Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2022-05-15 03:39 pm
[ SECRET POST #5609 ]
⌈ Secret Post #5609 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #803.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 02:13 pm (UTC)(link)Having MSG in soy sauce can be enough for some recipes, but not all of them if you’re actually going for true authenticity, no matter what some YouTubers say otherwise. That’s what the secret was actually saying. The YouTubers are still lying their asses off about it in that 1. A lot of these recipes need more MSG to be authentic, or need MSG when the recipe doesn’t call for soy sauce, because not every Chinese dish has soy sauce as an ingredient. And 2. These YouTubers are frequently straight up saying that MSG is both unhealthy and unneeded to make these dishes authentic, while showing they don’t really even know what MSG is by still adding soy sauce to these recipes without knowing it contains MSG. These are some of the same liars who are trying to peddle “healthier diets” by suggesting switching from white sugar to agave syrup.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 03:55 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 05:29 pm (UTC)(link)It wasn’t just one example, it was a stated reason you thought the secret was stupid. And it was wrong. You trying to walk your bs back isn’t a great look. And it is “lying their asses off” if they are indeed lying, like I said, using actual examples I’ve seen in these videos. I’ve actually seen the YouTubers OP is talking about. So if you haven’t, maybe being the devil’s advocate isn’t a great idea. Besides the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about in this case, of course.
And besides, as another anon said, MSG isn’t even in soy sauce. Or at least it shouldn’t be. I will admit that I wasn’t aware of that. But that makes your reasoning for saying the secret is stupid even more wrong and unnecessary. It does make one of the reasons I said they were lying(saying the recipe was MSG free, while using soy sauce) incorrect, and I can admit that too. But the other reason stands.
And very hypocritical of you to get mad at anyone for being judgmental, considering you’re the one who called a secret stupid based on assumptions and misinformation. And the “No U didn’t read things correctly” line makes no sense, because I actually read your comment all the way through before commenting, and you saying “it was just one example” doesn’t magically negate anything I said. If one of your examples was wrong, and you call something stupid while not having all your facts straight, guess what? You can be criticized for that. To go the “No U” route you took, maybe you shouldn’t get so heated over someone for criticizing your comments. You were willing to admit you were wrong for commenting on a secret you didn’t read correctly because you were half asleep before. Even if you only realized it when someone pointed it out, which is still fair enough. Where’s that attitude now? Is someone saying something in a way you don’t like enough to ignore the entirety of the comment? I get the defensiveness, I can relate, but that doesn’t mean that an entire comment is automatically wrong. And I wouldn’t have even said anything if you didn’t call the secret stupid for reasons that weren’t correct, so I provided the reasoning for why I felt that way. That’s something that happens in a public forum.
SA
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 05:37 pm (UTC)(link)Re: SA
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 06:19 pm (UTC)(link)Re: SA
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 06:28 pm (UTC)(link)Re: SA
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-05-16 06:14 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-05-17 12:00 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2022-05-17 01:08 am (UTC)(link)