Each Decades Mount Rushmore

[Hippasus]

Common narrative, but personally, I think every generation who has said it has been more or less right, save for the 1960s, who were the only generation who were right to call bull**** on it-- every generation since has been hanging onto the same argument, citing the 60s as if that kind of thing happens every decade.

As someone who was in his prime music-listening age during the 2000s,

1940s < 1950s < 1960s > 1970s > 1980s > 1990s > 2000s > 2010s, IMO

All of my favorite stuff seems to be from 1961-1981. Feels like the 60s were this massive explosion, and every subsequent decade involves progressively smaller waves and ripples created by it. When the 2020s are underway, by comparison, we're probably going to start thinking "geez, maybe I was too hard on the 2010s"

The Mount Rushmore of the 1960s are also the Mount Rushmore of music, period, for me.

Miles Davis
Bob Dylan
John Lennon
John Coltrane
Lou Reed

I mean, ****, how can it get better than that? Embarassment of riches. Imagine Howe, Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux all playing in the same era at the same time.

I think this can only be true if one values rock and jazz over other types of music. Rock is actually debatable on this, but jazz doesn't seem to be. I think you are right on the latter. Reggae is the 70s. Ambient could be the 70s or 80s. Punk and synth-pop are the 80s. Hip-hop and metal could be the 80s or 90s. Electronic and-or industrial are probably the 90s. For rock, I would go, roughly speaking (my current top 33 albums, and somewhat guessing on the 50s), something like this:

(1) 80s
(2) 90s
(3) 70s
(4) 60s
(5) 00s
(6) 50s

 

[tony d]

For me the music of the decades could be ranked like this:

1. 90s
2. 80s
3. 00s
4. 70s
5. 10s
6. 60s
7. 50s

 

[Shareefruck]

I think this can only be true if one values rock and jazz over other types of music. Rock is actually debatable on this, but jazz doesn't seem to be. I think you are right on the latter. Reggae is the 70s. Ambient could be the 70s or 80s. Punk and synth-pop are the 80s. Hip-hop and metal could be the 80s or 90s. Electronic and-or industrial are probably the 90s. For rock, I would go, roughly speaking (my current top 33 albums, and somewhat guessing on the 50s), something like this:

(1) 80s
(2) 90s
(3) 70s
(4) 60s
(5) 00s
(6) 50s

Obviously I'm not trying to enforce everyone's opinion of what the objective right answer is. But I do think that responding to "music has gotten progressively worse" with "that's what every generation says" as if that dismisses what would obviously be wrong is unfair. Whether it's agreeable with everyone or not, it's still very reasonable to think that every decade has gotten worse since the 60s, without being clouded by bias/nostalgia like suggested.

Me personally? While I love the other genres, I don't think they've regularly hit the same lofty peaks as rock and jazz have, for the most part. Something like hip-hop for example, is still climbing the ladder, in my mind.

 

[sully1410]

I thought this was about the movie Rushmore. ..

 

[Ouroboros]

Whether it's agreeable with everyone or not, it's still very reasonable to think that every decade has gotten worse since the 60s, without being clouded by bias/nostalgia like suggested.

The 1860's perhaps...

What's the argument for this outside of personal taste though?

 

[Shareefruck]

The 1860's perhaps...

What's the argument for this outside of personal taste though?

First, every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s? Second, if every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s, that automatically implies that every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1960s as well.

There doesn't need to be one. I'm not defending an objective claim. I'm defending personal taste and arguing against jumping to the conclusion of dismissing it on the grounds of nostalgia.

 

[TF97]

1990's

Michael Jordan
Kurt Cobain
Jerry Seinfeld
Tupac/Will Smith

 

[Hippasus]

Obviously I'm not trying to enforce everyone's opinion of what the objective right answer is. But I do think that responding to "music has gotten progressively worse" with "that's what every generation says" as if that dismisses what would obviously be wrong is unfair. Whether it's agreeable with everyone or not, it's still very reasonable to think that every decade has gotten worse since the 60s, without being clouded by bias/nostalgia like suggested.

Me personally? While I love the other genres, I don't think they've regularly hit the same lofty peaks as rock and jazz have, for the most part. Something like hip-hop for example, is still climbing the ladder, in my mind.

First, every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s? Second, if every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s, that automatically implies that every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1960s as well.

There doesn't need to be one. I'm not defending an objective claim. I'm defending personal taste and arguing against jumping to the conclusion of dismissing it on the grounds of nostalgia.

