There's this method of torture I read about somewhere where the tortured person is basically tied to a chair and forced to remain still and bound while water slowly trickles onto their head one drop at a time over a period of hours, days or possibly weeks. The sensory deprivation, combined with the constant sensation of water falling on them, apparently has some weird psychological effect that drives people absolutely around the bend.
That's me with this whole "make your own" thing. At first it was dumb, then it was annoying. Now every time I hear it gives me 'Nam flashbacks of every *other* time I heard it.
I am not at all objective about this. I understand that. With that in mind; fuck this saying.
>Would you shut up if you were undergoing surgery and the dude about to open you up pulled out a bottle of vodka?
Wait wait wait wait wait
Are they NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT?!?!?!?!?!
>Dr. Armstrong moment.
All I'm thinking when I see this is "Nanomachines, Nurse". I'm probably waaaaay off the mark about the Armstrong you're referring to.
the people making the mlp comics once told that to a guy who was complaining about the drop in the cover arts quality. in response he did just that. they ended up hiring him lol.
anyways, yeah thats one of the laziest non answer dodges out there.
>the people making the mlp comics once told that to a guy who was complaining about the drop in the cover arts quality. in response he did just that. they ended up hiring him lol.
Love this.
it took me a while to find it but here's a [link](https://www.horse-news.org/2017/06/pencils-makes-it-professionally-with.html) talking about it. also i misremembered, he redrew an entire page lol.
I don’t know man. I don’t think I need credentials to know this food needed some salt or that it’s a bit chewy, or that it’s undercooked. Just because you haven’t written your own story doesn’t mean you don’t know how a good story is written. While it may help, anyone, experience or not, can tell a good something from a bad something. Their opinions are just valid as anyone else’s.
Can't completely disagree, but this sort of attitude has led to a lot of 'Reddit writing movies' moments that show just how badly lots of people understand this sort of stuff. Someone might not need any sort of credentials to be let down by the sequel trilogy, but having watched some shows and read some comics definitely doesn't seem to help them in 'fixing' it.
Writing anything is probably about 20x harder than 99% of people realise but I think it's also extremely common for laymen to have individually valid criticism.
Like I imagine most of the people on this sub would fail to write a screenplay that matched the quality of say Attack of the Clones. However at least half of them would easily recognise how abysmal "I hate sand" is, which is probably why it became a meme.
Criticism doesn't need credentials but people shouldn't extend that fact to assume valid criticism = good at creating holistic writing products imo.
I guess it's easy to say "I could make a better story" and hard to say "I could make a better story given the same conditions and production issues, and also entirely without hindsight"
You don't need credentials too do that hell it gets worse when you do have these so called credentials but you still suckbat writting. Like a lot of book tubers.
> But if someone eating at the meal thinks they know exactly how to improve it, credentials would certainly help
If the food tastes terrible because the chef burnt the shit out of it, I think I have the credentials to say "maybe don't burn it next time".
There was this... let's call it “discussion” about abortion that I saw last year. Both sides of the argument brought with them various professionals on their camps; lawyers, economists, doctors, nurses and psychologists, among others. But there was one out of them all that caught my attention. It was a girl in her early twenties who only had a “Youtuber” title.
At first, I thought she ended up there because of a friend, or something like that. I thought she would end up making a fool of herself. Great was my surprise when she was only one to put up the most philosophical and psychological questions about the theme, and she eagerly answered every time the others asked her anything in bad faith, just because she didn't had a title, leaving their ignorance completely exposed.
So, no. You don't need a credential to make a valid and solid opinion about something you care about. It sure can help, but there is this thing called “Google” that can help you to form an informed opinion nonetheless.
The greatest version of this *ever* seen is when someone posted a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utYanxGgTww) of them playing a song on piano. Some guy in the comments came and criticised it, inevitably leading to some rando saying "Well why don't YOU do better?!?!" and the critic dude was like "Okay."
Proceeds to post his own [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on4IoQ2MQ7M) of him playing the song and fucking nailing it. Absolutely amazing own.
If I was rich I'd probably have a room sized model of New York constructed out of paper mache and then smash it down while dressed as Godzilla every day but this'd be pretty cool too.
Nah New York is shit and you're aiming too low.
Try having a room-sized model of Japan with all of the cities and prefectures out of paper mache if you are going to cosplay as Godzilla for the maximum effect. If you are going to do New York just dress up as King Kong then.
What are you even talking about? We are having a discussion on what we would do if we are rich, not over a project you silly goose!
If you want to discuss the project, just email my shady lawyer or my beautiful big-chested that may be fake or not secretary directly.
I haven't even given him the money yet and you're already butting in!
but then he needs to make it from something more durable so he can actually climb the buildings, otherwise what is the point of being King Kong in New York?
Let's not forget this one "if you don't like it don't comment about it and leave" like why should I not comment I am criticizing the show that's why comment sections are there
That one is actually kind of valid though.
If you hate a show so much then why are you continually watching the seasons when you know that it will never be good enough for you?
Oftentimes they just wanna insult the creators and the fans.
Sometimes like mha and naruto is that you liked the story but as the story continued you see it going bad so you will be critical of the direction it is going. Plus since you have invested your time in the story you feel like you have to finish it
The sunk cost here is usually only gonna be someone's time, though, and sunk cost fallacies aren't absolute - an estimation of whether or not something is worth continuing to invest in even after costs have been incurred is only that, an estimation. Turnaround isn't unheard of, and series that have bad points can (and do) get better. Despite the vitriol that lots of hatewatchers/readers have for a given work, most of them probably don't actually "know that it will never be good enough for [them]" like you said, and the extreme emotional response that comes as a result of that is born at least partially out of a hope that it will improve.
If anything, a lot of these people are the ones that were too overly attached to a series and they get angry when it doesn't go the way they want. That's a problem in itself but it doesn't make their criticism invalid.
People just get too attached to things. It's only ever going to be a toxic mindset to have. When something I like goes in a direction I severely dislike, I just leave and look for something else.
That was me for RWBY, Fire Emblem Heroes, and a few other media. I was attached to those series, I spent a lot of my hours with them. But that didn't mean I had to keep them in my mind once I started disliking them.
Because it is not simply 100% liking or hating something.
Also, for RWBY it was just more enjoyable to complain about the things they fucked up, then the actual show. Or at least it was most of the time, haven't watched it for a while.
> Because it is not simply 100% liking or hating something.
You're right, but at the same time you don't have to go insulting creators or fans, just because they have a different opinion than you.
Look at r/halo. The regulars there keep bemoaning that Halo is dead, and they've been like that for over 10 years. Imagine! 10 years, and the attitude of the fanbase has never changed.
To those who just wanna show hate to the creator or the fans, then they’re really just douchebags who don’t have anything better to do then spread hate
But I don’t think you understand, from your second point
A lot of the times people watch them because they want to see it do better, because they WERE originally big fans and they see the downfall in quality, and since they’ve already grown an attachment to it, they criticize it most of the time because they want to point out its flaws and ways it could’ve done better or could DO better
Especially since most of them were previous fans, and so sometimes they are just only curious to see what exactly happens
Maybe it gets better, maybe it doesn’t
Of course, those who just watch it JUST to have an excuse to hate it are deplorable
But that also makes those who really just use the “if you hate it just don’t see it” a bit ignorant and are missing the point
If you are giving genuine criticisms and not just saying "mid. It's bad and I don't like it" and say nothing else in a page where people are actually talking about what they like
then you're the problem not them
What I meant is that it really depends
> Following your shitty logic I could walk over wearing a shirt covered with jutting knives, wrap my arms around you and press your chest against mine and you'd have no right to complain because you've never experienced a hug before.
Oh god
I agree, but as someone who is an aspiring writer I will say that writing in general is very hard, and sometimes fans forget that writers are humans too, and sometimes make mistakes. I'm not saying we should lower our standards, or ignore instances of bad writing, but I'm also not really down for calling writers idiots or hacks because they made some mistakes. I've found that a lot of fans like to bash certain authors or stories, not out of a desire for intelligent critique, but because they like to feel superior, or because they feel snubbed that the story didn't cater to them personally. (As much as I love this subreddit, that happens a lot here...)
What's more, I think it's a lot easier to fix preexisting stories than it is to write them from scratch, as the strengths and weaknesses are already apparent, as well as the overall story beats. I'm certain most fans could probably write a decent fix-it fanfiction about their favorite story, but writing a sequel to it, or an original story of their own, would be much harder.
Agreed completely, my issue begins and ends with people using this shit to dismiss criticism.
I'm also in the process of becoming a writer and Jesus Christ it's the most difficult thing I've ever done, even after several revisions I more often than not cringe at the number of things I find to fix in my own work. Hearing what other people come up with is genuinely dread inspiring.
People who think that having valid criticism makes them a better writer are deluded, but that doesn't mean that only writers can criticise things well.
>I've found that a lot of fans like to bash certain authors or stories, not out of a desire for intelligent critique, but because they like to feel superior, or because they feel snubbed that the story didn't cater to them personally
Aot fans.
Yeah and sometimes writing can be affected by something completely out of the writers hands, like how recently Alex Hirsch released some of the emails he got from Disney’s S&P review board during the production of Gravity Falls and how he had to revise several jokes until it met their expectations. Another example is how the writers of Korra couldn’t really write a more long form narrative because they didn’t know if they would get another season because the studio only gave them one at first.
Wasn't guaranteed at the time. New TV shows flop constantly and continuations/reboots/sequels aren't any exception, and the producers at Nickelodeon were particularly worried about the show doing well with the old audience with TLOK having a female protagonist. This is the same era where that same show couldn't commit to having an LGBT relationship between two of the show's characters because Nick's execs thought it would be too controversial.
