/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>6554387

All this shit and mayonnaise

>>6554387
>too lazy to melt butter
Only in amerifat

>>6554387
Heinz ketchup.

>>6554387
Yr yeast infected mum was a good condoment.

>>6554395
yeah same. fuck white saucy things.

>>6554432
REKT

>>6554467
IT'S OVER. ANON IS FINISHED. COMPLETELY SERVED.

#REKT

>>6554387
Sraracha is pretty good on some foods like Pho and other asian dishes it's just White America started to put it on every single food item on their menus

>>6554387

IMO sriracha is half decent, but people are going nuts over it right now, don't worry - in three months you'll have a whole new thing to get your girlie little undies in a twist about.

>>6554387
Bought a bottle of this today to try it and I have no idea what to put it on. Help please.

>>6554387
sriracha sauce taste like chemical ass

Relish more like shitrish

>>6558611

Why would you buy it if you don't know what to use it for?

>>6558047
i could not fucking agree more, this is garbage that essentially ruins steak.

>>6556063
>>6556091
>>6558611
I do think it has its place, yeah it has been tarnished by people going ape shit (like the bacon craze) but i actually prefer it over vinegar hot sauce.

>>6558611
Step 1: Cut chicken breast up into little bits
Step 2: Wrap chicken with 1/2 piece of bacon and put toothpick through it.
Step 3: Place on a baking sheet.
Step 4: Mix equal parts honey and sriracha (varying how much food ya got)
Step 5: Brush over chicken. Keep about 1/3 of to brush halfway through cooking.
Step 6: Bake at 350 degrees F until the bacon is crisp (usually chicken is done at that time too)
Step 7: Enjoy
I honestly usually use the sriracha to cook with more than put it on things. It adds a pepper flavor as opposed to just vinegar hot sauce. Good on burgers too. I ignore the "meme food" bashing because i do like it.

I literally, unironically eat that shit on everything.

Although recently ive switched to the texas pete brand because it has a sweeter, more flavorful taste

>>6559179
impulse

>>6554387
You're shit tier, learn where to put it americuck

>>6554387
>Tfw Finnish fast food chain made Sriracha burger a thing on their menu

>>6554387
My issue with sriracha is the sweetness. A teaspoon of it contains more than a teaspoon of sugar!

I go with their chili garlic sauce. Better flavor, no sugar.

>>6561574
>A teaspoon of it contains more than a teaspoon of sugar
That's scientifically impossible you autist.

>>6561578
You can dissolve more than a teaspoon of sugar into a teaspoon of liquid. Do the math. A teaspoon of sugar is 4 grams. A teaspoon of sriracha has 5 grams of sugar.

You are an idiot.

>>6561578
>That's scientifically impossible
Anon you are the autist here

I put sriaacha on near everything. It goes perfectly and adds a nice zesty flavor.

>>6558611
Plain salted tortilla chips

>>6562500
Do you put it in ice cream?

>>6562554
I get sriracha flavored ice cream

>>6561568

Tfw so did jack in a box

>>6561568
It was pretty good actually, but fuck 4 euros from a burger is just too much. Usually i just get hot wings, they are god-tier here.

>>6563575
Everything there is overpriced anyway.

>>6558047
Yeah how the fuck did this ever get popular anyway? Can we blame the boomers for this too?

>>6556063
>Sraracha is pretty good on some foods like Pho and other asian dishes
You are aware that cock sauce sri racha is an American sauce (even if made by a Vietnamese migrant) hot right? It utter overwhelms any pho broth, but Americans seem to think you must dump it in pho.

Original sri racha sauce isn't even the same sauce.

And any other 'hot sauce' that's really just a bottle of salty vinegar water.

>>6565327
as opposed to?

>>6558611
i put it on grilled cheese with provalone

>>6565311
I've never even seen the stuff in a Pho shop here. Stop making assumptions. They usually send out a tray with condiments. Never seen the read sauce though. Jalapenos are usually added for heat.

>>6565332
Pretty much anything that's not literally tangy red douche water.

Pic related-- uses tomato instead and is has a nice kick.

>>6565358
That's a pretty good sauce. Anon, the tangy red sauces are usually used as an ingredient in recipes. They add heat and acidity. Stuff like your bottle is good on its own. Really two different things.

