/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.6567865]

"First created circa 1943 by Ignacio Anaya, the original nachos consisted of fried corn tortillas covered with melted cheddar cheese and sliced jalapeño peppers."

... is it just me, or does that not sound particularly good?

[Anonymous No.6567893]

>In 1943, the wives of U.S. soldiers stationed at Fort Duncan in nearby Eagle Pass were in Piedras Negras on a shopping trip, and arrived at the restaurant after it had already closed for the day. The maître d'hôtel, Ignacio "Nacho" Anaya, invented a new snack for them with what little he had available in the kitchen.

It's leftovers.

[Anonymous No.6567894]

>>6567865
Meh, it was probably just whatever the shit he had on him at the time and decided to cook it together.

[Anonymous No.6567896]

>>6567893

no he made them a Cobb Salad

[7 No.6567899]

>>6567865
It's just you

[Anonymous No.6567918]

>>6567896
It's interesting that the breasts, face, and hair are what's always unattractive on these women.

Never understood why women want their hair to be "voluminous".

[Anonymous No.6567934]

>>6567918
>implying the fashion industry isn't ruled over by other women and faggots

[Anonymous No.6567943]

>>6567934
I didn't imply that.
The breasts part is easily explainable by the bra type she's wearing, and the angles and shot composition is to appeal to women.

Nonetheless. That lack of skin tone, generic facial structure, heavy makeup, and hair. I don't understand why women, or anyone in general, would be into it. Much less strive for it.

[Anonymous No.6567946]

>>6567918
>It's interesting that the breasts, face, and hair are what's always unattractive on these women.

son, I think you're queer

[Anonymous No.6567956]

>>6567943

>generic facial structure

what, you want an unusual one? why? what makes that attractive?

>lack of skin tone

what?

[Anonymous No.6567957]

>>6567865
Whatever made you think nachos were supposed to be particularly good? It's a trash dish.

[Anonymous No.6567973]

>>6567956
Generic just means nondescript, or common. I's obvious why I'd be more attracted to something that had some sort of spark or character.

Whether it's airbrushing or makeup, I cannot discern much skin tone beyond rough color.

[Anonymous No.6567981]

>>6567973

i know what generic means. that's a majorly fedora reason to find someone unattractive dude.

>Whether it's airbrushing or makeup, I cannot discern much skin tone beyond rough color.

what does this even mean? skin tone is rough colour.

[Anonymous No.6567989]

>>6567981
>that's a majorly fedora reason to find someone unattractive dude.
Not really. If someone doesn't strike me as attractive, they don't. Like I said, they have attractive features. Hips, waist, thighs, slightly but not overtones muscle, but the whole lacks a spark.

Potential reasons for this are selection. Others are photoshop and shot selection stripping away unique and specific character, they're supposed to act partly as self inserts for the target audience after all. But beyond that, as presented, it isn't attractive.

>what does this even mean? skin tone is rough colour.
I consider skin tone as including texture, not just rough color. It barely has any gradient to it, even if we're just sticking to general color.

[Anonymous No.6567994]

>>6567989

dude you are gayer than ol' Paree

time to fess up

signed,
your DAD

[Anonymous No.6567995]

>>6567989

well clearly she doesn't strike as you attractive but calling it 'generic' just makes you sound like a high-schooler imo. hot is hot, generic or not.

[Anonymous No.6567997]

>>6567994
You sound insecure with your sexuality. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.

[Anonymous No.6567999]

Boy this sure is some good food and cooking discussion you guys.

[Anonymous No.6568001]

>>6567995
Their face and hair aren't hot. They're generic. By design.

[Anonymous No.6568002]

>>6567918
>2/10 would not bang
kek good post!

[Anonymous No.6568007]

>>6568001

>Their face and hair aren't hot. They're generic.

you can be hot and still look interchangeable with other hot people. in fact a lot of hot people look the same.

[Anonymous No.6568015]

>>6568007
It can be done, occasionally. But it isn't the case here.

[Anonymous No.6568024]

>>6567893
This.
But, hurray for leftovers. Some great dishes have come from leftovers. And nachos are one of the best "snack/appetizer" foods out there.

[Anonymous No.6568025]

>>6568015

>It can be done, occasionally.

mathematically that doesn't make any sense.

>But it isn't the case here.

it's just a stupid word to use.

[Anonymous No.6568038]

>>6568025
Explain your idea of mathematics here, and why it doesn't work.

>it's just a stupid word to use.
It's a fine word to use.

[Anonymous No.6568040]

>>6568025
>mathematically that doesn't make any sense.
>you can use mathematics to objectively rank beauty
get a load of this shitposter!

