Some commentary on the squabbling up-thread :
Details spoilered for length. Summary at the bottom.
There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, tnuk, but constant criticism is bound to get other PEELers backs up. And calling people idiots for enjoying the current run, or snidely asserting they're not "discerning in their tastes" is just rude.
Never begin a sentence with "and". Now that I've got your back up, I'd like to point out that I've not called people idiots "for enjoying the current run" of Futurama. I've called people idiots for saying stupid things, and sometimes just to rub them the wrong way, but not for liking new episodes of Futurama. If I have, then please feel free to show me where. I'll cheerfully apologise if I've done that, since I don't feel that simply liking something I don't makes somebody an idiot.
As for saying that people are indiscriminate or undiscerning based on their ability to discriminate or discern, I would contend that pointing it out might be less than tactful, but there's no really polite way to say it, and I really don't care if somebody is offended by that description. If you're a discerning and intelligent individual and I've stated that a group to which you belong is composed of people who are neither, then feel free to assume that you represent the distinction between actuality and my sweeping generalisation. Or, you could just call me rude. I don't mind which. I'm aware that many of the things I say around here are sweeping generalisations, and I sometimes put a disclaimer to that effect in small text at the bottom of my posts. It usually depends on how much space the post has already taken up, and how long the disclaimer would need to be.
Your opinion is just that - your subjective opinion. Posting a graph which shows other people share your opinion does not make it the definitive opinion.
I'm not going to say that my opinion is definitively the best one to have, or that holding a different one automatically makes somebody a dullard or simpleton. I mean, everybody's entitled to have a different opinion, since they're all subjective. But it
is possible for somebody to have an opinion that's absolute dreck, and some people seem to have made a concious choice to do so. In those cases, I am likely to point out that the opinion being espoused is garbage. Just because you are entitled to an opinion on something doesn't mean that you should expect a thoughtless, baseless, opinion with no logical merit to escape criticism (the "you" here does not refer to
you specifically, by the way).
My opinion of any given thing is usually based on something - evidence or observation, a little background knowledge, sometimes even experience. It's usually formed after a little thought, and if I come across something that changes the sum of what it's based upon, it's subject to change. It's about as subjective as something can get, but I try to make sure that I have a justification for it which can be defended, at the very least.
If I post a graph to show the basis for my opinion (or to show that others agree with it), it's intended as a justification. I recall
the conversation to which I presume you are obliquely alluding, and the graph was created to show
why I'd said what I had (which was something about a decline in the quality of Futurama being noticeable).
my response to your post wasn't particularly confrontational, and I addressed everything that you said without using flashing red text. Speaking of which...
Posting "you're wrong" in flashing red text doesn't make it the definitive opinion.
You're right, and I tend not to use those .gif files in that way. I tend to use them more where somebody has actually made an error, and I can clearly demonstrate that they're wrong if necessary - or else as an obnoxious, showy means of
highlighting somebody's error. I try not to use those for the sort of subjective, everybody-thinks-differently things that generate actual opinions. They get enough of a workout when just being used for the occasions when somebody's actually wrong about something and I feel like being a jerk about it.
Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you stupid and blind definitely doesn't make it the definitive opinion.
Usually, I call people stupid for saying something stupid. Generally, they will also happen to disagree with me. I've never seen simply calling somebody stupid as a substitute for the actual justification of an opinion or the rebuttal of an argument, unless they've repeatedly shown themselves to be resistant to real discussion. Just to provide an example, I don't think I've called you stupid in this post. Or in the previous conversation I linked to. Yet you and I quite clearly disagree on some things.
And I'm a little sick of you lampshading your responses by claiming to be smarter / more invested in the show / more sarcastic than your opponent.
Heh. I play a part here. The persona I've (unintentionally, at first) built up on PEEL over the last ten years
is smarter than a lot of people. I'm the first to admit that I might not be, myself. The real me, I mean. The one who has a first name and a last name, rather than a username. But the guy with the username is the one that people see, and he's not just smart, he's
cocky too. I'm well aware that people do mistake me (and I'm still not entirely sure why) for a much smarter man, and if somebody's being relentlessly stupid, I find that an effective way to get them to put a sock in it is to intimidate them with my apparent intelligence.
