Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
It's apples and oranges. No one expects to get accurate scientific data in a pop song, and no one expects a comic book movie to be realistic.
People accept a lot of inaccuracies in a James Bond movie, but they'd feel cheated if Bond suddenly had the power to time travel or turn into a lion.
Since you never read the book I have nothing to add.
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!
tl, dr