[Anonymous No.6568058]

>>6567865
No, it's just you.
It's delicious and better than a lot of what passes as nachos now.
>>6567893
Here, left overs typically means just reheating a dish that had been finished and served a previous night.
Taking some ingredients that didn't get used up through the service, and making a new dish with them doesn't have the same bleagh factor as taking something that was fully cooked and previously served and then turning it into overcooked slop.

[Anonymous No.6568060]

>>6568040
>>6568038

because we're talking about common, interchangeable face types, saying they're only 'occasionally' attractive doesn't make much sense. that would imply they have high variance.

>It's a fine word to use.

no it's not, she doesn't even really have a generic face and it's got fuckall to do with whether or not she's attractive. if her face was a piece of creative work or something you could use that word critically. not when you're talking about natural aesthetics. it's just tryhard.

[Anonymous No.6568084]

>>6568060
>saying they're only 'occasionally' attractive doesn't make much sense. that would imply they have high variance.
What doesn't make sense is your implication that there isn't a high variance. If you attempt to break it down to mathematics and had complete knowledge of the whole that transcends perspective and our own limited and biased memories, calculated it out, you could define a mathematical generic where everything clusters, and even then, you would still see a great degree of variance.

But I don't care about achieving or defining pseudo-objectivity. Within my perspective, some generic facial structures, mannerisms, etc, can be attractive. Whether that's made by behavioral tendencies, my mood, or something else, varies. Generic can only meaningfully exist within individual perception. You could probably approach it neurologically as well. How the brain blends things together and consolidates data. The thing is, I can perfectly remember or reconstruct a person's appearance in memory, but that doesn't make it less generic either.

>it's got fuckall to do with whether or not she's attractive
How?

I'm not emotionally attracted to her, and when viewed as a whole, that translates to not being very physically attracted either. Sure, she looks nice enough, but there's no spark. Hence, generic.

[Anonymous No.6568094]

>>6568084

>Generic can only meaningfully exist within individual perception.

if you're defining it as in your subjective impression of her, then fine, but you made it sound like her objective, physical facial qualities were generic and she was unattractive as a result. anyway. you still sound fedora as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6568098]

>someone posts about nachos
>35 shitposts nitpicking about semantics
>not even particularly interesting semantics either

I have a feeling the early 20s "muh feelings" blowhard queer who shits up every thread these days with his r9k nonsense is behind this

[Anonymous No.6568109]

>>6568094
You should assume by default nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth aims to speak for anything objective, unless explicitly noted or within a context where that makes sense.

Whine more, bud. I wanted to have a conversation about media and or human perception, listening to fedora-complaining isn't interesting.

[Anonymous No.6568117]

>>6568109

>You should assume by default nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth aims to speak for anything objective,

no i shouldn't, holy shit pipe down you teenager. 'she has a generic face' gives every impression of being an objective statement: you're saying that she has the same facial features as other people. the thing is you probably meant this in the first place and then reinterpreted your own statement because i called you out on it, which is a super annoying thing to do.

>I wanted to have a conversation about media and or human perception

a conversation that relies on people agreeing with you in the first place. a circlejerk about how gross 'generic' women are and how girls shouldn't wear makeup and all the other bullshit fedora stuff.

[Anonymous No.6568121]

>>6568098
I've noticed you mentioning me a lot lately. What conversation(s) got you so rustled?

[Anonymous No.6568135]

>>6568117
>'she has a generic face' gives every impression of being an objective statement: you're saying that she has the same facial features as other people.
It shouldn't, and this tendency of yours is a lot more your problem than mine. It's actually a pretty big problem, and the source of a good deal of conflict that just isn't even sensible.

How can any human being even possess objectivity to begin with? Obviously, and inherently, what they're saying is a function of their logic and their perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. Not now, not sometimes, and not ever. That's the baseline. Don't try to blame me for your differing ideas that guide your own interpretations, that's mostly on you.

>a conversation that relies on people agreeing with you in the first place.
Clearly not, hence this conversation. No one needs to agree to talk about the underlying ideas that go into the initial statement.

You're saying a lot of strange stuff and putting a lot of assumptions on me.

[Anonymous No.6568136]

>>6568121

I've noticed you posting a lot lately

All of the threads you've shat up

A little of this is fine, but if you're going to do this 7 days a week, there are boards catering to this sort of urge

This is food and cooking

[Anonymous No.6568138]

OP here. Anyone not talking about nachos, please leave my thread. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.6568146]

>>6568136
>I've noticed you posting a lot lately
Your schedule must be as variable as mine.

>All of the threads you've shat up
Such as? I mean an actual rough list.

>A little of this is fine, but if you're going to do this 7 days a week, there are boards catering to this sort of urge
This board has its issues and shortcomings, but I think it works fine for my needs.

[Anonymous No.6568151]

>>6567865
It was left over stale corn tortillas according to that Anthony Bourdain show. He had nachos at the original restaurant and said they tasted exactly like nachos do everywhere else in the world.