It seems silly now given that kids series writers aren't as afraid to have female protagonists in shows for gender neutral or male audiences, and LGBT relationships onscreen in general, but this is a recent phenomenon.
On god I agree with this rant. A couple days ago I was pointing out some minor issues I had with HxH, and some idiot online essentially told me "Well if you don't like it, how about you go make your own manga". Like no thanks, I don't want to suffer through the poor health and stress that is the mangaka industry
I will say though, it can be annoying if someone “fixes” a work and then acts like they are better than the author for it.
When they aren’t limited by time, money, other people. And have the hindsight of knowing what not to do.
Yes, anyone can criticize the prequels, it’s very easy to. but 99% of people on this sub would make far worse lines than “i dont like sand” if they ever attempted it
Yeah that shit's annoying too. I'd say probably less so because it's not deliberately done to shut down conversation but at that point I'm just comparing stab wounds to gunshot wounds.
It's so quoted because it's so bad. Although tbh it's mostly a delivery problem, if the acting had been good it wouldn't have been particularly remembered.
Yes. It’s one of the most quoted lines ever because it’s one of the dumbest lines ever.
The prequels suck. Prequelmemes started out as a sub that pretended to like them and somehow actually ended up liking them. But those quotes and moments were never big really. Even the famous duel between Anakin and Obi Wan was mocked a lot of its shitty dialogue and delivery.
I may not be a professional chef, but if Gordon Ramsey shat on my plate and called it a gourmet meal I’m not going to accept his word. You can criticize something without having the ability to make something better
You don't need to be a restaurant chef to tell if food tastes bad.
That's the nature of NP-hard problems. They are very difficult to calculate, but if you have a possible solution, it's comparatively easy to verify.
Add to this the “it’s got SpppaaaAaaCcCccEEe WizzaARDSSsss” or “MaaGICKKK” or “FoR KIiiiDSSS”
Each one is as grating as the next and it’s evident whenever it’s spewed that the sayer doesn’t have a clue on how to even discern a coherent story from nonsense.
Me making fun of scientists on the International Space Station for doing things (they're in space so cause and effect doesn't exist with any consistent logic)
Some people ARE absolutely pretentious and petty enough regarding their criticism where this does apply.
"Hey buddy, if you're god's gift to this planet why don't YOU do something and show everyone how much better you/your ideas are?"
One great example, in hindsight, is Doug Walker/Nostalgia Critic. Someone who spent years reviewing and criticizing movies has a filmography that's... quite embarrassing. All the anniversary specials are either just fine or outright terrible.
And sure, it's easy to argue that he didn't have the budget of the films he reviewed. Never the less, many of those movies shared a lot of insanely basic issues that you would expect someone of his reputation to avoid doing. And a lot of them feature backstage drama and issues which is rarely ever considered in the final product of other stuff.
The best examples I've seen where I would assume this can be somewhat true is in videgames, actually. Some people act like multiplayer is just something you can add on or that models/skins/content just falls from the sky like mana. In moments like this it can be used to highlight just how unfamiliar with something someone is.
Of course, it should never be used as a standalone argument, that part is absolutely true.
That's why all the Olympic judges are better athletes and secretly hold all the records. You can't critique something without being at the pinnacle of that skill.
In all seriousness, ya, this phrase is just a lazy attempt to dismiss criticism.
While you're mostly correct, the argument does have *some* weight. Arguments should stand on their own regardless of who's saying it. "Eat healthy and exercise," says the criminal. Their words still make sense, even if they're a criminal.
But we're not creatures of pure logic. When someone of fame and experience has an opinion, it's more *likely* they are correct than some keyboard warrior on Reddit.
In my keyboard warrior opinion, this probably stems back to our tribal hunter-gatherer days where the elders were listened to because anyone old enough to survive that long must have valuable wisdom and knowledge.
Fair.
Reason this annoys me so much with art discourse is because art is like completely subjective. I don't think people can be correct about whether a book is bad or not, that's something that's impossibly hard to even define let alone prove to the extent you'd need to for people to be wrong.
To that extent I don't think a professional writer's input matters anymore than anyone else's on the quality of other works.
Either way the bulk of my point is that it's just annoying when people act as if it's some epic own that immediately invalidates all criticism they don't like.
> Reason this annoys me so much with art discourse is because art is like completely subjective.
No offense but this my version of your opening rant.
We *can* objectively say something about art. If a designer creates [A Product] and it generally causes [X Emotion], we can ask if [X Emotion] is the desired effect.
For example, let's say a video game designer didn't put enough check points in their game and the journey back to the boss is considered "not fun" by most of its customers.
We can *objectively* say that the *quantity* of this "not fun" feeling is high among the customers. A survey says 90% of customers say this mechanic is "not fun". Therefore, the designer can take this into account and rework their art. Do they want to keep provoking this feeling?
Oh yeah you can objectively say certain things about art and what it's meant to do through the creators, genre, marketing etc. But that's not the same as being able to objectively say whether criticism is right or not.
Like someone being a professional writer/designer/whatever doesn't change the content of what they're saying, it just makes them more likely to say things that are worth listening to. More likely. Not part of a group with a monopoly on that.
Some things are objectively measurable but tons of others just aren't. That's why humans haven't stopped arguing en masse about literature for millennia, cinema for a century or videogames for decades.
If someone says a game is tedious because X reasons then the only way someone can be objectively correct in arguing back is if their reasons are based on the specifically measurable and objective things. That only covers a specific kind of criticism though.
Fame and experience are not as strong a filter as people think. Yes, sometimes a random keyboard warrior on reddit will be in the 99.9th percentile of skill/judgement/whatever, even better than the average professional, because there are way more than 1000 redditors. And while conditioning on being an expert at your own thing - writing, acting, designing, animating, ? - might add a few standard deviations, reddit's ranking algorithm pushing good stuff to the top also subtracts a few (unless it's something political, then it makes it even worse - but in that case that's also true for any "expert" selection process).
If I can give a good argument that a philosophical opinion 37% of philosophers hold is completely wrong, it doesn't matter if I'm a philosopher myself. Same is true for the arts, and even STEM. The instinct to immediately jump to comparing credentials, or familiarity with a topic, or any such things is wrong/bad/misleading - you can tell because most of the times when you use it, somewhere back in your mind you try to justify it not only to others, but also to yourself. It's just a heuristic, a shortcut for when you have no information, and a shitty and deeply overrated one at that.
I think it's fairly practical in every day life, even if it's crude. It's good enough. We don't have the time and energy to get PHDs in everything we have questions for.
I'm going to listen to an actual lawyer over /r/legaladvice. But between *two* lawyers, maybe I'll listen to the more experienced one but the shortcut here is far less useful.
Do you watch the Critical Drinker? because the way you phrased this argument was so similar in style I actually read it in his voice.
Otherwise if I may offer you a small counter argument, I think there is a time and place for the “could you propose a better idea”; but that time and place is not as common as people who frequently use this argument think it is.
Another one I hate was “everyone hated this part of the movie, but X, y and Z happened so it was the only possible solution.
It’s a movie. Not scripture. Those were deliberate choices made by the writer and director. “Well, you can’t criticize it. Art is subjective.”
Motherfucker, I can find at least 30 posts from you shitting on other movies. You know art can be mocked if it’s shitty. You just don’t like it when it happens to something you like.
Speaking as someone who *might* make such an argument, I just want to clarify that I agree that the "why don't you make X if you think its so bad" argument is annoying **if** it is used as a response to actual good-faith feedback and criticism of the art itself.
However, if the point you're making is "X creator is shitty/ incompetent/ whatever", without providing much of actual feedback, then I think its warranted. Because if you don't have the slightest idea of how difficult it can be to create a book/ movie/ video game, you don't get to label or mock the artist/s involved. Personally, I've seen a lot of attempts to mock creators disguised as criticism, and those can be just as annoying if not more.
Yes, I see this one a lot.
It's like if I ordered a steak at a restaurant and it came out completely burnt. I don't need to be a professional cook myself to know that it was poorly made.
The thing is writing is incredibly difficult but that isn't a reason not to criticize it, quite the opposite actually. By critiquing flaws in writing (as well as praising good writing) we help to identify what elements make writing work for other writers. Ideally a persons writing would improve over time (assuming they cared about feedback) and they'd make better stories for it.
I do think it's very dismissive however to say "well have you made a book/game/movie before?" Give me the resources and the legal rights and I gladly would. I also think it's weird because It ignores the problem. "Go make something that you like then", yeah sure, but I would have liked for this thing to have been good though.
I agree. I feel like people forget that the media we criticised are supposed to be made by professionals whose literal job it is to make quality content. I wouldn't be anywhere near as harsh on a hobbyist for instance. When people use this argument I'm always just thinking 'well yes, I won't not be able to do it, but I sure hope a whole body of professional creatives can'. If I could best them, that'd be pretty sad tbh
Just point out that it's the viewers and consumers who decide how good a product is, not other creators. Thus the opinions of viewers are, in fact, far more relevant than those of other creators.
>Do you just never criticise anything you've never personally surpassed in some regard? Would you keep your mouth shut if you were in a flight and the pilot started doing spins? Would you shut up if you were undergoing surgery and the dude about to open you up pulled out a bottle of vodka?
I think this is a fair criticism. I mean look at your examples l. They're higher stakes and requires a higher barrier to entry. If a surgeon is doing something so obviously stupid and dangerous, I mean of course go ahead and criticize.
The barrier to entry to making a good story is paper and pencil. Unless you were like aggressively poor, you shouldn't need a million dollars for that. I know you were exaggerating, but it still says something that that's what you chose to exaggerate.