Over the last couple of years especially though, I've not claimed to be particularly clever. In fact, I've admitted more than once that people tend to assume I've an awesome intellect, and I merely refuse to correct them outright. If I "claim to be smarter" than somebody, it's probably because they've made themselves sound
really dumb.
I don't recall saying that I'm "more invested in the show" than others. I certainly don't remember saying it frequently, as you seem to be implying. Do you have an example or seven?
I'm also confused as to how often you feel I claim to be "more sarcastic" than somebody in order to... um... "win" an argument? Score a point? An example or seven of that would be nice, too. Otherwise, I'm really not sure whose posts you've been reading.
You think that those who disagree with you are generally wrong, and generally back away from the argument with egg on their face. That's a statement that's a little hard to swallow.
I won't ask that you take it on blind faith. You'll find that those conversations are scattered around PEEL. If I get into an argument with somebody (or a group of people) on PEEL, I normally have a position that I can defend. I will usually be able to lay out why the person disagreeing with me isn't right, and counter much (if not all) of what they say. Take the conversation that I linked to, further up this post. The one where you disagreed with me, and I addressed
everything that you took issue with. Whilst I wouldn't say you "lost" anything or had "egg on your face", I would contend that I managed to justify the position that you had attacked... and that you were unable or unwilling to continue the debate shows that at least some of what I said must have been valid enough that you felt there was no merit in arguing further.
It's impossible for you or your opponent to be "right" in many of your arguments, because they often revolve around your attempts to prove your opinion is fact.
Again, this seems to be a reference to the conversation I linked to. I am, and always have been, happy to admit that at the end of the day an opinion cannot be proven one way or the other (and I take issue with the idea of "proof" for various reasons anyway. I won't go into that here). I do, however, believe than an opinion which can be supported with evidence and justified through rational argument can be considered to have considerably more validity and be relied upon as a cromulent statement to a greater degree than one which cannot. I seek to justify my opinions, yes. Not to "prove" them as fact, but to show that they do have merit (and sometimes more merit than one which is in conflict with them).
Much of what I say on PEEL is my opinion, but most of what I end up arguing about is demonstrably either right or wrong. Of course, the conversation (which I think is the only place where we've actually had any direct discussion. I might be wrong, though. Are there others?) which I linked to further up is not one of those. It's simply an opinion that I sought to justify, because others had taken issue with its validity.
You can state your opinion as exhaustively and as eloquently as you like, but that won't transmute it into fact. Your vocabulary alone suggests you're a smart guy, so it baffles me that you persist in this.
I really don't try to do that. It's baffling to
me that that's what you think is going on. I mean, you seem like a smart guy too. Why would you think that I'm trying to "prove" an opinion, rather than simply providing justification for it in the face of opposition? When I'm challenged, I respond with such justification (where I can. I mean, I do occasionally have to admit to having made a mistake, or on
very rare occasions admit to having been making an argument which I know to be false for my own amusement).
You make a statement like "the new series was bad" and expect us to bow down to the unimpeachable power of the bold button and accept your opinion as fact.
No, I'm quite happy for somebody to take issue with my statement, and make a reasoned case against it. In fact, I'd been hopeful that that would happen when I made that particular statement.
Unfortunately, it's easy to bold things. Anyone can do it! It adds no weight to your argument.
Yes. It does, however, serve to emphasise portions of a discussion in text format. If I were using pen and paper, I'd underline rather than embolden. It's not intended to add weight to an argument, so much as to highlight what I'm taking issue with. It's about readability, really. I do try to make my posts readable (I'm aware that they can end up as difficult-to-navigate walls of text, and try to compensate the reader by being as clear as possible).
If you want to state "the last series was bad" as your opinion, go ahead. But if you insist upon calling it fact, and getting snotty about everyone who doesn't agree, you're going to annoy people. It's poor forum etiquette, to say the least.
