It’s not all that different. And I don’t think whether or not I’ve read Clancy is relevant here when my point is “people like different things about art and you shouldn’t pretend your preference is objectively better”
It’s totally cool to like things BECAUSE they’re hyper realistic but it’s also totally cool to not care about that. I am much more in-line with you in that regard…inaccuracies take me out of stories…But others aren’t bothered. Why tell them their preference is bad?
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
Objectively means that any disinterested person can pick out the quality. If OP were looking for red shoes, black shoes would be objectively the wrong choice.
It doesn’t matter if you like ice fishing or not, objectively the Sahara Desert is not a good place to go ice fishing.
I noted the difference between my subjective enjoyment of the authors, and the objective fact that the books weren’t right wing.
Personal enjoyment is not something you can quantify in a way that allows for objectivity.
Chess is an OBJECTIVELY more complex game than checkers. That does not mean that it’s objectively more enjoyable because complexity isn’t how everyone ranks their enjoyment.
I like your example of ice fishing in the Sahara because it demonstrates how you don’t understand that entertainment is subjective.
Let people like what they like for the reasons they like it.
Buddy, reread the original post. They said they enjoy Tom Clancy novels despite his politics - they didn’t request suggestions for books without right wing ideologies.
Your examples continue to be irrelevant. I don’t have to ask if you’re confused because clearly you are
You’ve given up on your original point, because I showed that it was an incorrect assumption on your part. I’ll repeat. A person’s subjective tastes can be viewed objectively. If a person says they want to watch a musical right now, anyone can objectively judge if a movie is a musical or not.
Now you’re upset because I read the original commnet, and suggested that the person might like to read some books I’d enjoyed.
As far as I can tell, you’ve never read any of the books involved.
The only thing I’m confused about is why you’re in such a lather.
My original point was “art that is technically inferior to other art is still enjoyable” and then you talking about how a Clancy book was bad because of a technical error. You’ve brought up the accuracy of things multiple times when we’re talking about enjoyment of art.
Up until your “are you still confused?” bullshit I thought we were having a friendly conversation. So sorry to have rustled your jimmies. I’m impressed that you’ve so keenly observed that I haven’t read any Tom Clancy novels, though, after I told you “I’ve never read a Clancy novel” in my first or second reply. You’re sharper than you let on!
It’s not all that different. And I don’t think whether or not I’ve read Clancy is relevant here when my point is “people like different things about art and you shouldn’t pretend your preference is objectively better”
It’s totally cool to like things BECAUSE they’re hyper realistic but it’s also totally cool to not care about that. I am much more in-line with you in that regard…inaccuracies take me out of stories…But others aren’t bothered. Why tell them their preference is bad?
That’s the original comment I was responding to.
The books I cited are superior because they are not full of hard Right ideology.
They are also, in my opinion, much better written and far more enjoyable.
If you’d bothered to try and understand what I was saying, you wouldn’t have wasted all our time.
The books are better for the person who posted. Objectively better because they aren’t right wing screeds.
I read and understood both comments. My point is that “there are superior writers” doesn’t mean the inferior ones aren’t worth reading.
And that’s not what objectively means, dude.
Objectively means that any disinterested person can pick out the quality. If OP were looking for red shoes, black shoes would be objectively the wrong choice.
It doesn’t matter if you like ice fishing or not, objectively the Sahara Desert is not a good place to go ice fishing.
I noted the difference between my subjective enjoyment of the authors, and the objective fact that the books weren’t right wing.
Are you still confused?
Personal enjoyment is not something you can quantify in a way that allows for objectivity.
Chess is an OBJECTIVELY more complex game than checkers. That does not mean that it’s objectively more enjoyable because complexity isn’t how everyone ranks their enjoyment.
I like your example of ice fishing in the Sahara because it demonstrates how you don’t understand that entertainment is subjective.
Let people like what they like for the reasons they like it.
Are you still on your high horse?
That completely ignores what the original poster wrote, and I never said it did.
They wanted books without Right Wing ideology. I gave them some examples of books without Right Wing ideology.
If a person says they want a musical and I give them a documentary with no music at all, I’d be objectively wrong.
Are you still confused?
Buddy, reread the original post. They said they enjoy Tom Clancy novels despite his politics - they didn’t request suggestions for books without right wing ideologies.
Your examples continue to be irrelevant. I don’t have to ask if you’re confused because clearly you are
You’ve given up on your original point, because I showed that it was an incorrect assumption on your part. I’ll repeat. A person’s subjective tastes can be viewed objectively. If a person says they want to watch a musical right now, anyone can objectively judge if a movie is a musical or not.
Now you’re upset because I read the original commnet, and suggested that the person might like to read some books I’d enjoyed.
As far as I can tell, you’ve never read any of the books involved.
The only thing I’m confused about is why you’re in such a lather.
My original point was “art that is technically inferior to other art is still enjoyable” and then you talking about how a Clancy book was bad because of a technical error. You’ve brought up the accuracy of things multiple times when we’re talking about enjoyment of art.
Up until your “are you still confused?” bullshit I thought we were having a friendly conversation. So sorry to have rustled your jimmies. I’m impressed that you’ve so keenly observed that I haven’t read any Tom Clancy novels, though, after I told you “I’ve never read a Clancy novel” in my first or second reply. You’re sharper than you let on!