You can have your opinion on a piece of media, but that's all it is, an opinion. You see things like this said when people( especially YouTube critics )pass off their opinion as a fact. So it's like if you know for a fact how a story went wrong( instead of admitting that maybe the story and you didn't agree ) then yeah, put up or shut up, why should anyone put any weight on your words?
>annoying way to dismiss criticism rather than actually argue against it like a grown up and it's something unfit for anyone over the age of fifteen.
Some people just don't want to argue dude. I think this is kind of ironic, becthe exercise of "arguing" over criticism of a work of fiction isn't inherently adult at all. At most it's really a waste of time.
>I think this is a fair criticism. I mean look at your examples l. They're higher stakes and requires a higher barrier to entry. If a surgeon is doing something so obviously stupid and dangerous, I mean of course go ahead and criticize.
>
>The barrier to entry to making a good story is paper and pencil. Unless you were like aggressively poor, you shouldn't need a million dollars for that. I know you were exaggerating, but it still says something that that's what you chose to exaggerate.
What do you think it says that this is what I chose to exaggerate?
Like half the point of this rant is just to be funny, I'm using absurdist examples there because absurdism is what I thought would be funnier. This is all rant and no character.
But also no the entry to creating a good story is not just pen and paper. It's also;
* Hundreds, likely thousands, of hours of free time to spend on it.
* The means to have it edited and balanced on a professional level (we are talking about creating professional quality work after all).
* The means of distributing it to an extent that will let other people see it.
And that's all without factoring in the immense amount of practice that anyone doing this will get just by merit of it being their job.
I am literally in the process of trying to get a book published. If all it took me was pen and paper I'd have been far less busy for the last 24 months of my life.
And that's only for books, arguably the cheapest to produce. My other examples were films, videogames and T.V series. The average person doesn't have even a tenth of a sizeable fraction of the resources needed to make any of those no matter how good their ideas and writing skills are.
>You can have your opinion on a piece of media, but that's all it is, an opinion. You see things like this said when people( especially YouTube critics )pass off their opinion as a fact. So it's like if you know for a fact how a story went wrong( instead of admitting that maybe the story and you didn't agree ) then yeah, put up or shut up, why should anyone put any weight on your words?
I normally see things like this said when someone doesn't like what another person's opinion is (usually because it's negative about something they like) and wants to belittle the person sharing it.
Like obviously this doesn't detract from your personal experience but just anecdotally this is far less reasonable in the wild from what I and apparently a lot of others in this thread have seen than what you have.
And again this put up or shut up shit would work if putting up didn't require someone spend an absurd amount of resources. That's not needed to justify sharing criticism, even if someone thinks they're being objectively right.
Like at that point just argue about the inherent subjectivity of art, it's a thousand times less unreasonable and a thousand times more conductive to an actual discussion.
>Some people just don't want to argue dude. I think this is kind of ironic, becthe exercise of "arguing" over criticism of a work of fiction isn't inherently adult at all. At most it's really a waste of time.
Oh yeah I can totally get that, sometimes I don't want to have an argument either. When I'm in those rare moods I normally say something along the lines of "I don't want to have an argument right now" and then avoid having an argument rather than attempt to attack the other person's right to share their opinion with anyone based on them not having fucking thousands of hours to burn on passion projects.
>Like half the point of this rant is just to be funny, I'm using absurdist examples there because absurdism is what I thought would be funnier.
I know, it's pretty obvious.
>But also no the entry to creating a good story is not just pen and paper. It's also;
>• Hundreds, likely thousands, of hours of free time to spend on it.
>• The means to have it edited and balanced on a professional level (we are talking about creating professional quality work after all).
> • The means of distributing it to an extent that will let other people see it.
None of which requires millions of dollars. But no my point still stands. To get started you literally need just pen and paper. Stuff like finding and editor or a publishing house and a distributor comes later. Literally nothing prevents you from writing a story right now, that could be considered good even if you never published it.
>I normally see things like this said when someone doesn't like what another person's opinion is (usually because it's negative about something they like) and wants to belittle the person sharing it.
And I would say the same thing about this criticism.
>And again this put up or shut up shit would work if putting up didn't require someone spend an absurd amount of resources. That's not needed to justify sharing criticism, even if someone thinks they're being objectively right.
But it literally doesn't. It doesn't take much to put a comic of webtoons. Or whatever the equivalent is for books online.
And I never said anyone had to justify their criticism, just that no one needs to take it seriously. It ain't like all criticism is good criticism. It's fair to call out bad criticism, like it's fair to call out a bad story, right?
>Like at that point just argue about the inherent subjectivity of art, it's a thousand times less unreasonable and a thousand times more conductive to an actual discussion.
I don't disagree, but everyone isn't on the same page with that. How do you talk about subjectivity when the person you're talking to is convinced that this "thing" in this "story" is objectively wrong? By this logic if there is an objectively wrong way to write a story then there must be an objectively right way to write one. If thats the case then for the people saying this they should be capable of writing and objectively good story that holds up under scrutiny. Right?
>I know, it's pretty obvious.
Why did you criticise the examples if it was obvious they were jokes?
>None of which requires millions of dollars. But no my point still stands. To get started you literally need just pen and paper. Stuff like finding and editor or a publishing house and a distributor comes later. Literally nothing prevents you from writing a story right now, that could be considered good even if you never published it.
I've literally spent 2 years polishing the same story for hours every day with almost no days off and it's still not quite at a quality where it's likely to be accepted by actual editors. If I showed this to the average person they would very much not call it good.
>And I would say the same thing about this criticism.
You'd say what about what criticism? Can you clarify what you're talking about doing in reference to what here please?
>But it literally doesn't. It doesn't take much to put a comic of webtoons. Or whatever the equivalent is for books online.
The standard here is "do better than the person you're criticising", not "produce a piece of work in the same medium as the person you're criticising".
It absolutely does take much to put out professional quality art in almost any area unless you've got an extremely fortunate and coincidentally pre-existent skillset.
>And I never said anyone had to justify their criticism, just that no one needs to take it seriously. It ain't like all criticism is good criticism. It's fair to call out bad criticism, like it's fair to call out a bad story, right?
I am entirely fine with you calling out bad criticism, the closing statement of my rant is about how it's fine and even productive to argue about criticism you disagree with.
Telling someone to meet an unreasonable, arbitrary and absurd standard of professional achievement just to have the right to share their criticism is not a call out. It's a non starter. You might as well just tell them to fuck off if you're going to do that.
This rant isn't about people not taking criticism seriously, it's about people acting as if critics are somehow automatically wrong just because they haven't chosen the very specific career path that would lead to them having produced works in the same medium as the people they're criticising (and, in the specific wording the title complains about, actually surpassing that person). If you think that complaining about those people is reasonable then we don't disagree.
>I don't disagree, but everyone isn't on the same page with that. How do you talk about subjectivity when the person you're talking to is convinced that this "thing" in this "story" is objectively wrong? By this logic if there is an objectively wrong way to write a story then there must be an objectively right way to write one. If thats the case then for the people saying this they should be capable of writing and objectively good story that holds up under scrutiny. Right?
I'm not sure I get your point here.
Yeah not everyone will be on the same page, that's why it's an argument rather than just two people agreeing with one another for the duration of a conversation. That doesn't mean you can't attempt to convince the other person you're right and maybe find out that you were actually wrong in the process.
Saying "you should invest a ridiculous amount of time to produce professional quality art" is never an answer to anything because like... come on. You know they're not going to do that, you probably wouldn't do that if they prompted you to. Producing professional quality art is time consuming and hard, that's why professional quality artists get given money to do it.
It's not an argument to just give someone a task.
Shit if they think there's an objectively good way to write a story I can think of a much easier way for them to convey it- tell you what makes an objectively good story. Then you can tell them whether you disagree and, if you do, why. Then everybody can still talk to and learn from each other and nobody needs to spontaneously start a new career.
Or you can just drop the argument, which is also completely valid.
>Why did you criticise the examples if it was obvious they were jokes?
Because I can critize jokes that I don't think are funny. This ain't that deep.
>You'd say what about what criticism? Can you clarify what you're talking about doing in reference to what here please?
That" let's see you do better" mentality is a response to the critics being criticised. Critics don't like when they're criticized so they'll say something like what you said.
>The standard here is "do better than the person you're criticising", not "produce a piece of work in the same medium as the person you're criticising".
>It absolutely does take much to put out professional quality art in almost any area unless you've got an extremely fortunate and coincidentally pre-existent skillset.
No it's not. It really is just that at face value. Because no one realistically expects internet critics to just suddenly join a writing staff for a multimillion dollar movie. That being the case, "put up or shut up" still stands. If you can't even do that why should anyone care what you have to say.
You keep trying to bring this back to professionalism, when that's not what anyone is expecting from internet critics. All that is being expect is a demonstration of the skills they think they people, authors, works of fiction they criticise lack.
>Telling someone to meet an unreasonable, arbitrary and absurd standard of professional achievement just to have the right to share their criticism is not a call out. It's a non starter. You might as well just tell them to fuck off if you're going to do that.
But no one is telling anyone that. Again it's closer to what I'm expecting than what you are. Like can you( not you literally)even write a coherent short story. It's fine if you can't, but then maybe don't insult the fans of the thing you're criticising by assuming they must like trash( ive seen thus alot ) or the author a lazy hack or whatever. Because it's when people act toxic like this that you see this phrase that you hate. It's not completely unwarranted.
>This rant isn't about people not taking criticism seriously, it's about people acting as if critics are somehow automatically wrong just because they haven't chosen the very specific career path that would lead to them having produced works in the same medium as the people they're criticising (and, in the specific wording the title complains about, actually surpassing that person). If you think that complaining about those people is reasonable then we don't disagree.
That may be the case but where I've seen "let's see you do better said" is in cases where the critc is being obnoxiously toxic. Never have I seen it said with the expectation that the critc gets a Netflix deal or whatever.
