Opinions can be wrong..?

[Razade]

I dislike pistachio ice cream Snowblizz. Change my mind. What debate are you going to have over that?

[Xyril]

I dislike pistachio ice cream Snowblizz. Change my mind. What debate are you going to have over that?

Have you only had Ice Penguin brand pistachio ice cream? They just stick nuts into a generic ice cream recipe and expect it to work, but they fail to realize that the pistachios react with the other ingredients in an unexpected way that many people don't like. And Frost Troll brand ice cream uses artificial pistachio flavor that uses a chemical related to the one that only certain people can taste, causing them to hate many vegetables.

Have you tried White Walker's version? A lot of people who hate the more popular brands love that one, maybe you will too.

I mean, that's all hypothetical, but you seem to be missing the point of debate. Yeah, maybe changing someone's mind is a possible end goal, but if that's the only reason you debate then you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time, and missing out on a lot of what life has to offer. Sometimes, just getting a change to understand more about why someone feels the way they do or to reexamine your own positions from someone else's perspective is in itself a worthwhile goal.

On a more concrete note, I thought that I hated lobster ice cream for years. The debate that changed my mind was basically, "Wait, was Ben and Jerry's the only one you've ever tried?" Understandable, since not too many people make lobster ice cream, even fewer make it well, and usually whenever I've been somewhere that offered lobster ice cream, it was usually the fun sort of place that offered a lot of other novel food options that would be more fun to waste money and calories on than another version of something I strongly disliked before. I thought I disliked lobster ice cream, but when it came down to it, I disliked Ben and Jerry's lobster ice cream, and generalized from there. From a cost-benefit standpoint, there was never any reason to go out and challenge that generalization, until someone I trusted told me that she also hate the Ben and Jerry's version and offered me a taste of one she claimed was amazing.

Why we like things can be a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface. While it might not always be worthwhile to debate the question, often it is--particularly when you get into such complex things as movies, as this thread is discussing.

More importantly, when you hold yourself out as a reviewer--whether amateur or professional--you're implicitly telling people that your opinion is somehow relevant to their opinion or actions. If that's the case, the hows and whys of your opinion immediately become more worthy of debate. Assuming that Razade's Thread of Ice Cream Flavor Reviews isn't just an exercise in self-expression for its own sake, you're presumably trying to give folks with similar tastes an idea of ice cream flavors that they might like. If that's your goal in publishing your opinions (or more importantly, if that's their goal in reading them), then doesn't it make sense for them to try to understand more about why you like the things you do, so they can decide whether your tastes and theirs match enough to put stock in your reviews? If you hate nuts and they don't, then that's a sign that your opinion on rocky road might not be useful to them.

I don't presume to understand Bartmanhomer. Some say he's trolling, but my first instinct is that he's genuinely trying to connect with people and perhaps struggling with the task. Or maybe he just wants to be a bit of an influencer when it comes to movies. Either way, "debating his opinion" kind of becomes the point. With respect to the review aspect, I've already made my point. With respect to the connection aspect... I mean, well, come on, right? I suppose you can have a conversation where you both say you like or dislike something, but that seems like a really superficial interaction if you never discuss what you disliked or liked about it, and why those aspects are important to you.

[Razade]

Have you only had Ice Penguin brand pistachio ice cream? They just stick nuts into a generic ice cream recipe and expect it to work, but they fail to realize that the pistachios react with the other ingredients in an unexpected way that many people don't like. And Frost Troll brand ice cream uses artificial pistachio flavor that uses a chemical related to the one that only certain people can taste, causing them to hate many vegetables.

Have you tried White Walker's version? A lot of people who hate the more popular brands love that one, maybe you will too.

I don't need to have tried all the types of pestachio ice cream to know I don't like it. I don't like pistachios. There's no debate here.

I mean, that's all hypothetical, but you seem to be missing the point of debate. Yeah, maybe changing someone's mind is a possible end goal, but if that's the only reason you debate then you're going to be disappointed 99% of the time, and missing out on a lot of what life has to offer. Sometimes, just getting a change to understand more about why someone feels the way they do or to reexamine your own positions from someone else's perspective is in itself a worthwhile goal.

I don't think I am.

