Streamjumper
Actually, when I expressed my personal dislike for Monty Python in a manner we've seen 95% of the guild use to express their dislike of something mentioned, I was told that I'll never see a better episode than that one. Since my personal tastes were now highly relevant, I countered with a still fairly nonoffensive quip further expressing my personal distaste. Now, I still have yet to say the Monty Python sucks (which is good, since I don't think they suck, I just don't like them), yet I've been told that, like an insolent 5 year old, I have a poor attitude for a more than reasonable extrapolation of what I know about them.
Actually, more often than not, it seems that most guild members refrain from leaping in to outright insult things that other guild members like just because it's been brought up.
I didn't find it particularly offensive, because, quite frankly, I could care less whether or not somebody else likes something that I enjoy. It sounded like a joke and I would have taken it as such, however there was still no particular call for the initial comment.
As for the second comment, I still would've taken it as a joke personally and moved on, but I also fail to see how it is in any way an
inaccurate statement on Kansai's part that you are exhibiting a particularly poor attitude toward something -- in this case, the particular episode she mentioned -- that you have never, in this discussion, claimed to have seen.
A large portion of humour is based upon having a poor attitude toward something, I won't argue with that. However, that makes it no less a poor attitude. As for "fairly inoffensive," that's apparently in the eye of the beholder. I found your initial comments fairly inoffensive myself, just as I found Kansai's aforementioned observation fairly inoffensive. Yet it seems to have offended you enough that you leap to the defensive, calling her "lame" and "condescending"?
In any case, whether or not you used the word "suck", the implication that turning the TV off is better programming basically says the same thing in different words.
Streamjumper
Ok, I'll humor you here. Please explain to me, IN DETAIL, how this sterling example of comedy differs from their normal fare... is it significantly different? Is it SO different that people who just don't like their style at all will suddenly
Well, gee golly willikers, I
do appreciate being humoured.
Streamjumper
Go back and read my posts, Mala. You'll find me pointing out that I've seen them in action... that I've spoken to people who watch them and like them (and some who don't).
I read them all, thank you. Didn't see a single reference to you seeing that episode. Still don't. Funny, that.
Streamjumper
Now explain to me, in detail, how I am uninformed in my judgement that I won't like this episode based simply on the claim that I won't like it?
You do not say that you have seen that episode. Ever. One episode is not another.
Is that detailed enough?
Streamjumper
If you hate onions, don't much like potatoes, cringe at the crunch of fresh celery and find mayonaise repugnant, you can safely say that you don't like things containing them in combination. Does it make this person uninformed when they say that they won't enjoy potato salad?
My mother absolutely loathes eggs. She hate them scrambled, boiled, or fried; she hates them in her salad. Get the picture? But wait, she likes potato salad with eggs in it!
I dislike about 90% of the music by the Rolling Stones, but they have two songs I love. The style isn't particularly different, I just like those songs.
Would it be a fairly safe bet if, prior to hearing those songs, I guessed that I wouldn't like them? Sure, it would've gone with the odds. But it would've been wrong. One song is not another song. One episode is not another episode. Trends are useful, but not 100%. One might make an educated guess, but it is a
guess and not an informed judgement.
Streamjumper
Or how about this...
Fact: Reasonable levels of knowledge on something can indeed provide the insight necessary for reasonable predictions. These are often referred to as informed judgements.
An informed judgement would assume that you have all the necessary
information on the subject. If you haven't seen something, you lack the necessary information.
Streamjumper
So if someone jokingly expresses their dislike for something that I enjoy and am talking about in a manner that isn't openly offensive or targeting anyone, and I decide to condescendingly tell them that their attitude is bad, it is all their fault for commenting on one of the current topics?
Well, if their attitude was bad...then...yes. It would be an accurate enough statement.
Although, we could always hope that the person wouldn't feel the need to start insulting you instead of explaining the humourous intention of the comments and letting the subject die a graceful death.
Streamjumper
If you're going to jump in, please make sure you start at the beginning and get the facts right. I know about Monty Python. I have seen much of their stuff. I don't like them. This qualifies me to dispute being told that I won't find better comedy than one of their skits.
So, seeing as you're so riled up about all this condescension, should I get defensive and call you lame now for condescendingly assuming that I hadn't started at the very beginning? I've yet to see where I didn't have my facts straight.
Reply