[Anonymous No.6568156]

>>6568135

>It shouldn't

yes it should. you're describing her face, not your subjective emotional response to her face. using your best approximations of objective observations or measurements like the size of her nose, eye colour, shit like. not 'her heart don't make me go boom boom'

>How can any human being even possess objectivity to begin with?

this isn't about this. please stop conducting conversations until you come out of your adolescent intellectual cocoon. whether we 'possess' objectivity doesn't change the fact that we express it in our language. 'there is a tree over there' is an objective statement. so is 'she has a generic face', unless you're being a dickhead.

>No one needs to agree to talk about the underlying ideas that go into the initial statement.

they do for you to find it 'interesting'. the only way you'd have the conversation you want is if people say 'you know, you're right, that picture does appeal to women and not men'. otherwise it's just people dismissing you.

[Anonymous No.6568158]

>>6568146
>my needs

Your personal psychological issues have nothing to do with this:

1. Images and discussion should relate to food and cooking.
2. Recipes are welcome! Feel free to talk about your favorite dishes and discuss past cooking experiences.

Enjoy resetting your modem

[Anonymous No.6568159]

>>6568121
Millennials are truly the worst generation so far

[Anonymous No.6568162]

>>6567896
Everything except that face is 10/10

[Anonymous No.6568174]

>>6568156
>yes it should. you're describing her face, not your subjective emotional response to her face.
There is no difference. My perception of her face, and my perception of what is generic, is dependent on me. Maybe whatever tendencies lead to that perception cluster, but I don't know. I don't envy the person who tries to speak objectively for any small demographic, much less a species. No one truly can t begin with.

>using your best approximations of objective observations or measurements like the size of her nose, eye colour, shit like
How else could it work?

>whether we 'possess' objectivity doesn't change the fact that we express it in our language.
I'd agree entirely.

> 'there is a tree over there' is an objective statement.
It'd be reasonable to assume that. After all, they're pointing out something that should be also true for you. Hence their pointing it out.

>so is 'she has a generic face'
No. That relies entirely on the observer and their range of experiences, and their own logic. It is not reasonable to assume this is objective, if anything it should prompt you to weigh it against your own ideas. It's no more objective than "she is attractive" "she has attractive features", and you're just as numb for fighting over it. It's your issue you can't tell the difference between objective and subjective.

>they do for you to find it 'interesting'.
Explain.

[Anonymous No.6568180]

>>6568159
Boomers have their problems as well. They're no less narcissistic on average, it just comes out in a different way.

[Anonymous No.6568188]

>>6568174

Leave.

[Anonymous No.6568190]

>>6568158
Well, whatever your issue is, it probably stemmed either from cocoa bean or a vegan thread. It's strange you're so bent out of shape by what's par for the course and even expected in certain threads, their purpose.

I have stopped giving a shit though. I've contributed my own recipes, methods of cooking, food I've made, information on nutrition and even pharmacology. /ck/'s got deeper problems than just me, and everyone has their angle. If it comforts you, I will fizzle out eventually. I won't stick around forever.

[Anonymous No.6568192]

>>6568188
You'll be okay OP. For what it's worth, it's keeping your thread on page 1.

[Anonymous No.6568197]

>>6568174

>No. That relies entirely on the observer and their range of experiences,

no it doesn't. it isn't anywhere near as subjective as calling her 'ugly', for instance. assuming it's made in an unqualified way, it simply compares her face to the range of faces the observer has experienced and says 'this one comes up a lot'. the criteria for that comparison are physical, and therefore objective.

> It's no more objective than "she is attractive"

'she is attractive' is a value judgement. these are overwhelmingly subjective things. how commonly you see people with faces like lacey chabert is not up to personal opinion in the same way - personal experience, yes, but there is an objective truth out there.

[Anonymous No.6568204]

Jesus christ guys, if you're going to be fat you can't also be this autistic or there is truly no hope for you.

[Anonymous No.6568207]

I'm going to post pictures that are related to nachos, because this was supposed to be a nachos thread.

[Anonymous No.6568209]

>>6568207

but nachos are objectively less interesting than how frumpy lacey chabert is.

[Anonymous No.6568210]

>>6568207

[Anonymous No.6568212]

>>6568209
>>6568210

Talk about this bitch instead

Don't go to this pic's website either

[Anonymous No.6568218]

>>6568212

This is another website you shouldn't go to

[Anonymous No.6568220]

>>6567893
I get he gave them a snack if you know what I mean

[Anonymous No.6568221]

>>6568197
Like I said, I see it as having embedded prompts that pretty much necessarily require it to be viewed as subjective. When someone says "there is a tree over there", it's a claim that something physical exists and is occurring, and it would still be occurring even if they themselves didn't exist. The only way you can expect it to be wrong is if they're lying or hallucinating, and you can go verify it for yourself. But the claim itself is reasonably testable.

