[Pfhreak]

> Why are the Kardashians the one thing in our society that is not allowed to be criticized?

They aren't, and I didn't say that. You can criticize the Kardashians all you want. Saying, effectively, "Kardashians are like these ant parasites, amirite guys?" isn't critique.

> I doubt you'd apply your comment toward your favorite political pet causes.

I think you dramatically underestimate how much I enjoy being critical of things I support, in fact much, much more so than things I oppose. Things I oppose I find easy to not discuss and write off/move past, generally.

> This whole "let people enjoy things" is cynical, usually coming from the types of people who don't let anyone enjoy anything unless it is degenerate and mind-rotting.

Let people enjoy things comes from a space of "We're all from different backgrounds, who are you to be the arbiter of what's fun?" Whether you are a furry or a larper or a reality tv show junkie or a gun nut.... who the fuck am I to tell you that you can't enjoy that? Obviously, there are limits when other people are involved (like, no, it's not an endorsement of enjoying murdering people), but I'm not out here trying to say that only lowest common denominator things are allowed.

[shkkmo]

You misinterpreted the analogy. The Kardashians aren't the parasites in the ants, they are the ants with the parasites in them.

The implication is that the Karashians sit around recieving undue attention and prosperity while providing nothing in return to their sociey.

Regardless of whether you agree with that assessment, it does qualify as critique and not just name calling.

[Pfhreak]

Yeah, I understood the analogy just fine, thanks. Obviously the parent was drawing a parallel between the pampered do nothing ants and the Kardashians.

But critique implies an analysis and some thought, not just a pithy one liner.