The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,414
In Reply To
Norvell

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
Subj: I think you post enough to be asked follow up questions.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 12:07:27 pm EST (Viewed 76 times)
Reply Subj: I barely post.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 09:23:37 am EST (Viewed 69 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    LGDB:  It's a light ageism at most! lol The kind old people should have by now developed the character to not care too much about.  And I don't know how old you are, but 18-34 is still the largest demographic, and while that's not kids, it's certainly not the old foggy set.

"The majority of respondents were 35 years old and older.
Very few said they were in their twenties. Almost everyone indicated
that the average age of comic book fans was older than thirty years and
very few young fans were seen in the stores or buying comic books."


    Quote:
    LGDB: Oh is that my argument?  I thought that was a joke I made briefly.


Are you a right-winger? Because that's how they justify their statements when pressed. 'I was only joking!'


    Quote:
    No.... my actual position is that the criteria for "poor quality" most of the time is subjective and arbitrary and has very little to do with the writing.


This is splitting hairs. Either writing hits the required marks as it relates to the source content or it doesn't. Some people have low standards.

If I think the last three seasons of Game of Thrones was terrible, obviously I'm not pulling that out of thin air.


    Quote:
    ...if you're angry about it or resentful or opposed to what you think the "bad" writing represents or you get some kind of sense of superiority for crapping on other people's art, you're going to be motivated to post more.

And yet I barely post. Huh.


    Quote:
    LGDB:  No it isn't.  Or at least it often isn't and certainly doesn't have to be.

It's not my fault you don't know how language is used.


    Quote:
    Believe it or not you can make distinctions between not liking something I thinking that thing is bad objectively.

I'm not putting an asterisk or disclaimer on every statement I make, nor should anyone be required to. The onus is on your to understand the fundamentals of language.


    Quote:
    I'll put this as a question: do you feel like there isn't a difference in meaning between "this is my opinion of a piece of art" and "this art is objectively bad"?

Yes, but who are you quoting? Again, you're putting on the onus on language fundamentals back on me, when it should be on you.


    Quote:
    LGDB: Oh you know, having to justify your opinion.

Wait, didn't you say that I'm making demands that my statements be taking as the 'literal decree of God, written on stone tablets, passed down by Moses himself'? Seems you've moved the goal posts as to what your objection is.


    Quote:
    But I think when you crap on people art your probably should have to.

And I have repeatedly. I used to write long posts/reviews detailing my points.


    Quote:
    And ultimately I think you DO at some level want to justify your position, because otherwise why would you still be participating in the conversation?

Because you nonsensically challenge me and need to be put in your place on general principle.


    Quote:
    LGDB:  No but you could provide a link.

No, you spend the time looking through the forum archives.


    Quote:
    That HAS to be less work that this reply you did lol

I haven't tried, and this forum barely functions as it is. Look at how much of a mess it is to reply to people. This forum is junk, coding-wise.


    Quote:
    next time you make an actual argument for why a thing is bad... rather than a baroque and angry screed about why the writing is bad that you've rendered immune from rational critique because it's "just opinion" maybe put an asterisks by it or something lol  Man, if only Donny Cates and Jason Aaron could find a way to shield their writing from criticism the way you've shielded your own criticism from criticism.   Hey, I know... maybe they can say their writing is just their opinion lol

Your points are junk. You get nothing.


    Quote:
    Ah.  Just curious.  How long did that last?  What was the point of departure for you?

The final issues. See my avatar.


    Quote:
    LGDB:  Not for me to judge, for the public board to judge.

I don't care what anyone thinks of my rationale, nor do I intend to change my behaviour.


"The majority of respondents were 35 years old and older.
Very few said they were in their twenties. Almost everyone indicated
that the average age of comic book fans was older than thirty years and
very few young fans were seen in the stores or buying comic books."

LGDB: I've seen other data. Here they report that 13 - 29 year olds buy 57% of comics and graphic novels. And this finding is what I've seen most often.

https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/38709/nycc-insider-sessions-powered-icv2-a-demographic-snapshot-comics-buyers









Are you a right-winger? Because that's how they justify their statements when pressed. 'I was only joking!'


LGDB: I'm not justifying it. I'm explaining it. It doesn't need justification. But, if anyone feels like it was over the line, they can let me know and I can send them flowers or something.







This is splitting hairs. Either writing hits the required marks as it relates to the source content or it doesn't. Some people have low standards.

If I think the last three seasons of Game of Thrones was terrible, obviously I'm not pulling that out of thin air.


