Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

Its not that their opinions are being challenged. It is that their value system (who they are as a person) is being challenged. People don't like it when their value system is challenged.

This.

That people have so much pride invested in trivia is startling, but it's so.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

And you did it again. That quote has nothing to do with the above either, why is it there?

Because, quite honestly, your statements appear contradictory and I was looking for clarification.

On the one hand, how can you dismiss standards by saying that "art it IS only a matter of opinion" and yet, on the other, portray opposing views as "far fetched arguments"? Either there is some standard on which arguments can be "far fetched" or it "IS only a matter of opinion" and no one argument is more or less valid than the other.

You also made sure to take issue with the "basic logic argument" of "if you disagree with their point, just assume they are not as informed." And yet, when confronted with a question that you, apparently, disagreed with, your reply assumed that the question was somehow misinformed and inherently represented "far fetched argument."

They're your words, mate, which is why I keep quoting them. And based solely on what you've posted, they seem contradictory. It's quite possible that they aren't. But that's why I asked the question in the first place.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

On the one hand, how can you dismiss standards by saying that "art it IS only a matter of opinion" and yet, on the other, portray opposing views as "far fetched arguments"? Either there is some standard on which arguments can be "far fetched" or it "IS only a matter of opinion" and no one argument is more or less valid than the other.

You are mixing the same statements up again although I already explained in my last post how they have nothing to do with each other.

You also made sure to take issue with the "basic logic argument" of "if you disagree with their point, just assume they are not as informed." And yet, when confronted with a question that you, apparently, disagreed with, your reply assumed that the question was somehow misinformed and inherently represented "far fetched argument."

The question was based on a wrong interpretation of two of my statements (see above).





Anyone else find my posts contradictory?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

On the one hand, how can you dismiss standards by saying that "art it IS only a matter of opinion" and yet, on the other, portray opposing views as "far fetched arguments"? Either there is some standard on which arguments can be "far fetched" or it "IS only a matter of opinion" and no one argument is more or less valid than the other.

You are mixing the same statements up again although I already explained in my last post how they have nothing to do with each other.

The question was based on a wrong interpretation of two of my statements (see above).

It's certainly possible that I have misinterpreted your statements. But that's why I asked the question in the first place. So instead of simply repeating your prior explanation, which offered no elaboration on the point whatsoever, why not provide a more cogent clarification on how you can appear to both dismiss standards when discussing films and yet apply them to arguments about films that you deem to be far fetched? How do reconcile those statements so they cannot be misinterpreted?

 

[Gojira]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

I used to read the talk back section on the Ain't It Cool News website. The feedback from the majority of the people is always negative. People just seem to hate everything over there and movies are condemned and ridiculed before they are even made or viewed.

So I just pretty much skip the talk back section.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

I just noticed I totally missed your post Temis.

Tell that to Uwe Boll. If a director intentionally makes crap, the fact that he intended it does not make it less crappy. Or, like George Lucas, if they apparently intended not to make crap, yet did it anyway, their intention does not somehow make the PT any more tolerable.

But I heard rumors about people who actually like Uwe Boll movies, or the Prequels. They like what you consider crap. Are they wrong?

It is a flaw of that movie that, say, Kirk needed to land on just the right place on a huge planet in order to meet Spock quickly enough to keep the story moving along. It's not a huge flaw, because the whole movie wasn't just a string of outrageous, belief-defying coincidences, but it would have been better if they'd found a way to get Kirk from point A to point B without needing to do that.

See, here's the issue. You say it's not a huge flaw. How can you measure the size of a flaw? You can't, because that's only your opinion. For others, it's no flaw at all, or it is the biggest mistake ever made. The writers argue that the timeline heals itself, it's magic. If that's good or bad, you decide. But right or wrong, you can't say that.

On the one hand, how can you dismiss standards by saying that "art it IS only a matter of opinion" and yet, on the other, portray opposing views as "far fetched arguments"? Either there is some standard on which arguments can be "far fetched" or it "IS only a matter of opinion" and no one argument is more or less valid than the other.