You're not defending an objective claim. Fair enough. Personally, however, I think for particular genres, learned / sound perspectives might tend toward somewhat objective answer(s). If not in the sense of 'such and such an artist is the amongst the greatest', at least in the sense of 'such and such a time period was the greatest / amongst the greatest (for some genre)'. However, that could change if the genre is still going and there is a resurgence.

Regarding your personal tastes, as great as jazz and rock are / have been, I'm personally skeptical that those two alone have hit the highest heights. I suppose these are my personal tastes coming through now. I think classical, ambient, and metal are very much up there as well.

 

[Shareefruck]

You're not defending an objective claim. Fair enough. Personally, however, I think for particular genres, learned / sound perspectives might tend toward somewhat objective answer(s). If not in the sense of 'such and such an artist is the amongst the greatest', at least in the sense of 'such and such a time period was the greatest / amongst the greatest (for some genre)'. However, that could change if the genre is still going and there is a resurgence.

Regarding your personal tastes, as great as jazz and rock are / have been, I'm personally skeptical that those two alone have hit the highest heights. I suppose these are my personal tastes coming through now. I think classical, ambient, and metal are very much up there as well.

I didn't include classical because we were talking about music after the 60s potentially being as good, and post-60s classical probably doesn't measure up. My bias against Metal is pretty well established, so I can't see eye to eye on that one.

I'm not sure I follow you on your first point. I was arguing against dismissal based on grounds that I find faulty-- If there is a different, more objectively valid reason to dismiss the opinion (things to do with the universal accessibility of the genres, for example), I can see that potentially being true, but I wasn't arguing against that possibility.

 

[Ouroboros]

First, every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s? Second, if every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s, that automatically implies that every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1960s as well.

There doesn't need to be one. I'm not defending an objective claim. I'm defending personal taste and arguing against jumping to the conclusion of dismissing it on the grounds of nostalgia.

It was a flippant comment, not something I necessarily believe. Just a comment that if I were looking for the peak of artistic musical expression it certainly isn't coming from the 1960's of all places.

Why make a claim you aren't interested in trying to back-up? Are all viewpoints on this matter equally valid?

 

[Hippasus]

I didn't include classical because we were talking about music after the 60s potentially being as good, and post-60s classical probably doesn't measure up. My bias against Metal is pretty well established, so I can't see eye to eye on that one.

I'm not sure I follow you on your first point. I was arguing against dismissal based on grounds that I find faulty-- If there is a different, more objectively valid reason to dismiss the opinion (things to do with the universal accessibility of the genres, for example), I can see that potentially being true, but I wasn't arguing against that possibility.

Okay, I see why you didn't include classical. Yeah I know you don't like metal, I was just chiming in with my opinion because it feels relevant to this general discussion (metal being up there). What about ambient though? I think a strong case could be made for it being up there. I imagine the reason for you is that it is a somewhat narrow / diffuse genre compared to jazz and rock.

On your second paragraph: I was saying that I acknowledge that you weren't defending an objective claim, but you seemed to be treading pretty close to one. Statements like this:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=119018113&postcount=23

And just recently:

"it's still very reasonable to think that every decade has gotten worse since the 60s, without being clouded by bias/nostalgia like suggested"

 

[Shareefruck]

Okay, I see why you didn't include classical. Yeah I know you don't like metal, I was just chiming in with my opinion because it feels relevant to this general discussion (metal being up there). What about ambient though? I think a strong case could be made for it being up there. I imagine the reason for you is that it is a somewhat narrow / diffuse genre compared to jazz and rock.

On your second paragraph: I was saying that I acknowledge that you weren't defending an objective claim, but you seemed to be treading pretty close to one. Statements like this:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=119018113&postcount=23

And just recently:

"it's still very reasonable to think that every decade has gotten worse since the 60s, without being clouded by bias/nostalgia like suggested"

It was a flippant comment, not something I necessarily believe. Just a comment that if I were looking for the peak of artistic musical expression it certainly isn't coming from the 1960's of all places.

Why make a claim you aren't interested in trying to back-up? Are all viewpoints on this matter equally valid?

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I'm arguing here.

