Apparently the Italian mozzarella association or whatever it’s called officially recommends mozzarella and pineapple as a good pairing of flavours so it’s not just you
I've got some really good pizzas with pineapple on them, and some really bad pizzas with pineapple on them. Also, there used to be a place nearby that made a really good hamburger with pineapple in it.
Overall, it's not the existence of pineapples that make food good or bad.
I always feel that good pineapple, well caramelized, can be good on pizza. The problem is the majority of pizza places don't properly caramelize it, thus why most people never have a chance to try it well made, and thus the strong feelings against it.
At least that's why I dont usually grab Hawaiian pizza.
Do you agree just with their opinion, or do you agree with their reasoning as well? If it's only the former, don't bother defending them - associating yourself with hot takes is one thing, but never get associated with stupid.
I'm anxious that all the praise for the CEO shooter is revealing that "eat the rich" wasn't a euphemism for "tax the rich" but that people actually want the streets to run red with blood and cranberry sauce.
"Eat the Rich" just means "rich bad, and make them accountable." Depending on who is saying it, it could mean anywhere from taxation to revolution. A good chunk of those saying it are revolutionary leftists, like Marxists and Anarchists.
'eat the rich' specifically means 'we should eliminate the existence of the rich - by any means.' so taxation works, but more extreme methods are not ruled out. It's entirely up to the rich on how they'd prefer to respond to this motive - and it's then up to the working class extremists on how they respond in kind.
I agree with you; I think you have the meat of it.
There are two problem here: first is that "rich" isn't clearly defined. When the billionaires are all dead, are the millionaires next? Where doors it stop? Maybe that fucker in the house that's bigger than your's deserves to get her bullet too? How about anyone who's rich enough to own a house?
Second, kill the rich and we still have a system that enables consolidation of wealth. We'll just get a new group of 1%ers, only they'll probably be more dedicated to repressing the public to ensure that what happened to their predecessors doesn't happen to them.
Maybe the biggest problem, for me, is that I don't know what's better than what we have. Probably a limited capitalism, maybe modeled after one of the Nordic countries? Semi-socialist? I don't know. I'm pretty sure a huge part of the problem is the stock market (if not specifically, then the economic model that enables it), and laissez-faire economics is a shit-show fantasy that doesn't exist, but which the striving for causes all sorts of issues. But beyond that, I don't know how to limit consolidation of wealth, and outcomes like Citizens United.
So, people can kill all the CEOs they want; I don't expect it to improve anything.