3 ms·

I don't eat rice; I've been strictly keto for over a decade. My health choices make me a jerk? Some people are allergic to rice. Some people are on medically p

by _jcyi 3y ago

I don't eat rice; I've been strictly keto for over a decade. My health choices make me a jerk? Some people are allergic to rice. Some people are on medically prescribed diets. Maybe there's an obscure religion that forbids eating rice. Some people just don't like rice. Are they all jerks too? That restaurant wouldn't be my preference, but if I did have to be there for an important reason, I certainly wouldn't be bullied into eating something I didn't want to eat. I'm generally strict about wasting food, but in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it.

JohnFen 3y ago
Ordering a dish that is mostly rice knowing that you won't/can't eat it is being a jerk, yes. I don't know about that restaurant, but I've never seen a sushi place that didn't also serve sashimi.
- _jcyi 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    You could simply eat elsewhere where they sell more suitable fare or avoid negative comments.
    - _jcyi 3y ago
      "That restaurant wouldn't be my preference, but if I did have to be there for an important reason, [...]"
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        There simply isn't a case in which you need to eat there unless the nuclear missiles are on their way and you happen to be out front and want a bite to eat before the end. You have identified an aspect of the person with yourself and even though you yourself presumably don't walk acting like a jerk feel like you need to justify their misbehavior as if you were defending yourself. You don't need to keep defending them.
        _jcyi 3y ago
        You're arguing against a straw man. I've actually been to events without food options that accommodated my diet, and I've been served meals on planes that included buns and sweets which ended up in the trash. No nukes involved. If that makes some strangers on the Internet think I'm a "jerk", so be it.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        If it's accidentally becoming a strawman, it's only by virtue of trying to tie it back to the original post. People didn't realize your goalposts were a mile away from those goalposts. If you're given a single serving without asking, then you have almost no resemblance to the people being criticized here. Your earlier post said you "wouldn't feel even slightly guilty" about wasting food in a way that implied you would act similarly to the people being criticized here, taking a whole bunch of pieces. If you do that, you should feel guilty. If you weren't trying to imply a similarity, you communicated your point badly.
        _jcyi 3y ago
        All I suggested was that they were very quick to demand that people be forcibly ejected based on insufficient information. I'd rather see the restaurant try to solve a problem than arbitrarily punish people, especially when "people" might include myself under the wrong circumstances. But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > But I guess no one likes to hear nuance. If you were trying to suggest nuance, you didn't do a great job of it. "in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it" is jumping to the opposite extreme. > All I suggested You definitely suggested more than that.
        _jcyi 3y ago
        You definitely suggested more than that. Then you're reading something I didn't say. If you do that, you should feel guilty. Guilty of what? It's a business, not a charity. If that's where I happen to be stuck having dinner, and if they're unwilling to accommodate my preferences even at additional cost, I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness. They can either solve the problem and increase their revenue, or accept that they've created an edge case situation where some food will be wasted. Punishing their customers would accomplish nothing except loss of business and negative Yelp reviews.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
wizerdrobe 3y ago
You could always speak with the staff about your dietary restrictions as is standard practice for the allergic, intolerant, and such. If they can accommodate your request, and they typically will, you’re golden. If not, you may need to patronize a different business. It is, after all, a reciprocal relationship. If your basic needs aren’t met, and they have a stiff policy on substitution - then yes, you are a jerk for ignoring them.
- _jcyi 3y ago
  That's exactly my point.
burnished 3y ago
You're probably focusing on the wrong thing if you're jumping to the defense of people who leave things on the plate for any reason. The actual controversy here is that the folks in the story clearly thought they were cheating the system, and people are responding without questioning that, and some people are questioning that.
- _jcyi 3y ago
  That's certainly a possibility, but none of us have enough information to say for sure.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The sins thing is about as clear as you can get. Unless you're going to call the entire story fake, then yes we have enough information.
harimau777 3y ago
That's actually precisely the problem. People abusing the system make things more difficult for people who have legitimate reasons to be the exception to the rule (e.g. people with allergies).
- _jcyi 3y ago
  That's a problem, but it's not the problem. I'm not sure why you guys are acting like it's an unreasonable suggestion for a sushi restaurant to serve sashimi.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    I don't think that anyone is objecting to them serving sashimi. People are objecting to people throwing out most of the sushi rolls and only eating the fish. Both because doing so is wasteful and because it appears to be willfully abusing an unintentional oversight in a way that hurts the people running the business.

by _jcyi 3y ago

JohnFen 3y ago

Ordering a dish that is mostly rice knowing that you won't/can't eat it is being a jerk, yes. I don't know about that restaurant, but I've never seen a sushi place that didn't also serve sashimi.