Subjectively, my own experience/observation dictated by my preferences is that music has generally trended in that direction. I'm not backing up that point because I had no intention of treating it as an objective claim of any sort, nor am I trying to convince anyone else to agree with it (neither of those quotes are to be read that way either). People are free to disagree and see a different pattern in musical progression, subjectively-- I'm happy to entertain that they could be either equally valid, or perhaps more valid/well argued viewpoints than my own. That's an entirely separate can of worms to open.

However, if someone is to claim that this perspective is likely the result of nostalgic bias and roll their eyes that every generation foolishly and wrongfully believes this because of it, that does not boil down to subjective preference-- that is an unfounded objective claim that I would objectively argue against, because the reasoning for dismissing the preference is faulty, regardless of what the preference is. The logic used to dismiss the preference is on trial, not the subjective preference itself.

Neither the absence of having a logical explainable reason to prove the truth in the preference (which Ouroboros wants), nor the existence of other objectively valid reasons that can dismiss the truth in the preference (Hippasus seems to be suggesting that there is one, and there could very well be) does anything to support the validity of the manner in which it was dismissed in this instance.

In the quote you highlighted, I am basically saying "It is reasonable for the preference to not be the result of nostalgic bias.-- THAT is in fact an objective claim about what are valid grounds for dismissal. I am not, however, saying "This preference is a more reasonable position than alternative positions," which is what you're asking me to back up.

 

[Ouroboros]

It just seemed like you were stating something you believed to be fact. So that's my fault for misinterpreting.

On your other point:

It's generally accepted that nostalgia is one of the most important factors in determining how musical preference changes over time. The music you love as a teenager is generally the music you love forever - you simply bond with it on a deeper level. Physiologically it's the influence of neurotransmitters and hormones on the developing brain. Socially - and this may seem trivial to even mention - it becomes intertwined with one's self-identity. Add to this the finding that the majority of people essentially stop discovering new music around age ~25 and I think it's easy to see how this can lead each generation to lament the current state.

This may not be true for you individually, but it appears true in general.

 

[Shareefruck]

It just seemed like you were stating something you believed to be fact. So that's my fault for misinterpreting.

On your other point:

It's generally accepted that nostalgia is one of the most important factors in determining how musical preference changes over time. The music you love as a teenager is generally the music you love forever - you simply bond with it on a deeper level. Physiologically it's the influence of neurotransmitters and hormones on the developing brain. Socially - and this may seem trivial to even mention - it becomes intertwined with one's self-identity. Add to this the finding that the majority of people essentially stop discovering new music around age ~25 and I think it's easy to see how this can lead each generation to lament the current state.

This may not be true for you individually, but it appears true in general.

It's still wildly unfair to jump to that conclusion to dismiss a specific person or group of people's impression, though-- particularly when you have no grounds to think this might be the case in this instance, or if they are even at an age where such a thing would come into play. Even if they were, that's still a leap/arrogant/condescending thing to assume.

It's a blanket statement that allows someone to objectively impose their opinion over others without recourse. It's a cheap arguing tactic to actually use in response to something. That's my point of contention.

I also happen to think that nostalgia is something that you simply get over with more exposure to something. It doesn't really hold up over time, particularly for someone who's paying attention and attempts to have an open mind and try new things and in fact, successfully clicks with new things. So to suggest that someone is clouded by nostalgia is taking a specific shot at how casual, ignorant and narrowminded they are about it. Totally uncalled for unless there's a more specific reason to think so.

Someone who happens to disagree with an opinion should really check themselves before throwing the implication around so carelessly. Are there any ACTUAL signs that this might be what's happening other than the fact that they like the older thing more and I want them to be wrong? Does the pattern in the person's preferences consistently correlate with what they would most likely be nostalgic about and what they wouldn't (for instance, is this a 35 year old who thinks the 90s are the best decade for music/movies but not the stuff that came before their time)? Does the person's preference seem linked with how fondly they reminisce about the era and how culturally important it was? All of these things should be taken into consideration before taking such a bold swing.

 

[Shareefruck]

It just seemed like you were stating something you believed to be fact. So that's my fault for misinterpreting.

It's something that I personally and instinctively feel is true, informed by what things I myself find valuable/important/effective/impressive, with my flawed perceptions and everything, yes--but I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective "claim" that I think someone should concede to-- only then does something demand backing up. I think there's an important difference there.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

I thought this was about the movie Rushmore. ..

Would have been a better discussion

 

[Hippasus]

First, every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s? Second, if every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1860s, that automatically implies that every decade has gotten progressively worse since the 1960s as well.

