4 ms·

I believe the commenter you responded is aware of the colloquial distinction, and is gently asserting a point that this distinction is not to be believed. Rega

by dsacco 9y ago

I believe the commenter you responded is aware of the colloquial distinction, and is gently asserting a point that this distinction is not to be believed. Regardless of the cultural zeitgeist about food preparation by large chains, food from McDonald's is qualitatively the same as food from many fast food restaurants that try to market themselves as above fast food.

wutbrodo 9y ago
> and is gently asserting a point that this distinction is not to be believed. > McDonald's is qualitatively the same as food from many fast food restaurants that try to market themselves as above fast food. This assumes incorrectly that the only use of the distinction is a one-dimensional measure of quality. A couple of uses for the distinction that have nothing to do with "quality": 1) I don't tend to eat at chain restaurants much because I don't tend to eat at the same restaurants much (ie, I really like variety). This was pretty much true even for the few years that I ate every single weekend meal at restaurants (or takeout). 2) Part of chain restaurants' explicit goal is mass appeal and consistency of taste. Practically by definition, you're less likely to find the niche of flavor that appeals to you the most directly, or even as high a level of novelty and diversity of flavor as you would if going to holes in the wall. 3) I'm cheating a little bit making this a separate bullet pt, but #2 works the other way as well, since some people explicitly prefer consistency of flavor and knowing exactly what to expect to being adventurous about flavors and tastes. This isn't a value judgment: I had a girlfriend who described her taste as preferring bland food and there's no real basis for me to claim that I had "better" taste than her. It occurs to me that these examples are all pretty tightly related to the notion of chain restaurants providing consistency and mass appeal, but that doesn't really change my point at all.

by dsacco 9y ago

wutbrodo 9y ago

> and is gently asserting a point that this distinction is not to be believed. > McDonald's is qualitatively the same as food from many fast food restaurants that try to market themselves as above fast food. This assumes incorrectly that the only use of the distinction is a one-dimensional measure of quality. A couple of uses for the distinction that have nothing to do with "quality": 1) I don't tend to eat at chain restaurants much because I don't tend to eat at the same restaurants much (ie, I really like variety). This was pretty much true even for the few years that I ate every single weekend meal at restaurants (or takeout). 2) Part of chain restaurants' explicit goal is mass appeal and consistency of taste. Practically by definition, you're less likely to find the niche of flavor that appeals to you the most directly, or even as high a level of novelty and diversity of flavor as you would if going to holes in the wall. 3) I'm cheating a little bit making this a separate bullet pt, but #2 works the other way as well, since some people explicitly prefer consistency of flavor and knowing exactly what to expect to being adventurous about flavors and tastes. This isn't a value judgment: I had a girlfriend who described her taste as preferring bland food and there's no real basis for me to claim that I had "better" taste than her. It occurs to me that these examples are all pretty tightly related to the notion of chain restaurants providing consistency and mass appeal, but that doesn't really change my point at all.