[throwaway055]

There's definitely rampant classism going on here, but not in the direction you seem to think.

Her blog has an extremely mean-spirited tone, she's downright attacking people.

Her audience is accepting of that because it's directed at people who own large houses, and people who own large houses have money and are successful. In her world, it's acceptable to treat people poorly, as long as they're successful and have money.

If she were applying the same architectural critique to poorly-designed small crappy houses (which exist by the millions), she'd be getting a very, very different reaction.

Her Patreon might not be as successful, let's just put it that way.

I actually think that's a big part of the appeal of the content. Large houses are typically a source of envy, but if you can turn that large house into something to be embarrassed about, the envy dissipates and the viewership gets to feel built-up by the tearing down of the wealthy person.

My standard for how people should be treated doesn't change based on their income level, so to me this just seems mean, I think much less of her, and I don't want to read more of it.

[bchalala]

The very nature of the houses in question are built for the sole purpose of showing some sort of opulence to the viewer. The people who buy these kind of houses look at that sort of opulence and say "yep it's got all that opulence I want" and they buy it. Now that same exact person could potentially buy something with taste, or potentially even design a house. It's not like these people are forced into having a stupid looking house.

On the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to find a lower class person with the financial freedom to buy whichever house they please, and because of that they kind of have to live in houses that are made in a more functional sense of "a place where humans can live."

The blog isn't about tearing down wealthy people, it's about tearing down shitty architecture. She showcases really great architecture as well that obviously isn't affordable.

I don't think your argument has any basis.

[throwaway055]

> The blog isn't about tearing down wealthy people, it's about tearing down shitty architecture. She showcases really great architecture as well that obviously isn't affordable.

It's about tearing down shitty architecture, in a way that directly criticizes the owner's purchase and taste while making endless derogatory assumptions and claims about them, and that's only ok because that owner has money.

She, for example, thinks it's sexist for a bathroom to have two sinks, and a bathroom having two sinks is an appeal to the owner's sexism. You can take this person seriously if you want to, but to act like there's no malice here is a little absurd, and it's clear (at least to me) that that malice is only accepted because it's directed at the wealthy.

And it's totally unwarranted, she doesn't know these people and she doesn't know their political affiliations or their positions on social issues. They're just people who like a house you don't like. I don't see how that's a justification to draw insults on pictures of their house and post it on the internet.