There doesn't need to be one. I'm not defending an objective claim. I'm defending personal taste and arguing against jumping to the conclusion of dismissing it on the grounds of nostalgia.

I didn't include classical because we were talking about music after the 60s potentially being as good, and post-60s classical probably doesn't measure up. My bias against Metal is pretty well established, so I can't see eye to eye on that one.

I'm not sure I follow you on your first point. I was arguing against dismissal based on grounds that I find faulty-- If there is a different, more objectively valid reason to dismiss the opinion (things to do with the universal accessibility of the genres, for example), I can see that potentially being true, but I wasn't arguing against that possibility.

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I'm arguing here.

Subjectively, my own experience/observation dictated by my preferences is that music has generally trended in that direction. I'm not backing up that point because I had no intention of treating it as an objective claim of any sort, nor am I trying to convince anyone else to agree with it (neither of those quotes are to be read that way either). People are free to disagree and see a different pattern in musical progression, subjectively-- I'm happy to entertain that they could be either equally valid, or perhaps more valid/well argued viewpoints than my own. That's an entirely separate can of worms to open.

However, if someone is to claim that this perspective is likely the result of nostalgic bias and roll their eyes that every generation foolishly and wrongfully believes this because of it, that does not boil down to subjective preference-- that is an unfounded objective claim that I would objectively argue against, because the reasoning for dismissing the preference is faulty, regardless of what the preference is. The logic used to dismiss the preference is on trial, not the subjective preference itself.

Neither the absence of having a logical explainable reason to prove the truth in the preference (which Ouroboros wants), nor the existence of other objectively valid reasons that can dismiss the truth in the preference (Hippasus seems to be suggesting that there is one, and there could very well be) does anything to support the validity of the manner in which it was dismissed in this instance.

In the quote you highlighted, I am basically saying "It is reasonable for the preference to not be the result of nostalgic bias.-- THAT is in fact an objective claim about what are valid grounds for dismissal. I am not, however, saying "This preference is a more reasonable position than alternative positions," which is what you're asking me to back up.

It's still wildly unfair to jump to that conclusion to dismiss a specific person or group of people's impression, though-- particularly when you have no grounds to think this might be the case in this instance, or if they are even at an age where such a thing would come into play. Even if they were, that's still a leap/arrogant/condescending thing to assume.

It's a blanket statement that allows someone to objectively impose their opinion over others without recourse. It's a cheap arguing tactic to actually use in response to something. That's my point of contention.

I also happen to think that nostalgia is something that you simply get over with more exposure to something. It doesn't really hold up over time, particularly for someone who's paying attention and attempts to have an open mind and try new things and in fact, successfully clicks with new things. So to suggest that someone is clouded by nostalgia is taking a specific shot at how casual, ignorant and narrowminded they are about it. Totally uncalled for unless there's a more specific reason to think so.

Someone who happens to disagree with an opinion should really check themselves before throwing the implication around so carelessly. Are there any ACTUAL signs that this might be what's happening other than the fact that they like the older thing more and I want them to be wrong? Does the pattern in the person's preferences consistently correlate with what they would most likely be nostalgic about and what they wouldn't (for instance, is this a 35 year old who thinks the 90s are the best decade for music/movies but not the stuff that came before their time)? Does the person's preference seem linked with how fondly they reminisce about the era and how culturally important it was? All of these things should be taken into consideration before taking such a bold swing.

It's something that I personally and instinctively feel is true, informed by what things I myself find valuable/important/effective/impressive, with my flawed perceptions and everything, yes--but I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective "claim" that I think someone should concede to-- only then does something demand backing up. I think there's an important difference there.

In response to the first bold: Hold on a second, you actually did refer to music prior to the 60s. See the quote labelled as "(1)" below (at the bottom of this post). The quote labelled as "(2)" is a third example, that I have found so far, that I believe shows you to be treading quite close to an objective claim about the quality of music in recent history. I know that you are not trying to claim this, but that is how your posts read, and I don't think it is a mere matter of (mis-)interpretation on the part of the reader.

In response to the rest of the above: With all due respect, I think you claiming all objective claims on the matter of music to be arrogant to be not only, once again, treading close to an objective claim (fourth example I've found now), but also, perhaps, itself a bit arrogant. Don't get me wrong, I usually like your posts, but it feels a bit like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth in this thread.

