Mr. Kang pushes boundaries of all-you-can-eat buffet dining

A Chinese food influencer and live-streamer finds himself at the center of controversy today over whether limits can be placed on the amount of food one can consume at all-you-can-eat establishments.

Known simply as Mr. Kang, the livestreamer complained on Hunan TV of discrimination after being kicked out of the Handadi Seafood BBQ Buffet for eating too much.  “I can eat a lot – is that a fault?” Kang asked.

Apparently the owner of the restaurant thinks so.  “Every time he comes here, I lose a few hundred yuan,” he said.  “Even when he drinks soy milk, he can drink 20 or 30 bottles. When he eats the pork trotters, he consumes the whole tray of them. And for prawns, usually people use tongs to pick them up, he uses a tray to take them all.”

The issue has sparked fierce debate over whether limits can be placed on buffet dining or whether the freedom to eat is universal and should not be infringed upon.  Freedom to eat absolutists argue it is the dining right that makes all the others possible.

“Where does it end?  You start with all-you-can-eat is not really all-you-can-eat.  Next you’re limiting free refills on soft drinks.  Then fortune cookies are extra.  Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?” asks popular YouTube food scholar, Professor Waffles. 

Others feel strict limitations should be placed on eating influencers and live-streamers, even suggesting outright bans on all-you-can-eat buffets.

For now, Mr. Kang will have to explore new frontiers in buffet dining elsewhere as he and all other live-streamers have been blacklisted from the establishment.

Buzzfeed News obtains dossier revealing identity of Florida man urinated on at festival concert

Buzzfeed News is reporting it has obtained documents related to an incident where the lead singer of the band Brass Against allegedly urinated on a Florida man on stage at a recent concert.

Reports indicate the documents, referred to by some as the Brass Dossier, have been widely circulated around Washington D.C. and among journalists.  Buzzfeed plans to publish the dossier as soon as it conducts a thorough investigation of claims made in the document.

“No doubt Buzzfeed journalists will go through the dossier with a fine-tooth comb,” said former Buzzfeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith, now at the New York Times.  “When I was at the helm, our policy was to double and triple check our anonymous source regarding the veracity of any allegations.  This usually involved verifying the source didn’t have his fingers crossed when he gave us the information.  As a final act of due diligence, we would make the source cross his heart and hope to die.  At that point we generally felt pretty confident about releasing information to the public.”   

Much speculation has gone into the identity of the Florida man.  Witnesses claim the individual was over six feet tall, with skin of a Sunkist orange hue, and a breathtaking coiffure that flowed like golden rain water. 

Witnesses say, at the conclusion of the show, the man was hustled away by a stern looking group of men in suits and sunglasses.

Additional reporting by MSNBC reveals the lead singer of Brass Against, Sophia Urista, may have connections to Russian intelligence.  “Sources indicate this may not be the first time this Urista has served up some urine at the behest of the Kremlin,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported.

Insider article halts production at Pottermore Publishing

The ancient, rusted printing press at Pottermore Publishing rests covered in cobwebs this morning, and the old inky-fingered typesetter is out looking for other employment following new revelations outlined in Pam Segall’s recent Insider piece “There is no good way to introduce ‘Harry Potter’ to the next generation.” 

Segall, a self-described millennial Potterhead, claims the Harry Potter magic is dead, killed by its creator’s malicious spells transmitted via Twitter in 2020.  Furthermore, according to Segall, J.K. Rowling’s assault on the Potter magic goes back as far as 2018 when the Harry Potter author “liked” a “couple of offensive tweets” cast by other like-minded magic killers.  

In probably one of the more relevant assertions of the piece, Segall says of Rowling, “Her actions disenchanted scores of fans, who have struggled to figure out what to do with their love for the series given the controversy around its creator.”  Meaning some multiple of twenty fans is experiencing the same emotional difficulty and confusion described by Segall in this piece.  

