Because Evan Turner has a Twitter account, he has joined the entire internet in posting about Popeyes’ new chicken sandwich, a culinary achievement on par with porterhouse steak and McDonald’s french fries. The author of this post has gotten it twice in this last week, which, as it turns out, is two more times than Turner plans on getting it anytime soon.
It’s not that Turner dislikes Popeyes — extensive Twitter research indicates he has ordered it off of Postmates in the past, and as we all know, you do not order food you don’t like off of a delivery app because delivery fees are absurd. No, Turner posits there’s a more dark and sinister reason behind all the hullabaloo surrounding Popeyes’ latest creation.
The Atlanta Hawks’ new guard addressed the matter on Twitter on Thursday and presented a theory: What if this is all one major distraction, designed by our government to take our attention away from something? And what if, assuming that is true, it is worthwhile to avoid Popeyes and instead eat The Fate of the Furious of chicken sandwiches?
A conspiracy theorist would try to argue that the “Popeyes chicken sandwich” phenomenon was created to distract us from something that the government is doing…I’m goin to stick with shake shack until things get sorted out
— Evan Turner (@thekidet) August 22, 2019
Working against Turner is that our government is in the midst of a news cycle about buying Greenland, so it is hard to imagine that the president wouldn’t have called into Fox and Friends by now and revealed the secret plan involving Popeyes if that were actually happening. Now, in fairness to Turner, none of us are capable of proving him wrong or right. And in the event the government wanted to distract Americans’ attention away from something else, appealing to two of their most basic instincts — the need to eat, and the desire to eat things that taste good — is certainly a way to do that.
One of the major moments in the creation of this country stemmed from something with caloric value, when the Sons of Liberty, in a revolt against the Tea Act, dumped tea into a harbor as part of the Boston Tea Party. Could the government have turned to that moment 246 years later and decided that this script could be turned on its head? Instead of using food/drink to protest an oppressor, the oppressor could use food/drink as a red herring to take the attention away from a sinister plot that involves concentrating power among the most powerful? And even worse, is Popeyes in on it, serving up a sandwich so good that it is merely a tool by the government to intensify the ignorance of the masses? Are you still reading this post even though it went off the deep end like 100 words ago? Why?
To get to the bottom of this, I promise that I will go to a again Popeyes sometime soon and get the sandwich (assuming is not sold out, of course) and investigate it throughly for any proof that something is amiss. This is for journalism, and not because it is tasty.
