Right.
And god forbid one dares take the piss out of the other for a larf.
Alcoholic drink. It’s bad for you. But it’s highly romanticized. Here comes cognitive dissonance.
Some “harmless” legal activities have major ripple effects.
With gambling, even if you disregard the millions (in the U.S. alone) who have gambling addiction or serious problem gambling behavior, there’s deliberate exploitation of vulnerable groups like the elderly targeted by casinos, funding of organized crime which controls some online sports books, and increasing harassment of athletes who don’t perform up to gamblers’ expectations.
Re the latter: the latest manifestation is death threats against Ohio State football coaches and players. Some of that relates to simple loony fandom, but a sizable chunk of such behavior is related to bettors angry that someone dropped a pass or missed a field goal and should die for their transgressions.
Sick stuff.
That one depends entirely if they are in on the joke or not. If you just do it to a random person who doesn’t know you’re joking, it’s being an ass.
They don’t know you’re not serious, because lots of people are actually that big of an asshole.
There is a condo element, but the vast majority of the neighborhood is townhouses and single family homes.
Sure, but the larger argument is really at what point do the effects on the minority and the ripple effects outweigh the rights of the majority to do whatever it is that is in question.
It’s the same question, whether it’s gambling, guns, alcohol, cocaine, or just about anything that’s dangerous, addictive, or that can affect others. Is it ok to take away the rights of a large number because a small number can’t responsibly handle it? How bad should it be before that happens?
The problem is there’s not a well defined or agreed upon threshold or even some kind of rubric for determining these sorts of things. And to some extent, this is one of the larger political questions we face.
The phrase comes from a webcomic. One character is watching sports on TV. The other character has a manic grin and starts in on him about “What’s the sportsball doing? Tell me about the stupid sports!” The first one pinches the second one’s mouth shut and says, “Shh. Let people enjoy things.”
There’s some important context here:
-
This isn’t about legitimate, thoughtful criticism. It’s about mockery.
-
The first character isn’t inviting a conversation in which the subject will be critiqued. The second character is being an asshole.
-
The first character’s enjoyment doesn’t harm him, or the second character. (I mean, you can stretch by talking about tax breaks for sports teams, I guess, but that’s not what the second character is on about).
So, no: this isn’t an argument about “let people enjoy fentanyl.” And this isn’t an argument about “don’t you dare critique the thing I’m a fan of”. I suppose that some people might turn it into that, and if they do, I agree that that’s dumb. But pointing out that there’s a place for legitimate critique misses the very real dynamic where someone’s just being a sneering asshole and yucking someone else’s yum for no good reason.
If you’ve never encountered that dynamic, either you’re very lucky, or you should let people enjoy things.
Complaining is my right. (And others have the right to ignore or dislike my complaints.)
I complain about consumer products when the majority of the market does not conform to my tastes. I don’t like it when quality is a niche that I have to hunt for. Is it a big deal? No, but it’s annoying. It’s cathartic when someone else who is pushing the thing I don’t like gets annoyed by my complaint and feels a bit of what I’m feeling.
I just want to point out that the term “sportsball” as commonly used on the internet, is pretty condescending in its own right, and is used for what you describe by design. It’s what the nerds in high school and college might have said because they were angry about being picked last.
Heh - puts me in mind of this:
I’ve heard it used to make fun of the fans–but I’ve also heard it used to make fun of the speaker. It’s a sheepish, wry acknowledgment that the speaker is completely ignorant on a subject that they really should know a little more about.
But yeah, when used to belittle fans, it’s an asshole move.
Or, you know, said by them because the stupid, losing record football team took their class and lab fees and used them to build a new stadium for the football team to be even bigger turds in.
The thread title reminds me of this couple I had met, acquaintances of my partner. Younger but fun, active and interesting. Conversation was flowing, it veered towards college memories and roommates and then my jaw dropped. This lovely couple was telling anecdotes of how they made their roommates lives miserable and laughed about it. Truly hair raising shit, possibly injurious definitely terrifying. Duct taping a naked guy firmly and completely to a chair and sending them off in a high rise elevator, and other nefarious shit. Just having a belly laugh about it, and when they turned to me and said what about you, what pranks have you pulled? All I could say was thats fucked up and I find it shocking that you’re laughing about it. What did they say, oh you just have let people enjoy themselves now and then.
Nope not interested anymore not invited back.
I attended the wedding of a guy I knew once. After the ceremony, the bride told me the “hilarious” story about the time her friend raped a girl.
I don’t see those people any more.
Meh, It is also a catch-all term to cover professional sports- which have certainly have gotten out of hand. Watching sports is fine, it’s just another hobby. But the millions of taxpayer dollars, the gambling that gets out of control, etc- those are legit complaints.
I remember when all the cool kids were imitating Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park by asking “Why would I want to pay to applaud grown men hitting balls with sticks?”
You’re referring to pranks specifically but I think mean spiritedness is something a person (and society overall) shouldn’t engage in or enjoy. I often wonder whether the 2000s or today is worse as far as mean spiritedness in the US goes and that’s saying a lot in light of how bad the 2000s were.
If what you mean by “pushing the thing I don’t like” is “marketing or selling the thing I don’t like”, then absolutely, complain away. The complaints of dissatisfied consumers or potential consumers are valuable feedback and it’s part of a marketer’s or seller’s job to receive them! If you’re taking a bit of your frustration out on the marketer by complaining more aggressively, oh well, it’s still part of their job to take that feedback.
But if all you mean by “pushing the thing I don’t like” is “expressing personal appreciation or satisfaction about the thing I don’t like”, then… sure, it’s still possible to use that as the starting-point of a civil constructive conversation with the satisfied person about why they like the thing, why you consider the thing less satisfactory, what’s the best way to determine quality criteria for the thing, etc.
However, if you’re deliberately trying to annoy the satisfied person with your complaints because it makes you feel better to spread your own annoyance around to others… well, you obviously still have the right to do that, but ISTM it wouldn’t really count as seeking a civil constructive conversation.
Seems like they were the ones who wouldn’t let people enjoy things - things like “not getting pranked”.
Those fun loving pranksters sure like to enjoy themselves inflicting trauma on others.
Prank was the term they used as if it absolved them from the seriousness of their actions. I guess some people would find it funny, and they seemed to think the duct taped naked guy deserved it for being weird and smelly.