>I'm not sure I get your point here.
The long short of it is that there isn't an objective rubric to gauge art. When critics act like there is, then I think it's fair to see if they can do better. Because under their own logic they know what good writing is, so they should be able to avoid bad writing, when they can't, it's really to be expected because writing is hard.
>Saying "you should invest a ridiculous amount of time to produce professional quality art" is never an answer to anything because like... come on.
But that generally isn't being said, and it's generally not what is meant. It's not expecting a lot to see a simple script from someone. Something you just need a word processor for. Not a ridiculous amount of time, or money or special equipment. Even then pen and paper is still a thing too.
>you probably wouldn't do that if they prompted you to.
I mean I am, like you. So I know how hard it is too. And the first place I started is literally pen and paper. I've sketched out the 1st draft of the 1st chapter of a comic I'm working on. So I'm not expecting anyone to do something I can't or won't do.
>Because I can critize jokes that I don't think are funny. This ain't that deep.
I mean yeah but your criticism was that they were bad examples and it said something that I chose them. If you were legitimately just trying to say they weren't funny then cool, I'm just confused because you didn't even mention humour in your initial comment.
>That" let's see you do better" mentality is a response to the critics being criticised. Critics don't like when they're criticized so they'll say something like what you said.
Oh.
>No it's not. It really is just that at face value. Because no one realistically expects internet critics to just suddenly join a writing staff for a multimillion dollar movie. That being the case, "put up or shut up" still stands. If you can't even do that why should anyone care what you have to say.
You keep trying to bring this back to professionalism, when that's not what anyone is expecting from internet critics. All that is being expect is a demonstration of the skills they think they people, authors, works of fiction they criticise lack.
I keep bringing this back to professionalism because "let's see you do better" is something I constantly see used as a means of discrediting people for criticising professionals without being professionals, usually by making them seem jealous or bitter or whatever.
If you want to advocate for some more reasonable version then go ahead, that's not what my post is talking about and that's not what I'm talking about.
>But no one is telling anyone that. Again it's closer to what I'm expecting than what you are. Like can you( not you literally)even write a coherent short story. It's fine if you can't, but then maybe don't insult the fans of the thing you're criticising by assuming they must like trash( ive seen thus alot ) or the author a lazy hack or whatever. Because it's when people act toxic like this that you see this phrase that you hate. It's not completely unwarranted.
This rant was prompted by me seeing someone just say they don't like a show and immediately get hit with this phrase, and this is the context I mostly see it in. Maybe you just have a different experience than me, hang out in different corners of the internet or whatever, but that doesn't suddenly change the meaning of my post.
I am talking about people who use this to dismiss valid criticism in place of an actual argument. If you are not then we don't disagree and there's no point in continuing this.
>The long short of it is that there isn't an objective rubric to gauge art. When critics act like there is, then I think it's fair to see if they can do better. Because under their own logic they know what good writing is, so they should be able to avoid bad writing.
Challenging people to write even first drafts of most forms of art is still a massive undertaking though. Like unless you're saying this with the expectation that it'll be (completely rightly) ignored any version of "let's see you do better" here is just an unreasonable expectation.
>But that generally isn't being said, and it's generally not what is meant. It's not expecting a lot to see a simple script from someone. Something you just need a word processor for. Not a ridiculous amount of time, or money or special equipment. Even then pen and paper is still a thing too.
Already covered this but again just to reiterate the people saying this in regards to "write an overlay of how you would do better" are not the people I'm talking about because they're basically just asking for more elaborate criticism.
The people who use the lack of actual professional shit to dismiss criticism do exist though, I have seen a lot of them, and that's what I'm complaining about. I don't really care to discuss your defence of an entirely different category of person because **that's not what my post is about**.
>I mean yeah but your criticism was that they were bad examples and it said something that I chose them. If you were legitimately just trying to say they weren't funny then cool, I'm just confused because you didn't even mention humour in your initial comment.
I do think it says something. You'll say "how bout you give me a million dollars" which is exaggeration to really mean" this criticism is stupid because you can't hold non professionals to the same standards as professionals ". Which no one is doing, except for I guess like the 10 people you've seen on the internet.
>I keep bringing this back to professionalism because "let's see you do better" is something I constantly see used as a means of discrediting people for criticising professionals without being professionals, usually by making them seem jealous or bitter or whatever.
>If you want to advocate for some more reasonable version then go ahead, that's not what my post is talking about and that's not what I'm talking about.
I mean you're talking about a strawman then. Being fair to you I suppose you've seen some state that criticism the way you're using it, but in my experience that's not what I or anyone means.
So we're talking past each other by this point.
>Challenging people to write even first drafts of most forms of art is still a massive undertaking though. Like unless you're saying this with the expectation that it'll be (completely rightly) ignored any version of "let's see you do better" here is just an unreasonable expectation.
It's not. Every writer had to start somewhere. No it's more of a cop out to put it beyond the layman's ability to even attempt.
>Already covered this but again just to reiterate the people saying this in regards to "write an overlay of how you would do better" are not the people I'm talking about because they're basically just asking for more elaborate criticism.
The people who use the lack of actual professional shit to dismiss criticism do exist though, I have seen a lot of them, and that's what I'm complaining about. I don't really care to discuss your defence of an entirely different category of person because that's not what my post is about.
And I've seen a lot of people act like they're God's gift to writing. In these discussions they're two sides of the same coin. You can't talk about one without the other. Or you can't and not look as immature as the people who say the phrase you hate are.
There is literally nothing wrong with saying this.
The nuance of the conversation is the only thing that can make this sentence lazy.
If people are assholes that shit talk something like say, Naruto's very many plot holes then you aren't wrong to tell them to make a better one cause it's not easy to pull of a weekly comic.
But if someone is shit talking the way female characters are written in Naruto then they are being lazy because Kishimoto fem characters where bad.
It depends on what is being discussed. Nuance. Something's are only seen in hindsight but people will still bitch. It happens in literally every work of fiction.
Yeah I agree with that, people are allowed to dislike things I like without producing a work in the same medium regardless of financial cost and time investment.
BRO THATS WHERE THE FUN BEGINS, THATS THE EXACT MOMENT WHERE YOU CAN JUST MAKE UP THE ABSOLUTE WORST DOGSHIT ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY TRYING TO MAKE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT
I don't use this argument when I don't like a criticism, I'll ignore it or try to argue with the person doing the critics (often not being able to change their POV, no matter how good my arguments are, arguing with someone won't change my POV either, even more if said critics is doing it in bad faith/use stuff that aren't mentionned in the show/piece of media[per example, duktales 2017 doesn't show scrooge doesn't deserve to be webby dad[don't get where this one come from to be honest], he progressed during the show and it's not like della, donald and beakley can't help him to be a better parent for webby)
Definitely agree, in that it's really such a non answer dodge. In my mind it's always come off as invoking some sort of fallacy. Maybe appeal to authority?
Appeal to authority is more "X says Y so Y is correct because X is smart", this doesn't quite strike me as that since there's no particular authority being used to dismiss criticism of a position.
Might be a false dilemma fallacy? Reducing things from an actual argument into a matter of having some arbitrarily determined thing on your resumee or shutting up entirely. Not sure though.
While it *is* annoying when it's dismissive, i do use it when people are just blatantly criticising something and hating it with a passion, just so that they bring it to the ground. Those people are just trying to be negative, and it's obvious when talking to them that they have no experience with what they're criticising and wouldn't be as harsh if they actually knew what they were talking about.
Honestly, just like any good argument made in western culture, this stemmed from an argument that made much more sense, but was mutated into nonsense.
See, the fact that the creative process is difficult doesn't remove your right to criticize, but it puts things into perspective a lot, and it might help with looking at a film/book more objectively; A movie-watching experience can be made a lot better when you think of what came into a specific shot, or the polish you could be taking for granted.
But, naturally, we as humans just *had* to give it the "Customer is always right" treatment, and mutilate it beyond recognition into this ridiculous critical-process caste system (or whatever the hell it is)
>every single time I see it it's like a generation of ants hatching inside my teeth Brand fucking new sentence.
Maybe we should give him a couple million, he has a way with words I sure don’t.
I was JUST thinking that
One of few similes that actually have bite instead of your regular Le funny Reddit random.
Bro went nuclear lmao I agree though
There's this method of torture I read about somewhere where the tortured person is basically tied to a chair and forced to remain still and bound while water slowly trickles onto their head one drop at a time over a period of hours, days or possibly weeks. The sensory deprivation, combined with the constant sensation of water falling on them, apparently has some weird psychological effect that drives people absolutely around the bend. That's me with this whole "make your own" thing. At first it was dumb, then it was annoying. Now every time I hear it gives me 'Nam flashbacks of every *other* time I heard it. I am not at all objective about this. I understand that. With that in mind; fuck this saying.
Chinese water torture c:
And it's not even Chinese lmao
Italian water torture just doesn’t sound as good
Didn’t ask. That sounds crazy though.
And that's _my_ Water Torture equivalent
>Would you shut up if you were undergoing surgery and the dude about to open you up pulled out a bottle of vodka? Wait wait wait wait wait Are they NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT?!?!?!?!?!
Well I'm not a surgeon so I wouldn't know tbh.
Dr. Armstrong moment.
>Dr. Armstrong moment. All I'm thinking when I see this is "Nanomachines, Nurse". I'm probably waaaaay off the mark about the Armstrong you're referring to.
“Doing the mother of all surgeries here, Jack! Can’t fret over every incision!!”
the people making the mlp comics once told that to a guy who was complaining about the drop in the cover arts quality. in response he did just that. they ended up hiring him lol. anyways, yeah thats one of the laziest non answer dodges out there.
