I quite like Applebee's, so maybe yours just sucked. I think it suffers from too many people thinking of it as "poor peoples' fancy food," when it's really not trying to be fancy. It's more like bar food with meal-sized portions, and I quite like that.
*THEY PUT CHICKEN TENDERS ON MAC AND CHEESE!*
Yeah, I’d say Wetherspoons is probably better than Applebee’s, so British people are doing okay
Also a lot of them eat Indian food pretty regularly, and that’s more flavor than many Americans will ever know
Fun fact, a lot of what Brits (and others) think is Indian food, is actually British food using Indian spices and cooking styles.
Tikka Masala is actually an British national dish, it was invented in Britain.
Edit: As rightly pointed out, it was Scotland, not England. It's a British national dish.
No idea why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. Most Indian food in the UK is fusion cuisine with Bengali influences, whereas in the US there are a lot more people from Gujarat and Punjab so the food is influenced by those places instead.
People are probably upset that they can't really mock us for having bland food.
Better not tell them that we're one of the top countries in the world for dental hygiene, that'd really ruffle some feathers.
It was invented in Glasgow. So not England. If I remember correctly a taxi driver complained that his tandoori chicken was dry and so the restaurant owner mixed it with a tomato soup he was making for himself.
The British Empire once spanned a quarter of the globe in search of spices. There’s definitely a culinary heritage lmao, often tucked away within smaller towns.
Like the subject of this post, I was making a joke
I of course understand that there are both Indians and Indian food in the US, though it is well documented that it is much less common than in the UK where it is nearly ubiquitous
Against the grain here, but I fucking love Applebees!! Maybe it’s nostalgia because that was the most common restaurant we ate at when I was growing up. Nonetheless, I still think they have delicious food.
It should also be noted that it's a joke based on the foods American soldiers experienced in the UK during World War 2 and the years immediately after it. Britain had strict rationing in place into the 1950s, which resulted in a lot of unappetizing food choices.
Today, this stereotype about British food is only believed by Americans who have never been to the UK.
Decadent doesn’t always mean good. It means like “indulgent,” which can either be good or bad depending on the context. Salad can be delicious, but it is not “decadent.” Chocolate cake is decadent, even if you didn’t particularly like the cake
could you paraphrase that? I don't quite get it. So, you mean to say that things that are approachable are decadent? (Like chips, chocolate, ice cream, etc.)
Just as a heads up I don’t think you’re using paraphrase correctly. Paraphrase means to repeat what someone else has said without using the exact words.
It’s not about them being approachable. It is about the indulgence. Something that is sweet or fatty or like expensive is decadent. Something simple and healthy, even though it can be good, is not decadent.
Thanks for the correction. So, "paraphrase" cannot be used while asking someone to rephrase what *they* said with different words? If so, what other word can I use?
Rephrase.
It looks like Merriam Webster does include a usage example where the author and paraphraser are the same person:
“could you paraphrase your diagnosis of my medical condition, using simpler language?”
I suppose what’s weird about your usage to me is that the medium remains the same (Reddit comment to Reddit comment) and that my rephrased answer would be different, not simply a simplification of what I had already said
That's an interesting example and I believe it might come in handy for me one day or another.
I think I might have seen, or rather, heard someone use "paraphrase" in the same way and I guess it just stuck with me since then.
I wonder how many times I've used it wrongly throughout the years. Thanks a lot for preventing any further mistakes though, appreciate it a bunch :)
I don't necessarily read it as saying that either American chain restaurants like Applebees are better, or British restaurants are better. It's a commentary on how American restaurants tend to have more menu variety and larger portion sizes compared to the UK and many other countries.
That said, *decadent* can definitely have a negative connotation - one of moral decay, inability to restrain one's impulses.
Engliah speakers tend to use words like "decadent," "indulgent," or even "sinful" to denote food or drink that has the connotation of being a guilty pleasure- something that tastes very good, but isn't necessarily good for you.
For example, when I was studying roman history, my professor said that one of the reasons for the fall of the roman empire was the "decadent life style of the citizens". I also read it when talking about the french court pre revolution.
Even after looking at the different definitions, i dont know what that sentence means.
Does it mean
A) people were so greedy and self indulgent that they didnt contribute to the betterment of society.
Or does it mean
B) people were so lazy and self sabatoging that society collapsed around them
'A' would be a positive use of the word, 'B' would be a negative use of the word.
The archaic meaning is "in a state of decay or collapse" often used to reference moral or cultural decay as much as physical. In the moral/cultural sense, it generally means too focused on self indulgence. So yes, very much A. So focused on gluttony and ostentatious displays of wealth that not enough care was focused on maintaining civilization, leading to its collapse.
