Expedition: general discussions.

Everyone fits in with Nebk. Read Horizon of Darkness; there was a party of ten there. Ples is a sentient sword, Ment is a time traveler from IRL, Aretz is a sentient piece of slime, I am a blind cave-dwelling succubus, Frag is an undead bard, and so on. I regret that we didn't finish playing...

^ So, from this ignoring of my question, I kind of understood something.
When – well, hypothetically, if the scumbag and vile Donald Trump makes a joke on Twitter, and this causes 20,000 people to leave a comment saying that he is a scumbag, then out of the total number of people on Earth, this turns out to be... An online calculator says 0.00025%. Let's assume that a thousand times fewer people read this Twitter, i.e., the percentage is 0.25%.

But this person is still a scumbag and vile, even if everyone else is annoyed and remains silent.
Let's assume that 10 people read the expedition, and of them... well, let's say one is upset by such super-funny jokes, but he remains silent so as not to diminish either his own dignity or the dignity of the one who made the joke. Or the one who joked. This turns out to be 10% of those who did not unsubscribe.
When recalculated to the number of people upset by Trump, this is 800,000 souls.

So, let's say in your creative group – is something like this considered a "yay," even unintentionally? Or is it acceptable? And if it's more than 10%, how would you feel in the place of the joker? I'm just curious, just within the framework of a theory. Honestly, I didn't read ten pages of arguing; I just had a thought based on the last comment I read. If only what is said matters, and, for example, a hysterical reaction occurs outside the text window of the message, then... well, maybe the one who got upset is unbalanced, and not the one who passively acted aggressively? Otherwise, it's not bullying or aggression if the victim remained silent. I think many will agree with me.