On a more concrete note, I thought that I hated lobster ice cream for years. The debate that changed my mind was basically, "Wait, was Ben and Jerry's the only one you've ever tried?" Understandable, since not too many people make lobster ice cream, even fewer make it well, and usually whenever I've been somewhere that offered lobster ice cream, it was usually the fun sort of place that offered a lot of other novel food options that would be more fun to waste money and calories on than another version of something I strongly disliked before. I thought I disliked lobster ice cream, but when it came down to it, I disliked Ben and Jerry's lobster ice cream, and generalized from there. From a cost-benefit standpoint, there was never any reason to go out and challenge that generalization, until someone I trusted told me that she also hate the Ben and Jerry's version and offered me a taste of one she claimed was amazing.

Why we like things can be a lot more complicated than it looks on the surface. While it might not always be worthwhile to debate the question, often it is--particularly when you get into such complex things as movies, as this thread is discussing.

More importantly, when you hold yourself out as a reviewer--whether amateur or professional--you're implicitly telling people that your opinion is somehow relevant to their opinion or actions. If that's the case, the hows and whys of your opinion immediately become more worthy of debate. Assuming that Razade's Thread of Ice Cream Flavor Reviews isn't just an exercise in self-expression for its own sake, you're presumably trying to give folks with similar tastes an idea of ice cream flavors that they might like. If that's your goal in publishing your opinions (or more importantly, if that's their goal in reading them), then doesn't it make sense for them to try to understand more about why you like the things you do, so they can decide whether your tastes and theirs match enough to put stock in your reviews? If you hate nuts and they don't, then that's a sign that your opinion on rocky road might not be useful to them.

I don't presume to understand Bartmanhomer. Some say he's trolling, but my first instinct is that he's genuinely trying to connect with people and perhaps struggling with the task. Or maybe he just wants to be a bit of an influencer when it comes to movies. Either way, "debating his opinion" kind of becomes the point. With respect to the review aspect, I've already made my point. With respect to the connection aspect... I mean, well, come on, right? I suppose you can have a conversation where you both say you like or dislike something, but that seems like a really superficial interaction if you never discuss what you disliked or liked about it, and why those aspects are important to you.

1. Ben and Jerry's does not, and has never, made a Lobster flavored ice cream. You might be thinking of Ben and Bill's out of Bar Harbor.

2. As I've already laid out, there's an order of beliefs and knowledge claims. Preferences can't be debated, generally. People like what they like for tons of complex reasons and a lot of the times people resist "well you just haven't tried the right X, Y or Z" because they've got those preferences.

3. I was merely responding to the back and forth between Veti and Snowblizz. I think I've made my personal thoughts on this well enough known that I'm not somehow unaware of what debate's for or how these sorts of conversations go.

4. A critical review of a movie is not the same as disliking chocolate or peas. It is a more complex medium, I don't think I have to explain this to you or why its equivocation to relate the two in anything but the most passing of senses.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well I can't specifically speak of this situation, it may not apply here. But I can emphatizse with the idea that it feels like other people cannot let me have my opinion. The internet has always been like this IMO. I sometimes get this overwhelming urge to try and "correct" people online. It's super futile but still.

If we are going to be honest now I checked down a couple replies, it can't be discounted that people are against a negative review just because it's a negative review and then just picks something in it to try and dismiss it outright. For argument's sake let's say you watch A:IW and do indeed think it sucks because the heroes didn't win. Well, one way to look at it is: I went to the movie and didn't realise I was ending up in a "To Be Continued..." I hate those sprung on me in tv shows as a kid and I would probably not appreciate it now. I may not realise at the time I wrote the review that this was what bothered me. The only thing I could tell is I saw it, heroes lsot and I thought it was bad. That doesn't mean I was wrong however. Or that pointing out there is a supposed logical flaw, from the perspective of someon reaidng ti without my experience, means the other person is right. We had different frames of references.



Err... yes it can? Why you like or dislike something is kinda fundamental. It's why pressing the sadface emoji on a feedback form pops a "can you please tell us what was wrong" prompt, whreas the positive emojis usually won't. Not all likes or dislikes are easy to dig out, but usually it's worth digging a little deeper than the surface. There exists huge industries based on the idea to that figuring out why you like or dislike things matters.

The difference between a debate and the thing Bartmanhomer is sorta describing is that in the former people don't take it as a personal insult that you didn't think the same way and berates you on every point of disagreement. It really should be about paring down to understand the others viewpoint, but mostly it turns into trying to change it.