You are mixing the same statements up again although I already explained in my last post how they have nothing to do with each other.

The question was based on a wrong interpretation of two of my statements (see above).

It's certainly possible that I have misinterpreted your statements. But that's why I asked the question in the first place. So instead of simply repeating your prior explanation, which offered no elaboration on the point whatsoever, why not provide a more cogent clarification on how you can appear to both dismiss standards when discussing films and yet apply them to arguments about films that you deem to be far fetched? How do reconcile those statements so they cannot be misinterpreted?

Here's where I think you're wrong: one quote is specifiacally about artistic standards. And the other quote is about "some far fetched arguments". You don't even know what arguments I meant. Why do you assume they are arguments about artistic standards?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

@JarodRussell: I think it's crystal clear that you assert that artistic standards are a matter of opinion, and additionally that premises, by reasonable standards, can be objectively "far-fetched". There is no contradiction whatsoever in this position, and moreover it is quite reasonable. However, an example of a fanwank that is in your opinion far-fetched might better illustrate your point.

I see two extremes operating here, summarized in "CliffsNotes form" by this figure:

mathematics = matter of practical fact
esthetic taste = matter of practical opinion
​

Premises are never superior to mathematics in this figure. Fanwanks generally fall between these two extremes.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

Here's where I think you're wrong: one quote is specifiacally about artistic standards. And the other quote is about "some far fetched arguments". You don't even know what arguments I meant. Why do you assume they are arguments about artistic standards?

I didn't assume ... I asked for clarification (and used words such as "appear" and "seems" to categorize your statements). So explain. What specific arguments are you referring to that you consider to be "far fetched"? On what standard are you basing your judgment that such arguments are, indeed, "far fetched"? In what way are your statements not contradictory?

 

[I Grok Spock]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

The gauntlet was thrown down in 1959:

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

People are a hell of alot more whiny now than they've ever been. Not just on internet message boards, but in all areas of life.

Maybe we've got more to whine about?

Personally, I think whining is often a justifiable reaction.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

Maybe we've got more to whine about?

Just out of curiosity, do you have indoor plumbing?

I do. It would be very inconvenient to say the least without it, yet most of my ancestors made it long enough to make me, even without it.

My point is, personally I don't presume to have "more to whine about" than all those ancestors of mine who made it without indoor plumbing.

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

Plumbing aside, the problem comes when people venture beyond judging the works themselves to judging the people who disagree with them. As in:

"Anyone who likes Space Vixens is a mouth-breathing moron who doesn't know what real science fiction is.

Or:

"Anyone who doesn't like Space Vixens is a mouth-breathing moron who doesn't know what science fiction really is."


Oddly, this tends to rub people the wrong way.

 

[Gepard]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

Oddly, this tends to rub people the wrong way.

But most of the time we just call it the "Trek XI forum."

 

[Broccoli]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

Oddly, this tends to rub people the wrong way.

But most of the time we just call it the "Trek XI forum."

Oh..........snap!

 

[Klaus]

Re: Why do people get so offended when other's don't like what they do

It's simply a matter of insecurity, I think - even if not consciously. You need to mature enough in an intellectual sense to realize that your opinions are no more or less valid because someone else doesn't agree, and it happens to some people at age five and some five minutes after they're dead.

I'm part of the minority here who doesn't quite grok the forum's majority opinions about Sky Captain or Superman Returns, for example, but oh well. I recently gave a boss a copy of Tom Lehrer's last two albums, convinced that he'd love them -- and he didn't like them even a little bit. It's a bummer in that I don't have one more cool person to discuss and appreciate Lehrer with, but it doesn't change my love of his work one iota, nor should it.

I don't even want to get into trying to define art, but I do think that if you like something you don't have to defend yourself.
...and I'll even be magnanimous and include the PT in that.