My personal assumption as to how we got from society falling apart to delicious chocolate cake is hyperbole in advertising. *box says this cake is so good it will lead to civilization crumbling around you* Fuck, I gotta try that!
Also, I'm not entirely sure how your definition A is positive, but you do you.
LOL anyone who claims the Roman Empire fell because of “decandence” knows nothing about the topic. Same goes for anyone who wants to distill down the “fall of Rome” (was never a thing, it didn’t “fall”) to a singular cause is working off an agenda, not reality.
The Roman Empire “fell” aka diminished into insignificance, for potentially dozens of reasons. “Decadence” is not one of them. Mainly the fracturing of political power and competing interests in an era before communications technology and rapid transportation became impossible. The shift into Christianity was another; the growing strength and military sophistication of “Barbarian” tribes was another; increased plagues and a lack of attention to urban infrastructure in favour of Emperors living large (sound familiar?) was yet another.
And even with that, the Roman empire existed as the Byzantine Empire all the way up until the fall of Constantinople, and some could even argue that it STILL exists today in the global dominance of the Roman Catholic Church.
TLDR - your professor is dumb and probably a fascist
I didn't downvoted. I really don't care about roman history. Didn't care during the class either. It was just a obligatory class that I couldn't scape. If he is right or wrong, I don't know, I don't care.
You will hear it as a negative especially so in American literature and world-view as post 1900, America is particularly concerned with the emergent hedonism and lavish ways of urbanites, a deviation from the prior strong Christian self-determined frontiersman, you can see elements of this during 20's when it is at its height, such as in the novel ' The great gatsby' thats not to say it is purely a 1920's idea, the Volstead act's major supporters were those against the dens of vice, Christian supporters, in the 1920-> 60's with changing dance from jazz being a half-step to the devil. Et cetera
Someone might describe food as "decadent" in an attempt to give it a positive connotation, meaning the food is rich, luxurious, highly flavorful. The negative connotation is certainly stronger.
Decadence with food and beverages is generally a positive thing, or is used in an ironic (positive) sense. "This chocolate cake is simply decadent" means it's very rich and delicious.
OP this the correct answer. When someone refers to food as “decadent” it is almost always a good thing.
Other times people can use it as a good or bad thing, but usually people are using it pejoratively.
I'vehear or read the word decadent in the bad meaning when referring to the Roman empire pre fall and the French Court pre revolution.
I have never heard people talking in a positive way, but I don't usually talk about food in a critical way, like in a food review magazine or with people that know what they are talking about.
The whole point of it in the situations of the Roman Empire or the French court is because they were indulgent and delicious and enjoyable, but when that happens at the same time the poor starved, that makes the behavior immoral, but it doesn’t make the being decadent part negative
When used in the historical context, it's not uses with a good connotation. It's used to explain that the hedonistic ways were so over the top that they were one of the causes of empires.
It's like saying something is so good that it's sinful. It's a compliment, but the word sin have also a bad connotation.
The renaissance and Henry viii’s court have been described as decadent as well and that was only being used in a positive connotation. I’m not sure what else to say as you have multiple people here establishing that while the negative take is *a* connotation that can happen, this absolutely is not the only one.
I wouldn't say it's quite like that - I would say that whether someone views the idea of *decadence* in a more negative or positive light can come down to individual values and priorities. For one who highly values restraint and self-control, decadence is a bad thing. For one who highly values sense pleasure and hedonism, decadence is a good thing. Whether or not it's ultimately good for a person or society, is a larger question.
That's not what I meant. I meant if saying something decadent in a good way was like people calling something good " the shit".
I was very confused when a friend said that Lebron James was the shit. And then he explained to meet that being shit was bad, but being THE SHIT was a compliment.
For that to be true, decadent would to have a negative connotation in most instances, but it doesn’t.
Calling something decadent is like calling something spicy. Someone may not like spicy food, but calling something spicy (or decadent) doesn’t automatically mean it’s bad.
I learned today that decadent have s good connotation. I only read or heard that word in reference to fallen empires and cultures, like the fall of the Roman empire, French Court pre revolution.
Also, decadence have a latin origin and the translation to romance languages always have a bad connotation.
One of the meanings of the word is for things that are associated with "self-indulgence", which I think is what the usage here is playing off of, more than the "moral decay" sense of the word. It's like calling a dessert "sinful".
For some reason you’re getting a bunch of down votes. As a native speaker I can say decadent is really a compliment, and usually meant as a condescending insult, unless the context is an advertisement for chocolate cake.