(1)

Common narrative, but personally, I think every generation who has said it has been more or less right, save for the 1960s, who were the only generation who were right to call bull**** on it-- every generation since has been hanging onto the same argument, citing the 60s as if that kind of thing happens every decade.

As someone who was in his prime music-listening age during the 2000s,

1940s < 1950s < 1960s > 1970s > 1980s > 1990s > 2000s > 2010s, IMO

All of my favorite stuff seems to be from 1961-1981. Feels like the 60s were this massive explosion, and every subsequent decade involves progressively smaller waves and ripples created by it. When the 2020s are underway, by comparison, we're probably going to start thinking "geez, maybe I was too hard on the 2010s"

(2)

The Mount Rushmore of the 1960s are also the Mount Rushmore of music, period, for me.

Miles Davis
Bob Dylan
John Lennon
John Coltrane
Lou Reed

I mean, ****, how can it get better than that? Embarassment of riches. Imagine Howe, Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux all playing in the same era at the same time.

 

[Shareefruck]

What makes any of those objective claims and how is going "this is how I see it" and spewing out a load of my own personal perspective on something arrogant? Is there anything in these quotes where I'm suggesting these are definitive answers rather than personal thoughts? They're peppered with caveats and subjective buzz words.

Saying, "Personally I think this is good or I think this is better than that or I see the pattern like this, IMO" is not the same thing as making an objective claim. It's simply sharing a way you see something.

I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth in the sense that in every post, I'm going "Okay, here is what I personally/subjectively think about the matter." (that's the only time stuff before the 60s was brought up) and then following it up with "Okay, here is what I would objectively argue on the matter" (the argument was about the stuff after the 60s and the reasoning used to dismiss them) and it's all getting mixed in together.

Edit: Okay, reading it back, you're right about the first post-- I apologize and concede to that, although it wasn't my intention to word it as a definitive thing rather than just spew out personal thoughts-- it was partially because I was being reactionary to the thing that I was annoyed with. I don't understand what the issue with the second one is, though.

 

[Hippasus]

What makes any of those objective claims and how is going "this is how I see it" and spewing out a load of my own personal perspective on something arrogant? Is there anything in these quotes where I'm suggesting these are definitive answers rather than personal thoughts? They're peppered with caveats and subjective buzz words.

Saying, "Personally I think this is good or I think this is better than that or I see the pattern like this, IMO" is not the same thing as making an objective claim. It's simply sharing a way you see something.

I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth in the sense that in every post, I'm going "Okay, here is what I personally/subjectively think about the matter." (that's the only time stuff before the 60s was brought up) and then following it up with "Okay, here is what I would objectively argue on the matter" (the argument was about the stuff after the 60s and the reasoning used to dismiss them) and it's all getting mixed in together.

Edit: Okay, reading it back, you're right about the first post-- I apologize and concede to that, although it wasn't my intention to word it as a definitive thing rather than just spew out personal thoughts-- it was partially because I was being reactionary to the thing that I was annoyed with. I don't understand what the issue with the second one is, though.

There are / were two separate issues here on my end: first, you making objective-seeming claims and then saying you are not making them; second, you referring to music prior to the 60s and then using the contradictory of that claim to support one of your points. Regarding this first issue, I think I have found four examples so far where it is at least fair to say that those examples seem to be close to being objective claims, if not objective claims outright.

Regarding this first issue, these are those four examples (there is some overlap in the examples between these two issues):

(1)

Common narrative, but personally, I think every generation who has said it has been more or less right, save for the 1960s, who were the only generation who were right to call bull**** on it-- every generation since has been hanging onto the same argument, citing the 60s as if that kind of thing happens every decade.

As someone who was in his prime music-listening age during the 2000s,

1940s < 1950s < 1960s > 1970s > 1980s > 1990s > 2000s > 2010s, IMO

All of my favorite stuff seems to be from 1961-1981. Feels like the 60s were this massive explosion, and every subsequent decade involves progressively smaller waves and ripples created by it. When the 2020s are underway, by comparison, we're probably going to start thinking "geez, maybe I was too hard on the 2010s"

(2)

it's still very reasonable to think that every decade has gotten worse since the 60s, without being clouded by bias/nostalgia like suggested

(3)

The Mount Rushmore of the 1960s are also the Mount Rushmore of music, period, for me.

Miles Davis
Bob Dylan
John Lennon
John Coltrane
Lou Reed

I mean, ****, how can it get better than that? Embarassment of riches. Imagine Howe, Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux all playing in the same era at the same time.

