FA+
Shop
5078
Views
Views
381
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 700
File Size 885.9 kB
Report this content
More from technicolor_pie
A little pet peeve of mine.
It happens very often. One person states an opinion. Another person comes along with a dissenting opinion. First person then gets angry and defends their opinion by... stating the obvious.
It happens very often. One person states an opinion. Another person comes along with a dissenting opinion. First person then gets angry and defends their opinion by... stating the obvious.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 700px
File Size 885.9 kB
On that point (ha), Terry Pratchett on the usage of multiple exclamation marks:
http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Multipl.....lamation_marks
http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Multipl.....lamation_marks
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...then a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
- Stephen Fry
- Stephen Fry
Gotta say it's also it's almost crying defeat in a persuasive argument. Falling back to your idea is a opinion will only mean you deserve to be browbeaten by any dissenting party, before you make a statement you better have some ground to stand on before making such a claim, unless your statement is insincere which it's a ludicrous comment to begin with then we are talking of satire or a joke.
xD also if it's on a website it's usually own by a private party which owns the server, if the owners hit you with the ban hammer for no reason, they have the right cause they "own" it. It's kinda like being on someone's private property and saying the first amendment will save you from placing graffiti or tagging a wall that clearly belongs to someone.
:3 but I'm preaching to the choir on that one.
:3 but I'm preaching to the choir on that one.
I really wish people would realize that "freedom of speech" is political and directly solely at the *government*.
If I don't like your speech, I can boycott it (or boycott companies that support a bill or government action I don't).
If I don't like your speech and you're on my territory, I can boot you out -- it's my territory. Internet forums are not government-owned, but are private territory. I could ban you from my forum for ANYTHING on the internet. I could ban you if I just woke up in a bad mood. I wouldn't be too popular for it, but you have no "right" to be in my forum.
This isn't even getting into harmful speech, like libel and slander, or the problems of "fighting words" (and the ever-controversial "obscenity" laws...)
If I don't like your speech, I can boycott it (or boycott companies that support a bill or government action I don't).
If I don't like your speech and you're on my territory, I can boot you out -- it's my territory. Internet forums are not government-owned, but are private territory. I could ban you from my forum for ANYTHING on the internet. I could ban you if I just woke up in a bad mood. I wouldn't be too popular for it, but you have no "right" to be in my forum.
This isn't even getting into harmful speech, like libel and slander, or the problems of "fighting words" (and the ever-controversial "obscenity" laws...)
Freedom of speech was created with the explicit purpose of, but not limited to, allowing dissent of opinion for the government to be expressed.
More to the point, people bring up, "But you can't say 'fire' in a crowded theater or incite a riot..." argument often.
Because it is not what you are saying that is being restricted. But what you are trying to DO: Incite violence or cause harm or panic and general unrest or endangering the public. Screaming out "fire" in a crowded theater is the same pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire. People could be hurt in ensuing panic or attempt to leave the building in a hurry for a fire that never happened. Likewise it's not what you said that is being restricted. But what you are inciting. Again, the same goes for a riot.
Freedom of speech really is freedom of speech. But you aren't free to go around beating people to death, are you?
Are you free to cause other people to do it for you, or to try and cause riots?
Are you free to cause people to get trampled to death?
Subverting a large group of people into violence isn't acceptable. It isn't what you're saying. It's what you're doing.
This is why there's context in these laws.
More to the point, people bring up, "But you can't say 'fire' in a crowded theater or incite a riot..." argument often.
Because it is not what you are saying that is being restricted. But what you are trying to DO: Incite violence or cause harm or panic and general unrest or endangering the public. Screaming out "fire" in a crowded theater is the same pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire. People could be hurt in ensuing panic or attempt to leave the building in a hurry for a fire that never happened. Likewise it's not what you said that is being restricted. But what you are inciting. Again, the same goes for a riot.
Freedom of speech really is freedom of speech. But you aren't free to go around beating people to death, are you?
Are you free to cause other people to do it for you, or to try and cause riots?
Are you free to cause people to get trampled to death?
Subverting a large group of people into violence isn't acceptable. It isn't what you're saying. It's what you're doing.
This is why there's context in these laws.
I'm glad you posted this, because I too really dislike that "I'm entitled to my opinion" nonsense.
I actually posted a journal last October, linking my watchers to an article I read about the same subject http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2F
you might find it a good read :)
I actually posted a journal last October, linking my watchers to an article I read about the same subject http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fopinion%2Fcolumnists%2F
you might find it a good read :)
Eh. There are times when someone makes major judgments about me based on one little internet debate. They assume a pattern of behavior from one example, assume that I'm some idiot that doesn't know anything about the subject, that because I haven't studied economics in detail I don't have the ability to say whether or not I can make a living as an author (true story), etc.
"Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks."
-- Harlan Ellison
-- Harlan Ellison
Allow me to present the following corollary:
A: "I dislike __________ because of [particular reason with details to back it up.]"
B: "Well, I dunno, I still liked it."
----
... this actually doesn't help the conversation or the debate, and is my particular pet peeve, mainly because character B often confuses that kind of response AS part of the debate with the important part - the DETAILS. No, character B, you still haven't explained the particulars of WHY you liked it. It's basically saying "Well, it's my opinion" disguised as an argument.
A: "I dislike __________ because of [particular reason with details to back it up.]"
B: "Well, I dunno, I still liked it."
----
... this actually doesn't help the conversation or the debate, and is my particular pet peeve, mainly because character B often confuses that kind of response AS part of the debate with the important part - the DETAILS. No, character B, you still haven't explained the particulars of WHY you liked it. It's basically saying "Well, it's my opinion" disguised as an argument.
With all respect, "I dunno" is probably the qualifier that implies that they are not sure why exactly they like it, but they do. Irrational preference. Which you may not understand, but, many people, myself included, have irrational preference for many things that they can't explain completely with entirely logical reasons or details other than they are self referentially enjoyed. A taste or fondness for food or drink, a preference for a genre of music.
When they say, "I don't know," or, "I dunno," they are explicitly stating that they like it, without having knowledge or certainty of why.
Key phrase here:
Irrational preference. When you like something without any sort of reason other than it is enjoyable to you. There is no further explanation available or known.
I hope that was helpful.
When they say, "I don't know," or, "I dunno," they are explicitly stating that they like it, without having knowledge or certainty of why.
Key phrase here:
Irrational preference. When you like something without any sort of reason other than it is enjoyable to you. There is no further explanation available or known.
I hope that was helpful.
I think my issue with with something like "I dunno" is that it comes off a bit dismissive of the other person's reason, even if it wasn't intentional. Don't get me wrong, I have many irrational preferences, that's normal, but I guess there's a clearer way to say that than "I don't know." You can say "There's just something about it..." or "I just works for me" or "I just can't put it into words," something that at least pretends you at least saw where the person was coming from.
I guess what I'm saying I prefer the other person would at least try, even if they stammer and stutter. I mean, I've been in situations where I dislike something and the other person loves it, and the other person will ask ME why I hated it. I'll -try- to explain it, but then he goes, "I dunno, I liked it." Which comes off dismissive, especially since he asked me to explain it, but didn't bother to offer even an attempt at a counter-offer.
Believe me, I understand irrational preference, dude.
I guess what I'm saying I prefer the other person would at least try, even if they stammer and stutter. I mean, I've been in situations where I dislike something and the other person loves it, and the other person will ask ME why I hated it. I'll -try- to explain it, but then he goes, "I dunno, I liked it." Which comes off dismissive, especially since he asked me to explain it, but didn't bother to offer even an attempt at a counter-offer.
Believe me, I understand irrational preference, dude.
The problem is that certain people are likely to dump a text wall of arguments or crap to dump on some thing or other. Sometimes its worthwhile to defend such a thing, but sometimes one (a) has to accept humility about liking a subject (b) just doesn't want to argue facts.
It really depends on the context though.
In a case of valid criticism, yes, sometimes it is a rather useless reply. But there are the sorts of people, especially on the internet, who just aren't worth it. Especially when they are projecting or doing the trick of trying to find reasons to support their conclusion rather than making a conclusion that is supported by their reasons. These people are often know it alls. I know a few of them and while I can argue from time to time with facts and research, sometimes, its just not fucking worth it. At that point I go "*Shrug* Well, I like it anyways"
It really depends on the context though.
In a case of valid criticism, yes, sometimes it is a rather useless reply. But there are the sorts of people, especially on the internet, who just aren't worth it. Especially when they are projecting or doing the trick of trying to find reasons to support their conclusion rather than making a conclusion that is supported by their reasons. These people are often know it alls. I know a few of them and while I can argue from time to time with facts and research, sometimes, its just not fucking worth it. At that point I go "*Shrug* Well, I like it anyways"
It seems a lot of people are assuming that I'm demanding long-winded arguments or facts when it comes to this - I'm not. In fact, some stuff that people like, including myself, are difficult to define as enjoyable. But, honestly - this has nothing to do with critics, critiques, projection, forced opinions, "know-it-alls," pretensions, or anything like that! Honest. I'm not demanding essays here.
