> Taste is something that's often dear to a person, and telling someone they have bad taste is rude.
The perception of rude is in the eye of the beholder.(Within context of course)
I could see a much better argument here if this was for a specific small struggling artist. But we're not, we're talking about a multi-platinum RIAA over promoted band.
> I've been trying over time to stop saying "this sucks" and instead say "I'm not a fan of this", when talking about pretty much anything subjective that's a matter of taste: music, TV, movies, art, food, architecture, etc. It's a way to recognize that I'm not the absolute arbiter of taste, and that what I like and don't like doesn't represent any sort of absolute positive or negative about anything.
Congrats. I think it is great that you're self acknowledging and modifying your own behavior. However, your decision not to put in a harsh description of your opinion "this sucks" comes off as an insecurity rather than an improvement. You're softing your language over fear of perception. It's not adding anything to the conversation.
Tell me that Scala sucks... I won't take offense. Telling me it sucks tells me you've had experience here and there were things that you really didn't like. This leads me to ask "why? what happened?"
Tell me that you're not a fan of scala... this comes of as a thing that you didn't even try here. You don't even have an emotional response enough to indicate that you had any investment into it.
> not the arbiter of what is good and bad,
Yea you are. Your decisions, your preferences, your experiences shape that. You're not what many would be considered to be a trusted arbiter.
-----
Where I was going with the easter egg and ruthless/cutthroat commentary: What I'm talking about is that we're seeing applications that are extremely ridged, minimally featured only for their value on the market, and we're seeing an elimination of the individual who created them. Saying that a "ban nickleback option" is unkind is promoting the idea that the creator should not be perceived as unkind.
> However, your decision not to put in a harsh description of your opinion "this sucks" comes off as an insecurity rather than an improvement. You're softing your language over fear of perception. It's not adding anything to the conversation.
Your decision to hate Nickelback comes across as insecurity, trying to have "right" opinions by piling onto the same opinion as a bunch of people on the internet. Posturing that you don't care about other people's opinions fools no one, because a) your entire hatred of Nickelback is other people's opinions that you adopted, b) you're here trying to change people's opinions, and c) you should care about other people's opinions; you can't please everyone but other people's opinions do affect you, and staying likable when it's absurdly simple to do so, is worth doing.
And hating Nickelback is not adding anything to the conversation.
That assumes that the person actually hates Nickelback. Personally, I actually like Nickelback and I would find the option funny. That is to say, I think it's more likely that the inclusion of the option was a joke rather than an actual hatred of Nicelback.
The perception of rude is in the eye of the beholder.(Within context of course)
I could see a much better argument here if this was for a specific small struggling artist. But we're not, we're talking about a multi-platinum RIAA over promoted band.
> I've been trying over time to stop saying "this sucks" and instead say "I'm not a fan of this", when talking about pretty much anything subjective that's a matter of taste: music, TV, movies, art, food, architecture, etc. It's a way to recognize that I'm not the absolute arbiter of taste, and that what I like and don't like doesn't represent any sort of absolute positive or negative about anything.
Congrats. I think it is great that you're self acknowledging and modifying your own behavior. However, your decision not to put in a harsh description of your opinion "this sucks" comes off as an insecurity rather than an improvement. You're softing your language over fear of perception. It's not adding anything to the conversation.
Tell me that Scala sucks... I won't take offense. Telling me it sucks tells me you've had experience here and there were things that you really didn't like. This leads me to ask "why? what happened?"
Tell me that you're not a fan of scala... this comes of as a thing that you didn't even try here. You don't even have an emotional response enough to indicate that you had any investment into it.
> not the arbiter of what is good and bad,
Yea you are. Your decisions, your preferences, your experiences shape that. You're not what many would be considered to be a trusted arbiter.
-----
Where I was going with the easter egg and ruthless/cutthroat commentary: What I'm talking about is that we're seeing applications that are extremely ridged, minimally featured only for their value on the market, and we're seeing an elimination of the individual who created them. Saying that a "ban nickleback option" is unkind is promoting the idea that the creator should not be perceived as unkind.