Comment 1:
*"The people defending this guy and even acting as if this is some novel new 'chill dewd' that anon has invented are openly outing themselves as being the exact kind of person the anon is making fun of, while also displaying their mental inability to comprehend what the anon is making fun of him (and, by extension, them) for. The anon has been exposed to perhaps hundreds just like them, all of them the same, all of them lacking self-awareness of the generic mold they came from, and, as such, the anon knows them better than they know themselves.
Their default reaction is condescension, thinking that as long as they can get themselves to assume that they are morally and intellectually superior, that they have, in doing so, earned said superiority. And yet it is only in their ignorance of the truth of what anon is saying that they can find this self-superiority. They act as if Anon's statement has no substance, when in reality it is simply that they do not have the eyes to perceive it.
This man's life is based off of the learned imitation of impressions, and drive mainly for simple pleasures that can be easily repeated. He doesn't think about what things really are, but focuses on their outer appearances, and by extension the comfort these outward impressions provide. He is a shallow man, focusing on these impressions, and pre-packaged concepts delivered to him solely for his pleasure.
His life, internally and externally, is entirely derived from the tapestry of culture around him. He doesn't think outside of his lane or explore anything else. He grows into models made by whatever people, real or fictional, that he happens to have exposed to. He intellectually is a domesticated animal that eats whatever is put into its bowl, and never thinks, metaphorically speaking, about cuisine or spices, much less hunting for meat.
He is a standard-issue man with a standard-issue life desperately fetishizing both of those facts like it's a holy revelation. He drinks standard-issue booze and consumes standard-issue entertainment with his standard-issue friend group and has a vasectomy so he can indefinitely have the same probably-uninteresting sex with his girlfriend who is probably blonde, white, wears a bit of eyeliner and whose true love in life is Starbucks' pumpkin spice latte.
This man is pathetic because he has put no effort into defining himself, but rather into desperately chasing after conformity to whatever the zeitgeist deems right for him. He has no spine, but is, as an individual, molded effortlessly by the culture of the lowest common denominator, and has surrendered his internal personality thereto. He is nothing but what the world around him decides he is. And he is happy with that.
'Success' monetarily, or even in relationships means nothing without a functioning soul.
'Happiness' is worse than meaningless when it's found in a life so repugnant as this."*
Comment 2:
*"Basically, the issue is he's trying to be too 'archetypical' of a kind of archetype that has no inherent value--'sitcom city man', 'nerd', 'semi-responsible adult'--and has little to no identity of his own or apparent thoughts in life.
His interests are also whatever mainstream culture or circumstance has pushed in front of him, IPA because everyone drinks IPA, Richard & Mortimer because everyone knows that's the cool nerbdy show, arcade games because that's what he always wanted to blow an endless supply of quarters on as a kid, etc. This reflects the larger issue of the fact that he isn't consciously living his life, he's just existing as another cog, not just in 'the machine' as a vague concept, but in culture as someone who picks stuff up and regurgitates it, because they have have little to no self-determination and are probably not that smart, or if they are then they turn off their brain for everything except what they know is appreciated, like work and such.
You might not see it as morally objectionable, but it's not really about morals so much as distaste.
Think of it this way: If you genuinely find someone physically ugly, you'll treat them well if you're an alright person but you'll still internally recoil to some degree. That is what the recognition of them as ugly is. You deny to yourself that you think of them as ugly, because you think it's the same as putting them down as a person, but their perceived ugliness undeniably exists in your head, you just don't intentionally let it affect your view of them as an individual--if you're an alright person. Having personal standards for appearance isn't cruel, treating people cruelly is.
However, if you were to draw an ugly caricature of someone, you'd draw them looking how you internally define 'ugliness'. This means that there is inherently a subjective preference that exists in you that is not based in morals, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Now, if that's the case, if people can have this kind of preference for appearance alone and not be immoral, as I believe they can, then there can certainly be this for personality. This is one such case. There is a kind of person that many find ugly in terms of personality. Just like caricatures employ many physical features that are commonly disliked, this post is a caricature comprised of numerous features of personality that are despised, in order to derive humor from contempt at the sum of these specific characteristics alone. Not because they're bad, but because they're disgusting. They're disgusting, and everyone has a right to disgust, even when they can't manufacture a moral reason for it."*
*"The people defending this guy and even acting as if this is some novel new 'chill dewd' that anon has invented are openly outing themselves as being the exact kind of person the anon is making fun of, while also displaying their mental inability to comprehend what the anon is making fun of him (and, by extension, them) for. The anon has been exposed to perhaps hundreds just like them, all of them the same, all of them lacking self-awareness of the generic mold they came from, and, as such, the anon knows them better than they know themselves.
Their default reaction is condescension, thinking that as long as they can get themselves to assume that they are morally and intellectually superior, that they have, in doing so, earned said superiority. And yet it is only in their ignorance of the truth of what anon is saying that they can find this self-superiority. They act as if Anon's statement has no substance, when in reality it is simply that they do not have the eyes to perceive it.
This man's life is based off of the learned imitation of impressions, and drive mainly for simple pleasures that can be easily repeated. He doesn't think about what things really are, but focuses on their outer appearances, and by extension the comfort these outward impressions provide. He is a shallow man, focusing on these impressions, and pre-packaged concepts delivered to him solely for his pleasure.
His life, internally and externally, is entirely derived from the tapestry of culture around him. He doesn't think outside of his lane or explore anything else. He grows into models made by whatever people, real or fictional, that he happens to have exposed to. He intellectually is a domesticated animal that eats whatever is put into its bowl, and never thinks, metaphorically speaking, about cuisine or spices, much less hunting for meat.
He is a standard-issue man with a standard-issue life desperately fetishizing both of those facts like it's a holy revelation. He drinks standard-issue booze and consumes standard-issue entertainment with his standard-issue friend group and has a vasectomy so he can indefinitely have the same probably-uninteresting sex with his girlfriend who is probably blonde, white, wears a bit of eyeliner and whose true love in life is Starbucks' pumpkin spice latte.
This man is pathetic because he has put no effort into defining himself, but rather into desperately chasing after conformity to whatever the zeitgeist deems right for him. He has no spine, but is, as an individual, molded effortlessly by the culture of the lowest common denominator, and has surrendered his internal personality thereto. He is nothing but what the world around him decides he is. And he is happy with that.
'Success' monetarily, or even in relationships means nothing without a functioning soul.
'Happiness' is worse than meaningless when it's found in a life so repugnant as this."*
Comment 2:
*"Basically, the issue is he's trying to be too 'archetypical' of a kind of archetype that has no inherent value--'sitcom city man', 'nerd', 'semi-responsible adult'--and has little to no identity of his own or apparent thoughts in life.
His interests are also whatever mainstream culture or circumstance has pushed in front of him, IPA because everyone drinks IPA, Richard & Mortimer because everyone knows that's the cool nerbdy show, arcade games because that's what he always wanted to blow an endless supply of quarters on as a kid, etc. This reflects the larger issue of the fact that he isn't consciously living his life, he's just existing as another cog, not just in 'the machine' as a vague concept, but in culture as someone who picks stuff up and regurgitates it, because they have have little to no self-determination and are probably not that smart, or if they are then they turn off their brain for everything except what they know is appreciated, like work and such.
You might not see it as morally objectionable, but it's not really about morals so much as distaste.
Think of it this way: If you genuinely find someone physically ugly, you'll treat them well if you're an alright person but you'll still internally recoil to some degree. That is what the recognition of them as ugly is. You deny to yourself that you think of them as ugly, because you think it's the same as putting them down as a person, but their perceived ugliness undeniably exists in your head, you just don't intentionally let it affect your view of them as an individual--if you're an alright person. Having personal standards for appearance isn't cruel, treating people cruelly is.
However, if you were to draw an ugly caricature of someone, you'd draw them looking how you internally define 'ugliness'. This means that there is inherently a subjective preference that exists in you that is not based in morals, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Now, if that's the case, if people can have this kind of preference for appearance alone and not be immoral, as I believe they can, then there can certainly be this for personality. This is one such case. There is a kind of person that many find ugly in terms of personality. Just like caricatures employ many physical features that are commonly disliked, this post is a caricature comprised of numerous features of personality that are despised, in order to derive humor from contempt at the sum of these specific characteristics alone. Not because they're bad, but because they're disgusting. They're disgusting, and everyone has a right to disgust, even when they can't manufacture a moral reason for it."*