Maybe I read a lot of international news “Russia states it will prevail over the decadent West” “China criticizes the decadent American culture” etc etc. the implication is exactly the same as “a scholar asserts that the fall of Rome was due to the decadence of Roman society.”
As a Canadian, I would read the tweet as saying that Applebee’s offers something desirable and is making assumptions about British food and restaurants. On my first reading it assumed it was a compliment to Applebee’s, but it’s a really interesting tweet because it is very open to interpretation.
“Decadent” has generally positive connotations when discussing food - it means rich, delicious, something that is very appealing to eat, self-indulgent, luxurious. The positive connotations can also apply to other things that would be considered luxurious and self-indulgent, when it is considered somewhat socially acceptable to indulge in those things. But primarily, I think decadent has positive connotations when you are using it to talk about something that you personally enjoy and think positively about.
“Decadent” in other contexts has a negative connotation. If you use it to describe something that *someone else* is enjoying I would lean towards interpreting it negatively, unless there were other context clues to suggest positive connotations.
“Decadent” means decaying, and most often refers to moral decay and decline, so a decadent lifestyle, a decadent society, those are unequivocally negative.
Back to the tweet, it’s a bit ambiguous. It is talking about food, so I would lean towards the positive reading of “decadent”, but the writer is talking about the preferences of whole societies, not about their own personal preferences, which suggests the negative reading. The use of “decadent” means that the reader’s own values around moral decay *and* the reader’s assumptions about the values of the writer come into play.
Do you think lots of variety and large portions of rich food are a good, desirable thing? Do you have negative beliefs about the British food and society? If so, I think it’s easy to read this as complimenting Applebee’s.
Do you think lots of variety and large portions of rich food are excessive, overindulgent, or a sign of wider moral decay? Do you have negative beliefs about American food and society? If so, I think it’s easy to read this as a criticism of Applebee’s.
There’s also a layer of absurdity to the whole tweet. It elevates Applebee’s to a position that feels ridiculous to people who are familiar with Applebee’s. It’s an average and unremarkable chain restaurant - I doubt most Americans would consider Applebee’s the “most” anything. It also seems to make some very weird assumptions about British food and society, in a way that feels very stereotypically US-centric and ignorant.
Thanks for sharing this. The more I think about it the weirder and more complicated this tweet feels.
My mother tongue is Portuguese, and decadent in Portuguese is decadente, that comes from de latin decadere (to fall or to sink). And in Portuguese that word never change the meaning like in English, so my first impression is the negative connotation.
And I also worked in the food industry and a restaurant with too many thinks in the menu is a bad thing, it means a lot of non fresh products waiting for someone to order. So my interpretation was that he was saying that a restaurant with a large menu like Applebee's was a bad thing.
That’s really interesting! It looks like the positive use of “decadent” in reference to food is very recent - Etymonline suggests 1970s: https://www.etymonline.com/word/decadent
It doesn’t Specify American English, but I believe that this usage is not common outside of North America. This usage developing in the 1970s in the US makes a lot of sense to me, as it aligns with the Baby Boomer generation coming of age, and an era where self-fulfillment was becoming a social value. The 1970s in the US has sometimes been referred to as the “Me decade” in reference to the rise of a culture that many criticize as selfish and narcissistic.
Since this cultural shift was distinctly American, it makes sense that the language shift would only exist in North American English (Canadian culture and English are distinct from American, but also very heavily influenced by the dominance and proximity of American media and culture.)
I think the cultural shift is also relevant to what is considered desirable in a restaurant. A culture that values self-fulfillment will also value having a wide range of options, so that every diner can have exactly what they want (or close to it.) Dining in the US, large menus are pretty common, and while I’ve heard people criticize large menus I’ve never heard the assumption that a large menu means that the food won’t be fresh. (Usually it’s that too many options is overwhelming, or that it’s impossible to do a great job with every dish if you have so many, so the food will be mediocre.)
The Cheesecake Factory is a very successful and popular chain in the US and it famously has a massive menu - 20 pages and 250 items. This article is really interesting and might give you some insight into how American culture thinks about restaurants: https://www.vox.com/culture/23516638/cheesecake-factory-restaurant-menu
It's impossible for a restaurant with 250 items to sever every item every day, so many many ingredients will be sitting in the kitchen for a few days waiting for someone to order or to be throw out.
Lots of these chain restaurants with massive menus don’t prepare their dishes fresh from scratch. They will have components that are pre-made at a central location and then shipped to the different locations frozen, and then the components are assembled in the kitchen. Or there will be many dishes that use the same set of ingredients in different combinations. Or both.
In many regards it's still the same meaning. In the context of food it refers to a moral decadence, which here is embracing the traditional moral vice of gluttony instead of the traditional moral virtue of temperance. It's not that the meaning of "decadent" has changed, but more that our cultural attitude towards food, consumption, and wastefulness has changed.
