Sharing Good News
Cleric
21

I strictly avoid the second kind. No exceptions to the rule. He could be the cutest guy on earth and I still don’t give him bhaav.

It’s the first kind that has me confused and quite a bit agitated tbh.

You see, I am unable to distinguish between the genuine critics who have pertinent insights, improvements, suggestions to offer and those that simply wait for an opportunity to whine.

What is worse, like a broken clock that shows the correct time twice a day, I seem to have followed these WSHC handles at the point when they were right. Now I am not sure if I agree with them or disagree with them. As in, to an extent they are right, of course. But they are a package deal. Wish i could reject the entire package.

There are a third kind… which only I seem to be having a problem with. These are guys who are mostly right, almost always, but they are abusive and use filthy language which I have a problem with.

Eg. One so called RW, countering an infamous RL said… he’d shit on his GF’s face if he wishes to. That that’s his prerogative and right. And a lot of RW ‘adarsh naaris’ were cheering him.

I could not stand the person.Checked his other tweets. They were of a similar nature, muted him right away. But what about all those anaadarsh-naaris cheering him? 
It was not said with sarcasm or joke. It was him using offensive paraphilia as a show of RW masculinity which distrubed me. And it was said in a vile language.

I may not agree with snowflake feminists, but this is gross. If being a part of RW means, I have sit and listen to this crap, I rather not be any wing.

Now I am not able to decide if I should ban these non-hypocritical/abusive handles for their language or continue to follow them for their insight. These guys make my BP rise.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.