Oh no! Some people, serving a corporation, who would leverage someone's work in their business processes to a profit without compensating the author of the work, have an opinion, which they take very seriously, on the manner in which the author of the work should license the free work so that they can legally use that free work in the manner l that works best for them!?!?! :O

Ya'll get so lost in the process of exploitation that you forget you're actually exploiting people.

Perhaps they would do well to realize that if someone uses a "joke licence" they are implicitly stating that the code in question, according to their personal standards, probably isn't suitable for production environments. In some offices however, this same code might be viewed as worth trying to build a blockchain currency system with. Coughcough*

Programmers write things all the time that they wouldn't inflict on anyone else. They're written to get a one-time thing done and no more than that, however, they do sometimes realize that someone else might be facing that very same one-time problem, so there's no harm in at least letting other people play with said abomination.

That's why I find the WTFPL a bit misleading, I tend to prefer the official french version of it (LPRAB -> http://sam.zoy.org/lprab/) ; the main point of this one is the "j’en ai RIEN À BRANLER." part, i.e, "I don't care at all".

It leaves little room to potential ambiguities regarding whether or not you should expect the author to care about concerns like, looking like a kid.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a kid. The legality of the license and the quality of the code matters, not the childishness.