Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[None]

You two are arguing/agreeing past each other, cut that out. The stance that a gender reveal party is self-aggrandizing is an okay one to have, since they make the news and explode shit, and the stance that people should be able to have parties for the pleasure of each other is an okay one to have, since they exist without making news and exploding shit. The big explodey ones are sympomatic of the perceived self-aggrandizing culture.

You'd have better luck asking why it's perceived we have this culture instead of asking why it's okay to feel that the self-aggrandized stuff shouldn't happen in light of the mundane stuff.

[Maximum Spin]

The stance that a gender reveal party is self-aggrandizing is an okay one to have

No, I want to be clear, I think this is mean-spirited. That doesn't mean it's not "okay to have", but that's kind of a meaningless statement. Every position is "okay to have". That doesn't change the fact that it's a form of puritanism to sniff at people having fun in a way that "makes the news and explodes shit", because you don't approve of that kind of fun.

Separately, I also think it's wrong to assume all gender-reveal parties are the kind that make the news and explode shit, just because those are the ones you hear about, and to talk about it as though "gender-reveal parties" are the problem instead of "giant expensive parties that make the news and involve explosions, for whatever reason".

[Vector]

I don't mind however many parties people want to have for the sake of each other. I really struggle with the idea of holding parties with a particular person at the focus for whatever reason. As a model of celebration, it fundamentally doesn't make sense to me. And I don't see the focus of a wedding as the marrying couple and their relationship, either.

Making this out to be puritanical is a bit, I don't know, to me it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point. It could be about hedonism, but it isn't. I was not raised to have my business, my life, my successes and failures to be the focus of social life. And I guess another thing is, I actually throw little get togethers pretty much every month. I send people some tea and snacks and we chat on the full moon. It's regular, it's predictable, it happens whether I'm succeeding or failing.

Like, I don't have the same objection about the concept that people would celebrate Saints' Days. I get that queasy feeling thinking about celebrating yourself, the same way that I do looking at that painting of Napoleon's coronation.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't mind however many parties people want to have for the sake of each other. I really struggle with the idea of holding parties with a particular person at the focus for whatever reason. As a model of celebration, it fundamentally doesn't make sense to me. And I don't see the focus of a wedding as the marrying couple and their relationship, either.

Making this out to be puritanical is a bit, I don't know, to me it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point. It could be about hedonism, but it isn't. I was not raised to have my business, my life, my successes and failures to be the focus of social life. And I guess another thing is, I actually throw little get togethers pretty much every month. I send people some tea and snacks and we chat on the full moon. It's regular, it's predictable, it happens whether I'm succeeding or failing.

Like, I don't have the same objection about the concept that people would celebrate Saints' Days. I get that queasy feeling thinking about celebrating yourself, the same way that I do looking at that painting of Napoleon's coronation.

I think that's fine. Being uncomfortable with something because of your personal background is different from saying that other people are wrong to want to do it.

I do want to add, though, that I don't agree that puritanism is necessarily about "hedonism". It just means, to me, the belief that the fun some people are having is morally wrong and they should stop having it. In fact, the very concept that a form of fun can be wrong because it's "self-aggrandizing", which is to say, prideful, and fiscally wasteful is in every way something the Puritans would have agreed with.

[MorleyDev]

I think the concept you're looking for is 'crass'. Like openly belching in public. Not morally wrong, but maybe not a thing to be done in polite society all-the-same.

Elaborate self-aggrandising celebrations aren't morally wrong, but they are a bit crass

(Unless you are literally setting of explosives that shake buildings or start forest fires or...well, you get the idea. Those things are morally wrong xD)

[MrRoboto75]

The most extravagant weddings often lead to the shortest marriages.

[None]

Okay, so your clear point is that you are upset because the stance is mean spirited and feels like it's denying fun to other people, expressed primarily by the expression that the content of the stance is stupid. Nenjin's already resolved that 'what they want and what people will do' is different, but the will to stop is exerted because it was vocalized? The problem herein being the puritanical limitations of a behavior that may be self-aggrandizing by nature or explicitly through extravagance, and in the shadow of the extravagance, the smaller sin is assumed as must be abolished?

Fuck, this is a lot of words to mince to say you disagree about parties, and we're not even disagreeing about the kind of parties Ameripol should probably be disagreeing about.

