StNowhere wrote:I think you once argued the point that some people find enjoyment in "bad" movies specifically because they are "bad"; that they find something praiseworthy in it that has nothing to do with objective classifications of "good" movies (or books, or music, etc.), and that it was incorrect to regard this as faulty reasoning. Why, then, is it incorrect reasoning for the (possible) explanation that a number of people who like XKCD enjoy it for its nerdiness, completely apart from your objective classification of "good" comics or "bad" comics? Perhaps they do like things that are nerdy because they are nerdy. Is that invalid reasoning?
No, not invalid
, but... honestly, quite silly. In cases like that, I can't help but feel that people are desperately seeking to feed on anything "nerdy" just to validate their position, instead of trying to, I don't know, exercise their taste? Otherwise, there's no explanation for something that's meant to be bad
being enjoyed as something actually good
. If people want to like any piece of crap just because it's "nerdy", well, it's their right, but I'm commiting no crime in criticising it, am I?
StNowhere wrote:Edit: this is built on my assumption, from your pattern of posts, that you feel that people shouldn't enjoy XKCD, and yet somehow manage to do so due to a failure on their part to recognize how "bad" it is.
You know, that's a big part of what I think. Overall, there seems to be a big crowd who support xkcd
simply because it makes their "nerdiness" look "cool"; I believe Randall is contaminated by that and is producing bad quality stuff. That is my opinion. And, well, what the hell, I'm interested
in what's happening with xkcd
. That's it. It's too close to my "area" for me to ignore completely -- and even if I tried to do that, eventually I bump into it in some blog or in some forum I visit. So, yeah, I can't get out of it.