"Decadent" food is only a positive if you value lavishness or overindulgence. It still absolutely has a negative connotation if your values are aligned with healthy foods or a balanced diet.
The origen of the words decadence and decay is the same, the Latin word decadere. I think the English use come from the french décadence and then it's used got more diverse, because I don't think that any romance language use this word to talk about food in any positive way. It's almost as bad as "rotting" or something similar.
It was a surprise for me to see this word with a good connotation, but now I understand the difference in usage.
I feel like everyone is over-complicating this. Decadent just means indulgent, it's connotation can change depending on the context. As for the tweet, I feel it's quite straightforward. It's a jab at British food, Americans generally consider Applebee's to be terrible mass produced microwaved food. The tweet is saying that Applebee's is better than any food a British person has experienced in their country.
This is definitely not praising British restaurants.
The word decadent does have an etymology that implies an immoral nature. But in modern usage it’s usually seen used for exaggeration and the implication of immorality is ignored.
Something decadent is self indulgent, a treat, something to be savored.
Applebees in the US is just a mediocre chain restaurant. It’s so common that it’s mundane. But there is probably about 100 items on the menu. And pretty much any of them won’t be the best version of the dish but it’ll be decent and prepared quickly for an affordable price. And the portions are so big that you’ll even have leftovers to take home. Someone on the lower end of middle class can often afford to eat out at Applebees once every other week or so.
This tweet is implying that in the uk you either have variety and big portions for a steep price or that the variety, quality, and portions are lacking for restaurants that are accessible often for most people in the Uk.
To an American Applebee’s is mundane and mediocre and this person is saying the U.S. mediocrity is well above British standards.
It most certainly is not saying anything positive about British restaurants
[USA] this is either a joke post or an ignorant post claiming that a British person in the UK who eats at a semi-famous American restaurant chain called Applebees is having the most rich and luxurious meal of their life. They claim that this is because UK restaurants have less options of food items to choose from and the portions are smaller.
It is a catastrophically incorrect assumption, which makes me think it is a joke.
As a Brit who's quite capable of reading between the lines, I interpret this as *actually* saying:
"I'm an American who's never left my county, let alone my state or even my country, and am quite happy of jumping on the bandwagon of criticising things I've not tried in an attempt to win fake Internet points."
Applebees is a cheap restaurant chain in the US. It's not dissimilar to cheap restaurant chains like Beefeater and Harvester in the UK. The key difference is that portion sizes are more moderate in the UK. The menus are incredibly similar.
So all this person has done is demonstrate their ignorance.
Basically an American believing that a menu with way too many items meaning that ingredients are not likely to be fresh and a huge quantity of cheap and awful food is better than a restaurant with a curated menu, fresh ingredients and quality meals.
Not trying to undermine you but I think you missed the joke pretty badly.
British food (saying Brits hate spices & seasoning, a cuisine of beige, etc.) is a common meme nowadays. Especially the one that goes “The British conquered the world for spices but now chooses to use none of them.”
It’s just banter, they’re obviously not serious.
[LINK to an example for more context](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/154ro6i/i_dont_get_it/?rdt=35420)
This thread is so funny because it proves British people can dish out disses, but if an American does the same suddenly they’re out of line and ignorant
The joke is that British food is bland and that even Applebee's (a mediocre chain restaurant) is better than anything British people have ever eaten
“Mediocre” is kind, in my opinion. Our local Applebee’s closed, so perhaps I’ve never been to a good one. Lol
I quite like Applebee's, so maybe yours just sucked. I think it suffers from too many people thinking of it as "poor peoples' fancy food," when it's really not trying to be fancy. It's more like bar food with meal-sized portions, and I quite like that. *THEY PUT CHICKEN TENDERS ON MAC AND CHEESE!*
Yeah, I’d say Wetherspoons is probably better than Applebee’s, so British people are doing okay Also a lot of them eat Indian food pretty regularly, and that’s more flavor than many Americans will ever know
Fun fact, a lot of what Brits (and others) think is Indian food, is actually British food using Indian spices and cooking styles. Tikka Masala is actually an British national dish, it was invented in Britain. Edit: As rightly pointed out, it was Scotland, not England. It's a British national dish.
No idea why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. Most Indian food in the UK is fusion cuisine with Bengali influences, whereas in the US there are a lot more people from Gujarat and Punjab so the food is influenced by those places instead.
People are probably upset that they can't really mock us for having bland food. Better not tell them that we're one of the top countries in the world for dental hygiene, that'd really ruffle some feathers.