"I found it funny/sexy/sad" etc. is a perfectly valid opinion. Most people like Fight Club. I don't like Fight Club. Sure, I can get into a long explanation why I disliked it. But I usually just say "It was too over the top." Then people can say, "Well, I thought it was cool." And see, I GET that, because I understand why people think it's cool. It just too much for me.
And see? There's no protracted debate or over-reaching research. But "cool" has more to it than "I dunno." Even in your vague example - "*Shrug* Well, I like it anyways" - is irritating, because it comes off dismissive.
"I found it funny/sexy/sad" etc. is a perfectly valid opinion. Most people like Fight Club. I don't like Fight Club. Sure, I can get into a long explanation why I disliked it. But I usually just say "It was too over the top." Then people can say, "Well, I thought it was cool." And see, I GET that, because I understand why people think it's cool. It just too much for me.
And see? There's no protracted debate or over-reaching research. But "cool" has more to it than "I dunno." Even in your vague example - "*Shrug* Well, I like it anyways" - is irritating, because it comes off dismissive.
You're right, it is dismissive. but that's sort of the point to me. Its a thing that's useful in a particular context - that is, dismissing annoying forced opinions and projections. Unfortunately I know a number of those people.
For example - someone gives a long argument and rant about some game, and how it's shit, and how one cant do anything in it, and that the designers are dumb, and it's obvious they are bitching. Sometimes one can say 'STFU you're projecting more than 3 drive in theaters" or "Quit bitching!" but sometimes I just really don't want to deal with that shit and argue about it, because often times that leads to more arguments. So I just shrug, say I liked it anyways, and move on.
But I agree with you the rest of the time it's unwarranted, especially when just in response to a simple statement like the one you gave (Fight Club was too over the top.) - if someone does that, then yeah, its silly.
For example - someone gives a long argument and rant about some game, and how it's shit, and how one cant do anything in it, and that the designers are dumb, and it's obvious they are bitching. Sometimes one can say 'STFU you're projecting more than 3 drive in theaters" or "Quit bitching!" but sometimes I just really don't want to deal with that shit and argue about it, because often times that leads to more arguments. So I just shrug, say I liked it anyways, and move on.
But I agree with you the rest of the time it's unwarranted, especially when just in response to a simple statement like the one you gave (Fight Club was too over the top.) - if someone does that, then yeah, its silly.
What andros said, plus some people really don't want to get into it. Like it or not, why we like something isn't fully understood. I can like a painting that plays with colors and lighting, but not tell you WHY I like that play with colors or lighting. I like it. You say you don't like it, and then give tons of "professional art critic" responses, and that won't suddenly mean that the painting has no effect on me. My not responding in the same way you did... is par for the course, really.
See above on how I responded to andros. And let's not assume the reasons are "professional art critic" responses. Hell, the reasons could be "I disliked it because DAT ASS is too small!" See, even in your example, you mention that colors and lighting, and that's something. I can respect that. Heck, even you said "Yeah, the ass is tiny, but I still like it," at least you acknowledged that reason. It's quite okay to disagree. It's not about "getting into it." I guess it's something more about at least acknowledging the reason was spoken.
Sometimes it's, "you disagree. why is that?"
But maybe it's because they don't want to press the subject. They're uncomfortable talking about it. They want to talk about something else. They don't want to have a conversation at the moment, are busy, etc.
I have a tendency to play the devil's advocate a lot, if only because it seems that if I ever make any kind of assumption, I'm probably wrong.
But maybe it's because they don't want to press the subject. They're uncomfortable talking about it. They want to talk about something else. They don't want to have a conversation at the moment, are busy, etc.
I have a tendency to play the devil's advocate a lot, if only because it seems that if I ever make any kind of assumption, I'm probably wrong.
People stating opinion as fact is annoying.
People stating opinion as fact and then trying to get their opinion into legislation is just plain criminal.
Richard Dawkins presided over a debate, One woman running said that she thinks that homosexuality is a choice, and thus, because that's her belief (like an opinion, but ten times more unassailable!), she would not support homosexual marriage or toleration of homosexuality. Richard Dawkins basically laid into that, and insisted that what she stated as scientifically verifiable -- she kept insisting it was her belief, and he made it very very clear that she was making a factual statement.
Link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-edtmeXZB4
People stating opinion as fact and then trying to get their opinion into legislation is just plain criminal.
