>>113620837Oh, I apologize. Could you explain to me how making a statement that disabled people are bad and then building a joke around it is qualitatively different from just making the statement?
My faulty logic goes like this:
Suppose for the sake of argument, we were discussing a comic book. (lets assume we're on a website where it's normal for people to do that). And some story beat I don't like happens, so I say "Heh. That was so bad I was expecting Mephisto to pop up and erase somebody's marriage" or "That was so out of character I'll bet John Michael Bendis wrote it" or "That made almost as much sense as Spider-Man selling his marriage to the devil".
In my apparently malfunctioning brain, that's no different from saying "One More Day is a terrible comic book and nobody should read it"? I mean, that wouldn't be objectionable because obviously OMD is a bad comic book and clearly nobody should read it. But you can't say it's just a joke and I am therefor not actually shitting on One More Day. The whole point of the joke is that One More Day is bad. If it isn't bad, then there is no joke. The only way that joke still works is if we're talking about a GOOD comic book an I'm being sarcastic, and that's obviously not what's happening with a Bixby joke. Nobody likes Bixby. Even Samsung has shut up about Bixby.
So from my incorrect perspective, this is actually worse than just saying "disabled people are bad". It's saying "disabled people are bad and we all agree on that. We can take it as rote that disabled people are bad." In a world where disability benefits are a thing that exists, that's seems to my addled brain like a political prescription.
Since you have a better handle on this issue, would you take a moment to apply your 300 IQ and explain where I've gone wrong? Please use small words.