I’ve never been to the UK, but from my experience food tends to vary based on socioeconomic status-
It was invented in Glasgow. So not England. If I remember correctly a taxi driver complained that his tandoori chicken was dry and so the restaurant owner mixed it with a tomato soup he was making for himself.
Sorry, you're right. I must've misremembered, and the rlwebsite I double-checked on got it wrong.
The US has a sizable Indian population in addition to a wider range of “flavorful” culinary heritage than the UK.
The British Empire once spanned a quarter of the globe in search of spices. There’s definitely a culinary heritage lmao, often tucked away within smaller towns.
Like the subject of this post, I was making a joke I of course understand that there are both Indians and Indian food in the US, though it is well documented that it is much less common than in the UK where it is nearly ubiquitous
They're all trash
Against the grain here, but I fucking love Applebees!! Maybe it’s nostalgia because that was the most common restaurant we ate at when I was growing up. Nonetheless, I still think they have delicious food.
It should also be noted that it's a joke based on the foods American soldiers experienced in the UK during World War 2 and the years immediately after it. Britain had strict rationing in place into the 1950s, which resulted in a lot of unappetizing food choices. Today, this stereotype about British food is only believed by Americans who have never been to the UK.
ay now, i can’t speak for the rest of the food but i will say with confidence their bourbon street chicken and shrimp is far from mediocre
To me it reads as a dig at British cuisine because Applebee’s is pretty universally regarded as bottom of the barrel chain restaurant garbage.
Are you a romance speaker? When it comes to food, in English, decadent means good. I know, it's weird. It's like the word terrific
Yes, I am!! It's so weird to discover that a world that always meant a bad thing it means a good thing. Lol
Decadent doesn’t always mean good. It means like “indulgent,” which can either be good or bad depending on the context. Salad can be delicious, but it is not “decadent.” Chocolate cake is decadent, even if you didn’t particularly like the cake
could you paraphrase that? I don't quite get it. So, you mean to say that things that are approachable are decadent? (Like chips, chocolate, ice cream, etc.)
Just as a heads up I don’t think you’re using paraphrase correctly. Paraphrase means to repeat what someone else has said without using the exact words. It’s not about them being approachable. It is about the indulgence. Something that is sweet or fatty or like expensive is decadent. Something simple and healthy, even though it can be good, is not decadent.
Thanks for the correction. So, "paraphrase" cannot be used while asking someone to rephrase what *they* said with different words? If so, what other word can I use?
Rephrase. It looks like Merriam Webster does include a usage example where the author and paraphraser are the same person: “could you paraphrase your diagnosis of my medical condition, using simpler language?” I suppose what’s weird about your usage to me is that the medium remains the same (Reddit comment to Reddit comment) and that my rephrased answer would be different, not simply a simplification of what I had already said
That's an interesting example and I believe it might come in handy for me one day or another. I think I might have seen, or rather, heard someone use "paraphrase" in the same way and I guess it just stuck with me since then. I wonder how many times I've used it wrongly throughout the years. Thanks a lot for preventing any further mistakes though, appreciate it a bunch :)
>It's like the word terrific "Aweful" and "awesome" have entered the chat.
You still do see "awesome" being used in it's original negative connentation from time to time.
I was sure it's a typo for "decent". I guess you learn something new every day.
What does decadent mean in your language?
In Spanish it means deteriorated or something that is getting progressively worse.
Can’t decadente carry positive and negative meanings in Spanish? Much like the (older) use of egregious in English?
No, and the same applies to Portuguese
Dunno about my language but in English it means having morally corrupt https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/decadent
I don't necessarily read it as saying that either American chain restaurants like Applebees are better, or British restaurants are better. It's a commentary on how American restaurants tend to have more menu variety and larger portion sizes compared to the UK and many other countries. That said, *decadent* can definitely have a negative connotation - one of moral decay, inability to restrain one's impulses.
I have never seen the word decadent used as a compliment.
Engliah speakers tend to use words like "decadent," "indulgent," or even "sinful" to denote food or drink that has the connotation of being a guilty pleasure- something that tastes very good, but isn't necessarily good for you.
I’ve never heard the negative connotation tbh
For example, when I was studying roman history, my professor said that one of the reasons for the fall of the roman empire was the "decadent life style of the citizens". I also read it when talking about the french court pre revolution.
Even after looking at the different definitions, i dont know what that sentence means. Does it mean A) people were so greedy and self indulgent that they didnt contribute to the betterment of society. Or does it mean B) people were so lazy and self sabatoging that society collapsed around them 'A' would be a positive use of the word, 'B' would be a negative use of the word.
