Ok, so we can't engage in criticism, or award the Nobel Prize for one but not the other, because it's totally subjective?Why? Because the "good one" uses tropey arcane visual symbology? That's not totally subjective.
Ok, so we can't engage in criticism, or award the Nobel Prize for one but not the other, because it's totally subjective?
A separate point: appealing to authority is not a fallacy.logical fallacy (argument to authority)
@shidaku - I'm not following your argument.
As it happens, I don't agree that all criticism (beyond spelling and grammar) is subjective. But let's put that to one side.
Are you saying that, because all such criticism is subjective, we shouldn't engage in it? Eg there's no point in discussing whether Dylan did or didn't merit a Nobel Prize?
And if you're not saying that, then why is the description of work as "lazy" being singled out by you as impermissible? (As far as I can tell you're not arguing that it's an attack on the work ethic of the composer/author - which would be a point on which we agree.)
And you may have just gained some insight into my mind.A separate point: appealing to authority is not a fallacy.
Relevant to your post, the basis on which one criticises spelling or grammar is by appeal to authoritative dictionaries, style guides etc.
More generally, the fact that a leading critical magazine thinks that the notion of "lazy writing" has currency is a reason (obviously defeasible, but at present, as far as I know, undefeated) for accepting the currency of the notion; just the same as the fact that I read news reports from reliable sources about missiles being fired by North Korea is a good reason for me to believe those missiles were fired (I didn't see them myself).
As Bertrand Russell pointed out (among other places) in Problems of Philosophy (1912, I think), if we don't accept the testimony of others as a basis for warranted belief, we will have to be extremely sceptical about nearly everything (ie everything that is not warrntaed immediately by our own sense experience and our own worked-out deductions).
I don't think "lazy" has the connotiations you suggest here, in this context. It's not about "hours of work" - as I said, I suspect many composers of "lazy compositions" are working pretty hard. (An example of lazy writing: the BeastQuest books my kids read. I assume these are being churned out by their near-anonymous authors at the rate of about one a day - no laziness in that respect!)The term lazy carries no such connotations. It's definition is at the whimsy of the speaker. You may think less than 10 hours of work is lazy. I may think less than 5 hours of work is lazy. The creator we're criticizing may have spent 10 seconds in creating a work we both consider "not lazy". At the end of it all, the term is too subjective to be appropriate for any sort of common discourse. That's my point. Not that you can't critique something, not that you can't use opinions to do it, but that some opinions are too opinionated.
As Bertrand Russell pointed out (among other places) in Problems of Philosophy (1912, I think), if we don't accept the testimony of others as a basis for warranted belief, we will have to be extremely sceptical about nearly everything (ie everything that is not warrntaed immediately by our own sense experience and our own worked-out deductions).
Well, this is a bit lazy, isn't it? The thread that spawned it has posts that clearly lay out exactly why people find lazy to be unfair, and exactly why it was inappropriate in the case discussed. Also, it clearly laid out the difference between criticism and arm-chair quarterbacking. Being willing to write multiple paragraphs that completely fail to correctly represent the arguments you're questioning while also indicating that you're aware of the source material is seems like you might actually be intentionally stirring the pot. I'll take your word you aren't, though, and just assume you read but didn't understand the multiple explanations in the other thread.
There's nothing lazy about this nor am I attempting to stir the pot, so thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I also fully understand the arguments presented as I read them. Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them, but I understand them.
But also, those threads didn't start with the intention of having this particular discussion, and people viewing those thread were not coming prepared to talk about the fairness or appropriateness of various forms of criticism. Those threads derailed into that kind of conversation, which often became heated and as a result less objective.
Creating this thread gives a proper space to have these arguments in a more civilized, less defensive way.
And I do appreciate the various perspectives that have been shared. Personally, I tend to agree more with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in how I see the appropriateness of describing a work as lazy. But I do understand how others see that use of criticism and are triggered by it.
I just think what is more fascinating is how when someone uses that word, regardless of the context or the framing (at least in my experience on this forum and others) that people begin to focus on that rather than the underlining concept, or the words over the message. For example, in the Arcane Archer conversation, the poster was more concerned and venting on how that wording would effect gameplay, and in my case how I was arguing that the Tiefling UA broke away from typical conventions of subrace mechanics.