Having not been a millennial Potterhead in the late nineties, but rather a gen-x pothead too old for Harry Potter, it is difficult for me to fully appreciate Segall’s sense of disenchantment and loss.  However, it must be darn near impossible to maintain a sense of magic and possibility when you’re swallowing all that ideological bullshit Segall’s been feasting on.

After bringing up about four or five of Rowling’s inclusivity infractions across all the Harry Potter works, Segall succinctly summarizes how the magic came to be drained from Potterland for Segall and the 20, 40, 80 or so other disenchanted fans.  “In a series that spans thousands of pages and often provides minute details, the thought that Rowling couldn’t spare a few words to mention a character’s race or sexuality already seems preposterous,” Segall writes. 

Indeed it is preposterous.  Because everyone knows that beginning at some fixed date in 2016 or 2017 it became a cultural imperative that every children’s book detail the race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality of each of the book’s characters.  The fact that some books don’t include these details is a colossal failure of imagination.  Everyone knows that for a budding young reader to truly understand what makes characters tick, the author must include the character’s race or sexuality.  Furthermore, it would be ideal if their distribution across the works would reflect the demographics of today’s modern society, even if the story is set in some other time and place, or some altogether made up realm. 

It is Segall’s contention that Rowling’s bigotry has imposed itself on the Harry Potter works, thus releasing all the magic that has enchanted readers for nearly 25 years now.  She calls this “the intrusion of real life” onto the works and concludes, “When we introduce the real world to the Wizarding World, we inherently drain some of its magic.”  Setting aside whether or not Rowling’s tweets and likes are offensive, why is it that we are dragging the real world into the wizarding world again?  It seems to me, again from the perspective of a former pothead and not a Potterhead, that often when you drag the contemporary world into the make believe world, you run the risk of disrupting the illusion.  I don’t know, someone once told me that magic isn’t real, but often I can set aside that reality and enjoy tales of kick ass magic and wizardry anyway. 

By the way, asserting that biological sex is real, and criticizing the phrase “people who menstruate” as a dehumanizing term for women is entirely within the bounds of mainstream thought and opinion.  Among readers of Harry Potter books, there is nothing controversial about Rowling’s remarks and sales of her books reflect it.  Currently, her most recent children’s book ranks #6 on Amazon and the Harry Potter box set ranks #16 in children’s books.

Still Segall writes:  “Some fans treasure their existing copies of the beloved series while refusing to purchase anything new to support Rowling financially. For others, the books lie obscured and discarded, awaiting a fate yet to be determined.”  I’m sure Segall wants this to be true because Segall and a few colleagues and friends feel this way, but this is clearly an example of magical thinking, dragging the world of belief and illusion into the real world.  

Looking forward to a world without Harry Potter, Segall writes, “the best we can hope is that these conversations inspire the next generation to foster fully inclusive magic and create a more perfect version of this fantasy world.”  No doubt this world would be fully embraced by the public if it were as imaginative, entertaining and enchanting as the Harry Potter books.  However, the biggest obstacle facing this hypothetical work would most likely come from critics like Segall and company.  Because they measure out their inclusivity in teaspoons and there is seldom enough of it in any work.  Additionally, given the arbitrary formulation and constantly shifting nature of the inclusivity regulations, there is little doubt that if such a work as Segall describes were to set the reading world on fire, a new group of puritans would emerge to douse the flames.

From the sales of her Harry Potter books, J.K. Rowling has donated literally scores of millions of dollars to support research and treatment of multiple sclerosis.  That’s some multiple of 20 million dollars of her own money.  Additionally, she has used her platform to raise money to fight poverty, support children’s welfare and advocate on behalf of victims of domestic abuse.  Segall and company seem unable wrap their heads around that magic, preferring instead to do the work of depriving Rowling of her powers to generate millions for those in need.  I’m sure there’s some villainous character in Harry Potter who tried to steal or otherwise thwart the magic of those who sought to do good, but I wouldn’t know the name of that character because I was too busy taking bong hits and reading detective novels.  Regardless, how does it feel, Segall, to become a villain in one of your formerly beloved Harry Potter books?  There’s a story you can introduce to the next generation.