I don't like Reservoir Dogs, but I like the Sharknado movies. I bet most you will want click the spoiler tags for the explanation. Instead of just shrugging and and going "meh likes and dislikes matters not".

Spoiler

Show

It is a funny thing, I can on the face of it appreciate that Reservoir Dogs has good acting, good directing, good writing. I should enjoy this.
On the other hand I can tell Sharknado has terrible acting, sucky effects, mediocre directing and mediocre at best writing. Yet, I enjoy it more than the former.
The thing Sharknado has is love of making film, it knows what it is and doesn't try to be more than it can. It knows it is flawed and can't live up to standards it would like so it just is what it is. And I can appreciate that. You can feel it all throughtout, "we loved making movies but this was the best we could do, but it was a blast doing it". And for the record as they make more of the franchise this charms wears off for me. The second one I cna still feel the wonder, "omg! we got to make a seocnd one!?! how did that happen". After that they are eaten up by the souless chasm that's Hollywood and people trying to muscle in on a surprise hit.
I couldn't for a long time put my finger on why I don't liek Reservoir Dogs, until in a the chat of a game I said I didn't like it, and someone said yeah it's the violence scene in it. And I realised they were absolutely correct. That long tortuous, literally, thing in it just makes it badwrong for me. I would never have though of it myself because e.g. Kill Bill vol 1&2's gratituous violence does not bother me at all. I think Kill Bill feels too over the top silly, whereas Reservoir Dogs comes over as "real".
I can apreciate that on most, probably all, metrics a film is evaluated Reservoir Dogs is a far far better film than Sharknado. And the scene in Reservoir Dogs I can objectively say is vey powerful, emotional, imapctful, it gets to me clearly. But it also means I can't enjoy any of it.

And as another example (and yes it's another Tarantino because I want to cut down variables) I never could enjoy Inglorious Basterds either, my specific gripe here (I think) is that it's so wildly a-historical I can't get past that, and it ruins it all.

Again that was just my honest opinion on the movie. Like how else can I explain it? If other people want to get upset at me for speaking my mind on the movie then why even have a constructive discussion at all then? If I want to like something then I speak my mind on it. If I want to dislike something then I also speak my mind on that.

[Peelee]

Again that was just my honest opinion on the movie. Like how else can I explain it? If other people want to get upset at me for speaking my mind on the movie then why even have a constructive discussion at all then? If I want to like something then I speak my mind on it. If I want to dislike something then I also speak my mind on that.

Nobody was getting upset at you for speaking your mind. People were trying to tell you that your reviews were simplified and lacking substance. When you say you like movies, you say it is because they had action and comedy and romance. You determine whether a movie gets five stars by saying whether or not it is "Oscar-worthy". These are incredibly nebulous, meaningless metrics. People were trying to get you to engage with the deeper aspects of the film, to focus on why something happened rather than what happened.

If you have seen the movie In Bruges, then there's a YouTube review on it called "The Aburd Worth of Redemption" that I recommend you watch (and which I will not link for reasons that are obvious to anyone familiar with In Bruges). The narrator goes over every single plot point, he dissects the entire movie, and talks about why these characters did what they did, what it meant, and how it made him feel. It's easily one of my favorite movies, and even that review of it is a wholly enjoyable, fantastic watch as he breaks down the themes of the movie and how every shot, every set design, focuses on those themes.

He doesn't just say "it had action and comedy, it was Oscar-worthy, I give it five stars".

That is what people were trying to help you with in your Avengers review. In all your reviews. I've tried time and again to help you flesh things out and look deeper into the movies. I'll keep trying, if you want constructive criticism on your reviews. But it's not a one-way street and you can't view people giving you such criticism as "people getting upset at you speaking your mind." That's just blocking out what they're trying to tell you.

[Bartmanhomer]

Nobody was getting upset at you for speaking your mind. People were trying to tell you that your reviews were simplified and lacking substance. When you say you like movies, you say it is because they had action and comedy and romance. You determine whether a movie gets five stars by saying whether or not it is "Oscar-worthy". These are incredibly nebulous, meaningless metrics. People were trying to get you to engage with the deeper aspects of the film, to focus on why something happened rather than what happened.

