See, you are going at this wrong, because you are coming at this from the perspective of the guest who is complaining. That wasn't what the tweet was saying.
I would say I was correctly saying what was off-putting to me.
The example in the article was trying to establish a baseline neutral situation of an objection then compare it to one involving claims of offensive material.
You are the host, being asked by your guest to change the song because they don't like it.
Actually, the example is just stating a dislike, but lets go with the perspective of the host when there is an explicit ask.
Would you seriously have an arguement with them over how they are selfishly trying to commandeer control of the entertainment you provided them, that you picked because you thought they would all enjoy it... when clearly one of them doesn't?
Shifting from my use of "most" to "all"?
I can see a range of reasonable responses including acquiescing to the request, doing so after glancing around to see that others were not dancing to it or whatever, to politely declining, to being annoyed at the entitlement enough to to call them on it.
As the host at that party, I wouldn't think the person was being entitled or selfish or trying to control the group. I'd think. "Oh, they don't like this one, next song" and move on.
I can see that response, just not as the only reasonable one, and not as a default one someone should feel entitled to expect.
Out of curiosity, as an objective third party to the hypothetical would you consider the request self-centered and/or entitled?
But, the tweet goes on, if they brought race into it, they have to win a debate. They have to convince you that they are right and correct to want the song changed.
That was the point. Not how entitled they are for wanting their preferences, but that in some instances and phrases of entertainment, you wouldn't question the why even if it was silly, but if they bring up race or culture, they have to win an argument first even though those are powerful reasons to ask for something to be changed.
Right, in his article Hodes said "If instead I told you that I didn’t like the song because I thought it was offensive,
and you strongly disagreed, then you might be less likely to skip to the next track. I might have to beat you in a tiny debate first. I dunno."
I think this is rhetorically disingenuous, flipping from neutral feelings about the reasons for disliking the song to strongly disagreeing on the offensiveness of it.
If a host has strong feelings not related to whether the song is offensive or not they will also be less likely to skip to the next track and the requester may have to win an argument.
I do not see the situation as everyone unquestionably goes along with veto requests for a group unless it is about thinking something is racially offensive.