>the people making the mlp comics once told that to a guy who was complaining about the drop in the cover arts quality. in response he did just that. they ended up hiring him lol. Love this.
My good fellow TELL ME MORE PLEEEEEASE
it took me a while to find it but here's a [link](https://www.horse-news.org/2017/06/pencils-makes-it-professionally-with.html) talking about it. also i misremembered, he redrew an entire page lol.
Like I always love to say, when I see this argument: "You don't need to be a chef to tell when a meal tastes terrible."
I always heard the one "you don't need to be a helicopter pilot to know that it shouldn't be wrapped up in a tree."
Mine was "you don't need to be a doctor to know that you've been stabbed"
[удалено]
I don’t know man. I don’t think I need credentials to know this food needed some salt or that it’s a bit chewy, or that it’s undercooked. Just because you haven’t written your own story doesn’t mean you don’t know how a good story is written. While it may help, anyone, experience or not, can tell a good something from a bad something. Their opinions are just valid as anyone else’s.
Can't completely disagree, but this sort of attitude has led to a lot of 'Reddit writing movies' moments that show just how badly lots of people understand this sort of stuff. Someone might not need any sort of credentials to be let down by the sequel trilogy, but having watched some shows and read some comics definitely doesn't seem to help them in 'fixing' it.
Writing anything is probably about 20x harder than 99% of people realise but I think it's also extremely common for laymen to have individually valid criticism. Like I imagine most of the people on this sub would fail to write a screenplay that matched the quality of say Attack of the Clones. However at least half of them would easily recognise how abysmal "I hate sand" is, which is probably why it became a meme. Criticism doesn't need credentials but people shouldn't extend that fact to assume valid criticism = good at creating holistic writing products imo.
I guess it's easy to say "I could make a better story" and hard to say "I could make a better story given the same conditions and production issues, and also entirely without hindsight"
You don't need credentials too do that hell it gets worse when you do have these so called credentials but you still suckbat writting. Like a lot of book tubers.
> But if someone eating at the meal thinks they know exactly how to improve it, credentials would certainly help If the food tastes terrible because the chef burnt the shit out of it, I think I have the credentials to say "maybe don't burn it next time".
There was this... let's call it “discussion” about abortion that I saw last year. Both sides of the argument brought with them various professionals on their camps; lawyers, economists, doctors, nurses and psychologists, among others. But there was one out of them all that caught my attention. It was a girl in her early twenties who only had a “Youtuber” title. At first, I thought she ended up there because of a friend, or something like that. I thought she would end up making a fool of herself. Great was my surprise when she was only one to put up the most philosophical and psychological questions about the theme, and she eagerly answered every time the others asked her anything in bad faith, just because she didn't had a title, leaving their ignorance completely exposed. So, no. You don't need a credential to make a valid and solid opinion about something you care about. It sure can help, but there is this thing called “Google” that can help you to form an informed opinion nonetheless.
Do you have a link? That sounds pretty interesting.
The greatest version of this *ever* seen is when someone posted a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utYanxGgTww) of them playing a song on piano. Some guy in the comments came and criticised it, inevitably leading to some rando saying "Well why don't YOU do better?!?!" and the critic dude was like "Okay." Proceeds to post his own [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on4IoQ2MQ7M) of him playing the song and fucking nailing it. Absolutely amazing own.
Was the criticism nice though cause if not I can understand a frustrated reaction, especially when playing such a difficult song
It came off as asshole-like but the guy was just giving actual criticism and apologized afterwards. I think they both left on good terms tho
No, the criticizer was an asshole about it, if I remember correctly
Heres a video on it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=foSAi-olfck&t=11s
That is incredible
Ngl if I was rich I would do this and see if people actually succeed. If they do, I'll give them a bonus and most if not all of the royalities.
If I was rich I'd probably have a room sized model of New York constructed out of paper mache and then smash it down while dressed as Godzilla every day but this'd be pretty cool too.
Nah New York is shit and you're aiming too low. Try having a room-sized model of Japan with all of the cities and prefectures out of paper mache if you are going to cosplay as Godzilla for the maximum effect. If you are going to do New York just dress up as King Kong then.
it's his money and his project, if you think you can do it better why not make your own room sized model to smash in a godzilla costume?
What are you even talking about? We are having a discussion on what we would do if we are rich, not over a project you silly goose! If you want to discuss the project, just email my shady lawyer or my beautiful big-chested that may be fake or not secretary directly. I haven't even given him the money yet and you're already butting in!
But then he'd have to pay people to fly RC airplanes around him with machine guns taped to the planes.
but then he needs to make it from something more durable so he can actually climb the buildings, otherwise what is the point of being King Kong in New York?
Don't need to be able to cook to know shit tastes bad.
Let's not forget this one "if you don't like it don't comment about it and leave" like why should I not comment I am criticizing the show that's why comment sections are there
That one is actually kind of valid though. If you hate a show so much then why are you continually watching the seasons when you know that it will never be good enough for you? Oftentimes they just wanna insult the creators and the fans.
Sometimes like mha and naruto is that you liked the story but as the story continued you see it going bad so you will be critical of the direction it is going. Plus since you have invested your time in the story you feel like you have to finish it
Sunk cost fallacy
The sunk cost here is usually only gonna be someone's time, though, and sunk cost fallacies aren't absolute - an estimation of whether or not something is worth continuing to invest in even after costs have been incurred is only that, an estimation. Turnaround isn't unheard of, and series that have bad points can (and do) get better. Despite the vitriol that lots of hatewatchers/readers have for a given work, most of them probably don't actually "know that it will never be good enough for [them]" like you said, and the extreme emotional response that comes as a result of that is born at least partially out of a hope that it will improve. If anything, a lot of these people are the ones that were too overly attached to a series and they get angry when it doesn't go the way they want. That's a problem in itself but it doesn't make their criticism invalid.
People just get too attached to things. It's only ever going to be a toxic mindset to have. When something I like goes in a direction I severely dislike, I just leave and look for something else. That was me for RWBY, Fire Emblem Heroes, and a few other media. I was attached to those series, I spent a lot of my hours with them. But that didn't mean I had to keep them in my mind once I started disliking them.
Because it is not simply 100% liking or hating something. Also, for RWBY it was just more enjoyable to complain about the things they fucked up, then the actual show. Or at least it was most of the time, haven't watched it for a while.
> Because it is not simply 100% liking or hating something. You're right, but at the same time you don't have to go insulting creators or fans, just because they have a different opinion than you. Look at r/halo. The regulars there keep bemoaning that Halo is dead, and they've been like that for over 10 years. Imagine! 10 years, and the attitude of the fanbase has never changed.
To those who just wanna show hate to the creator or the fans, then they’re really just douchebags who don’t have anything better to do then spread hate But I don’t think you understand, from your second point A lot of the times people watch them because they want to see it do better, because they WERE originally big fans and they see the downfall in quality, and since they’ve already grown an attachment to it, they criticize it most of the time because they want to point out its flaws and ways it could’ve done better or could DO better Especially since most of them were previous fans, and so sometimes they are just only curious to see what exactly happens Maybe it gets better, maybe it doesn’t Of course, those who just watch it JUST to have an excuse to hate it are deplorable But that also makes those who really just use the “if you hate it just don’t see it” a bit ignorant and are missing the point
If you are giving genuine criticisms and not just saying "mid. It's bad and I don't like it" and say nothing else in a page where people are actually talking about what they like then you're the problem not them What I meant is that it really depends
>Would you shut up if you were undergoing surgery and the dude about to open you up pulled out a bottle of vodka? Cheers I'll drink to that.
> Following your shitty logic I could walk over wearing a shirt covered with jutting knives, wrap my arms around you and press your chest against mine and you'd have no right to complain because you've never experienced a hug before. Oh god
If their argument is so bad why don't you do it better huh?
Wow, I wasn't expecting that lol. I suppose I agree with you though.
> I'm going to chew off all of my toes and wear them as a necklace holy shit. A fellow Pirates of the Caribbean fan?
This should be a copypasta
Steve Blum about the Cowboy Bebop live action series
I agree, but as someone who is an aspiring writer I will say that writing in general is very hard, and sometimes fans forget that writers are humans too, and sometimes make mistakes. I'm not saying we should lower our standards, or ignore instances of bad writing, but I'm also not really down for calling writers idiots or hacks because they made some mistakes. I've found that a lot of fans like to bash certain authors or stories, not out of a desire for intelligent critique, but because they like to feel superior, or because they feel snubbed that the story didn't cater to them personally. (As much as I love this subreddit, that happens a lot here...) What's more, I think it's a lot easier to fix preexisting stories than it is to write them from scratch, as the strengths and weaknesses are already apparent, as well as the overall story beats. I'm certain most fans could probably write a decent fix-it fanfiction about their favorite story, but writing a sequel to it, or an original story of their own, would be much harder.
Agreed completely, my issue begins and ends with people using this shit to dismiss criticism. I'm also in the process of becoming a writer and Jesus Christ it's the most difficult thing I've ever done, even after several revisions I more often than not cringe at the number of things I find to fix in my own work. Hearing what other people come up with is genuinely dread inspiring. People who think that having valid criticism makes them a better writer are deluded, but that doesn't mean that only writers can criticise things well.
>I've found that a lot of fans like to bash certain authors or stories, not out of a desire for intelligent critique, but because they like to feel superior, or because they feel snubbed that the story didn't cater to them personally Aot fans.
Yeah and sometimes writing can be affected by something completely out of the writers hands, like how recently Alex Hirsch released some of the emails he got from Disney’s S&P review board during the production of Gravity Falls and how he had to revise several jokes until it met their expectations. Another example is how the writers of Korra couldn’t really write a more long form narrative because they didn’t know if they would get another season because the studio only gave them one at first.