I was operating under the assumption that it was understood a person's posts represent their opinions, rather than the Final and Immutable Last Word of God. Yes, it is my opinion. No, I haven't claimed that it is a
fact (look! emphasis!), and I won't do so. I will, however, justify and back up my opinion when it is challenged. I will show the basis that I have for making that statement, and share the reasons why
I feel (more emphasis, I'm
not saying that everything I feel is a fact), the last season was bad. I will seek to provide a rationale that should serve to show the validity of my opinion (and if people mistake this for an attempt to "prove" that my opinion is a fact, then I'd say that says more about their opinion of their own opinions than my opinion of my own opinion).
When you present your opinions rationally, I quite enjoy reading them. But I don't enjoy disagreeing with you (if merely reminding you your opinion is not fact can be called that 
).
Well now, I'd say that you haven't really disagreed with me so far. You've put forth your own theories on my motivations, and espoused your opinions of my opinions of my opinion, and you've repeatedly reminded me that when I have an opinion, it's just an opinion and not a fact. You've provided criticism of my criticism (and it's useful to get that sort of feedback. Thank you), and you've given a detailed treatise on why you think I'm an abominable arse. You've not taken much of anything I've said and contradicted it, so I don't think that we're in disagreement so much as you're asking me to cram it because you find me rude and opinionated.
Of course, I was responding initially to TheAnvil and SolidSnake, and was rude and opinionated because I felt that the tone of their posts deserved such treatment. The argument faded, everybody got over it, and then you decided to weigh in. Which has led to me taking up a not-insignificant chunk of text with a response.
You think those you argue with have all retreated with "egg on their face" because you were winning the argument. Not true, I'm afraid. In my case, I got sick of your obfuscating text-dumping, and gave up trying to talk to you.
It's hardly "obfuscating text-dumping" to respond to the points you made in full. If you can't deal with a little text to read through, then I have to question your commitment to arguing endlessly about trivial minutiae on a messageboard devoted to a science fiction cartoon that has been cancelled multiple times.
It was boredom, and the happy reminder I had better things to do, that led to me abandoning the conversation.
I get it. You have a life elsewhere. You also don't feel that you lost an argument - and I don't feel that you did either. You made a few points that you obviously felt I had not considered, and I responded with a justification for my initial opinions in reply to each point. I would class it more as a discussion, and would say that neither of us "won" or "lost". I would in fact have said that you made me answer relevant questions, which I thoroughly applaud.
The
argument was really with another poster (and this is the last time that I'll point out I'm using bold tags to emphasise a portion of my sentence for clarity, rather than to somehow win the internet).
Bombarding your opponent with text and breaking out your best vocabulary doesn't make you right, it just makes you obnoxious - the metaphorical kid in the sandbox, screaming "MY CASTLE IS THE BEST!!" so loudly no-one else can be heard. You haven't won the argument, you've just exhausted everyone in range.
If I use a lot of text, it's usually because there's a lot that I want to say - it's not like I'm copying and pasting something completely irrelevant from a textbook on loom manufacture just to bulk out what I'm posting. Similarly, I enjoy exercising my vocabulary, and I often type as I would talk. I like language, I like words, and I like to take the opportunity to use them both appropriately and inappropriately.
Where I have a lot to respond to, I often respond with a long post. If you feel that you're being hit by a wall of text for 10d6 damage, I'm sorry. That's not really intentional on my part. It's partly a function of the amount that I've got to reply to, and partly a function of my general tendancy to ramble on and on when typing or writing (and that's possibly something that I picked up from reading and re-reading Dickens as a child. I'm not going to try to blame him, I just think that maybe he contributed to this).
"Yeah, some people still really enjoy it. That's fine. They're allowed to. But I'm allowed by the same token to point out that this means they're about as discerning in their tastes as a hobo rummaging through a dumpster for his dinner." - 
No, you're not. You're allowed to say you don't enjoy it, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to insult everyone who does.
