Comment Re:No, stop it. (Score 1) 116
"ZERO chance" is absolutism masquerading as insight.
No it isn't. It's a metaphor used to make a point. I am not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension.
"Deconstructed" is doing culture-war labor here, not analytical labor. It is a loaded buzzword meant to trigger a mood, not convey a testable claim.
No, it isn't. Deconstruction is a literary analysis technique developed by Jaques Derrida, involving unpacking and breaking down invisible assumptions supporting a given position. Sadly, it's also a technique abused by the ignorant to twist the messages of creative works against themselves. Derrida would be turning in his grave.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - wait another 20 years until it can me made with some sanity!
That is not an argument.
Correct! It was a request! (nobody claimed it was an argument to start with though, but nice strawman)
"Sanity" here is just a disguised value judgment
? It's not disguised at all: I am *absolutely* making a value judgement about today's entertainment culture! But, so what? People are allowed to do that and express their opinion. It's called freedom of speech. If you don't like what I say, feel free to ignore it rather than go on a mis-informed pseudo-intellectual rant. LOL
Yup. Burden of proof is on people who want to claim TV ISN'T garbage today - our evidence is plainly self-evident.
And this is your cleanest self-own in the thread. No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That is how claims work.
Nope. Sorry. That is *NOT* how claims work. Both sides are making a "claim". The burden of proof is on the person making the *extra-ordinary* claim, you know, the one that flies *against* the preponderance of available evidence?
Like, if I said "gravity makes things fall" and you said "no it doesn't, you have no proof!" - the burden of proof is NOT on me to "prove" to you gravity is real - the burden of proof is on you to prove your counter-claim because it's one that goes against all the abundantly available evidence.
Russell's teapot says the person asserting the invisible teapot bears the burden, not the person declining to genuflect before it.
I mean, exactly? I'm not the one denying reality and saying the teapot is invisible here though - that would be the point YOU are defending...
If the evidence were actually self-evident, you would name it.
No, because I don't have to. I am under no obligation to provide support for self-evident facts you refuse to acknowledge. Asking for "receipts" in this case is arguing in bad faith on your part - it's just as disingenuous as it would be to demand that I prove the earth revolves around the sun.
Look, of the two of us, YOU are the only one that has resorted to using ad-homonym's instead of actual discussion. I am not attempting to make this a political debate - that's you. When you see someone who can't interpret anything except through the left-wing lens of calling everyone Nazis, or the right-wing lens of calling everyone lib-tards; it's good evidence that nothing else they have to say is worth a damn.
Let's go through all the politically charged buzz-words, personal insults, jargon and other horse-hockey that YOU tried to bring in, in order to this into some kind of messed up "left vs right" emotionally charged political argument, rather than a discussion about declining quality of TV these days.
...
the coward's escape hatch
And there it is - insults when you have nothing else.
any anti-DEI, anti-woke rally
WTF are you talking about? Nobody but you has said anything at all about DEI or wokeness here, I've been talking about the quality of writing. You are bringing in your own assumptions from outside. Stop it, this isn't a political rally.
only thing missing is a PowerPoint deck titled "trust me, bro" that you got at some Turning Point USA rally
Again, this says more about YOUR ideological prejudices than it does mine. You know *nothing* about me, I have not said anything political at all, those are *all* YOUR assumptions (and lack of reading comprehension)
...
What you are doing here is not criticism.
Uh... I never said it was? I was stating an opinion and making a request. How you thought I was trying to write some kind of critical analysis is beyond me. But again, this is just another example of your complete lack of understanding of the conversation you are in.
What you are doing here is completely and utterly intellectually dishonest. You dress it up in pseudo-intellectual academic language (it's clear you went to university from all the philosophy 101 references you throw in to make yourself sound smart, kudos I guess?), but all you've got is a bunch of personal insults and poorly made misguided attempts to frame this as a "left vs right" political thing, instead of a simply a discussion about declining TV quality.
Those flogging political agendas will pick any port in a storm to beat their dead horse I guess.
