5 ms·

You seem to be saying that you are a "non-discerning customer" when it comes to this type of work, and that's fine if it works for you. Others find works produc

You seem to be saying that you are a "non-discerning customer" when it comes to this type of work, and that's fine if it works for you. Others find works produced only for money to be lower quality or heartless. Maybe you similarly care about stuff in some other aspect of life (food? clothing? music? personal relationships?), just not for movies/comics.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
I would argue that your discernment angle is literally just that in a similar sense with how critical theory folks approach works from various sociological and literary angles to the extent you could say those are component to the same work rather than ever possibly definitive or representative, much less appraisable objectively as implicitly superior. Like dividing by zero. Its not answerable and also discernment seemingly is axiomatic to the point its basically no different from religion or palate/taste.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  Random question, did you do policy debate in high school and/or college?
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Nah, should I have? Also relevant username ;)
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      The last time I heard someone argue like you, was as the recipient of a negative case in a policy debate round 14 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_term...
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        []
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        > This section does not cite any sources. (October 2020) Is there an actual article with more substance illustrating what you mean or what this section (#Kritik) was derived from? Also, I'm having a little bit of difficulty in parsing out your overall position with respect to what I've said (do feel I'm doing a bad job of it or what do you mean, exactly?) I definitely was using that (critical theory) as more of an example and only briefly analogizing rather than me trying to seriously argue from that vantage point specifically. Edit: are you saying "heard" as in you were there, or you know the details of the case through reading or maybe both? Whatever the case, is there an actual source available?
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Outside of you
        syndicatedjelly 3y ago
        Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about in any of the comments in this thread. I was just trying to say that I haven't felt so bamboozled since the one time I tried doing policy debate, which was different from the usual form of debate I participated in (Lincoln-Douglas). I was a decent debater, but policy debate was entirely inscrutable. Gish galloping was the name of the game - trotting out as many arguments, as quickly as possible, in as little time so as to trip up the opponent on some minor point they missed. I linked to Kritik because your seemingly random inclusion of critical theory reminded me of this convoluted type of argument which, if not responded to, will lose you the entire round. Everything you said in this thread reminded me of that experience. Good day to you.
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        I think this was a bit tricky in the sense its such a qualitative matter essentially and the heart of the the opposing position seems not really falsifiable (the longer a series runs = crappier a series "becomes" -> the more it dilutes the overall qualitative artistic and intangible entertainment value+prestige of not only the series as a whole but also the individual episodes that precede such enshittification and with which one could hypothetically have previously expressed and documented satisfaction. Regardless of whether this was said outright, the logic here seems to be such. Why don't we just normalize ex post facto law while we're at it? I feel like we all might have gotten a bit lost in the plot here but I will leave you with this quote that I feel corroborates the encapsulation I have presented here: > I tried to vibe with this POV. What's wrong with more content? But it really does cheapen the art/media you used to adore. Even if you try to ignore it, i.e. you don't have to watch / read all the Star Trek content that has been produced in the last 20 years, and after picard season 1 I completely checked out of all of it, but it just kind of makes everything you loved seem so empty. It was all about generating positive cash flows...the whole time. And good night to you sir :)
Obscurity4340 3y ago
I mean, I am discerning in that I have expectations that if I don't like the characters or topics or "moral tenor" (like in that it cares too much about being a moral bullhorn as opposed to faithfully representing that which it handles or has an opportunity to push the envelope further) or various other intangibles, I don't like+watch it. In my view, your position is a tad elitist and I don't particularly care for the way it places you on an implicitly superior level of comprehension but also fundamental worth in the context of this discussion. Arguably, I both in real-time and through the aformentioned repetition get to know the show and its constituent parts far better than you single-viewing "discerners" ever could. But yeah, you notice more even though you technically notice less. I'm inclined to suggest that you are literally the quantity over quality viewer (ie: non-discerning) and I am in fact the quality over quantity since I view less discrete works but notice and derive a more refined level of enjoyment and recognition of the subtleties present in any given artistic production (and the artistic part is not something I'm going to argue with you about; its intangible and as worthlesz or priceless as the viewer subjectively evaluates)

