(no subject)

Pulling this phrase out of a post about fucked-up media:

“the stuff that I have a duty not to carelessly expose to a wide audience”

What would that even be? Like, a wide audience isn’t going to want to read Maggot Bait, but that doesn’t mean something bad would happen if they knew it existed.

(no subject)

A very common chain of arguments on Tumblr:

“People would become happier if they watched more X.”

“No, I would not become smarter if I watched more X. I’m smart enough already.”

“If you were smart, you wouldn’t have made this dumb reblog.”

It continues like that, and everyone forgets the original post was about being happy, not smart. Which sucks, because I’m much more interested in the contention about being happy!

Personally, I think it’s false, and there’s no fiction these people could read or watch that would make them happy. Their problems run a lot deeper than media consumption.

(no subject)

Person A: When I do X, [cops/landlords/the government] does Y. They shouldn’t do Y, because that’s [unnecessary/overreacting/exploitative].

Person B: Don’t do X, and they won’t do Y.

This usually turns into a long, ugly argument about whether and how easily you can avoid doing X. But I feel like person B is missing the point, regardless of whether X is avoidable or not.