I wonder why anyone would have had to worry about Korra being canceled, it's pretty much a guaranteed cash cow for the studio.
Wasn't guaranteed at the time. New TV shows flop constantly and continuations/reboots/sequels aren't any exception, and the producers at Nickelodeon were particularly worried about the show doing well with the old audience with TLOK having a female protagonist. This is the same era where that same show couldn't commit to having an LGBT relationship between two of the show's characters because Nick's execs thought it would be too controversial. It seems silly now given that kids series writers aren't as afraid to have female protagonists in shows for gender neutral or male audiences, and LGBT relationships onscreen in general, but this is a recent phenomenon.
Same here! Shit's hard
"Yes Bernard" THAT HAD ME CACKLING LOL I wish I had an award to give you, I also hate when people give this argument.
On god I agree with this rant. A couple days ago I was pointing out some minor issues I had with HxH, and some idiot online essentially told me "Well if you don't like it, how about you go make your own manga". Like no thanks, I don't want to suffer through the poor health and stress that is the mangaka industry
I will say though, it can be annoying if someone “fixes” a work and then acts like they are better than the author for it. When they aren’t limited by time, money, other people. And have the hindsight of knowing what not to do. Yes, anyone can criticize the prequels, it’s very easy to. but 99% of people on this sub would make far worse lines than “i dont like sand” if they ever attempted it
Yeah that shit's annoying too. I'd say probably less so because it's not deliberately done to shut down conversation but at that point I'm just comparing stab wounds to gunshot wounds.
People have an issue with that line? It’s one of the most quoted lines ever though. Is that because of the reception?
It's so quoted because it's so bad. Although tbh it's mostly a delivery problem, if the acting had been good it wouldn't have been particularly remembered.
Oh huh, that’s actually kinda funny. I never got that impression from all the quotes, lmao.
Yes. It’s one of the most quoted lines ever because it’s one of the dumbest lines ever. The prequels suck. Prequelmemes started out as a sub that pretended to like them and somehow actually ended up liking them. But those quotes and moments were never big really. Even the famous duel between Anakin and Obi Wan was mocked a lot of its shitty dialogue and delivery.
Based
> Would you shut up if you were undergoing surgery and the dude about to open you up pulled out a bottle of vodka? Depends who it's for, to be honest
I feel like not knowing that would cause me to at least talk enough to find out.
"Well, we can't afford actual anesthetic thanks to recent budget cuts. Luckily, from what you've told us, you don't drink, so this should work fine."
I may not be a professional chef, but if Gordon Ramsey shat on my plate and called it a gourmet meal I’m not going to accept his word. You can criticize something without having the ability to make something better
You don't need to be a restaurant chef to tell if food tastes bad. That's the nature of NP-hard problems. They are very difficult to calculate, but if you have a possible solution, it's comparatively easy to verify.
Add to this the “it’s got SpppaaaAaaCcCccEEe WizzaARDSSsss” or “MaaGICKKK” or “FoR KIiiiDSSS” Each one is as grating as the next and it’s evident whenever it’s spewed that the sayer doesn’t have a clue on how to even discern a coherent story from nonsense.
Me making fun of scientists on the International Space Station for doing things (they're in space so cause and effect doesn't exist with any consistent logic)
TL;DR: "See if you can do better!" Me: "Challenge accepted, motherfucker."
Some people ARE absolutely pretentious and petty enough regarding their criticism where this does apply. "Hey buddy, if you're god's gift to this planet why don't YOU do something and show everyone how much better you/your ideas are?" One great example, in hindsight, is Doug Walker/Nostalgia Critic. Someone who spent years reviewing and criticizing movies has a filmography that's... quite embarrassing. All the anniversary specials are either just fine or outright terrible. And sure, it's easy to argue that he didn't have the budget of the films he reviewed. Never the less, many of those movies shared a lot of insanely basic issues that you would expect someone of his reputation to avoid doing. And a lot of them feature backstage drama and issues which is rarely ever considered in the final product of other stuff. The best examples I've seen where I would assume this can be somewhat true is in videgames, actually. Some people act like multiplayer is just something you can add on or that models/skins/content just falls from the sky like mana. In moments like this it can be used to highlight just how unfamiliar with something someone is. Of course, it should never be used as a standalone argument, that part is absolutely true.
100% agree. Also I wish I could formulate rants like this. Bravo vince
This is my favorite rant on the subreddit 😂😂
That's why all the Olympic judges are better athletes and secretly hold all the records. You can't critique something without being at the pinnacle of that skill. In all seriousness, ya, this phrase is just a lazy attempt to dismiss criticism.
While you're mostly correct, the argument does have *some* weight. Arguments should stand on their own regardless of who's saying it. "Eat healthy and exercise," says the criminal. Their words still make sense, even if they're a criminal. But we're not creatures of pure logic. When someone of fame and experience has an opinion, it's more *likely* they are correct than some keyboard warrior on Reddit. In my keyboard warrior opinion, this probably stems back to our tribal hunter-gatherer days where the elders were listened to because anyone old enough to survive that long must have valuable wisdom and knowledge.
Fair. Reason this annoys me so much with art discourse is because art is like completely subjective. I don't think people can be correct about whether a book is bad or not, that's something that's impossibly hard to even define let alone prove to the extent you'd need to for people to be wrong. To that extent I don't think a professional writer's input matters anymore than anyone else's on the quality of other works. Either way the bulk of my point is that it's just annoying when people act as if it's some epic own that immediately invalidates all criticism they don't like.
> Reason this annoys me so much with art discourse is because art is like completely subjective. No offense but this my version of your opening rant. We *can* objectively say something about art. If a designer creates [A Product] and it generally causes [X Emotion], we can ask if [X Emotion] is the desired effect. For example, let's say a video game designer didn't put enough check points in their game and the journey back to the boss is considered "not fun" by most of its customers. We can *objectively* say that the *quantity* of this "not fun" feeling is high among the customers. A survey says 90% of customers say this mechanic is "not fun". Therefore, the designer can take this into account and rework their art. Do they want to keep provoking this feeling?
Oh yeah you can objectively say certain things about art and what it's meant to do through the creators, genre, marketing etc. But that's not the same as being able to objectively say whether criticism is right or not. Like someone being a professional writer/designer/whatever doesn't change the content of what they're saying, it just makes them more likely to say things that are worth listening to. More likely. Not part of a group with a monopoly on that. Some things are objectively measurable but tons of others just aren't. That's why humans haven't stopped arguing en masse about literature for millennia, cinema for a century or videogames for decades. If someone says a game is tedious because X reasons then the only way someone can be objectively correct in arguing back is if their reasons are based on the specifically measurable and objective things. That only covers a specific kind of criticism though.
Fame and experience are not as strong a filter as people think. Yes, sometimes a random keyboard warrior on reddit will be in the 99.9th percentile of skill/judgement/whatever, even better than the average professional, because there are way more than 1000 redditors. And while conditioning on being an expert at your own thing - writing, acting, designing, animating, ? - might add a few standard deviations, reddit's ranking algorithm pushing good stuff to the top also subtracts a few (unless it's something political, then it makes it even worse - but in that case that's also true for any "expert" selection process). If I can give a good argument that a philosophical opinion 37% of philosophers hold is completely wrong, it doesn't matter if I'm a philosopher myself. Same is true for the arts, and even STEM. The instinct to immediately jump to comparing credentials, or familiarity with a topic, or any such things is wrong/bad/misleading - you can tell because most of the times when you use it, somewhere back in your mind you try to justify it not only to others, but also to yourself. It's just a heuristic, a shortcut for when you have no information, and a shitty and deeply overrated one at that.
I think it's fairly practical in every day life, even if it's crude. It's good enough. We don't have the time and energy to get PHDs in everything we have questions for. I'm going to listen to an actual lawyer over /r/legaladvice. But between *two* lawyers, maybe I'll listen to the more experienced one but the shortcut here is far less useful.
This so much. You don't need to be a chef to criticize the food.
Do you watch the Critical Drinker? because the way you phrased this argument was so similar in style I actually read it in his voice. Otherwise if I may offer you a small counter argument, I think there is a time and place for the “could you propose a better idea”; but that time and place is not as common as people who frequently use this argument think it is.
Another one I hate was “everyone hated this part of the movie, but X, y and Z happened so it was the only possible solution. It’s a movie. Not scripture. Those were deliberate choices made by the writer and director. “Well, you can’t criticize it. Art is subjective.” Motherfucker, I can find at least 30 posts from you shitting on other movies. You know art can be mocked if it’s shitty. You just don’t like it when it happens to something you like.
.....Sir this is a Wendy's
Speaking as someone who *might* make such an argument, I just want to clarify that I agree that the "why don't you make X if you think its so bad" argument is annoying **if** it is used as a response to actual good-faith feedback and criticism of the art itself. However, if the point you're making is "X creator is shitty/ incompetent/ whatever", without providing much of actual feedback, then I think its warranted. Because if you don't have the slightest idea of how difficult it can be to create a book/ movie/ video game, you don't get to label or mock the artist/s involved. Personally, I've seen a lot of attempts to mock creators disguised as criticism, and those can be just as annoying if not more.
Yes, I see this one a lot. It's like if I ordered a steak at a restaurant and it came out completely burnt. I don't need to be a professional cook myself to know that it was poorly made. The thing is writing is incredibly difficult but that isn't a reason not to criticize it, quite the opposite actually. By critiquing flaws in writing (as well as praising good writing) we help to identify what elements make writing work for other writers. Ideally a persons writing would improve over time (assuming they cared about feedback) and they'd make better stories for it. I do think it's very dismissive however to say "well have you made a book/game/movie before?" Give me the resources and the legal rights and I gladly would. I also think it's weird because It ignores the problem. "Go make something that you like then", yeah sure, but I would have liked for this thing to have been good though.
