You're acting as if your personally held philosophical beliefs aren't contradicted by some of the most famous minds in history.

▲

mikkupikku 17 hours ago | parent [-]

How interesting! These great minds you speak of, are they objectively great, or only subjectively? If they are only subjectively great, then why should a lazy appeal to them sway me? And if they are objectively great minds, then how does that not acknowledge my premise?

I'm teasing you, I do acknowledged that there are great minds, past and present, who disagree with me. And I trust you can acknowledge the same, there is no shortage of great minds who believed and argued that objective truth, beauty and merit really do exist. The question I have for you or anybody who disagrees is this: can you acknowledge the existence of media you don't like one bit but nonetheless acknowledge as having merit which transcends your own personal opinions? I can easily, I can't stand Shakespeare's Othello, and I simultaneously acknowledge it as possessing a great deal of objective artistic merit. For me, there is no contradiction here because merit is not a function of personal opinion.

▲

scld 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That I acknowledge there are great minds on both sides of the debate means that I wouldn't treat it as a hard fact when talking about it in an online forum, which was the explicit point of my response.

	▲	mikkupikku 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you can recognize the greatness of somebody you disagree with, then you should also be able to recognize merit in media you don't personally like. And if merit can be thus decoupled from personal opinion, that affirms my point that objective merit really does exist.

▲

BizarroLand 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Using flowery language does not automatically make you correct, and even if on the hard facts you are correct, it comes across as condescending and arrogant.

What you're saying, "There are shows on TV worth watching and the art form is still evolving, and one person not liking it doesn't mean that it is bad" would have come across much more cleanly if you had stated it plainly.

	▲	mikkupikku 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> What you're saying, "There are shows on TV worth watching and the art form is still evolving, and one person not liking it doesn't mean that it is bad" That's not even remotely what I'm saying! I would instead say that media is only "evolving" insofar as it is being optimized by media corporations for reliable fiscal return. No risks allowed, everything needs to be cookie cutter, no risks, barely any new IPs even, the industry just wants to get committees of nepo hire "writers" to remix shit they can be reasonably confident will find reliable audiences, and that means pandering to viewers instead of challenging them. Every decision gets run through test audiences, opinion polls, and legions of executives and their consultants. Art cannot be created in such an industry environment. All they can make is base slop.