If you have seen the movie In Bruges, then there's a YouTube review on it called "The Absurd Worth of Redemption" that I recommend you watch (and which I will not link for reasons that are obvious to anyone familiar with In Bruges). The narrator goes over every single plot point, he dissects the entire movie and talks about why these characters did what they did, what it meant, and how it made him feel. It's easily one of my favorite movies, and even that review of it is a wholly enjoyable, fantastic watch as he breaks down the themes of the movie and how every shot, every set design, focuses on those themes.

He doesn't just say "it had action and comedy, it was Oscar-worthy, I give it five stars".

That is what people were trying to help you within your Avengers review. In all your reviews. I've tried time and again to help you flesh things out and look deeper into the movies. I'll keep trying if you want constructive criticism on your reviews. But it's not a one-way street and you can't view people giving you such criticism as "people getting upset at you speaking your mind." That's just blocking out what they're trying to tell you.

Oh ok. I must have misunderstood that part. My apologies.

[Lemmy]

I suppose it comes down o how you define the word "opinion"...

If it's just a preference, then it can't be wrong (or correct), although it might be considered repulsive(or admirable) by others.

If it's a belief, then it may very be wrong, because people are more than capable of believing in factually incorrect information.

[Xyril]

1. Ben and Jerry's does not, and has never, made a Lobster flavored ice cream. You might be thinking of Ben and Bill's out of Bar Harbor.

Hrm, that's new information to me, but you're probably right, thanks. I did try it on a trip to Bar Harbor when I was ten or so, but I always thought it was a flagship Ben and Jerry's.

2. As I've already laid out, there's an order of beliefs and knowledge claims. Preferences can't be debated, generally. People like what they like for tons of complex reasons and a lot of the times people resist "well you just haven't tried the right X, Y or Z" because they've got those preferences.

A lot of times people resist being told objectively true assertions backed by verifiable evidence when it's inconsistent with their worldview. People resist being asked to provide evidence for their factual claims and resist being asked to clarify their reasoning in reaching a conclusion. For that matter, a lot of times people resist having others disagreeing with them when they start a debate or discussion on a complex medium such a movies. Resistance has no bearing on whether a topic can be debated, or is worth discussing.

4. A critical review of a movie is not the same as disliking chocolate or peas. It is a more complex medium, I don't think I have to explain this to you or why its equivocation to relate the two in anything but the most passing of senses.

Just making sure, you mean "it's" right? (That seems like the most likely meaning in context, but substituting the possessive would give a statement that, despite being a sentence fragment, wouldn't be entirely nonsensical either.) It is not equivocation at all. The difference is one of degree, and not one of kind, and even the difference of degree (of complexity) is debatable. There's more than one form of chocolate. Like wine, good chocolate can have substantial complexities. Also like wine, not everyone appreciates all of these complexities--even those who do certainly don't always agree on what notes are "good." Also like wine, and like movies, there's an interesting mix of the objective and the subjective that goes into the analysis. I don't know as much about wine-making or chocolate-making, but as I understand it, there are certain metrics of technical quality or achievement that--all else being equal--make a chocolate or a wine or a movie "better" to pretty much everyone. At the same time, other qualities--dryness or sweetness, for example--rest much more in the preference category.

More people appreciate the complexities of movies, perhaps because it's a more accessible medium. A great vintage is intrinsically limited in quantity, and greater demand leads to scarcity, but a great movie is infinitely accessible. However, the fact that more people appreciate the complexity of movies doesn't mean that complexity doesn't exist in wine or chocolate. In fact, there are a decent number of people who don't in fact perceive or appreciate the complexity of movies. The commercial success of many movies would imply that when it comes to spending money, a non-negligible segment of the audience doesn't apply anything more complex than the Michael Bay metric: More explosions = better.

Also, weren't you the guy who just said "people like what they like for a variety of complex reasons"? It's almost as if you agree my point, but for whatever reason don't recognize it when it comes from someone else. As I've previously stated, I don't think it's particularly tactful to go around interrogating people about their preferences and then trying to change their mind, because people have a right to keep their variety of complex reasons private if they so choose to. However, I don't believe that preferences are, as a general rule, beyond debate or discussion precisely because there is often a variety of complex reasons behind them. Again, whether you choose to debate or discuss those preferences is a matter of tact, but tact has no bearing on the inherent debatability of a topic. If I ask you whether you like chocolate, or The Avengers, or if you mention that you dislike them while declining an invitation, it might be rude for me to press you to explain why if you have no interest in doing so. However, that doesn't make either topic less complex or--abstractly--worth discussion. Likewise, if you publish a daily blog about what foods or movies you like or dislike, or literally invite people to debate you, then most people would agree that you're inviting debate and that it would be disingenuous to cry foul when people respond. However, the fact that debate no longer violates etiquette doesn't change the inherent complexity of the topics.

