maybe Alex too) and McMillan out in the sticks and so on, I wonder who's running the show.
sandwiches that are large and filling and do not contain tuna or prawns

#176 Steve R.

Steve R.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,044 posts

Posted 03 February 2020 - 03:37 PM

 

a relevant possibility--one that can be confirmed or repudiated by people who've been eating at joe beef regularly for the last couple of years--is that they may already have transformed their "death by excess" aesthetic a bit. i note that the lobster spaghetti was a lot smaller in june than at previous meals. i don't think the foie gras double down or anything like that was even on the menu.

but, again, to be clear: i enjoyed my last dinner at joe beef and don't think people need to stop eating there. i just don't think--along the lines steve mentions--that they've fully accounted for their past (even if they've done more to account for it than other chefs/restaurants with likely similar issues have).


I dunno, but with Vanya and MOF gone (and maybe Alex too) and McMillan out in the sticks and so on, I wonder who's running the show.

 

Well, we'll see.  Its exactly 3 months out for our May stay in Montreal and this morning I booked us in for dinner on Sat 5/2.  If I see anyone who looks like an owner, I'll be sure to ask about the extent of their accountability  :ph43r: .   While eating lobster and foie (but not horse) of course. 


This space available… contact owner.