[ericflo]

If you read this article and it gave you pleasure, examine those feelings. I find the generally schadenfreudic reaction to be disgusting. These people just wanted to get together to talk about something they enjoy and you don't.

[djur]

It's a wonder that there isn't more sympathy for a group of people who say "have fun staying poor" so often they started using an acronym for it.

[plagiarist]

I think it's funny to see smug people lose money but I don't think it's funny if they are seriously injured and possibly permanently disabled.

[pauselaugh]

it's a fixation on the extremes, no?

the people making jokes like "I'm surprised everyone wasn't wearing sunglasses already, their future is so bright" (ok, it was me, right now) are those who had witnessed some form of the extreme cryptobro asserting anyone not on board is mentally disabled.

i'd assert there's nothing unhealthy or immoral about laughing at the poetry of the stereotypical actor doing a sterotypical action and it paralleling the generalization regarding the trope of the failures of NFTs: "a declared cool reality shifter, but potentially harmless fad meeting physical reality with a literally harmful event."

sociopathic, of course, but to those not considering internet based social media "society" it's in containment

[csomar]

Shouldn't they have double sympathy though. First, for being idiots and second for getting eye damage?

[meepmorp]

If you read this article and immediately wanted to admonish others for what you imagine their reactions to be, examine those feelings.

[cthulha]

HN1: "Let people enjoy whatever they enjoy"

HN2-100: <Enjoys the disastrous hubris when people who oppose regulation discover how unsafe life is without rules which prevent unsafe behaviour>

HN1: "Not like that"

[thepasswordis]

The "regulations" resulted in them going to a party and nearly losing their eyesight. It was implied safe, and it wasn't. How is this not absolutely validating to the entire ethos of strawman you are trying to burn here?