>>6565358
still has vinegar in it

>sriracha isn't good

>>6565374
That's nice. I'm not complaining about there being vinegar-- just that most every restaurant table hot sauce is literally a bottle of red vinegar water and salt.

This one is not-- it has actual heat to it. Also, the common red and green variants of this have no vinegar in them, apparently.

>>6565403
>literally

You're using that word wrong, anon.

>>6565385
Why do you have this image saved anon.
Why do you have a folder composed of pictures of men wearing fedoras, or overweight with beards on their neck? Is this some kind of weird new fetish?

>>6565385
>i have certain preferences

>>6565405
There is literally nothing wrong with using the word 'literally' in the informal sense as an intensifier.

Oxford English dictionary agrees, but not that dictionaries matter when millions of English speakers are doing this. Get that prescriptive stick out of your bum-- it's just a word and our modern grammar is full of 'errors' noted from the past-- like contractions.

>>6565358
The Immortal God Emperor of Hot Sauces.

>>6554387

>>6565421
I believe the evolution of acceptable linguistic usage should be curated, not slave to a subset of the population's incorrect and broken usage.

The usage is wrong. It was wrong the first time it was done, and it's wrong now. As long as we have a a record of the true meaning, it will stay that way.

>>6565421
Which would be perfectly acceptable if spoken. This looks retarded written.

>>6565445
It is never acceptable. Literally, never.

>>6565442
>curating ever-evolving communication

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with believing that, but good luck with keeping up with that in the face of millions of speakers and increasing globalization.

No seriously, I'm sure that 100 years from now our invented standards will hold strong. There is no 'true meaning' to language, just 'current meaning'-- else if there was we'd still be speaking Old English.Too bad the Normans had to come and fuck that all up with their hoity-toity French, right?

>>6565445
Arguably the type of communication that happens on this image board is far from being dictated by written standards. Semantics aside, it's much closer to conversation than writing.

>>6565421
There is something wrong with it, and it is that we lose a useful word for which there is no good substitute.

The dictionary does not make the rules. It simply reflects common usage, which in this case happens to be a literally corruptive development.

>>6554391
That stuff is golden bliss. It's NOT shit ANYTHING you mongoloid.

>>6565475
Yes, meaning is relative and reliant on one's culture and context. This very nature is why you don't stand by and allow it to be diluted and functionally compromised. You do not let trends and misunderstandings take deeper root, nor do you embrace these distortions.

As for true meaning, that's a bit of a different topic altogether. I don't believe language is strictly verbal, nor spoken. Hence body language, it's largely the same through many species. I do believe our logic and language are two sides of the same coin to an extent, and it could be said language attempts to crudely represent certain information "states" of the universe, even if those states cannot actually exist proper, they remain based from what we already experience.

Literally exists for its utility. It is not an intensifier, and should not be accepted as informally meaning figuratively. That's just stupid, and again, broken. A dilution, not an expansion. Looking around at how we're progressing, guess that's par for the course. Have fun with all that.

>>6565485
>we lose a word where there is no good substitute

No need for a substitute. The word still works in both usages just fine. And if there ever comes a time where people cannot differentiate between the informal and formal usages, a new word takes it place.

You are arguing in the present about a change that will inevitably occur in the future that is of no consequence what-so-ever to anyone. You're getting sentimental about the word rather than focusing on the meaning/idea-- which will persist as long as we have need to describe the idea it conveys.

Fighting for prescriptive language in any practical sense is a fool's errand-- like swimming against a strong tide. All you need to do is look back at old dictionaries and grammar resources to see how much we've 'changed' the rules of language usage in just a century alone by virtue of common evolutions like 'literally' and 'irony.'

>>6565445
>>6565442
>>6565523
Oh will you butt fuckers QUIT arguing over the semantics of language and for fucks sakes get back to the thread topic?

>>6565530
Thread topic sucks, so I'll make it what I want.

Moving on from the philosophy of language, this is now a Chen thread? This is now a Chen thread.

>>6559220
>bacon

>>6565528
>please accept my retardation!!!!

>>6565523
>it's not an intensifier

Yes, it is. The majority of English speakers use it as such, therefore it is. Any pretenses of that not being the case will soon be erased by time as people like you give up on trying to fight the tide like you did with the word Y'all, Ironic, contractions, about 15 extra pronouns we've forgotten, etc. etc.

