@gorillapaws You seem to have missed a lot of context. Your first response to me was about a comment I made to @fluthernutter, which was in turn about a comment made by @zenvelo. This part of the discussion was about a particular reason one might dislike the font (i.e., how some people have used it), and I was questioning whether it made sense to blame a font for how it is used. There might be other reasons to dislike it, but that’s not what this part of the discussion was about. Therefore, talking about kerning and so forth is entirely irrelevant to this part of the discussion (which is the part you injected yourself into when you made your first response to me).
As for there being no good reasons to use the font, I think that’s flatly wrong. Here’s the best possible reason: some people like it. Not everything that people write is for public consumption, so anyone who likes it has no reason to care about anything other than their personal preference when writing things for themselves. This is not necessarily the only time when it might be acceptable, but you only need one case to disprove an absolute.
I also think it is mistaken to think that any font can be objectively bad. Even if we grant the claim about readability, readability is a preference. It only seems otherwise because it is an assumed goal (one taken up by the “science” portion of typography) rather than an explicit one. Furthermore, this preference is contextual as there may be times when a lack of readability is contextually desirable (mystery games come to mind). It’s one thing to dislike Comic Sans and not use it. It’s another to tell people they are wrong for liking it and using it. All aesthetic judgments are subjective. But people convince themselves that their judgments are better by imposing their preferences and concerns onto others.