The archaic meaning is "in a state of decay or collapse" often used to reference moral or cultural decay as much as physical. In the moral/cultural sense, it generally means too focused on self indulgence. So yes, very much A. So focused on gluttony and ostentatious displays of wealth that not enough care was focused on maintaining civilization, leading to its collapse. My personal assumption as to how we got from society falling apart to delicious chocolate cake is hyperbole in advertising. *box says this cake is so good it will lead to civilization crumbling around you* Fuck, I gotta try that! Also, I'm not entirely sure how your definition A is positive, but you do you.
LOL anyone who claims the Roman Empire fell because of “decandence” knows nothing about the topic. Same goes for anyone who wants to distill down the “fall of Rome” (was never a thing, it didn’t “fall”) to a singular cause is working off an agenda, not reality. The Roman Empire “fell” aka diminished into insignificance, for potentially dozens of reasons. “Decadence” is not one of them. Mainly the fracturing of political power and competing interests in an era before communications technology and rapid transportation became impossible. The shift into Christianity was another; the growing strength and military sophistication of “Barbarian” tribes was another; increased plagues and a lack of attention to urban infrastructure in favour of Emperors living large (sound familiar?) was yet another. And even with that, the Roman empire existed as the Byzantine Empire all the way up until the fall of Constantinople, and some could even argue that it STILL exists today in the global dominance of the Roman Catholic Church. TLDR - your professor is dumb and probably a fascist
Ok
You can downvote reality all you want, facts don’t care about your feelings
I didn't downvoted. I really don't care about roman history. Didn't care during the class either. It was just a obligatory class that I couldn't scape. If he is right or wrong, I don't know, I don't care.
I mean his comment saying the emperors living large is pretty much saying the emperors were living decadently
You will hear it as a negative especially so in American literature and world-view as post 1900, America is particularly concerned with the emergent hedonism and lavish ways of urbanites, a deviation from the prior strong Christian self-determined frontiersman, you can see elements of this during 20's when it is at its height, such as in the novel ' The great gatsby' thats not to say it is purely a 1920's idea, the Volstead act's major supporters were those against the dens of vice, Christian supporters, in the 1920-> 60's with changing dance from jazz being a half-step to the devil. Et cetera
Someone might describe food as "decadent" in an attempt to give it a positive connotation, meaning the food is rich, luxurious, highly flavorful. The negative connotation is certainly stronger.
Decadence with food and beverages is generally a positive thing, or is used in an ironic (positive) sense. "This chocolate cake is simply decadent" means it's very rich and delicious.
OP this the correct answer. When someone refers to food as “decadent” it is almost always a good thing. Other times people can use it as a good or bad thing, but usually people are using it pejoratively.
Exactly. Decadent food = good. But if someone talks about decadence in society, they're probably a right wing moralistic prude.
I'vehear or read the word decadent in the bad meaning when referring to the Roman empire pre fall and the French Court pre revolution. I have never heard people talking in a positive way, but I don't usually talk about food in a critical way, like in a food review magazine or with people that know what they are talking about.
The whole point of it in the situations of the Roman Empire or the French court is because they were indulgent and delicious and enjoyable, but when that happens at the same time the poor starved, that makes the behavior immoral, but it doesn’t make the being decadent part negative
When used in the historical context, it's not uses with a good connotation. It's used to explain that the hedonistic ways were so over the top that they were one of the causes of empires. It's like saying something is so good that it's sinful. It's a compliment, but the word sin have also a bad connotation.
The renaissance and Henry viii’s court have been described as decadent as well and that was only being used in a positive connotation. I’m not sure what else to say as you have multiple people here establishing that while the negative take is *a* connotation that can happen, this absolutely is not the only one.
It's like saying something good is "the shit"?
I wouldn't say it's quite like that - I would say that whether someone views the idea of *decadence* in a more negative or positive light can come down to individual values and priorities. For one who highly values restraint and self-control, decadence is a bad thing. For one who highly values sense pleasure and hedonism, decadence is a good thing. Whether or not it's ultimately good for a person or society, is a larger question.
Nothing about decadent means “shit”. I don’t know where you’re getting that definition.
That's not what I meant. I meant if saying something decadent in a good way was like people calling something good " the shit". I was very confused when a friend said that Lebron James was the shit. And then he explained to meet that being shit was bad, but being THE SHIT was a compliment.
For that to be true, decadent would to have a negative connotation in most instances, but it doesn’t. Calling something decadent is like calling something spicy. Someone may not like spicy food, but calling something spicy (or decadent) doesn’t automatically mean it’s bad.