LGDB: Well first of all no, no serious literary critic, or academic, or anyone paid to know better is going to tell you something as simplistic as either writing is good or it's not. (Unless they're being glib or something.) But moreover, IF I was splitting hairs, these aren't the hairs I'm splitting. My point wasn't whether a thing can be definitively understood as bad or good. My point is that without making a credible attempt to establish that a thing is good or not good based on its own content and execution, and according to sensible and sound, consistently applied criteria you're just basically whining about your feelings. And some people have low standards, it's true. Some people have extremely low standards for their own criticism.








And yet I barely post. Huh.

LGDB: I don't know what you count as a lot, but I'd say you're one of the more recurrent posters on the board.






It's not my fault you don't know how language is used.

LGDB: If you're argument is that there isn't a difference between how people talk in casual conversations vs more careful, analytical arguments, then I'm not the one here that doesn't know how language is used.








I'm not putting an asterisk or disclaimer on every statement I make, nor should anyone be required to. The onus is on your to understand the fundamentals of language.


LGDB: Cool because I'm not asking for that lol What I'm asking is that people not confuse the difference between their opinion and the thing they have an opinion on, even when asked to clarify. If this somehow DEFIES THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF OUR LANGAUGE I'll risk it.










Yes, but who are you quoting? Again, you're putting on the onus on language fundamentals back on me, when it should be on you.


LGDB: I'm not quoting anyone. I'm saying that if these things mean the same thing and you use them interchangeably, even in an analytical conversation, then you're obscuring what you mean or confusing the thing you're talking about. And like I said, I imagine that a person does this, however unconsciously because there's less a feeling of power in saying "I didn't like something" than there is as saying "this is crap." Or because your feeling is when you don't like a piece of writing, because you're so smart and you have such good taste, then there must be something wrong with the writing.









Wait, didn't you say that I'm making demands that my statements be taking as the 'literal decree of God, written on stone tablets, passed down by Moses himself'? Seems you've moved the goal posts as to what your objection is.


LGDB: No I said your demand is that it be understood or taken as given that the writing is bad. And I was using demand in contrast with making an argument. Your mistake here, intentional or otherwise, is to equate what I'm saying  with the idea that you're presenting your opinions as objectively true. I'm not. My argument is that you're equating your own impressions of the writing, with things endemic to the writing itself. In other words you're saying that the reasons the writing is crap is because of its writing quality and I think it's more likely to do with your own personal preferences. If you can't see the difference between those two things, I'm confident anyone else reading this will.







And I have repeatedly. I used to write long posts/reviews detailing my points.

LGDB: I'd love to read one.







Because you nonsensically challenge me and need to be put in your place on general principle.


LGDB: How do you suppose you'll achieve that? My responding in this snippy, short, dismissive replies? Tell you what, let me know when I'm in my place. I wouldn't want to miss where I am when I get there. lol







No, you spend the time looking through the forum archives.

LGDB: This is always a good sign: "hey can you provide argument for the things you keep saying" "oh I've written good arguments. You just have to find them in this sea of publication." Okay, tell you what, hot shot. I'll do the leg work of searching for it. But is there a particular post I should be looking for? How would I know the good one's from the bad ones? Is the idea that I'm going to have to read everyone one of your posts and then figure out which one you think is the essay where you really establish the badness of this writing? I'm not saying you should have to find it in the archive because you should do the work. I'm saying, you should find it because how the hell would I know what I was looking for?! lol








I haven't tried, and this forum barely functions as it is. Look at how much of a mess it is to reply to people. This forum is junk, coding-wise.

LGDB: Fair, but if you even remember the title of the post or even a few key words you could probably find it pretty easily. Maybe you could tell me a few key words and I could search for it?







Your points are junk. You get nothing.


LGDB: Oh forreal, you're telling me the person I'm arguing with thinks that my points aren't good. Well I should DEFINITELY take that seriously, because how neutral your opinion is here lol






The final issues. See my avatar.


LGDB: Wait a second, so you read the ENTIRE Aaron Thor run up to that point, and THEN you decided it was bad? Did you think the quality of writing was that bad the ENTIRE time? What were you waiting for? And if you recognized how bad the writing was--you know with your amazing I know bad when I see bad intuitions--how good would the ending have had to have been to justify the writing you were reading that you already knew was bad? That was like a 6 issue story where you're just seeing it through. Wasn't the Mangog in the sun thing like basically the end of the 7th or 8th arc or so? That's just kind of bewildering.






I don't care what anyone thinks of my rationale, nor do I intend to change my behaviour.


LGDB: Man, I gotta have this etched onto my tombstone.  True words to live by!  Is that Descartes? lol



cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake