Reply to Topic
Oof, sorry, I let this one get away from me. Busy busy. I'll try to scale down a bit and mostly just address the really salient stuff.
(I have responses already written for the suggestions that I'm not addressing what you actually said, but those seem unnecessary once everything else has been addressed. If you disagree, let me know, and I'll post those, too.)
A "hoop" is some task required above and beyond the normal expectations of a discussion. The two lines above are me asking you to 1) consider a hypothetical that exists outside of your generalizations and 2) be substantive. Are you saying you find either of those requests to be above and beyond normal expectations?
(Also, I should note that the these two supposed examples are actually one example because they're about the exact same thing, not "quite a few.")
(Also, you left out me saying "I'd like to propose an exercise" and "I'd like you to imagine." Presumably because they undermine the idea that I'm being unfairly demanding?)
I did, though! I did in the previous post, and the one before that, and neither was even acknowledged. I'll reproduce them:
As for the stuff about not wanting to argue with a mod: I can appreciate that on some level, but surely by now you've seen lots of people really lay into me and face no reprisal for it. When someone goes after me, personally, I actually have to give them more leeway than I normally would, rather than less. Caesar's Wife and all that. But, uh, try not to spread that around.
(I have responses already written for the suggestions that I'm not addressing what you actually said, but those seem unnecessary once everything else has been addressed. If you disagree, let me know, and I'll post those, too.)
And all of this after quite a few hoops that you've laid out for me to jump through.
"When you disagree with this post..."
"To be a substantive disagreement..."
"When you disagree with this post..."
"To be a substantive disagreement..."
(Also, I should note that the these two supposed examples are actually one example because they're about the exact same thing, not "quite a few.")
(Also, you left out me saying "I'd like to propose an exercise" and "I'd like you to imagine." Presumably because they undermine the idea that I'm being unfairly demanding?)
What would be fair, I think, is to allow me to make my meaning clear. Read my last post. My position, function, and purpose are there. If you take issue with that, then we might have an interesting discussion.
Those are all simple objections to your own stated standard/your clarified position. This is exactly what you just asked for above. I have clearly heard and understood your position and articulated what I think is being missed and why I think it's important.Originally Posted by Meby talking only about money, you flatten enjoyment levels. You assume, without having argued correspondingly, that "will pay $10 to see" is not only the most important boundary, but the only one we should care about. It's Tomatometer logic: a 5.1 is the same as a perfect 10, because they're both past that minimum threshold. This movie that changed my life and helped me reconnect with my grandfather is the same as this movie some 15-year-old said was "kinda cool I guess" and then never thought about again.Originally Posted by MeOnly problem is all the stuff I know you're smuggling into "people." For example, apparently the plural noun "people" requires it encompass, like, 10 million people? And anything less than that is just for the director?Originally Posted by Me...somehow, in your artistic calculus, this doesn't exist or doesn't count for anything. "Oh, 300,000 people had a profound emotional experience from your film? Worthless. Talk to me when you make something 50,000,000 find moderately amusing."Originally Posted by MeIf this is really the core of your position, I'd think you'd show a little more interest in what those words actually mean. If it's all about "what humans want?" then our definition of those last two words are pretty important, eh? And yet you've (without really acknowledging it) decided "humans" means "humans on the scale of millions" and "want" means "is willing to pay a few dollars to see." It completely eradicates any human interaction that takes place on small-or-moderate-sized-scales (even though that's the overwhelming majority of human interaction, and interaction with art) and it treats human pleasure as if it were a coin that can fall only on the sides of "want" and "do not want." Every 49 is really a 0 and every 51 is really a 100. These are not serious definitions, and they do not come close to encompassing human desire. They don't even try.
As for the stuff about not wanting to argue with a mod: I can appreciate that on some level, but surely by now you've seen lots of people really lay into me and face no reprisal for it. When someone goes after me, personally, I actually have to give them more leeway than I normally would, rather than less. Caesar's Wife and all that. But, uh, try not to spread that around.