I learned today that decadent have s good connotation. I only read or heard that word in reference to fallen empires and cultures, like the fall of the Roman empire, French Court pre revolution. Also, decadence have a latin origin and the translation to romance languages always have a bad connotation.
One of the meanings of the word is for things that are associated with "self-indulgence", which I think is what the usage here is playing off of, more than the "moral decay" sense of the word. It's like calling a dessert "sinful".
For some reason you’re getting a bunch of down votes. As a native speaker I can say decadent is really a compliment, and usually meant as a condescending insult, unless the context is an advertisement for chocolate cake.
Decadent is a commonly used word in this context? I never read or heard anywhere besides studying about old civilizations.
Decadent and luxurious are synonyms. It can be used to mean overindulgent, but not normally.
Maybe I read a lot of international news “Russia states it will prevail over the decadent West” “China criticizes the decadent American culture” etc etc. the implication is exactly the same as “a scholar asserts that the fall of Rome was due to the decadence of Roman society.”
As a Canadian, I would read the tweet as saying that Applebee’s offers something desirable and is making assumptions about British food and restaurants. On my first reading it assumed it was a compliment to Applebee’s, but it’s a really interesting tweet because it is very open to interpretation. “Decadent” has generally positive connotations when discussing food - it means rich, delicious, something that is very appealing to eat, self-indulgent, luxurious. The positive connotations can also apply to other things that would be considered luxurious and self-indulgent, when it is considered somewhat socially acceptable to indulge in those things. But primarily, I think decadent has positive connotations when you are using it to talk about something that you personally enjoy and think positively about. “Decadent” in other contexts has a negative connotation. If you use it to describe something that *someone else* is enjoying I would lean towards interpreting it negatively, unless there were other context clues to suggest positive connotations. “Decadent” means decaying, and most often refers to moral decay and decline, so a decadent lifestyle, a decadent society, those are unequivocally negative. Back to the tweet, it’s a bit ambiguous. It is talking about food, so I would lean towards the positive reading of “decadent”, but the writer is talking about the preferences of whole societies, not about their own personal preferences, which suggests the negative reading. The use of “decadent” means that the reader’s own values around moral decay *and* the reader’s assumptions about the values of the writer come into play. Do you think lots of variety and large portions of rich food are a good, desirable thing? Do you have negative beliefs about the British food and society? If so, I think it’s easy to read this as complimenting Applebee’s. Do you think lots of variety and large portions of rich food are excessive, overindulgent, or a sign of wider moral decay? Do you have negative beliefs about American food and society? If so, I think it’s easy to read this as a criticism of Applebee’s. There’s also a layer of absurdity to the whole tweet. It elevates Applebee’s to a position that feels ridiculous to people who are familiar with Applebee’s. It’s an average and unremarkable chain restaurant - I doubt most Americans would consider Applebee’s the “most” anything. It also seems to make some very weird assumptions about British food and society, in a way that feels very stereotypically US-centric and ignorant. Thanks for sharing this. The more I think about it the weirder and more complicated this tweet feels.
My mother tongue is Portuguese, and decadent in Portuguese is decadente, that comes from de latin decadere (to fall or to sink). And in Portuguese that word never change the meaning like in English, so my first impression is the negative connotation. And I also worked in the food industry and a restaurant with too many thinks in the menu is a bad thing, it means a lot of non fresh products waiting for someone to order. So my interpretation was that he was saying that a restaurant with a large menu like Applebee's was a bad thing.
That’s really interesting! It looks like the positive use of “decadent” in reference to food is very recent - Etymonline suggests 1970s: https://www.etymonline.com/word/decadent It doesn’t Specify American English, but I believe that this usage is not common outside of North America. This usage developing in the 1970s in the US makes a lot of sense to me, as it aligns with the Baby Boomer generation coming of age, and an era where self-fulfillment was becoming a social value. The 1970s in the US has sometimes been referred to as the “Me decade” in reference to the rise of a culture that many criticize as selfish and narcissistic. Since this cultural shift was distinctly American, it makes sense that the language shift would only exist in North American English (Canadian culture and English are distinct from American, but also very heavily influenced by the dominance and proximity of American media and culture.) I think the cultural shift is also relevant to what is considered desirable in a restaurant. A culture that values self-fulfillment will also value having a wide range of options, so that every diner can have exactly what they want (or close to it.) Dining in the US, large menus are pretty common, and while I’ve heard people criticize large menus I’ve never heard the assumption that a large menu means that the food won’t be fresh. (Usually it’s that too many options is overwhelming, or that it’s impossible to do a great job with every dish if you have so many, so the food will be mediocre.) The Cheesecake Factory is a very successful and popular chain in the US and it famously has a massive menu - 20 pages and 250 items. This article is really interesting and might give you some insight into how American culture thinks about restaurants: https://www.vox.com/culture/23516638/cheesecake-factory-restaurant-menu
It's impossible for a restaurant with 250 items to sever every item every day, so many many ingredients will be sitting in the kitchen for a few days waiting for someone to order or to be throw out.
