The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Mad_Jack]

Still don't know what the hell pizza is supposed to mean anymore.

Pizza is a metaphor for Life.

Also, the pizza discussion was started by Communist agents as a means of passing coded messages.

It feels odd to me to pick J, K, and L as the inspirational toppings for your pizza when J is something that would destroy the crust, K is a topping almost no restaurants (or even good grocery stores) have so almost never comes up, and L is seemingly for an entirely different class of food unless you're making a dessert pizza ... which J and K don't typically go with.

You could just order your pizza in Gaelic... It doesn't have the letters J and K in it's alphabet.

 

[J.Quondam]

Still don't know what the hell pizza is supposed to mean anymore.

This:

 

[Cadence]

This:
View attachment 261938

Is this something about an accidentally bad gaming experience in Chicago?

 

[trappedslider]

 

[Hussar]

Except nobody owes anybody an explanation for not liking things, and their ability (or lack thereof) to voice their disconnect with the game does not change the fact that they (a) actually have a disconnect with the game and (b) that disconnection is valid.

I've seen genuine disagreement lambasted as bad-faith criticism, especially when we're talking about edition wars and/or system preferences. The problem is pooposters so we should instead be complaining about the pooposters and their pooposting tactics.

Yeah, it can go that way.

But, for my money, far more often people want to pretend that their dislike of something is somehow objectively true and then, when you point out that no, it's not actually objectively true, people then lose their poop. "I don't like something" is a perfectly fine thing to say. But, when someone says, "well, why don't you like it" and you tell them, "Because it's crap", well, that's not really communicating anything. If all people want is some pats on the head and validation for their preferences, fine. But, don't pretend that it's something that it's not.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I've seen genuine disagreement lambasted as bad-faith criticism, especially when we're talking about edition wars and/or system preferences. The problem is pooposters so we should instead be complaining about the pooposters and their pooposting tactics.

The old philosophical conundrum that Socrates, Plato et al always contended with.

If I post from the toilet am I not pooposting?
-Julius Ceasar, probably, idk

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, it can go that way.

But, for my money, far more often people want to pretend that their dislike of something is somehow objectively true and then, when you point out that no, it's not actually objectively true, people then lose their poop. "I don't like something" is a perfectly fine thing to say. But, when someone says, "well, why don't you like it" and you tell them, "Because it's crap", well, that's not really communicating anything. If all people want is some pats on the head and validation for their preferences, fine. But, don't pretend that it's something that it's not.

More often than not, though, it's a failure of two people to communicate accurately how they individually interpret their preferences. You can't just lay it on the feet of one person. It can be equally frustrating to the other person as well, who has to keep explaining their preferences! Which, you know ... that can be obnoxious in its own way.

Look, very few arguments are truly about objective things. But imagine, for example, you are in a conversation with your significant other. The temperature in the house is set to 72 degrees (Fahrenheit ... 22.2 C). Your SO says it is "too cold." You say it is "too hot." The actual objective measure of the temperature isn't going to change, but I can guarantee you that if you keep demanding that your SO explain themselves as to why your SO doesn't like the temperature .... you will get it colder ... because it's about to get REAL COLD.

In the end, there is a difference between having a conversation about why people like (or don't like) something as opposed to demanding that people justify themselves to you. I do think that it is better to self-interrogate as to why you have the preferences that you do! In order to truly critique or communicate, you have to be able to articulate why things "work" - both in terms of effect on a supposed audience, and the effect on you. But it is also certainly true that at a certain point, preferences are irreducible or difficult to discuss or even irrational.

When someone says they don't like something because it's crud, they are communicating something- they don't like it! And they don't feel the need to further communicate with you or justify their preferences. If you are unfamiliar with the phenomenon, go to Fenway Park and ask Sully from Southie why he likes the Red Sox, and proceed to interrogate him as to objective facts regarding the Yankees.

Now, who's up for some PUMPKIN SPICE RAMEN PIZZA??????

 

[eyeheartawk]

go to Fenway Park and ask Sully from Southie why he likes the Red Sox, and proceed to interrogate him as to objective facts regarding the Yankees

I just want him to pronounce "Bar Harbor"

 

[Ryujin]

I just want him to pronounce "Bar Harbor"

You mean Bah Hahbah?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You mean Bah Hahbah?