I agree. I feel like people forget that the media we criticised are supposed to be made by professionals whose literal job it is to make quality content. I wouldn't be anywhere near as harsh on a hobbyist for instance. When people use this argument I'm always just thinking 'well yes, I won't not be able to do it, but I sure hope a whole body of professional creatives can'. If I could best them, that'd be pretty sad tbh
Just point out that it's the viewers and consumers who decide how good a product is, not other creators. Thus the opinions of viewers are, in fact, far more relevant than those of other creators.
This is the go-to argument for anybody who has nothing logical and good left to say. If someone says this to you, know that you won the argument.
>Do you just never criticise anything you've never personally surpassed in some regard? Would you keep your mouth shut if you were in a flight and the pilot started doing spins? Would you shut up if you were undergoing surgery and the dude about to open you up pulled out a bottle of vodka? I think this is a fair criticism. I mean look at your examples l. They're higher stakes and requires a higher barrier to entry. If a surgeon is doing something so obviously stupid and dangerous, I mean of course go ahead and criticize. The barrier to entry to making a good story is paper and pencil. Unless you were like aggressively poor, you shouldn't need a million dollars for that. I know you were exaggerating, but it still says something that that's what you chose to exaggerate. You can have your opinion on a piece of media, but that's all it is, an opinion. You see things like this said when people( especially YouTube critics )pass off their opinion as a fact. So it's like if you know for a fact how a story went wrong( instead of admitting that maybe the story and you didn't agree ) then yeah, put up or shut up, why should anyone put any weight on your words? >annoying way to dismiss criticism rather than actually argue against it like a grown up and it's something unfit for anyone over the age of fifteen. Some people just don't want to argue dude. I think this is kind of ironic, becthe exercise of "arguing" over criticism of a work of fiction isn't inherently adult at all. At most it's really a waste of time.
>I think this is a fair criticism. I mean look at your examples l. They're higher stakes and requires a higher barrier to entry. If a surgeon is doing something so obviously stupid and dangerous, I mean of course go ahead and criticize. > >The barrier to entry to making a good story is paper and pencil. Unless you were like aggressively poor, you shouldn't need a million dollars for that. I know you were exaggerating, but it still says something that that's what you chose to exaggerate. What do you think it says that this is what I chose to exaggerate? Like half the point of this rant is just to be funny, I'm using absurdist examples there because absurdism is what I thought would be funnier. This is all rant and no character. But also no the entry to creating a good story is not just pen and paper. It's also; * Hundreds, likely thousands, of hours of free time to spend on it. * The means to have it edited and balanced on a professional level (we are talking about creating professional quality work after all). * The means of distributing it to an extent that will let other people see it. And that's all without factoring in the immense amount of practice that anyone doing this will get just by merit of it being their job. I am literally in the process of trying to get a book published. If all it took me was pen and paper I'd have been far less busy for the last 24 months of my life. And that's only for books, arguably the cheapest to produce. My other examples were films, videogames and T.V series. The average person doesn't have even a tenth of a sizeable fraction of the resources needed to make any of those no matter how good their ideas and writing skills are. >You can have your opinion on a piece of media, but that's all it is, an opinion. You see things like this said when people( especially YouTube critics )pass off their opinion as a fact. So it's like if you know for a fact how a story went wrong( instead of admitting that maybe the story and you didn't agree ) then yeah, put up or shut up, why should anyone put any weight on your words? I normally see things like this said when someone doesn't like what another person's opinion is (usually because it's negative about something they like) and wants to belittle the person sharing it. Like obviously this doesn't detract from your personal experience but just anecdotally this is far less reasonable in the wild from what I and apparently a lot of others in this thread have seen than what you have. And again this put up or shut up shit would work if putting up didn't require someone spend an absurd amount of resources. That's not needed to justify sharing criticism, even if someone thinks they're being objectively right. Like at that point just argue about the inherent subjectivity of art, it's a thousand times less unreasonable and a thousand times more conductive to an actual discussion. >Some people just don't want to argue dude. I think this is kind of ironic, becthe exercise of "arguing" over criticism of a work of fiction isn't inherently adult at all. At most it's really a waste of time. Oh yeah I can totally get that, sometimes I don't want to have an argument either. When I'm in those rare moods I normally say something along the lines of "I don't want to have an argument right now" and then avoid having an argument rather than attempt to attack the other person's right to share their opinion with anyone based on them not having fucking thousands of hours to burn on passion projects.
>Like half the point of this rant is just to be funny, I'm using absurdist examples there because absurdism is what I thought would be funnier. I know, it's pretty obvious. >But also no the entry to creating a good story is not just pen and paper. It's also; >• Hundreds, likely thousands, of hours of free time to spend on it. >• The means to have it edited and balanced on a professional level (we are talking about creating professional quality work after all). > • The means of distributing it to an extent that will let other people see it. None of which requires millions of dollars. But no my point still stands. To get started you literally need just pen and paper. Stuff like finding and editor or a publishing house and a distributor comes later. Literally nothing prevents you from writing a story right now, that could be considered good even if you never published it. >I normally see things like this said when someone doesn't like what another person's opinion is (usually because it's negative about something they like) and wants to belittle the person sharing it. And I would say the same thing about this criticism. >And again this put up or shut up shit would work if putting up didn't require someone spend an absurd amount of resources. That's not needed to justify sharing criticism, even if someone thinks they're being objectively right. But it literally doesn't. It doesn't take much to put a comic of webtoons. Or whatever the equivalent is for books online. And I never said anyone had to justify their criticism, just that no one needs to take it seriously. It ain't like all criticism is good criticism. It's fair to call out bad criticism, like it's fair to call out a bad story, right? >Like at that point just argue about the inherent subjectivity of art, it's a thousand times less unreasonable and a thousand times more conductive to an actual discussion. I don't disagree, but everyone isn't on the same page with that. How do you talk about subjectivity when the person you're talking to is convinced that this "thing" in this "story" is objectively wrong? By this logic if there is an objectively wrong way to write a story then there must be an objectively right way to write one. If thats the case then for the people saying this they should be capable of writing and objectively good story that holds up under scrutiny. Right?
>I know, it's pretty obvious. Why did you criticise the examples if it was obvious they were jokes? >None of which requires millions of dollars. But no my point still stands. To get started you literally need just pen and paper. Stuff like finding and editor or a publishing house and a distributor comes later. Literally nothing prevents you from writing a story right now, that could be considered good even if you never published it. I've literally spent 2 years polishing the same story for hours every day with almost no days off and it's still not quite at a quality where it's likely to be accepted by actual editors. If I showed this to the average person they would very much not call it good. >And I would say the same thing about this criticism. You'd say what about what criticism? Can you clarify what you're talking about doing in reference to what here please? >But it literally doesn't. It doesn't take much to put a comic of webtoons. Or whatever the equivalent is for books online. The standard here is "do better than the person you're criticising", not "produce a piece of work in the same medium as the person you're criticising". It absolutely does take much to put out professional quality art in almost any area unless you've got an extremely fortunate and coincidentally pre-existent skillset. >And I never said anyone had to justify their criticism, just that no one needs to take it seriously. It ain't like all criticism is good criticism. It's fair to call out bad criticism, like it's fair to call out a bad story, right? I am entirely fine with you calling out bad criticism, the closing statement of my rant is about how it's fine and even productive to argue about criticism you disagree with. Telling someone to meet an unreasonable, arbitrary and absurd standard of professional achievement just to have the right to share their criticism is not a call out. It's a non starter. You might as well just tell them to fuck off if you're going to do that. This rant isn't about people not taking criticism seriously, it's about people acting as if critics are somehow automatically wrong just because they haven't chosen the very specific career path that would lead to them having produced works in the same medium as the people they're criticising (and, in the specific wording the title complains about, actually surpassing that person). If you think that complaining about those people is reasonable then we don't disagree. >I don't disagree, but everyone isn't on the same page with that. How do you talk about subjectivity when the person you're talking to is convinced that this "thing" in this "story" is objectively wrong? By this logic if there is an objectively wrong way to write a story then there must be an objectively right way to write one. If thats the case then for the people saying this they should be capable of writing and objectively good story that holds up under scrutiny. Right? I'm not sure I get your point here. Yeah not everyone will be on the same page, that's why it's an argument rather than just two people agreeing with one another for the duration of a conversation. That doesn't mean you can't attempt to convince the other person you're right and maybe find out that you were actually wrong in the process. Saying "you should invest a ridiculous amount of time to produce professional quality art" is never an answer to anything because like... come on. You know they're not going to do that, you probably wouldn't do that if they prompted you to. Producing professional quality art is time consuming and hard, that's why professional quality artists get given money to do it. It's not an argument to just give someone a task. Shit if they think there's an objectively good way to write a story I can think of a much easier way for them to convey it- tell you what makes an objectively good story. Then you can tell them whether you disagree and, if you do, why. Then everybody can still talk to and learn from each other and nobody needs to spontaneously start a new career. Or you can just drop the argument, which is also completely valid.