Obscurity4340 3y ago

I would argue that your discernment angle is literally just that in a similar sense with how critical theory folks approach works from various sociological and literary angles to the extent you could say those are component to the same work rather than ever possibly definitive or representative, much less appraisable objectively as implicitly superior. Like dividing by zero. Its not answerable and also discernment seemingly is axiomatic to the point its basically no different from religion or palate/taste.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
Random question, did you do policy debate in high school and/or college?
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Nah, should I have? Also relevant username ;)
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    The last time I heard someone argue like you, was as the recipient of a negative case in a policy debate round 14 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_term...
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      []
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      > This section does not cite any sources. (October 2020) Is there an actual article with more substance illustrating what you mean or what this section (#Kritik) was derived from? Also, I'm having a little bit of difficulty in parsing out your overall position with respect to what I've said (do feel I'm doing a bad job of it or what do you mean, exactly?) I definitely was using that (critical theory) as more of an example and only briefly analogizing rather than me trying to seriously argue from that vantage point specifically. Edit: are you saying "heard" as in you were there, or you know the details of the case through reading or maybe both? Whatever the case, is there an actual source available?
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Outside of you
      - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
        Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about in any of the comments in this thread. I was just trying to say that I haven't felt so bamboozled since the one time I tried doing policy debate, which was different from the usual form of debate I participated in (Lincoln-Douglas). I was a decent debater, but policy debate was entirely inscrutable. Gish galloping was the name of the game - trotting out as many arguments, as quickly as possible, in as little time so as to trip up the opponent on some minor point they missed. I linked to Kritik because your seemingly random inclusion of critical theory reminded me of this convoluted type of argument which, if not responded to, will lose you the entire round. Everything you said in this thread reminded me of that experience. Good day to you.
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        I think this was a bit tricky in the sense its such a qualitative matter essentially and the heart of the the opposing position seems not really falsifiable (the longer a series runs = crappier a series "becomes" -> the more it dilutes the overall qualitative artistic and intangible entertainment value+prestige of not only the series as a whole but also the individual episodes that precede such enshittification and with which one could hypothetically have previously expressed and documented satisfaction. Regardless of whether this was said outright, the logic here seems to be such. Why don't we just normalize ex post facto law while we're at it? I feel like we all might have gotten a bit lost in the plot here but I will leave you with this quote that I feel corroborates the encapsulation I have presented here: > I tried to vibe with this POV. What's wrong with more content? But it really does cheapen the art/media you used to adore. Even if you try to ignore it, i.e. you don't have to watch / read all the Star Trek content that has been produced in the last 20 years, and after picard season 1 I completely checked out of all of it, but it just kind of makes everything you loved seem so empty. It was all about generating positive cash flows...the whole time. And good night to you sir :)

Obscurity4340 3y ago

I mean, I am discerning in that I have expectations that if I don't like the characters or topics or "moral tenor" (like in that it cares too much about being a moral bullhorn as opposed to faithfully representing that which it handles or has an opportunity to push the envelope further) or various other intangibles, I don't like+watch it. In my view, your position is a tad elitist and I don't particularly care for the way it places you on an implicitly superior level of comprehension but also fundamental worth in the context of this discussion. Arguably, I both in real-time and through the aformentioned repetition get to know the show and its constituent parts far better than you single-viewing "discerners" ever could. But yeah, you notice more even though you technically notice less. I'm inclined to suggest that you are literally the quantity over quality viewer (ie: non-discerning) and I am in fact the quality over quantity since I view less discrete works but notice and derive a more refined level of enjoyment and recognition of the subtleties present in any given artistic production (and the artistic part is not something I'm going to argue with you about; its intangible and as worthlesz or priceless as the viewer subjectively evaluates)