joethefoodie Posted May 7, 2016 Author Share Posted May 7, 2016 Does the public have an absolute right to know whether the person reviewing burgers said stupid shit 30 years ago? Does he owe us an explation? A lot of people say, or have said, stupid shit. Me included. It just didn't include being part of a movement, or agreeing with, the theory of genocide. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilfrid Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 It seems to me that either he regrets and would no longer make some of those statements (and maybe that guy in the photo who played with Skrewdriver in their overtly neo-Nazi period is reformed too). Or he still agrees "to some extent" that black British citizens should be repatriated, in which case I agree that Eater readers and advertisers should know what they're dealing with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lex Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Do we know which of those 2 alternatives apply or, in the absence of a specific repudiation, assume that the second one is true? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve R. Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Although I think that this post will be ok, since it's about politics but not political (if you know what I mean), the Admins can feel free to delete it if they think otherwise. Question: in this information rich, social media age, do folks think that "we" (the public) should be (or want to be) informed about the political views of our entertainers, critics, sports stars, etc? I have very mixed feelings about this because, once I know about the real person's views, I then have a hard time watching, rooting or otherwise engaging. I have many personal friends (& family) who I really disagree with on political issues -- I'm ok with that because we can choose to argue or just not talk about politics at any given time. However, since I can't engage with those I only read or watch, do I need (or want) to know how they see the world? Especially if their politics (like Lex said upthread) has not led to anyone getting hurt, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lex Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Steve, I agree 100%. I have a few friends that occasionally say incredibly stupid things. Then, 20 minutes later they're taking positions that completely contradict what they said earlier. Which is true? God only knows. I just avoid the topic and talk sports instead. As you said, the Internet has made almost everything knowable. If you said or did something in the last 30 years it's out there on some server. Often there are pictures or even video. On the whole I think that's a good thing but it is forcing us to develop standards of acceptable conduct that are far more nuanced than they were before. Kids in college today who reveal every aspect of their lives on social media are going to be dealing with the consequences of that 30 or 40 years from now. Prospective employers, romantic partners, investors, media members, and public spirited citizens like ourselves are going to be able to know everything about them. The good, the bad, and the stupid. It's going to be interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Suzanne F Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 This news about Solares is as important as all the stuff about Mast Brothers. (guess the emoticon equivalent that statement deserves.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve R. Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 This news about Solares is as important as all the stuff about Mast Brothers. (guess the emoticon equivalent that statement deserves.) Not really. I don't care if the Mast Brothers are right wing, left wing or wingless. They produced bogus chocolate & that's of immediate relevance to my life when I go to buy chocolate. Solares' writing would not be comparable unless someone can show that his previous or current politics is producing racist or otherwise biased reviews. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Suzanne F Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 What I was hoping people would get is that like the exposé of the Mast Brothers, this is a big yawn; it isn't a scandal that will cause more than a brief ripple that fades out soon. Even if it gets notice beyond MFF, no one will care for very long. Mast Brothers make (bad, imo) chocolate and (maybe) lied about it. People who like the chocolate will still buy it; people who don't, won't. Maybe a few people will stop buying it, but probably not enough to make any difference. Solares writes pieces that not a huge number of people (in the world) read, about a topic of highly limited interest. What he said or did decades ago has no impact on that. As has already been noted: many public figures with extremely high visibility are "exposed" for things in their past. There is a temporary kerfluffle, then they go back to being public figures. The world does not end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sneakeater Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 But, for better or worse, we are in the part of the world of the where this matters. (Frankly -- and PLEASE don't take this wrong way -- if you think the Mast Bros. exposé was a "big yawn", I don't know why you bother to read a board like this.) (Especially since we're not allowed to discuss politics anymore.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mongo_jones Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 i think if the political views that someone in a public position once espoused (and may not have since acknowledged and repudiated) are of the "black britons should be repatriated" or "white power/pride is a good thing" variety that's a bit different than the situation of entertainer/athlete x not sharing my general party/cultural politics. it's also hard i think to separate those kinds of beliefs and public statements from people getting hurt. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Okay, and public intellectuals that shared political views with Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot? I guess that's okay, right? I don't see how this discussion isn't political. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mongo_jones Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 of course it's political but it's also about eater and food journalism and if we can't talk about that on a food board... as for your other question, if you can't tell the difference starting another 50 page thread about it won't help. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 i think if the political views that someone in a public position once espoused (and may not have since acknowledged and repudiated) are of the "black britons should be repatriated" or "white power/pride is a good thing" variety that's a bit different than the situation of entertainer/athlete x not sharing my general party/cultural politics. it's also hard i think to separate those kinds of beliefs and public statements from people getting hurt. ^- please tell me how the above statement relates to food Quote Link to post Share on other sites
taion Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Nick Solares's politics are still politics. You're not talking about his food writing. It's not like we're talking about something like support for small-scale agriculture v. industrial agriculture or GMOs or something along those lines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anthony Bonner Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 You must be pumped for Idi Amin's "How to cook everything" 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.