• Dagwood222
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    You’ve given up on your original point, because I showed that it was an incorrect assumption on your part. I’ll repeat. A person’s subjective tastes can be viewed objectively. If a person says they want to watch a musical right now, anyone can objectively judge if a movie is a musical or not.

    Now you’re upset because I read the original commnet, and suggested that the person might like to read some books I’d enjoyed.

    As far as I can tell, you’ve never read any of the books involved.

    The only thing I’m confused about is why you’re in such a lather.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      My original point was “art that is technically inferior to other art is still enjoyable” and then you talking about how a Clancy book was bad because of a technical error. You’ve brought up the accuracy of things multiple times when we’re talking about enjoyment of art.

      Up until your “are you still confused?” bullshit I thought we were having a friendly conversation. So sorry to have rustled your jimmies. I’m impressed that you’ve so keenly observed that I haven’t read any Tom Clancy novels, though, after I told you “I’ve never read a Clancy novel” in my first or second reply. You’re sharper than you let on!