I agree with you, and it is at a deeper level that I rarely touch upon myself.
It can be hard to challenge that complacency, even with the anti-sociality characteristics in mind, because at some level I do understand that people are tired, worn out, demoralized, and just want to work and rest and have entertainment in between (or sometimes during), and that such entertainment may have such a viscerally felt importance that it's seen as a personal offense, or even a threat, when that entertainment is criticized.
You may have right of it that it's the antisociality that could be the fairly punished offense of it. Not "Gambo sucks, so you're banned for being a Gambo fan" but "calling people mentally ill and concern trolling them about their mental health or lack thereof because they criticized Gambo is a punishable offense" may work.
In general if I criticize some treat I do it because I think something in the messaging or the ideological implications is potentially harmful. I rarely criticize the consumers directly first (except :my-hero: cultists, fuck 'em).
I called the British specific version of it a treat, in particular the extraordinary rage from one user because of my tongue in cheek remark that the British plundered the world's local cuisines yet were kind of notorious for their stolen versions of it being bland or covered in beans or something.
If it was another time and a different argument than that, I don't remember. Besides, I don't think treats as a concept are automatically bad anyway, only how they're identified with or how culture interacts around them in hellworld.
that was me yes
and it wasn't extraordinary rage, as i said in that thread, just exasperation at an american doing the one joke, but with extra ignorance
we are pretty famous for having very good Indian food, as you would expect from somewhere with a large Indian population
deleted by creator
I agree with you, and it is at a deeper level that I rarely touch upon myself.
It can be hard to challenge that complacency, even with the anti-sociality characteristics in mind, because at some level I do understand that people are tired, worn out, demoralized, and just want to work and rest and have entertainment in between (or sometimes during), and that such entertainment may have such a viscerally felt importance that it's seen as a personal offense, or even a threat, when that entertainment is criticized.
You may have right of it that it's the antisociality that could be the fairly punished offense of it. Not "Gambo sucks, so you're banned for being a Gambo fan" but "calling people mentally ill and concern trolling them about their mental health or lack thereof because they criticized Gambo is a punishable offense" may work.
deleted by creator
In general if I criticize some treat I do it because I think something in the messaging or the ideological implications is potentially harmful. I rarely criticize the consumers directly first (except :my-hero: cultists, fuck 'em).
i generally like you, but you once called indian food a "treat" because i pushed back on a take of yours
I called the British specific version of it a treat, in particular the extraordinary rage from one user because of my tongue in cheek remark that the British plundered the world's local cuisines yet were kind of notorious for their stolen versions of it being bland or covered in beans or something.
If it was another time and a different argument than that, I don't remember. Besides, I don't think treats as a concept are automatically bad anyway, only how they're identified with or how culture interacts around them in hellworld.
that was me yes
and it wasn't extraordinary rage, as i said in that thread, just exasperation at an american doing the one joke, but with extra ignorance
we are pretty famous for having very good Indian food, as you would expect from somewhere with a large Indian population
no investigation, no right to speak and all that
and of course you don't respond to this lmao
deleted by creator