|
|
|
|
|
|
by bchalala
3281 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.