Now, of course there is a growing ugly fruit and vegetable movement[1]. It's becoming more mainstream and even Whole Foods is buying in[2]. There is an effort in Boston to provide good affordable ugly fruit and vegetables to underserved communities.
[1]http://www.eatingwell.com/food_news_origins/love_ugly_fruits...
[2]http://www.eater.com/2016/3/8/11178270/whole-foods-ugly-prod...
On top of that, the wholesalers know that these buyers will never pay a premium price, so they may get better deals on 1st tier items than mainstream supermarkets when the wholesaler really wants to sell.
The financial crisis, explained with strawberries.
There are lots and lots of strawberries of various different ages in a big pile. Some will be fine for the week and others are hours away from exploding in furry mould.
Someone splits them into the newest and oldest strawberries, and attaches a higher price to the former.
Someone then buys the older ones, and splits them again into the freshest and oldest. And so on, and so on until each group of strawberries is a set of near identical ages.
Finally, a customer comes along looking for strawberries to supply Wimbledon. It's in two days!
They find the basket of the very cheapest strawberries, and when asked how long they'll last they're told "Well, some will go off, but it's not like they'll all go off at the same time! As long as you buy them assuming maybe 5% will have gone off you'll be fine". One day later and 70% of them go mouldy and the rich folks at Wimbledon are shocked at the sudden shortage of strawberries.
Having worked produce in both regular chain markets, and in "gourmet natural foods" markets, I can assure you that this is a common practice.
What's the alternative? Should they be throwing away the entire container?
Pro tip for delicate berries: when you get them home, remove them from the package they came in and store them in a broad container lined with paper towels, something big enough so they can be spread out with a minimum of stacking. They'll last much longer that way.
If you buy a supposedly "mould-free" bundle that was repackaged from a mouldy bundle, the entire batch is likely to rot within a day or two of purchase.
The mould is already there, just not visible, on all strawberries, waiting for some sugar and water...
Example: https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/frozen-strawberrie...
PS: Side note, either USDA AMS hasn't updated their site in awhile, or some "most recent" frozen berry standards date back to the 50s/60s. Which, I guess makes sense; I imagine the process hasn't changed that much.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/30/242429836/...
>"I encounter a lot of people who tell me that they never knew the word 'gypped' had anything to do with gypsies, or that it's offensive — especially when the word is heard not read," says University of Texas at Austin professor Ian Hancock, who was born in Britain to Romani parents. "My response to them is, That's okay. You didn't know but now you do. So stop using it. It may mean nothing to you, but when we hear it, it still hurts."
I don't really see how "jipped" doesn't end up pronounced as "gypped" - so the connotation remains. FWIW the Moby Thesaurus lists a long litany of synonyms along the lines of "con man" and "cheat" for the term "gypper".
Words do lose their negative connotations, especially with different spelling.
I'm reminded of a quote about what if the German army named their machines of war after the people they tried to exterminate, like the Apache helicopter etc.
I'm not saying we should "prohibit" words, I'm just saying I don't quite see how one could make much of a case for "gypping" being a word that isn't steeped in history of abuse of and discrimination against the Roma people. As recent as the 70s and 80s (and even to this day) for most of Europe. Eg, to quote song "Magnificent Seven" by the Clash: "What Do We Have For Entertainment? / Cops Kickin' Gypsies On The Pavement". (I never interpreted the song any other way than as a critique of systematic abuse by the police, and callousness of mass media - not as a slur by the Clash against "gypsies").
Just because "nigger" is derived from "negro" and means "black" doesn't automatically mean we can choose to pretend black people hasn't been and still are victim of racism, and decide that "nigger is now ok to use".
It's certainly true that many portrayals of black people in continental Europe often look very odd or offensive to American eyes.
As for Roma in the USA, it appears that their invisibility is more the result of an almost complete eradication of their culture, more than anything else: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/22/american-gy...
There's plenty of racism in Europe - that doesn't mean it's ok or should be accepted.
But I'm not sure any of these apply to the practice under consideration, which is selling substandard produce to people who haven't properly calibrated their expectations.
edit: I also used to say "jewed down" as a kid. There's stuff that's better just to get rid of.
edit 2: I've actually had people passionately explain to me why saying "nigger-rigged" was not a problem.
Obviously the nutritional value is the same, so the place makes for a great source for smoothie ingredients and frozen fruits to be consumed at a later date.
Huh?
Casual racism (especially outside of talking to friends/family) isn't super common anymore but still a "thing."
Tell a 6th generation Georgian whose family farm was destroyed by Sherman's March to the Sea that he's a "Yankee" and see what response you'll get.
And your 'suit not cowboy boots' comparison doesn't even make sense. In the parts of the US where cowboy boots are popular in rural areas, they are also popular in urban areas. Visit Dallas and see that dress cowboy boots go just fine with a suit. Governors and legislators, President Bush and innumerable wedding party members, have all paired cowboy boots and suits.
Lets start with nobody said they were offended, just pointed out the GP was using a racial stereotype. Calling a racial stereotype a racial stereotype when asked for clarification isn't the same as "I'm offended," that is jumping to unfounded conclusions.
Saying "Indian (dots)" doesn't make sense out of context unless you are American or very familiar with American stereotypes. You also need the "feathers" part to be able to compare the two to give it some context for those who are familiar with American stereotypes but haven't been asked "dots or feathers?" before. Saying it in an international form is confusing and unclear thus a bad use of language no matter if its offensive or not. Additionally using racially charged language unnecessarily detracts from the overall message the poster was trying to convey and their post is now hidden behind [flagged].
>Visit Dallas and see that dress cowboy boots go just fine with a suit.