_jcyi 3y ago
[flagged]
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  You could simply eat elsewhere where they sell more suitable fare or avoid negative comments.
  - _jcyi 3y ago
    "That restaurant wouldn't be my preference, but if I did have to be there for an important reason, [...]"
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      There simply isn't a case in which you need to eat there unless the nuclear missiles are on their way and you happen to be out front and want a bite to eat before the end. You have identified an aspect of the person with yourself and even though you yourself presumably don't walk acting like a jerk feel like you need to justify their misbehavior as if you were defending yourself. You don't need to keep defending them.
      - _jcyi 3y ago
        You're arguing against a straw man. I've actually been to events without food options that accommodated my diet, and I've been served meals on planes that included buns and sweets which ended up in the trash. No nukes involved. If that makes some strangers on the Internet think I'm a "jerk", so be it.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        If it's accidentally becoming a strawman, it's only by virtue of trying to tie it back to the original post. People didn't realize your goalposts were a mile away from those goalposts. If you're given a single serving without asking, then you have almost no resemblance to the people being criticized here. Your earlier post said you "wouldn't feel even slightly guilty" about wasting food in a way that implied you would act similarly to the people being criticized here, taking a whole bunch of pieces. If you do that, you should feel guilty. If you weren't trying to imply a similarity, you communicated your point badly.
        _jcyi 3y ago
        All I suggested was that they were very quick to demand that people be forcibly ejected based on insufficient information. I'd rather see the restaurant try to solve a problem than arbitrarily punish people, especially when "people" might include myself under the wrong circumstances. But I guess no one likes to hear nuance.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > But I guess no one likes to hear nuance. If you were trying to suggest nuance, you didn't do a great job of it. "in that situation I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about it" is jumping to the opposite extreme. > All I suggested You definitely suggested more than that.
        _jcyi 3y ago
        You definitely suggested more than that. Then you're reading something I didn't say. If you do that, you should feel guilty. Guilty of what? It's a business, not a charity. If that's where I happen to be stuck having dinner, and if they're unwilling to accommodate my preferences even at additional cost, I'm not going to go hungry or cheat on my diet purely out of politeness. They can either solve the problem and increase their revenue, or accept that they've created an edge case situation where some food will be wasted. Punishing their customers would accomplish nothing except loss of business and negative Yelp reviews.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

wizerdrobe 3y ago

You could always speak with the staff about your dietary restrictions as is standard practice for the allergic, intolerant, and such. If they can accommodate your request, and they typically will, you’re golden. If not, you may need to patronize a different business. It is, after all, a reciprocal relationship. If your basic needs aren’t met, and they have a stiff policy on substitution - then yes, you are a jerk for ignoring them.

_jcyi 3y ago
That's exactly my point.

burnished 3y ago

You're probably focusing on the wrong thing if you're jumping to the defense of people who leave things on the plate for any reason. The actual controversy here is that the folks in the story clearly thought they were cheating the system, and people are responding without questioning that, and some people are questioning that.

_jcyi 3y ago
That's certainly a possibility, but none of us have enough information to say for sure.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The sins thing is about as clear as you can get. Unless you're going to call the entire story fake, then yes we have enough information.

harimau777 3y ago

That's actually precisely the problem. People abusing the system make things more difficult for people who have legitimate reasons to be the exception to the rule (e.g. people with allergies).

_jcyi 3y ago
That's a problem, but it's not the problem. I'm not sure why you guys are acting like it's an unreasonable suggestion for a sushi restaurant to serve sashimi.
- harimau777 3y ago
  I don't think that anyone is objecting to them serving sashimi. People are objecting to people throwing out most of the sushi rolls and only eating the fish. Both because doing so is wasteful and because it appears to be willfully abusing an unintentional oversight in a way that hurts the people running the business.