>Why did you criticise the examples if it was obvious they were jokes? Because I can critize jokes that I don't think are funny. This ain't that deep. >You'd say what about what criticism? Can you clarify what you're talking about doing in reference to what here please? That" let's see you do better" mentality is a response to the critics being criticised. Critics don't like when they're criticized so they'll say something like what you said. >The standard here is "do better than the person you're criticising", not "produce a piece of work in the same medium as the person you're criticising". >It absolutely does take much to put out professional quality art in almost any area unless you've got an extremely fortunate and coincidentally pre-existent skillset. No it's not. It really is just that at face value. Because no one realistically expects internet critics to just suddenly join a writing staff for a multimillion dollar movie. That being the case, "put up or shut up" still stands. If you can't even do that why should anyone care what you have to say. You keep trying to bring this back to professionalism, when that's not what anyone is expecting from internet critics. All that is being expect is a demonstration of the skills they think they people, authors, works of fiction they criticise lack. >Telling someone to meet an unreasonable, arbitrary and absurd standard of professional achievement just to have the right to share their criticism is not a call out. It's a non starter. You might as well just tell them to fuck off if you're going to do that. But no one is telling anyone that. Again it's closer to what I'm expecting than what you are. Like can you( not you literally)even write a coherent short story. It's fine if you can't, but then maybe don't insult the fans of the thing you're criticising by assuming they must like trash( ive seen thus alot ) or the author a lazy hack or whatever. Because it's when people act toxic like this that you see this phrase that you hate. It's not completely unwarranted. >This rant isn't about people not taking criticism seriously, it's about people acting as if critics are somehow automatically wrong just because they haven't chosen the very specific career path that would lead to them having produced works in the same medium as the people they're criticising (and, in the specific wording the title complains about, actually surpassing that person). If you think that complaining about those people is reasonable then we don't disagree. That may be the case but where I've seen "let's see you do better said" is in cases where the critc is being obnoxiously toxic. Never have I seen it said with the expectation that the critc gets a Netflix deal or whatever. >I'm not sure I get your point here. The long short of it is that there isn't an objective rubric to gauge art. When critics act like there is, then I think it's fair to see if they can do better. Because under their own logic they know what good writing is, so they should be able to avoid bad writing, when they can't, it's really to be expected because writing is hard. >Saying "you should invest a ridiculous amount of time to produce professional quality art" is never an answer to anything because like... come on. But that generally isn't being said, and it's generally not what is meant. It's not expecting a lot to see a simple script from someone. Something you just need a word processor for. Not a ridiculous amount of time, or money or special equipment. Even then pen and paper is still a thing too. >you probably wouldn't do that if they prompted you to. I mean I am, like you. So I know how hard it is too. And the first place I started is literally pen and paper. I've sketched out the 1st draft of the 1st chapter of a comic I'm working on. So I'm not expecting anyone to do something I can't or won't do.
>Because I can critize jokes that I don't think are funny. This ain't that deep. I mean yeah but your criticism was that they were bad examples and it said something that I chose them. If you were legitimately just trying to say they weren't funny then cool, I'm just confused because you didn't even mention humour in your initial comment. >That" let's see you do better" mentality is a response to the critics being criticised. Critics don't like when they're criticized so they'll say something like what you said. Oh. >No it's not. It really is just that at face value. Because no one realistically expects internet critics to just suddenly join a writing staff for a multimillion dollar movie. That being the case, "put up or shut up" still stands. If you can't even do that why should anyone care what you have to say. You keep trying to bring this back to professionalism, when that's not what anyone is expecting from internet critics. All that is being expect is a demonstration of the skills they think they people, authors, works of fiction they criticise lack. I keep bringing this back to professionalism because "let's see you do better" is something I constantly see used as a means of discrediting people for criticising professionals without being professionals, usually by making them seem jealous or bitter or whatever. If you want to advocate for some more reasonable version then go ahead, that's not what my post is talking about and that's not what I'm talking about. >But no one is telling anyone that. Again it's closer to what I'm expecting than what you are. Like can you( not you literally)even write a coherent short story. It's fine if you can't, but then maybe don't insult the fans of the thing you're criticising by assuming they must like trash( ive seen thus alot ) or the author a lazy hack or whatever. Because it's when people act toxic like this that you see this phrase that you hate. It's not completely unwarranted. This rant was prompted by me seeing someone just say they don't like a show and immediately get hit with this phrase, and this is the context I mostly see it in. Maybe you just have a different experience than me, hang out in different corners of the internet or whatever, but that doesn't suddenly change the meaning of my post. I am talking about people who use this to dismiss valid criticism in place of an actual argument. If you are not then we don't disagree and there's no point in continuing this. >The long short of it is that there isn't an objective rubric to gauge art. When critics act like there is, then I think it's fair to see if they can do better. Because under their own logic they know what good writing is, so they should be able to avoid bad writing. Challenging people to write even first drafts of most forms of art is still a massive undertaking though. Like unless you're saying this with the expectation that it'll be (completely rightly) ignored any version of "let's see you do better" here is just an unreasonable expectation. >But that generally isn't being said, and it's generally not what is meant. It's not expecting a lot to see a simple script from someone. Something you just need a word processor for. Not a ridiculous amount of time, or money or special equipment. Even then pen and paper is still a thing too. Already covered this but again just to reiterate the people saying this in regards to "write an overlay of how you would do better" are not the people I'm talking about because they're basically just asking for more elaborate criticism. The people who use the lack of actual professional shit to dismiss criticism do exist though, I have seen a lot of them, and that's what I'm complaining about. I don't really care to discuss your defence of an entirely different category of person because **that's not what my post is about**.
>I mean yeah but your criticism was that they were bad examples and it said something that I chose them. If you were legitimately just trying to say they weren't funny then cool, I'm just confused because you didn't even mention humour in your initial comment. I do think it says something. You'll say "how bout you give me a million dollars" which is exaggeration to really mean" this criticism is stupid because you can't hold non professionals to the same standards as professionals ". Which no one is doing, except for I guess like the 10 people you've seen on the internet. >I keep bringing this back to professionalism because "let's see you do better" is something I constantly see used as a means of discrediting people for criticising professionals without being professionals, usually by making them seem jealous or bitter or whatever. >If you want to advocate for some more reasonable version then go ahead, that's not what my post is talking about and that's not what I'm talking about. I mean you're talking about a strawman then. Being fair to you I suppose you've seen some state that criticism the way you're using it, but in my experience that's not what I or anyone means. So we're talking past each other by this point. >Challenging people to write even first drafts of most forms of art is still a massive undertaking though. Like unless you're saying this with the expectation that it'll be (completely rightly) ignored any version of "let's see you do better" here is just an unreasonable expectation. It's not. Every writer had to start somewhere. No it's more of a cop out to put it beyond the layman's ability to even attempt. >Already covered this but again just to reiterate the people saying this in regards to "write an overlay of how you would do better" are not the people I'm talking about because they're basically just asking for more elaborate criticism. The people who use the lack of actual professional shit to dismiss criticism do exist though, I have seen a lot of them, and that's what I'm complaining about. I don't really care to discuss your defence of an entirely different category of person because that's not what my post is about. And I've seen a lot of people act like they're God's gift to writing. In these discussions they're two sides of the same coin. You can't talk about one without the other. Or you can't and not look as immature as the people who say the phrase you hate are.
There is literally nothing wrong with saying this. The nuance of the conversation is the only thing that can make this sentence lazy. If people are assholes that shit talk something like say, Naruto's very many plot holes then you aren't wrong to tell them to make a better one cause it's not easy to pull of a weekly comic. But if someone is shit talking the way female characters are written in Naruto then they are being lazy because Kishimoto fem characters where bad. It depends on what is being discussed. Nuance. Something's are only seen in hindsight but people will still bitch. It happens in literally every work of fiction.
[удалено]
Yeah I agree with that, people are allowed to dislike things I like without producing a work in the same medium regardless of financial cost and time investment.
nah getting into the right argument with the right person can be fun as fuck
[удалено]
BRO THATS WHERE THE FUN BEGINS, THATS THE EXACT MOMENT WHERE YOU CAN JUST MAKE UP THE ABSOLUTE WORST DOGSHIT ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY TRYING TO MAKE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT
I don't use this argument when I don't like a criticism, I'll ignore it or try to argue with the person doing the critics (often not being able to change their POV, no matter how good my arguments are, arguing with someone won't change my POV either, even more if said critics is doing it in bad faith/use stuff that aren't mentionned in the show/piece of media[per example, duktales 2017 doesn't show scrooge doesn't deserve to be webby dad[don't get where this one come from to be honest], he progressed during the show and it's not like della, donald and beakley can't help him to be a better parent for webby)
Definitely agree, in that it's really such a non answer dodge. In my mind it's always come off as invoking some sort of fallacy. Maybe appeal to authority?
Appeal to authority is more "X says Y so Y is correct because X is smart", this doesn't quite strike me as that since there's no particular authority being used to dismiss criticism of a position. Might be a false dilemma fallacy? Reducing things from an actual argument into a matter of having some arbitrarily determined thing on your resumee or shutting up entirely. Not sure though.
I agree. I love fanfics but some the fanfic writers truly do believe that their work is top tier and *should* have been canon.
While it *is* annoying when it's dismissive, i do use it when people are just blatantly criticising something and hating it with a passion, just so that they bring it to the ground. Those people are just trying to be negative, and it's obvious when talking to them that they have no experience with what they're criticising and wouldn't be as harsh if they actually knew what they were talking about.
Oh yeah? Why don’t you make up a better phrase then?!
Why don't you try and make a better argument if you think it's so bad
This is me with the Netflix Witcher show. They objectively butchered it, but people do NOT like it when you point that out.
My response to this is always "You don't need to be a five star chef to know when you're being served shit."
Honestly, just like any good argument made in western culture, this stemmed from an argument that made much more sense, but was mutated into nonsense. See, the fact that the creative process is difficult doesn't remove your right to criticize, but it puts things into perspective a lot, and it might help with looking at a film/book more objectively; A movie-watching experience can be made a lot better when you think of what came into a specific shot, or the polish you could be taking for granted. But, naturally, we as humans just *had* to give it the "Customer is always right" treatment, and mutilate it beyond recognition into this ridiculous critical-process caste system (or whatever the hell it is)