"What's the best baseball team?" is probably a quintessential complex, debatable question: There are dozens of objective metrics that have varying levels of utility, and countless subjective arguments over which one might be the most valid. However, if some superfan decked out in Sox gear sets up a table with a sign that says "The Red Sox are the best team ever. Prove me wrong." I can pretty much guarantee you that there isn't going to be a particularly interesting, productive, or enjoyable debate coming out of that. That doesn't make the question any less intrinsically debatable.

[Aedilred]

Err... yes it can? Why you like or dislike something is kinda fundamental. It's why pressing the sadface emoji on a feedback form pops a "can you please tell us what was wrong" prompt, whreas the positive emojis usually won't. Not all likes or dislikes are easy to dig out, but usually it's worth digging a little deeper than the surface. There exists huge industries based on the idea to that figuring out why you like or dislike things matters.

Yes, but you're talking about why you like or dislike something, which is a different matter to what veti said, which was whether you like or dislike something.

[snowblizz]

Yes, but you're talking about why you like or dislike something, which is a different matter to what veti said, which was whether you like or dislike something.

Well, that's your *opinion*.
Really, the way I see it functionall the difference whether and why you like somethign is functionally the same. If you claim to like something I would argue it can be debated why you like something and that will also provide an answer to the question whether you like it or not. That is to say, if you claim to like something but can't actually give any reason as to why that may be, then I would question whether you infact actually hold an opinion on it at all. Because without a reason your like will be as etheral as the idea of ether. You are just as likely to have changed that like the next time I ask.

This is why we tell kids to actually taste the broccoli first. And why kids *should* counter with that it smells awful, and since taste and smell are the same thing except for the few basic tastes, locigally speaking the smell tells us all we want to know about how broccoli might taste thank you very much. Ball is in your court now parents!

Sometimes you just think you dislike or like something, looking at the why is the way to get at whether you really do or not. It's also one of the ways you can change someone's likes or dislikes. It turns out they didn't really have a reason for it in the first place.


I don't buy the inmutability of reasons, opinions, likes or anything really. Except in one way, and that is by insisting it cannot be debated.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This is why we tell kids to actually taste the broccoli first. And why kids *should* counter with that it smells awful, and since taste and smell are the same thing except for the few basic tastes, locigally speaking the smell tells us all we want to know about how broccoli might taste thank you very much. Ball is in your court now parents!

(At that point, remind them that coffee/popcorn smell amazing and taste terrible/doesn't taste of anything, proving that taste and smell are not correlated)

GW

[Tvtyrant]

(At that point, remind them that coffee/popcorn smell amazing and taste terrible/doesn't taste of anything, proving that taste and smell are not correlated)

GW

*Eats a mountain of air popped corn a day and drinks a gallon of coffee.*

Er, yes. Tastes terrible. But then I also like Broccoli so maybe I am the weirdo.

[Razade]

(At that point, remind them that coffee/popcorn smell amazing and taste terrible/doesn't taste of anything, proving that taste and smell are not correlated)

GW

Joke aside, they actually are. Our brains can tell the difference between smell receptors that are triggered on the outside of our mouth and the ones that are triggered inside the mouth. People who suffer from anosmia/hyposima lose a portion of their sense of taste as well.

[Willie the Duck]

*Eats a mountain of air popped corn a day and drinks a gallon of coffee.*

Er, yes. Tastes terrible. But then I also like Broccoli so maybe I am the weirdo.

The three, combined, would make an excellent cleanse diet.

[Tvtyrant]

The three, combined, would make an excellent cleanse diet.

:O So that is why I spend so much time in the bathroom!

[author]

An argument can be made that the answer is yes, if said opinion is built on misinformation. The statement is more of a comment on the individual's perceived lack of knowledge rather than their feelings about a certain topic, intentional or not.