219
Correct use of pot handle? (lem.trashbrain.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think the hole in the pot handle works great as a place to set the spoon. My friend thinks this should be illegal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Just use the dish you’re going to eat from if you’re really that lazy. This isn’t rocket science.

You're assuming the spoon has something I'd want to mix with the main dish on it, that I'm going to eat the food I'm cooking immediately, etc.

This only seems like a problem if you’ve never encountered an actual problem.

Little annoyances add up and small improvements to one's approach to dealing with things can add up as well. You know what makes those "actual problems" worse? Having to deal with a bunch of minor irritations at the same time.

Kind of weird that you seem to think it's ridiculous to want to improve anything that isn't a matter of life and death and earthshaking consequence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not an improvement to have sauce dripping down the handle of your spoon and onto your saucepan handle, or to make yet another hazard over the stove by wedging a spoon precariously into a handle hole. That's my point. There are a million simpler ways to address this that don't make a bigger problem. I find it stunning that you are too lazy to rinse an extra plate, but weirdly insistent on the least logical, awkward, and ridiculous way to avoid it. But hey, let your freak flag fly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s not an improvement to have sauce dripping down the handle of your spoon and onto your saucepan handle, or to make yet another hazard over the stove by wedging a spoon precariously into a handle hole. That’s my point.

    I started my comment with "The solution may be stupid but". That being the case, how could you possibly interpret it as me directly arguing for that particular solution being good?

    I find it stunning that you are too lazy to rinse an extra plate, but weirdly insistent on the least logical, awkward, and ridiculous way to avoid it.

    I find it stunning you are weirdly insistent on interpreting what I said in the absolutely least charitable way possible even though there's no reason to do so and I literally started my comment acknowledging that solution may be "stupid".

    Actually, it seems like people on Lemmy are even worse about this than reddit which takes some doing. At least don't interpret stuff in ways that contradict what the person literally said a single post ago. Sometimes it's a little ambiguous, but not in this case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Oh, so you're arguing for no reason whatsoever. Alrighty, then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    so you’re arguing for no reason whatsoever.

    This is some classic projection. What I said boiled down to "this solution may not be a good one, but there's some benefit to solving the problem". In your quest to find a way to criticize what I said, you ignored the first part of what I said entirely.

    You seem to be one of those people who will just never admit it if you make a mistake. Doesn't matter if you accidentally said water is dry, you'll never admit water is wet until the end of time. I actually never understand why people dig in like this. It's not like you're saving face by refusing to acknowledge the mistake, it's not like you're going to convince me there's any doubt. Everyone makes mistakes and the best way to deal with them is to acknowledge it early and move on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent