Share some of your chronically online takes that you have seen. For me, one that I’ve seen was someone being called a “queerbaiter” by some idiot because they thought they were cis before and then discovered that they were actually trans.
3 Likes
Anyone who takes criticism towards any piece of media as a personal attack
8 Likes
Literally seen people get called homophobic for liking Steve universe because it wasn’t their “ideal” representation of gay people. It wasn’t even offensive or anything. People just act like any piece of media they dislike must be bad or automatically problematic.
1 Like
Claiming to be offended on someone else’s behalf without even knowing who they are.
7 Likes
Majority of the internet
3 Likes
I don’t understand this topic’s title.
I feel old.
6 Likes
god that is the most true thing in this day and age. including with just jokes. it’s literally the most circle jerking self back pat to ever exist.
3 Likes
It means someone that spends so much time on the internet that they have such a distorted reality and come up with shitty takes as a result and have no communication abilities with talking about certain social issues or political issues. For example, the person I listed.
3 Likes
if there is another thing i can say is someone who claims to hate Nazism and other things yet have a sketchy past while proclaiming to be against racism. the biggest form of savior syndrome in existence. not to mention just being shitty people in general using it as a means to seem like a good person.
2 Likes
I’ve seen performative activism a lot on social media and it’s always the worst shit because it often feels so infantilizing. Like you said, it’s that savior syndrome.
2 Likes
Just realised how political and stuff this is gonna get, i do believe its one of the rules that we ain’t to mention that stuff.
1 Like
mm. overall i think it could be fine if it’s kept peaceful. though that’s up to the higher ups of the server.
Better wording might be:
“What’s one of the most chronically bad takes you’ve seen online?”
As for what I’ve seen? There are too many to say.
1 Like
I just wish some people wouldn’t say that while being racist themselves because it gives the illusion of them being a good or decent person when they aren’t.
1 Like
guess what i mean is what @unfunnyguy just said
people like that i see as filthy opportunists trying to give an illusion they’re a good person while being the biggest piece of shit around.
1 Like
I swear every time someone wants to point out somebody is bad it is always Nazism because it already carries a stigmatised bias and thus makes the entire point redundant.
If you want to say something is bad, you can. But don’t bring up irrelevant things such as Nazism to paint yourself as something good - it doesn’t. It’s not that hard to stay pertinent to what you want to say.
They come from a discourse where if you call someone a Nazi despite it never being brought up it somehow automatically makes you the good guy.
I don’t like Nazis as much as the next guy, and I’m all for resenting them. But you can’t call someone that just because you don’t agree with somebody. It just doesn’t make sense regarding whatever point you want to say by using an undeniably bad faith ideology to insult people.
1 Like
People attacking (or defending) film and television almost solely because a particular work has one or more female leads.
People attacking (or defending) film and television almost solely because a particular work has one or more person of color in it.
Two people in particular stand out for me here, for the same film (The Woman King). One’s (positive) review felt the need to include the line, “yes, it’s woman led but there a number of other side characters with interesting plots to follow…” Another’s (negative) review claimed that films like this shouldn’t exist to make white people feel bad because, “separate but equal used to be the natural (implied better) state of the world”.
On that note, I think the following review (neutral (I think?), from the same movie) perfectly sums up the state of the internet in the so-called “Age of Information”: “I’m by no means a historian, and have no knowledge of the history detailed in the film, but this film is presenting revisionist history of whatever may have actually happened.” Um, wut?
3 Likes
any examples of that happening that you can share?
Oh, for sure! And it’s somehow nothing compared to the guy I got into a Twitter war with a few weeks ago. In an argument that had nothing at all to do with it, he just casually defends the three fifths compromise and, by implication, slavery and uses them completely unironically to defend his point like it was 1822 not 2022. I stopped engaging with him after that.
However, I was more trying to highlight how, at best, too many audience reviews nowadays have little to do with the work at hand and, at worst, are racist and/or sexist even in defense. The latter review is more overtly ugly but the former shouldn’t have felt the need to defend the existence of women. I might not have been clear enough in my OP so, I apologize and hope this clears that up a little. 
1 Like