Annoying New York Times articles

[Benjm]

Annoying New York Times articles

Unless families have a large inheritance to fall back on, most of the increased costs of living will have to be met from income, he says.

No shit!

I'm off to start a wealth management consultancy with my hotshot partner, a bladder on a stick.

[Fussbudget]

Annoying New York Times articles

Geoffrey de Ste. Croix wrote: We’re struggling to get by on £200,000 a year.

"Hugo Greenhalgh, Wealth Correspondent"

[Tubby Isaacs]

Annoying New York Times articles

Benjm wrote:

Unless families have a large inheritance to fall back on, most of the increased costs of living will have to be met from income, he says.

No shit!

I'm off to start a wealth management consultancy with my hotshot partner, a bladder on a stick.

Love the way it says "income", not "salary". I'll join your consultancy and advise people to have lots of assets that earn them money.

[delicatemoth]

Annoying New York Times articles

I've been exploring the strange world of Kallie Provencher at Rantchic. Kallie specialises in listicles about what women over 30 shouldn't wear, own, eat or watch. We're all familiar with this sort of thing, but her brutally prescriptive and judgmental attitude to seemingly innocuous matters of taste raises it to a level that could be art.

"It may seem like all fun and games to own these 30 items, but no woman over age 30 can be taken seriously with these things lying around her house...
26. Teenage CDs - It’s time to part ways with any CDs you may have hanging around from your teen years...
20. Hamsters - Hamsters are cute for kids, but when you’re past 30 you need a more appropriate pet. Plus you’ll miss out on meeting guys at the dog park if you’re sitting at home with a hamster."

"Basically, if the show is on MTV then it's probably not suitable for those over 30."

"Furry Boots - Let the teenagers have their fun, but no 30-year-old woman should be caught dead in "boots with the fur.""

"American Eagle - Sure, their jeans fit perfectly, but that doesn't make it trendy for women over 30 to be wearing them."

She rarely gives reasons for her choices, but when she does they're usually a variation on "You have better things to do with your time". Which is cute coming from someone who writes variations on the same list piece for a living.

Anyway, this stuff has had me chortling heartily for about an hour.

[WOM]

Annoying New York Times articles

Those are actually very helpful for people born without souls. Mrs WOM's uncle cuts those things out of the paper and follows them religiously. We were at his house one night for dinner scanning the "100 books to read before you die" and "100 places you must visit before you die" lists on his fridge. With tick marks beside the 'completed' ones.

His CD collection used to consist of whatever was #1 that week. It was the most eccentric, yet uninteresting collection imaginable.

He was also a first-class cunt. Not as much of a cunt as his older brother, who bilked his mother out of $50K, but close...

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

WOM wrote: Those are actually very helpful for people born without souls. Mrs WOM's uncle cuts those things out of the paper and follows them religiously. We were at his house one night for dinner scanning the "100 books to read before you die" and "100 places you must visit before you die" lists on his fridge. With tick marks beside the 'completed' ones.

His CD collection used to consist of whatever was #1 that week. It was the most eccentric, yet uninteresting collection imaginable.

He was also a first-class cunt. Not as much of a cunt as his older brother, who bilked his mother out of $50K, but close...

Your family has many colorful characters.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

delicatemoth wrote: I've been exploring the strange world of Kallie Provencher at Rantchic. Kallie specialises in listicles about what women over 30 shouldn't wear, own, eat or watch. We're all familiar with this sort of thing, but her brutally prescriptive and judgmental attitude to seemingly innocuous matters of taste raises it to a level that could be art.

"It may seem like all fun and games to own these 30 items, but no woman over age 30 can be taken seriously with these things lying around her house...
26. Teenage CDs - It’s time to part ways with any CDs you may have hanging around from your teen years...
20. Hamsters - Hamsters are cute for kids, but when you’re past 30 you need a more appropriate pet. Plus you’ll miss out on meeting guys at the dog park if you’re sitting at home with a hamster."

"Basically, if the show is on MTV then it's probably not suitable for those over 30."

"Furry Boots - Let the teenagers have their fun, but no 30-year-old woman should be caught dead in "boots with the fur.""

"American Eagle - Sure, their jeans fit perfectly, but that doesn't make it trendy for women over 30 to be wearing them."

She rarely gives reasons for her choices, but when she does they're usually a variation on "You have better things to do with your time". Which is cute coming from someone who writes variations on the same list piece for a living.

Anyway, this stuff has had me chortling heartily for about an hour.

That's mind-boggling. Not only is it anti-feminist - the idea that women have to do things a certain way to be "taken seriously" - its pathological in scope.

And anyone who doesn't still listen to at least some of the music they were into as teenagers is not somebody I want anything to do with, unless they were raised in a cult or something and were unable to develop proper musical taste as a young person. The connection to youthful energy is the whole point of rock and roll.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Plus you’ll miss out on meeting guys at the dog park if you’re sitting at home with a hamster."

There's reliably two guys in our dog park, me and Roger. Roger's a couple of years older than me, he has a bull-terrier named Buddy. I can pretty much guarantee that whoever's reading this article will have more fun with her hamster than any of us.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

I've been instructed by a few trainers not to take Tonka to a dog park. One just doesn't know what the other dogs and owners will be like. Dogs have been seriously injured or even killed by other dogs and some owners can be real dicks. And Tonka gets very anxious around dogs he doesn't know.

So that's that for the dog park pick-up scene cliche.