I just went to a wedding a few weeks ago where the entire wedding party (including the bride) were formally dressed and wore cowboy boots and I don't even live in the south or a rural area!
Sounds like it makes perfect sense to me, given that my whole point was that synechdoche is about using a salient feature, not necessarily a universal one. That's what I was trying to say about the dots/feathers thing - cowboy boots are associated with (mostly southern) rural areas - they're even called cowboy boots, even if they are used other places and even if most people in the south or in rural areas don't wear them most of the time. Suits are associated with big metropolitan companies, even though people in rural areas still wear suits.
Your expression seems to become less meaningful as you clarify it.
Cowboy boots are part of Western wear. The specific style (as differing from general equestrian boots) started during the cattle drive era of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the late 1800s.
It spread, certainly. Cowboy boots are a much more salient aspect of Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming - decidedly non-Southern states - than Virginia, Florida, or North Carolina. What cotton farmer, tobacco farmer, or citrus grower works in cowboy boots? The traditional Florida cowboy wasn't even called a "cowboy", which is the western term, but a cowman or cracker.
I'll say this again, they are indeed called cowboy boots, which means they come from the area where there are cowboys. That's the West, not the South. (The two areas overlap in Texas and Oklahoma.)
So 1) are cowboy boots a salient feature of rural life in the US? No. They are not common to rural life in Michigan, New York, Maine, and other non-plains states.
2) are cowboy boots a salient feature of the rural south? Based on http://www.newsobserver.com/living/fashion/article10118804.h... , at least in North Carolina it is the suburban population which buys the most cowboy boots, not the rural population.
3) Is the south the area where cowboy boots are the most salient feature? No. That would be the West. In the South you buy cowboy boots at places which sell Western wear. You don't buy cowboy boots at a places which sells "Southern clothing."
On the other hand, in the West, where cowboy boots are a salient feature, you are also likely to find people in the cities wearing dress cowboy boots with a suit.
So "cowboy boots" means someone from the West, and "suit" means someone dressed formally, "suit and cowboy boots" means someone dressed formally in the Western clothing tradition.
While "suit not cowboy boots" tells someone in the Western US to dress in the standard US/European business tradition.
But "cowboy boots not suit" makes little sense as a disjunctive. It certainly doesn't characterize someone from the rural US, or characterize someone from the rural South in the US, with someone from the city.
If it's ambiguous, I say "Indian (from India)" or "Indian (subcontinent)" vs. "Indian (Native American)". Or I'll just say "from India" or "Native American", and avoid that ambiguity.
That said, even "Native American" is controversial. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controver... for full details.
Plus, I think many in the US don't know about the bindi, so referring to "dot" in that context may not help as much as you, someone from India, may think.
As to why it feels pejorative, here's are pictures of Native American vendors in Santa Fe. https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/el_camino_real_de_tierra_adent... . One is recent, another from almost 100 years ago. Here's are some more: http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/native-american-vendors-progr... http://adorepics.com/santa-fe-indian-market/ .
Do you see feathers?
Other than decades-old stereotypes from mass media, why do you think "feather" is the appropriate term?
I am from the US, I have heard people say things like "I picked up some Indian artwork this weekend, dots not feathers." I've also been asked "dots or feathers?" when I was talking about something Indian. I've also been asked in gestures, pointing to the forehead to represent a bindi then saying "or" and covering and uncovering the mouth while making a noise to do that mock Indian battle cry (see the scene in Peter Pan if you are unfamiliar with it)(1).
Its not super common (for obvious reasons) but I've heard to several times from several different people so its common enough in at least some parts of the United States. Being casually racist in informal conversation is still a "thing" in the United States.
That being said, its impolite racially charged language thus very inappropriate in most cases and should be avoided especially in formal communication.
(1) I am ashamed to admit that I did that while playing "cowboys and Indians" as a child before I knew better.
There are ~150 hits in DDG for "Indian" plus any of the four combination of order and choice of {"and", "or", or "not"}. There are 94 hits in Google for "dots or feathers" and 120 "dots and feathers". This includes "polka dots and feathers."
Almost every single one referring to people uses that phrase in a derogatory way.
None of the 6 phrases exist in Google's n-grams.
That makes it decidedly not common, at least in the written word.
> Being casually racist in informal conversation ...
... is not appropriate for HN.
I still don't think it's common, though I agree it's not rare. I provided counter-evidence that my observations are not solely biased by the people I know nor the regions I've lived in. To flip your question around, perhaps you are in the one region of the US where people do that?
The other part of my response was because I didn't like the wriggle room in your paragraph describing how being 'casually racist in informal conversation is still a "thing" in the United States' and that such uses are 'very inappropriate in most cases and should be avoided especially in formal communication.'
HN is full of informal conversation. Is HN casual enough that it's one of the few places where this "thing" is appropriate? I don't think that's what you meant. I wanted to make a more firm statement which removes that possible interpretation.
Well, a famous movie that won an Oscar has said line in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CqeOU5V47w
I wouldn't claim that the phrase is PC, and it is indeed lazy in written form, but people need to get over being so easily offended on behalf of others.
People need to get over the word "PC". It's a nearly meaningless term because it comes with the pejorative assumption that the reasoning behind it is always excessive.
Do you have any word for "politically correct but not excessively so, so I think I'll change my language"? Or is every such suggestion inherently based on offense and therefore easily dismissed?
Because my statement above was to show pictures of Puebloans in Santa Fe from now and from 100 years ago, and argue that "feather" makes about as much sense as calling a 6th generation true son of Georgia a Yankee.
Are you going to go to the South and start calling everyone Yankees? Or would that not be politically correct?