In the case of a claim something is generic, it heavily relies on accumulated subjective experiences and that individual's own perception. You should expect it to be an error-prone narrow range that doesn't represent everything as far as what is really generic, as well as something that depends on them to be at all.

>the criteria for that comparison are physical, and therefore objective.
The criteria is the perception of something physical weighed against experience. It's not a measurement of a hard physical trait, like the existence of a tree. Although, some endeavors have shown even color perception is subjective.

>yes, but there is an objective truth out there.
An objective truth that can't be feasibly derived or tested. Which makes it not a very useful objective truth, because all that's clear is given enough information it can exist.

[Anonymous No.6568225]

>>6568218

this is what you would all look like if you suddenly lost 200 pounds

[Anonymous No.6568245]

>>6567865
>... is it just me, or does that not sound particularly good?

Have you really never had nachos before?

[Anonymous No.6568250]

>>6568225

and here's some shitty nachos from some guy's online diary from 10 years ago

[Anonymous No.6568252]

>>6568221

you know what i'm honestly done i had probably 500 words written in response but fuuuuuuuuck that i'm out. you're still wrong you little BITCH now post your nachos OP

[Anonymous No.6568257]

Is /ck/ actually debating the objectivity of beauty? What is this, freshman philosophy class?
>>6568225
>>6568218
>>6568212
More of this!
>>6568210
And maybe this too.

[Anonymous No.6568260]

>>6568252

Not OP, just a regular guy who wants to talk about nachos

[Anonymous No.6568261]

>>6568252
Lol. Alright, bye then.

Hope you have a good thread OP. I spent a lot of years eating nachos and gotta say, they're pretty okay. But I'm allergic to corn and can't say much in the present tense.

I would however cut up mozzarella, or sharp cheddar, into cubes and put then on the nachos. They'd form this branching tree across the whole of the chips, where cheese was denser in some areas. I also didn't entirely melt it flat. Chili powder and or paprika depended, as did salsa. This was long, long before I was buying my own food, and we din't have much beyond base ingredients. So I didn't really branch out with anything premade. I can see a few ways such things could be incorporated though.

[Anonymous No.6568265]

>>6568257

do you know what's in the packet on top?

[Anonymous No.6568268]

>>6568257
I was talking about knowledge and objectivity, but either way. I'll find someone in the mood for epistemology and maybe a bit of solipsism as well, eventually.

Also, just for the hell of it, because I know I'll never try it. Has anyone tried "fresh" mozzarella with nachos? I've never tried to melt it on something, just boiled it into a liquid or used it solid.

[Anonymous No.6568272]

>>6568265
In this day and age? Probably fucking guacamole.

Is that fried dough shaped like tortilla chips topped with strawberries and cream?

[Anonymous No.6568274]

>>6568268

it ends up not working that great, you'd have to really bake it like you would baked ziti, and the taste and consistency isn't really suited to nachos

[Anonymous No.6568276]

>>6568272

Ha, that's pretty terrifying, and yes to your question

and this is tater tot nachos

[Anonymous No.6568277]

>>6568276

well it is when I remember to upload the file

[Anonymous No.6568280]

>>6568277

dubs

and here is some art from an art guy that complements this pretty well >>6568165

[Anonymous No.6568283]

>>6568280

[Anonymous No.6568284]

>>6568276
>>6568277
I'm stealing these both. Bitches love strawberries, and brother loves tater totes.You just set up my meals till Saturday night.

[Anonymous No.6568288]

>>6568180
I find millennials to be far worse

[Anonymous No.6568290]

>>6568284

nice, and all I've been doing is image searching things like "gourmet nachos" and "shitty nachos"

[Anonymous No.6568292]

>>6568209
Frumpy? You must like penis in your doo doo hole

[Anonymous No.6568372]

>>6568292

Those are just regular nachos, post more interesting nachos.

[Anonymous No.6568384]

>>6568190
not even that nigger but yeah go away
just because shitposting is common doesn't mean it's acceptable
the occasional off topic comment is fine but don't be a cunt and derail threads

[Anonymous No.6568390]

>>6568384
I didn't derail the thread intentionally.

[Anonymous No.6568398]

>>6568204

Looks like this is nacho kind of thread

[Anonymous No.6568404]

Are Irish nachos nachos?

[Anonymous No.6568410]

>>6568404

Google says yes

>>6568398

shut up vin

[Anonymous No.6568432]

>>6568398
ayyy lmao

[Anonymous No.6568447]

>>6567865
i love that neon orange 'cheese.'
i went to my local little league field this weekend just to get my fix at the concession stand. i felt like a pedo though.

[Anonymous No.6568450]

>>6568404
aint nuthin' wrong wit dat.

[Anonymous No.6568514]

>>6568372

[Anonymous No.6570714]

>>6567865

Depends on the quality of the cheese.