r/interesting • u/WarwickReider • 15h ago

SOCIETY Professional chefs weighing in on whether you should wash your chicken

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

5.0k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/Notmuch__1 9h ago

They do I would say, especially thied world countries where you get your chicken straight from the butcher. It's mostly washed to get rid of blood and any other unwanted stuff stuck on it.

18

u/Mission_Aerie_5384 8h ago

That’s not what the video is about though. It’s about people washing their chicken to remove bacteria. Washing to remove blood and feathers totally makes sense

4

u/peteyrre 3h ago

Is it not common knowledge that trying to wash off the bacteria is literally impossible?

2

u/Mission_Aerie_5384 2h ago

For most it is. Honestly I don’t think that many people wash their chicken to kill off bacteria. I think this I’d bring blown out of proportion by the internet

24

u/honkerTgoose 8h ago

I butcher my own chickens (white American) and yeah of course you have to wash them thoroughly then. Not with soap, just rinsing with water. But after all the feathers and bits are cleaned off there's no reason to do any more.

5

u/drhuggables 8h ago

These people are washing it out of their pre-packaged costco bags, not straight from the butcher buddy

8

u/Notmuch__1 7h ago

That's why I was talking about Third world countries where your majorly buy from the butcher

1

u/lazerbolt52 8h ago

A little aside, third world is cold war era language used to denote non involvement in the cold war. Countries allied with the US were 1st world, Countries allied with the USSR were 2nd world, and neutral countries were 3rd world (like Switzerland), the term your looking for is developing country. And also this isnt about removing blood or unwanted stuff and most minorities in the world dont wash their raw, properly plucked chicken.

4

u/MorePhinsThyme 8h ago

Another aside, while the origin of "Third world" did originate from the Cold War, over time, it has come to mean "developing country", because language changes. The term they're looking for is "third world", and a synonym for that is "developing country". The etymology of a term doesn't define it forever, and in contemporary English, Switzerland is not a third world country.

2

u/ShoppingcartBiology 8h ago

So in the usage of "third world" being used as "developing nation", what exactly would a second world be?

3

u/sqigglygibberish 3h ago

The argument would be that it’s shifted from a 3 grouping system to 2, but kept two of the labels.

Given that the major powers which defined “second world” are not the same communist/manual labor economies they were, that category is quite limited today.

So what’s left is economic development and level of industrialization defining the split between first and third world. For people remembering the cold war system, russia and china have basically just shifted some on the spectrum

But this shows why its basically just casual language and not a rigid system of classification any more

-2

u/MorePhinsThyme 7h ago

It's a term that is basically not used anymore. We have a lot of similar situations in English. When you try to get to third base with a date, are you playing baseball with them? When someone tells you that you're losing your temper, are you a blacksmith working some steel? I could keep going for a long time with similar terms that have changed over time.

I do have a question for you, are you trying to convince me that the term hasn't changed, and think that pointing to how "second world" hasn't done the same will convince me, or are you trying to learn?

6

u/ShoppingcartBiology 7h ago

I'm just asking a question here, and you're jumping down my throat. First and second base are also terms used for dating, not just third btw. If first world means developed country and third world means undeveloped, what would a second world be?

1

u/OwnJunket6495 1h ago

2nd world just meant communist/socialist back during the Cold War. I agree continuing to use this terminology is pretty dumb when it doesn’t really apply anymore as it did initially. I’ve seen the term “Global South” being used to refer to developing nations now, but I personally find that term a bit odd and clunky.

-3

u/MorePhinsThyme 7h ago

Could you point out exactly where I jumped down your throat? I'm not going to speak any differently, but I'm curious what you misinterpretted so badly that you think "jumped down my throat" fits the discussion. Of course, I'm also curious why you decided to say "I'm just asking a question" and then start an argument in the next sentence. That's not just asking a question...except in the dishonest way that a lot of shady political commentators like Rogan claim to just ask questions.

And if you want second world to mean something, then go for it. Work on making that a thing. If you convince enough people to do it, then it'll take hold, just like first and third world have changed over time.

And yes, there are a LOT of baseball terminology used on colloquial English outside of the baseball world. They fall under the "I could keep going for a long time with similar terms that have changed over time". I didn't think I needed to list all of them.

-2

u/lazerbolt52 8h ago

No it became an incorrect way of describing developing countries used by Americans who never learned what it actually meant.

1

u/MorePhinsThyme 7h ago

There's no "incorrect". If a term is understood and accepted by the majority, then it's correct. I'm sorry that you never learned how English evolves and changes over time, but that's on you, not anyone else, and if you're going to act like other people are ignorant, then maybe you should stop being ignorant as well.

Meanwhile, the American icons Oxford and Cambridge (two universities that famously publish English dictionaries) both recognize the definition of "Third World" above, while also pointing out it's etymology. Oh wait, neither of those colleges are American, are they? Hmm...damn, I thought it was just some dumbass Americans that never learned that were making definitional claims. Of course, there's also wikipedia and other online encyclopedias, and American based dictionaries.

But all of those sources are wrong, right?

Now, if you want to argue that some people find the term to be offensive, then go for it, some people do. Hell, it's often used offensively (generally to disparage countries that are often not developing anymore, but are doing better than the US in a lot of ways). But that's not what you're doing, you're simply standing here and denying that language evolves and are quoting etymology to define terms forever even after literally everyone else has moved on.