And frankly, yes, I will sniff at parties that explode shit because clearly the rest of New Hampshire didn't consent to a fucking pseudo earthquake or agree that we needed massive forest fires and casualties as a consequence of the other gender reveal parties. Additionally, you're conflating points because I've already mentioned previously that the mundane parties that don't harm anyone are also not the ones that explode shit and are likely not the self-aggrandizing ones that some HedoPuritaniGgrandizing offense might spring up at. The offense is fundamentally in the excess.

Clear as mud, right?

[Random_Dragon]

The hell'd I miss now? I'm surprised this argument over gender reveal parties seems to have become some sort of back and forth about people being ostentatious over an inane thing, and not about the time one of said parties started the wildfire that helped cement 2020's status as That Fucking Year...

EDIT: Caught up on the last couple pages and yeah, this went in interesting directions while I was away. Whomst the fuck blows up an earthquake-inducing amount of explosives near a baby, and why couldn't this have happened earlier in the year to better remind us we haven't actually escaped 2020?

[voliol]

The hell'd I miss now? I'm surprised this argument over gender reveal parties seems to have become some sort of back and forth about people being ostentatious over an inane thing, and not about the time one of said parties started the wildfire that helped cement 2020's status as That Fucking Year...

EDIT: Caught up on the last couple pages and yeah, this went in interesting directions while I was away. Whomst the fuck blows up an earthquake-inducing amount of explosives near a baby, and why couldn't this have happened earlier in the year to better remind us we haven't actually escaped 2020?

It’s a late reminder. The plottwist in season 2 to remind us that the last few relatively wholesome episodes were all bait, and we’re still watching the same show.
Or something.

[Loud Whispers]

Joe McBro detonates 80lb of high explosives and irreparably damages the literal, physical foundations of his community's infrastructure? You are the villain of this story, Joe. Do you think you are the fucking Riddler? What is wrong with you? Even Brad didn't blast off half of the mountain in a vainglorious orgy of ice and fire. You know he wanted to, but his billion dollar event somehow had more restraint than yours. Just put the kid back before you try to launch it into space on a Cessna.

Inb4 FBI has to add "gender reveal terrorists" to the sinlist

[Maximum Spin]

I think the concept you're looking for is 'crass'. Like openly belching in public. Not morally wrong, but maybe not a thing to be done in polite society all-the-same.

Nah, that's just classism. That, too, isn't necessarily wrong, but it's not the same thing.

Anyway,

Okay, so your clear point is that you are upset because the stance is mean spirited and feels like it's denying fun to other people,

No.

expressed primarily by the expression that the content of the stance is stupid.

No.

Nenjin's already resolved that 'what they want and what people will do' is different, but the will to stop is exerted because it was vocalized?

No.

The problem herein being the puritanical limitations of a behavior that may be self-aggrandizing by nature or explicitly through extravagance, and in the shadow of the extravagance, the smaller sin is assumed as must be abolished?

No.

Additionally, you're conflating points

No.
Man, just leave it. It didn't matter that much in the first place.

[Vector]

Yeah, probably better drop it for temporaries. I am happy today because Biden has apparently finally decided that the American Care Act still applies to trans people.

I am angry today because he didn't sign that shit on day 1 and it's been three fucking months, but, hey. Guess the nerd wants to be reelected.

[anewaname]

The NRA has been denied its claim of bankruptcy, because... they are not bankrupt.

I remember another non-profit organization that wasn't a non-profit.

[hector13]

Testimony included examples of the nonprofit organization's tax-exempt funds being used for wedding expenses, private jet travel and exotic getaways. For example, LaPierre's private travel consultant, who was paid $26,000 a month to cater to him personally, testified about how LaPierre instructed her to alter travel invoices for private jets so as to hide their true destinations.

If you’re being investigated for fraud, probably not the best idea to publicly show how you’re mis-using funds.

Probably also not a good idea to explicitly tell the court you’re wasting their time. Surely they can be punished for filing for bankruptcy when they’re not actually bankrupt, especially if done as a means of avoiding other lawsuits?

[Dunamisdeos]

Salesforce, a major service provider for businesses, has been completely out for more than an hour now. Looks like a national issue.

Our services in many areas have ground at an absolute halt, we deliver everything from food to toys to medicine. A lot of businesses are going to be impacted today.