(4)

It's something that I personally and instinctively feel is true, informed by what things I myself find valuable/important/effective/impressive, with my flawed perceptions and everything, yes--but I'm not so arrogant to present that as an objective "claim" that I think someone should concede to-- only then does something demand backing up. I think there's an important difference there.

Regarding this second issue, the quotes labeled as "(1)" and "(3)" directly above refer to music prior to the 60s.

Regarding the first issue, I will attempt to explain how these quotes are, at the very least, objective-seeming, and I think in one case, actually an outright objective claim.

Re: (1): You qualify it as a personal impression, but then say that you think that impression is right when the statement 'each generation's music is lesser than the previous ones in quality' is made by a generation other than the 60s. For something to be considered right or correct is for something to be considered true. If something is considered true, it is considered objectively true. That is how truth-claims work since for something to be considered true is for it to be able to be recognized as true in other contexts besides the context in which the truth-claim is made, at least from the vantage point of the claimant.

This is possibly not outright objective, but is close to being so. It is close to being so, but not so outright, because you qualify it as (a) your personal impression, and (b) qualify the statement itself as something that is considered to be true in this way. I.e. it considered true from a certain context. It being considered to be a certain way is to make its truth-value tied to a certain context, and thus arguably not outright objective. However, the paragraph directly above this one I think shows how it close to being an objective claim.

Re: (2): This explanation would be quite similar to my explanation apropos of (1), but instead of being focused on being 'considered true', the analysis would focus on the statement about the quality of music of a given generation being 'considered very reasonable'. Pretty much the same conclusion applies for (2) that applied for (1) above: namely it being at least very close to being an objective claim. I say "pretty much", firstly, because being considered very reasonable is perhaps a bit less explicit about the truth-value of the statement of the quality of music of the generation in question, but I think the sense (meaning) is pretty much identical to that of (1) directly above. I say "pretty much", secondly, because I don't believe you explicitly qualified the assertion of the reasonableness of the statement of the quality of music of that generation as your own opinion at any point in post 28 like you did in the case of example (1) directly above. Still the assertion of the high degree of reasonableness is more the crux of the matter on the question of whether an objective claim was made in this example.

Re: (3): Similar to (1), you qualify the impression as being so-and-so "for (you)". However, the hockey metaphor, as well as the final paragraph of this example make it close to being a cold case for you. Again, perhaps not an objective claim, but treading close to one.

Re: (4): I believe the middle of this paragraph contains an assertion of the form: 'if there is an x-claim, then that x is a y-claim'. In this case, 'x' is being 'objective', and 'y' is being considered to be an arrogant claim. Ironically, this statement of your's is both an objective and, perhaps, somewhat of an arrogant claim. I do not see how it is not outright an objective claim.

I imagine I am coming off as a bit arrogant too with this long-winded and pedantic series of explanations, but hey, you, I think, asked, and this sort of analysis is a bit fun for me.

 

[Shareefruck]

Man, this feels like a court case now.

As mentioned, I plead insanity on the first quote. It is pretty indefensible, because I did step over the line of implying that the opposite thing is wrong. It was reactionary to a post that I thought was equally unreasonable.

Regarding the others, this is how I see it. A value judgement is different from an objective claim, particularly when dealing with things that are not inherently provable and are naturally steeped in subjectivity. Personal value judgements, even when you relate it to more objective things like hockey analogies, more or less describe a feeling that you have. If someone says "****, steak is so much better than any other type of food, others just don't come close to being this good." I suppose semantically, that can be taken as an objective claim, but in any reasonable context, it should be implied that the comment is dealing with preference/personal value judgements, despite language technically suggesting otherwise. It would be very unreasonable to respond to that with an outraged "Are you implying that I'm wrong to think that pizza is better than steak? How arrogant! Back up your claim with evidence and let's have an argument about it!" even if it may be semantically correct to pick apart their wording. That may still be an invitation to disagreement, but it's not an invitation to an objective debate, the way I see it.

I think that only legitimately crosses into arrogance and contentious/problematic objective claims when it oversteps into other people's boundaries, directly implies/belittles that the opposite must be wrong, or a case is made for it that is factually incorrect.

Unfortunately, I did overstep that line in the first quote, but the others.... I don't think I did. It would be a tedious world if every passioned/confident/overzealous value judgement was treated like an implication that other value judgements contrary to it are wrong.