[Femme Folle]

Annoying New York Times articles

I used to be gung-ho about dog parks and I used to take Teddy to one almost every weekend for the first couple of years of his life. Nothing bad ever happened to us personally, but I've heard horror stories about dogs attacking other dogs, and I've seen bad behavior go unaddressed by owners firsthand. All it takes is one split second and your dog could end up physically injured or emotionally scarred for life, especially in the big dog areas. My instructor friend hates dog parks because of the potential dangers. She advocates organizing play groups amongst people and dogs that you know personally.

So not much help for meeting new people.

[Benjm]

Annoying New York Times articles

Reed John wrote: And anyone who doesn't still listen to at least some of the music they were into as teenagers is not somebody I want anything to do with, unless they were raised in a cult or something and were unable to develop proper musical taste as a young person. The connection to youthful energy is the whole point of rock and roll.

Some people don't actually like pop music, feel obliged to pretend that they do and are relieved when advancing age seems to free them from that burden. OTF fave Giles Coren once wrote something to the effect that this was one of the best things about turning 40. In this scenario, perceived shortcomings in the music are emphasised, questions raised about the individual's lack of character glossed over.

[Gangster Octopus]

Annoying New York Times articles

What's a dog park?

[Benjm]

Annoying New York Times articles

A park for dogs?

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Gangster Octopus wrote: What's a dog park?

It's an area a municipality sets aside where dog-owners are permitted to let their dogs run off-leash.

[WOM]

Annoying New York Times articles

The one(s) around my office are nicely fenced and have free poop bags and water-troughs. Also, lots of people standing around going 'he's just super friendly/he's a big suck/he's not really biting your leg, he's say hello/etc'.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Annoying New York Times articles

Water troughs are good. None of the local ones have those.

There is a big social aspect to off-leash parks — for both dogs and people. Except my immediate neighbours, most of the folk I know around here I met at the dog-park. It's very much like taking your kids to the local playground.

[caja-dglh]

Annoying New York Times articles

When we used to go to the dog park in NYC, one time a pitbull attacked a small (say 10lb) dog. My dog went charging across the run and pinned the pitbull to the ground by its neck until it let go.

I have never been so proud of my dog's nature (and stupidity to risk her life like that).

[ursus arctos]

Annoying New York Times articles

*applause* for your hound

[MsD]

Annoying New York Times articles

Indeed.

None of it sounds very romantic, unless you're a dog.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

One step worse than "100 things to read.." are headlines that include "should," and worse than that are the ones that argue the things on their list "must" be read/eaten/seen/consumed.

And worst of all are the ones that say if we're not doing something their way we're doing it wrong. Who thinks that's a good way to entice readers to read an article - which invariably is in the Style section or something else completely inessential. If it were about city emergency evacuation procedures, then "must" or "wrong" are appropriate words. But eating is not one of them.

Take this one for example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/americans-think-we-know-and-love-tapas-but-we-misunderstand-them/2016/06/06/a7001856-2456-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html#

First of all, headlines shouldn't assume the reader doesn't know something, isn't paying attention to something, doesn't understand something, etc. That's just obnoxious.

Learning about other countries' food cultures is great. But why does it always have to be framed as "they do it right, and you do it wrong, you pathetic mouth-breathing hick"? Why not put a positive spin "Spain Is A Great Place To Eat!" or something like that. (although, TBH, I'm not sure I agree. It's wall to wall pork as far as I could tell.)

I already don't like Tapas for reasons I've explained before. I want to eat food, not order it and talk about it with the waiter all night. (Also, we went for tapas after watching the most deflating defeat in my sports-fandom life because my friend's then-wife wanted to and it was 180 degrees off what I wanted at that moment and so that experience has soured me on it forever eight years on.)

And I'd like to finish dinner before 1 am. Spain can do its thing, but we're not going to do it that way, so don't tell me I'm doing it "wrong" because they do it differently, even if they invented it.

[Gerontophile]

Annoying New York Times articles

I googled that chef in the article as I thought he had a restaurant here, and came across this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/digger/wp/2016/04/29/donald-trump-jose-andres-and-the-death-of-a-grand-washington-restaurant/

See if you can guess who is suing?

[Sam]

Annoying New York Times articles

Yeah, I agree with you on that one, Reed.

The tone of headline thing, that is. You're hopelessly wrong about Spanish food and eating habits.

But the constant 'You've Been Tying Your Shoelaces All Wrong. Check Out This Near Trick' shit is one of the more annoying aspects of internet media and its need to just get someone to click the link, dammit, without caring about whether what they read therein will make them want to launch their computer out the window.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

How am I wrong? They don't eat dinner until late, right? Or is that just in Madrid?

[MsD]

Annoying New York Times articles

They do. I happen to love (non-meat) tapas, but I'm not being told how to eat. If I want to eat samosas with ketchup for breakfast, it's nobody's business. At other times it might get picked up and praised as eclectic eating, but really, who sets rules about stuff like this? Fuck them.

Not even going there on the stuff women over 30 should or shouldn't do. Funny for a minute, then annoying.

Stupid rules, worse than Leviticus as there's not even a God to humour.*

* in the rationale, I mean.

[Reed John]

Annoying New York Times articles

I'm sure it's better in Spain where, as I understand it, the tapas is worked into the bar dynamic and people move around. And more vegetable and seafood options.

I don't know. I've only been to Spain once. For a meeting. I had no time or money to do anything but work and buy my nephew a Real Madrid shirt. I didn't go out to eat because I couldn't get on their schedule. I bought stuff at the supermarket and made sandwiches. And at the meeting they fed us one of those omelette sandwiches which was great.

It was a kind of shitty deal all the way around. Not a good time in my life.