Richard Dawkins presided over a debate, One woman running said that she thinks that homosexuality is a choice, and thus, because that's her belief (like an opinion, but ten times more unassailable!), she would not support homosexual marriage or toleration of homosexuality. Richard Dawkins basically laid into that, and insisted that what she stated as scientifically verifiable -- she kept insisting it was her belief, and he made it very very clear that she was making a factual statement.
Link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-edtmeXZB4
I think having a stance of "it's just my opinion" when people start to get insulting over yours. and maybe to diffuse any rising anger that either party might be having. it's difficult to have a good debate/argument without some people taking it personally and going on a verbal attack, and countering with "it's just my opinion" might reaffirm that it's just a discussion, nothing personal.
This is pretty much the response of every sexist, racist, any of the ists and ism's. I've mostly seen this on the escapist, in fact. Just today I got called a femNazi cause I supported Feminism. I don't know why that still surprises me. And I'm not sure if femnazi only applies to females or not but I'm a guy so that might be off the mark.
That's assuming a level of self realization that many don't posses. Though really I'd hope that they did realize it, though many just aren't. I would go into detail about what exactly made that 'femnazi' comment pop up out the seas of hate and misplaced aggression in which in dwells. But this really isn't the forum for that. Suffice to say your pic is spot on.
That's been my general experience as well.
I've encountered a good deal of people who think that they have the right to say whatever kind of hateful, vile crap they want, but if anyone dares to criticize their bigotry at all, even in the least bit, they start wailing and screaming about how "OMG I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH I CAN BE A RACIST IF I WANNA BE!!11 STOP TRYING TO FORCE ME TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
I've encountered a good deal of people who think that they have the right to say whatever kind of hateful, vile crap they want, but if anyone dares to criticize their bigotry at all, even in the least bit, they start wailing and screaming about how "OMG I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH I CAN BE A RACIST IF I WANNA BE!!11 STOP TRYING TO FORCE ME TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
I never seen this in my LIFE: Two people discussing a topic and one shares their opinion, the other shares his disagreeing opinion, and the other thinks he needs to defend himself.
I, myself, after evry opinion I have, I feel like I have to say "It's just my opinion", since people might think that I think my opinion is A FACT.
Example for most people:
Person 1:MEGAMAN X IS THE BEST SNES GAME EVER!!!!
Person 2: No Super mario world is the best SNES game!
Person1: NO U
With that said, this is me:
Me: In my opinion, Zelda OOT is the best zelda game there is.
Other person: *Can't really challenge me since it's an opinion*
I, myself, after evry opinion I have, I feel like I have to say "It's just my opinion", since people might think that I think my opinion is A FACT.
Example for most people:
Person 1:MEGAMAN X IS THE BEST SNES GAME EVER!!!!
Person 2: No Super mario world is the best SNES game!
Person1: NO U
With that said, this is me:
Me: In my opinion, Zelda OOT is the best zelda game there is.
Other person: *Can't really challenge me since it's an opinion*
Thing is though usually there can be differing values to opinions it seems,for example.
Person 1 : My favorite type of pie is such and such.
Person 2 : Well that's wrong because MY favorite type of pie is so and so.
(taking a liberty with the pics title)
Now yes this is probably a matter of opinion but it seems that person 1 would be more entitled to their opinion than person 2 due to person 2 being inflammatory and attacking someone over a small issue,and from what I have seem people like person 2 usually go around causing problems with their opinions which is why I hold the opinions of people like person 2 in such low regard/value.
Person 1 : My favorite type of pie is such and such.
Person 2 : Well that's wrong because MY favorite type of pie is so and so.
(taking a liberty with the pics title)
Now yes this is probably a matter of opinion but it seems that person 1 would be more entitled to their opinion than person 2 due to person 2 being inflammatory and attacking someone over a small issue,and from what I have seem people like person 2 usually go around causing problems with their opinions which is why I hold the opinions of people like person 2 in such low regard/value.
I think it's more of a reflexive response than it is the actual meaning behind it. In the heat of conversation you're more likely to say things that don't link up as correctly as you'd like, since not all of us are very good at expressing how we feel right on the spot.
Yeah, you should be prepared to respond accordingly to a statement against your opinion (if you choose to respond, you never have to, especially on the internet) but that doesn't mean you'll always think of the best way to respond immediately.
Yeah, you should be prepared to respond accordingly to a statement against your opinion (if you choose to respond, you never have to, especially on the internet) but that doesn't mean you'll always think of the best way to respond immediately.
Comments