Literally now has two usages-- it's original use and as an intensifier like 'absolutely.' (funny story-- at one point the usage of absolutely in this sense was also wrong, but no one cares anymore. Gee.). Proof of this is that you can recognize the 'wrong' usage, meaning you understand completely how it's being used and for what purpose.There is no contextual confusion-- and therefore the word succeeds in communicating as an intensifier. Just because a book of rules some academics created and compiled says otherwise means nothing-- literally nothing in the grand sense of language usage over time.

>>6565556
The majority of English speakers don't use it the way you're describing.

And "absolutely" never meant anything else. It's a reference to alchemy, and later, chemistry. Look into solutes and solvents, then what a solution is. If I were one to believe in claims of absolute certainty, I'd say you were absolutely mistaken.

You don't seem to get it and are confusing this with rules like "it's improper to start a sentence with words like "because" and "and"". It's not about obeying archaic principles or ideas set in place by some people as they standardized grammar and syntax, it's about preserving language's existing functionality. Its effectiveness for conveying ideas, ie, its utility. This proposed change is detrimental, that is why it's being rejected.

>>6565410
I assume it's because that faggot is almost every 4chan stereotype from neck beard, atheist, brony, PC master race, friendzone in one.
I'd probably be doing a life sentence for the beatings handed out to him to try to fix him if that became my son.
His dad must weep at night.

>>6565591
You just proved my point with absolutely, though. It was initially just to describe the composition and complete purity of chemical solutions, and later was applied to concepts and ideas outside its intended usage. If I were to say "There are no absolutes," no one is going to think I was talking about there being no chemically pure/undiluted solutions. Contextually, the word could be understood in other functions outside the prescribed meaning-- which means there was no wrong usage, just right ones that people understood.

Which brings us back to literally. The informal usage is, in the same sense, not wrong. It does not impede the formal usage because, contextually, it can be inferred what someone is implying. There is no detrimental usage because most people are not the drooling retards you believe them to be-- they understand the connotative differences between the two usages. The same goes for absolutely or definitely-- which both have been used in the same sense as an intensifier that did not literally match the words strict denotation.

LONG ARGUMENT SHORT: It doesn't matter and language will change whether you and I like it or not because conversing takes more than one person and everyone unintentionally influences its evolution over time. Writing it in a book and arguing on the internet won't change that. Deal with it.

>>6565693
But it does impede formal usage.

Short argument shorter: you're wrong.

>>6565693
Absolutely is just an abstracted understanding of a concept applied elsewhere. Uses like these are valid, it's attempting to metaphorically communicate a more complex idea.

In the case of literally it's just being used wrong, there is no expansion of abstract meaning, it's an intensifier that simultaneously is being used to mean the exact opposite of what it actually describes. It's like some broken twist on sarcasm that just doesn't work.

Literally is going to die out as the tend fades. Any dictionary fool enough to have bent over and taken it will eventually strip it out, or it'll become a footnote somewhere. "This was a thing once". Language will do whatever it wants, and so will anyone else. Myself included. I'll literally never accept this definition.

>>6565442
but then when i call you a faggot you'd wonder why i think you're a bundle of sticks

you stupid faggot

>>6565743
If I'd never heard your usage, then yes, I would wonder that. What else could I wonder?

Congrats, you figured out how stuff works. People can't figure out how to interpret if they don't have the information to do so.

>>6558047
A1 has it's place. And it's place is when your grandmother makes another bland as fuck roast or a super cheap cut of flavorless steak.

>>6565712
You're going to first need to explain what exactly 'formal' usage is-- because if you mean the denoted usage, then that's definitely not true0 I'm guessing it's usage among academics/high speech-- which if so is also wrong since most academics either recognize the alternate usage or circle-jerk and complain about their prescribed usage being misused. You could argue that the overuse of the informal definition is removing some connotative 'punch' from the word's original meaning-- but almost always language 'corrects' itself later when either the informal usage tapers off or a 'relative synonym' of the word takes on the connotation of the original word. Otherwise, the word is lost in common speech-- which means little since 'literally' wasn't really apart of common speech until the informal usage came along. As we both said-- it doesn't matter. The word will correct itself or continue on as an (increasingly less intense) intensifier.

>>6565346
The guy who came up with it originally sold them to pho shops in California, thus the association by a good number of people who love cock sauce. I am not making assumptions, you can look up the history of it if you'd like. There's even a documentary on it now.