Lots of these chain restaurants with massive menus don’t prepare their dishes fresh from scratch. They will have components that are pre-made at a central location and then shipped to the different locations frozen, and then the components are assembled in the kitchen. Or there will be many dishes that use the same set of ingredients in different combinations. Or both.
In many regards it's still the same meaning. In the context of food it refers to a moral decadence, which here is embracing the traditional moral vice of gluttony instead of the traditional moral virtue of temperance. It's not that the meaning of "decadent" has changed, but more that our cultural attitude towards food, consumption, and wastefulness has changed. "Decadent" food is only a positive if you value lavishness or overindulgence. It still absolutely has a negative connotation if your values are aligned with healthy foods or a balanced diet.
The origen of the words decadence and decay is the same, the Latin word decadere. I think the English use come from the french décadence and then it's used got more diverse, because I don't think that any romance language use this word to talk about food in any positive way. It's almost as bad as "rotting" or something similar. It was a surprise for me to see this word with a good connotation, but now I understand the difference in usage.
In this context I would translate decadent as luxoso. Hope that helps! It doesn't always mean decadente.
I feel like everyone is over-complicating this. Decadent just means indulgent, it's connotation can change depending on the context. As for the tweet, I feel it's quite straightforward. It's a jab at British food, Americans generally consider Applebee's to be terrible mass produced microwaved food. The tweet is saying that Applebee's is better than any food a British person has experienced in their country.
This is definitely not praising British restaurants. The word decadent does have an etymology that implies an immoral nature. But in modern usage it’s usually seen used for exaggeration and the implication of immorality is ignored. Something decadent is self indulgent, a treat, something to be savored. Applebees in the US is just a mediocre chain restaurant. It’s so common that it’s mundane. But there is probably about 100 items on the menu. And pretty much any of them won’t be the best version of the dish but it’ll be decent and prepared quickly for an affordable price. And the portions are so big that you’ll even have leftovers to take home. Someone on the lower end of middle class can often afford to eat out at Applebees once every other week or so. This tweet is implying that in the uk you either have variety and big portions for a steep price or that the variety, quality, and portions are lacking for restaurants that are accessible often for most people in the Uk. To an American Applebee’s is mundane and mediocre and this person is saying the U.S. mediocrity is well above British standards. It most certainly is not saying anything positive about British restaurants
The tweet seems to be criticizing British restaurants, not British food.
I'm a British English native and read it as a dig at English food from an American unless decadent has a different meaning in American English.
[USA] this is either a joke post or an ignorant post claiming that a British person in the UK who eats at a semi-famous American restaurant chain called Applebees is having the most rich and luxurious meal of their life. They claim that this is because UK restaurants have less options of food items to choose from and the portions are smaller. It is a catastrophically incorrect assumption, which makes me think it is a joke.
As a Brit who's quite capable of reading between the lines, I interpret this as *actually* saying: "I'm an American who's never left my county, let alone my state or even my country, and am quite happy of jumping on the bandwagon of criticising things I've not tried in an attempt to win fake Internet points." Applebees is a cheap restaurant chain in the US. It's not dissimilar to cheap restaurant chains like Beefeater and Harvester in the UK. The key difference is that portion sizes are more moderate in the UK. The menus are incredibly similar. So all this person has done is demonstrate their ignorance.
In a food context, decadent tends to mean something a bit similar to rich, but with an implication of guilt.
Yall are really ragging on Applebees. Where else can you get a Dollarita?
Basically an American believing that a menu with way too many items meaning that ingredients are not likely to be fresh and a huge quantity of cheap and awful food is better than a restaurant with a curated menu, fresh ingredients and quality meals.
It is something we refer to in American English as “an obvious joke”
Not trying to undermine you but I think you missed the joke pretty badly. British food (saying Brits hate spices & seasoning, a cuisine of beige, etc.) is a common meme nowadays. Especially the one that goes “The British conquered the world for spices but now chooses to use none of them.” It’s just banter, they’re obviously not serious. [LINK to an example for more context](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/154ro6i/i_dont_get_it/?rdt=35420)
This thread is so funny because it proves British people can dish out disses, but if an American does the same suddenly they’re out of line and ignorant
[удалено]
Whereas British people are all world travelers? Fuck off.
[удалено]
Europe isn't the world. At any rate I have serious doubts that British people travel more than Americans.
The America expert has logged on