my personal definition of it is this: a non-essential (or classified essential, but over-the-top, exotic, extravagant, and/or inefficient for the purposes of fulfilling human need) commodity that has an unfortunate capital-T Tendency (as in, the TPRF in which it applies without fail) of being invoked in political discussions, almost always making said discussions objectively worse.

A sub-classification of treats, which I wish more people would directly invoke instead of using the broader term since it's funnier to me, is the 'adventures': escapist, less-than-nuanced fantasies that are, without fail, invoked by people to explain complex political issues.

Any additions? Disagreements? we must synthesize this before it becomes the new tankie in watered-down 'thing i dislike' applicability.

  • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
    ·
    vor 3 Jahren

    A term used to patronize people for liking the stuff you don't. None of you are free of treat fetishism. It's infantilizing and reductive. Our pointless first world 'treats' aren't the fuck king problem, it's the fact that SO much of the world works their bodies to the bone for nothing to provide us these treats and they get none themselves. We should be making more treats and eating less ourselves, but treats themselves, are a good thing. Treats just means surplus prosperity

    • UlyssesT
      ·
      vor 2 Tagen

      deleted by creator

      • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
        ·
        vor 3 Jahren

        Actually got to use this one IRL "We're all eating from the trash can, bit as a crust punk I know, not all dumpster dives are equally bountiful "