What Were Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kevin McCarthy Doing at Damian On Monday Night?
A spokesperson for Damian told L.A. TACO: “Just to be clear, this event was planned by a third party that only used the venue on a day that Damian was closed. Damian did not provide food or services for the event, and we were not informed of the guest list.”
People we don’t agree with shouldn’t be able to eat at restaurants we like? I’m sorry, but that’s a horrendous position to take.
But it’s not about that. That I don’t want to patronize a business that willingly (here I don’t think Damian is at fault) hosts people who subvert our constitutional system or callously deport hard working people isn’t a regular political disagreement a la taxes or the social safety net.
You may disagree, fair. But we all draw lines about who and what opinions are acceptable in a liberal society. These are political actors, and their illberalism disqualifies, however much I am falling into the paradox of tolerance according to Popper.
The headline and text was directly from LA Taco. The excellent article points out the painful dissonance of decision makers in the federal government doing business in a Mexican restaurant, and got reporting from a customer at Bestia. I’d quote more but I’m trying to respect the LA Taco paywall.
Generally speaking, I, as a consumer, am very interested in what local businesses federal leadership uses.
people are free to eat where they want and I am free to spend my money where I want. If I knew a specific restaurant or business supported specific beliefs or in the instant case voluntarily hosted politicians I disagree with, I would not spend my dollars there. Pretty much the only way most people can politically participate in post capitalist America nowadays aside from running for office or donating money.
I would agree with @ShadrackToussaint in this case Damian seems to not know who they were hosting
Man, we’ve really got no chance of bridging the current divide in politics do we? I don’t agree with a single thing those folks have said or done, but they are still human beings and they deserve to eat. Taking money away from Damian isn’t going to change any Republicans’ minds, but it will hurt the restaurant so I’m not sure what good that does.
We’re really in a bad place as a country (I know, it’s painfully obvious) if people can’t even share a restaurant, let alone a meal, with people they don’t agree with, no matter how shitty those peoples’ ideas are.
The convo is pinging everywhere and while we are broadly talking about the same thing we are also talking not exactly to each others points.
To address your statement I think a major problem regarding a discourse of ideas is that having a conversation requires that people participate in the conversation in good faith and actually engage in a meaningful dialogue. If people cannot do that then the conversation is just a farce and becomes a total waste of time and energy. Further most of what goes as dialogue nowadays appears to performative just to get clips and social media engagement.
In the instant case regarding the persons who were at damian. How do you engage with someone that has preached christian nationalist or racist ideology? We can debate politics and policies but that view regardless of anyones thoughts on the right or wrong of it, goes explicitly against our Constitution.
I don’t have a very good answer for you here, but if I were to try and dream up the perfect setting to try and engage with someone whose ideas/beliefs threaten my very existence it would probably be over a meal.
To push back on this a bit, the issue is not just that those individuals have different socio-political beliefs from me. They are political actors who actively pursue harmful policies. They don’t just agree with the bad news around us, they contribute to its existence. They provide support to the hunting and kidnapping of immigrants, and benefit politically from doing so. Since they’ve uncovered an advantage to behaving in ways that make the world disgusting, they will only amend their behavior if it provokes negative consequences that endanger their current status. I do not think that us sharing a wonderful fish flauta will change this. I do not blame Damian, but if these people need to eat they can eat sh*t and they can do it in private.
Exactly this. These aren’t civilians or simply Trump voters (many of whom were ignorant, however ridiculous that is, of what his second term would entail). They’re architects of an illiberal government punishing enemies and disfavored groups.
I know you don’t support what’s going on and want things to get better, but I don’t think the answer is tolerating these illiberal politicians trying to turn back the progress of the 20th century.
@robert thanks for splitting off the topic. This is about the business of restaurants, adn who is seen where –which gets discussed a lot on FTC, but this is also larger and into not only food related.
The LA Taco article implied Damian didn’t know who they were renting to - and I wondered if that’s standard for places to rent to others without knowing who would be present. (Seems like a missed opportunity if it’s for say, Demi Lovato).
I’m curious about how the space would be used. did they really go into a restaurant space and not eat? And if they ate, did outside staff make the food, or did they bring in outside food?
Most importantly, for me, these last 8-12 weeks have been my acceptance of my internal monologue. “What would you have done for your Japanese neighbor in LA in 1941?” This question is super real as I live in Boyle Heights and in my morning walks around the neighborhood I can still see some slow growing landscaping that looks like it was planted in a Japanese aesthetic.
My current strategies of local involvements and nonprofit giving is something, however, it a standard response to an extraordinary circumstance.
If you rent a space for a private party you wouldn’t expect them to ask for your guest list unless they were running the door.
Booking dinner at Damian as we speak.
this is the only thing we should be focusing on as residents of this city, and an important and vital perspective to carry throughout our days.
Tell us on the food thread how it is. There hasn’t been a lot of buzz about it.
When I rent out a place for work functions I do discuss my org and who I expect to be in the room. However, I work in non-profit, so I’m on a tight budget and believe sharing that type of information could help with pricing. (Like if one of my board members is an investor with a restaurant group, or if the restaurant would identify with the mission).
It seems to me that people have (1) illogically strong convictions in their views on political issues, many of which (e.g., economics) are extremely complex; and (2) unduly narrow conceptions about what decent, smart people can believe in good faith. I know prominent political figures on the right and left who are equally smart and fair-minded people. Even the most fundamental tenets of government are subject to reasonable debate. Socrates did not support democracy, and Plato was skeptical too.
I’m not gonna comment on the post you nuked (which I happened to see), though in some ways I think it would lead to a more honeset discussion, since it was about your own beliefs more than your opinions on the discourse.
But this is a fantasy of the current moment. We’re not in poli sci class debating monarchy vs representative democracy, presidential vs parliamentary systems. This isn’t theoretical. There are politicians who prefer American Caesarism, and they are pushing that change not as a result of reasoned, good faith debate or any sort of deliberative or agreed upon process. Imputed sincerity or not, they just so happen to be enriching themselves hand over fist in the process.
Also, that final appeal to authority is not a fleshed out, substantiated argument. And you don’t need to lecture me or anyone else about humility or doubt. I grew up in the South in a conservative world where my opinions were in the minority. I can hold space and understanding for those with different views and respect how they came to those views and also exclude the Pinochets and Ben Gvirs.
We all draw lines, consciously or not, about what beliefs, opinions, and actions are acceptable in society. Is your argument that we shouldn’t draw those lines? Or just that my lines should include political actors who think the CRA was a mistake, that African Americans shouldn’t fly planes, and that Peronism is preferable to American democracy?
Apropos @cjla, I think we can guess where you stand.
Please requote, I would love to see what his real first thoughts are as opposed to hiding behind the delete buttons.