That's like saying paint isn't necessary for an artist to convey their art. You only want pencil and that's all that should be used.

You're welcome to want text on a website but the website creator is welcome to do as they please. I'd point back to my origin example: a vegetarian is fine excluding beef from their diet but no one should have to listen to them blather about it.

More like I want to see a painting at a traveling exhibit, and I'm not allowed inside the gallery where it is being held unless I agree to sit through a 2 hour "behind the art" video first.

The website creator is welcome to do as they please, but there is such as a thing as abusing one's audience.

Your analogy is not apt. The vegetarian is being served beef even though they ordered a vegetarian entree from the waiter. They get the beef whether they want it or not. They can't get the kitchen to give them the meal they want without also giving them beef. The cooks are being intentionally provocative to their vegetarian guests. They are certainly able to do so in their own restaurant, but it is a dick move, and nobody should tolerate it, whether they are vegetarian or not.

"The vegetarian is being served beef even though they ordered a vegetarian entree from the waiter."

No - you accessed the website with a personal expectation that the author adhered to your standards. The web is free, developers and designers can do what they want. If it's not what you want then go somewhere else.

Similarly, the vegetarian ordered "the special" and was befuddled when they received a dish with meat. There was no expectation of a vegetarian dish except by the vegetarian.

  V: Can I get a hamburger, but without the beef patty?
  C: No.
  V: What?  Why not?
  C: My artistic vision demands that the meat be present.
  V: (irritated) Fine.  I'll have the hamburger.
  C: Here you go.
  V: <throws meat patty into the trash>
  C: That's not allowed!  Wharrgarbl!

This isn't a matter of "can I substitute lobster tails for the fries?". You can't force someone to consume something they don't want just because that's the way you want it. Clearly, it is well within the capabilities of the cook to make a regular hamburger and not put the meat into it in the first place. Bundling up the entire sandwich as one unit may be more convenient for the cook, but it might be irritating for the customers, and the cook's business is driven by customers.

In the context of this specific website, the cook is grinding the meat up with the vegetables, in such a way that it is needlessly difficult to throw away the meat. It may not be intentionally hostile to vegetarians, but it does show a careless disregard to anyone that doesn't like their sandwich the only way the cook makes it.

You're again creating a strawman's argument. You're pretending the cook is forcing you to eat the food. He's not. Go somewhere else - it's your right.

This whole thread is about people who take that right, to not do something, and prattle on about it like the rest of the world cares. The majority of internet viewers have no idea what javascript is. The majority of those who do use it don't care about what it's doing behind the scenes. The few who do care enough to blacklist/whitelist should be happy they can but shouldn't try to make policy to enforce their wishes and dreams when they go against the norm.

That's what you're doing.

Edit: "It may not be intentionally hostile to vegetarians, but it does show a careless disregard to anyone that doesn't like their sandwich the only way the cook makes it."

Yes, this is very true. But it's also tangential to the conversation. The website _could_ be better about offering no javascript support but they certainly don't have to. You don't have to use their website just like you don't have to talk about how it doesn't work without javascript.

No, they don't have to. But I also don't have to refrain from saying they are lazy jerks that are breaking the Internet.

They are lazy jerks that are breaking the Internet.

And, in case you haven't noticed, I did go somewhere else. Here. This is somewhere else. A site that provides a forum for commentary on articles from other sites that appeal to one's intellectual curiosity. And here, on this site, I am joining my voice with those that routinely complain when a site uses script to display text, and does not display text if the script does not run.

We have building codes for physical structures that mandate certain minimum requirements for creating buildings fit for human occupation. They ensure that people don't cut corners and hurt people through negligence. They ensure that carelessness in building does not result in arbitrarily denying someone in a wheelchair access to areas that would otherwise be usable. The vast majority of people do not need to know how to build a stairway according to code, but they can all benefit from properly-built stairways.

In the same way, in lieu of actual enforceable codes, the majority of Internet consumers can still benefit from some knowledgeable people that scream their heads off every time someone is caught cutting corners. Malicious scripts exist, and the only safe way to access the web is by allowing scripts only from trustworthy, pre-approved sites. The ignorant majority is gradually coming around to block-by-default, after too many times being burned by trusting site-operators, or their ad networks.

If it annoys you that people complain, you are free to use the built-in "downvote" function of this site, the built-in "hide" function, or to write your own client-side script that removes posts containing objectionable keywords. You are not required to engage with the people who annoy you by complaining about badly-built sites in the same manner that vocal vegetarians annoy me.

"No, they don't have to. But I also don't have to refrain from saying they are lazy jerks that are breaking the Internet. They are lazy jerks that are breaking the Internet."

Nope, you don't. But don't pass it off as different from vegetarians vocally espousing and touting their vegetarianism. It's the same thing. Which, coincidentally, was the point of my OP.

"Pointing out lack of no-javascript support is tantamount to starting every dinner conversation with 'I'm a vegetarian'."

Most of this conversation was you arguing your points about javascript whereas I was discussing why it's the same as vegetarians. To which you've agreed " in the same manner that vocal vegetarians"

Careful reading shows that vocal vegetarians apparently annoy both of us, whereas the noscript-complainers only annoy you.

Thus, you have not convinced me that they are the same. I have only admitted that you think they are the same. That's an easy admission, since that's what you've been saying all along.