I think that ubiquity of misuse can cause a typeface to be bad in any context. It is impossible to see typefaces like Sand and Curlz in almost any context without naturally making the connection with flyers for barbeques and things like that.

What I'm more interested in is whether typefaces that are not novelty faces but are still considered bad, like Arial, have any sort of effective use.

It is too easy for people to bond by attacking an easy target. Ever hear old men hate on Hillary? People can be on the same team if they can identify a common enemy. It is just a social nervousness.

Everything is a tool. The second something is perceived as useless or wrong it gains some power. That power can be useful. Our industry tends to be very derivative, with set concepts of what is good. If you can cut against the grain and make something undeniable in its appeal that is off trend, you may find you have created a new trend.

Avante Garde is a good example of a typeface that was verboten when I was in school, but recently found a revival by those who discovered its excellent alternates and unique ligatures set. It went from being a bad substitute for Futura, to being a dynamic display face (as was intended). It's now a trendy typeface that pops up all over. I'm not sure that Papyrus will ever get to that point, but who knows? Sometimes it takes one clever designer to help the rest of us to see with unbiased eyes. Another example is Dave Eggers' McSweeney's using Times New Roman on its cover in an intriguingly complex design. TNR isn't bad, just often abused and as common as dirt. And now that design aesthetic has been reproduced by other designers.