I'll re-state in an attempt to clarify: When there are people saying that the new Futurama episodes are just as good as the old ones, and I can see reasons why they're
not, I am at liberty both to disagree and to point out my reasons for disagreeing. If my reason for disagreeing is that I can point to numerous examples where the new episodes fall short of the standard established by the original run and people just can't tell that there's a difference... then I get to point out that perhaps the difference is something that they're not
capable of picking up on.
Your inability to respect a different opinion is just absurd now.
I respect many opinions with which I disagree, but openly take issue with opinions that are founded on pure nonsense. Most of PEEL feels differently than I do about most episodes of the show, and yet I find that I look forward to the opinions of certain posters because they provide a different perspective than my own. Posters like Gorky, UnrealLegend, InquisitorHein, MrSnrub (this is not an exhaustive list, by the way), and even the people I've gotten into rather wordy disagreements with like DotheBartman often make posts I genuinely enjoy reading, despite saying things I can't always agree with. Frequently, in the case of at least two of those. You don't get a sense of exactly whose different opinion I
do respect, because I don't tend to get into a long, drawn-out debate with them over it.
As is your assumption that all praise for the new run is "blind". It isn't and you know it.
Where did I say that all praise for the new episodes is blind? I've said that some people blindly praise the show, but I've
never stated that everyone giving any praise to the new episodes is doing so blindly. There's more than one "new run" episode that I've praised myself. Not so many of them, but there are (and I've always said this) good episodes in with the bad. It's just that overall, there are now more episodes that just don't feel like Futurama, or at least, what Futurama began as.
There's a healthy mix of praise and concrit on PEEL, often within the same post. Just because posters praise things you didn't find praiseworthy, or have the audacity to declare they still love the show, doesn't mean their praise is "blind" or "undiscerning", or that they're witless berks.
I have also never said that anybody is witless or undiscerning or a berk for still loving the show. Did I not say within this thread that
I myself am still a fan? I have not said that anbody who praises things I do not is "blind", and I have not accused everybody of having praise to give as doing so blindly. I have simply stated that there
is a certain amount of blind praise on the board, and haven't been more specific than that. For God's sake, there's a certain amount of blind praise in
any fandom, because you'll always get people who are so completely invested in a thing that any and every offering from the creator of it is eagerly accepted and devoured regardless of quality due to the insatiable appetite that that particular type of fan has for it.
It just means they've committed the cardinal sin of having ( 
) a different opinion to you. If you can't accept that, a forum is really the wrong place for you, and I suggest you replace PEEL with the sycophantic comfort of a mirror.
Yes. People do have different opinions than I do. Most people, and on most subjects, fall into this category. I have accepted this for a long time. What I tend
not to accept is unjustified opinion, or opinion based on incorrect or just plain insane foundations.
More often than opinions, I argue with people who have said things which are demonstrably false or stupid.
SummaryI am quite capable of accepting that people have different opinions, and respecting their opinion. I do not seek to prove my own opinions as "fact", but to justify their basis; the rationale behind them. I seek to show my working, and to demonstrate the
validity of my opinion.
If you disagree, that's your right. You are entitled to do so. However, this will not stop me from justifying what I've said in an attempt to show not only that I do not agree with your opinion, but
why I feel that my opinion deserves to be given more weight.
If you have a solid basis for your opinion, and all the actual facts on which it is based are correct, you stand a chance of convincing me that your opinion deserves more weight than mine, but it's something that you'll have to work hard at doing.
I'm aware that the way in which I state many of my opinions presents me as a obnoxious, arrogant, insufferable know-it-all and an arsehole. You're allowed to hold that opinion of me.
I'm done with this thread. I've given my opinion on the upcoming crossover, and I've been slated for doing so. I've responded to said slating, and I've been slated for doing so. I'm likely to be slated for this response, and... I just don't care anymore. Have at it. Feel free to air your wildest and most unsubstantiated opinions of me, and your opinions of what my opinions of my own opinions must be. I won't be seeing them.
Author