----

The second quote is entrenched in the ability for bias/nostalgia not to be a necessary factor towards having that viewpoint. Reasonable only goes as far as to suggest that there isn't anything glaringly or objectively wrong or questionable that can be assumed about the view. I don't think that's enough to take from it that it implies that there's anything objectively right about it, either. I'm simply saying that it's a palatable value judgement without something like nostalgia being a necessary driving force behind it.

 

[Langdon Alger]

I thought this was about the movie Rushmore. ..

O R they?

 

[Hippasus]

Mount Trashmore:

60s (3): John Coltrane, The Velvet Underground, Ornette Coleman / The Ornette Coleman Trio
70s (2): Can, Bob Marley
80s (6): Brian Eno, Harold Budd, Sepultura, Slayer, Napalm Death, Amebix
90s (11): Burzum, Darkthrone, Beherit, Graveland, Immortal, Autopsy, Autechre, Suffocation, Summoning, Portishead, Havohej / Profanatica
00s (3): Decapitated, Beherit, Havohej / Profanatica

Man, this feels like a court case now.

As mentioned, I plead insanity on the first quote. It is pretty indefensible, because I did step over the line of implying that the opposite thing is wrong. It was reactionary to a post that I thought was equally unreasonable.

Regarding the others, this is how I see it. A value judgement is different from an objective claim, particularly when dealing with things that are not inherently provable and are naturally steeped in subjectivity. Personal value judgements, even when you relate it to more objective things like hockey analogies, more or less describe a feeling that you have. If someone says "****, steak is so much better than any other type of food, others just don't come close to being this good." I suppose semantically, that can be taken as an objective claim, but in any reasonable context, it should be implied that the comment is dealing with preference/personal value judgements, despite language technically suggesting otherwise. It would be very unreasonable to respond to that with an outraged "Are you implying that I'm wrong to think that pizza is better than steak? How arrogant! Back up your claim with evidence and let's have an argument about it!" even if it may be semantically correct to pick apart their wording. That may still be an invitation to disagreement, but it's not an invitation to an objective debate, the way I see it.

I think that only legitimately crosses into arrogance and contentious/problematic objective claims when it oversteps into other people's boundaries, directly implies/belittles that the opposite must be wrong, or a case is made for it that is factually incorrect.

Unfortunately, I did overstep that line in the first quote, but the others.... I don't think I did. It would be a tedious world if every passioned/confident/overzealous value judgement was treated like an implication that other value judgements contrary to it are wrong.

----

The second quote is entrenched in the ability for bias/nostalgia not to be a necessary factor towards having that viewpoint. Reasonable only goes as far as to suggest that there isn't anything glaringly or objectively wrong or questionable that can be assumed about the view. I don't think that's enough to take from it that it implies that there's anything objectively right about it, either. I'm simply saying that it's a palatable value judgement without something like nostalgia being a necessary driving force behind it.

(2) and (4) still seem 'pretty much' and 'clearly' objective claims, respectively. I'll admit I went too far for (3). Sorry on that one.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't see it. Two and four seemed the most innocent to me, personally (one is glaring, and three has to do with semantics/how literally you take it).

With four, I'm saying "Well yeah, instinctively, it feels true to me based on my experiences, but I would never attach enough objective value to that to forcefully project/impose that opinion onto anyone else." That's arrogant?

With two, it was MEANT to be an objective claim, but I'm not saying anything about the actual quality, I'm defending the potential of bias. In fact, I'll even make this similar statement right now, because it communicates the same idea-- "it's still very reasonable to think that the 2010s is the best decade of music in history without that being the result of hype/shiny-new-toy syndrome"

I don't like the decade, but I would still claim/argue that the statement as a whole is true. To disprove it, an argument would have to be made that if someone feels that way, it's likely to be the result of hype/shiny-new-toy-syndrome, which to me, would be an outrageously egotistical and presumptuous thing to claim. Providing evidence of the quality or lack of quality of the 2010s instead would would neither support nor dismiss that.

 

[Hippasus]

I don't see it. Two and four seemed the most innocent to me, personally (one is glaring, and three has to do with semantics/how literally you take it).

With four, I'm saying "Well yeah, instinctively, it feels true to me based on my experiences, but I would never attach enough objective value to that to forcefully project/impose that opinion onto anyone else." That's arrogant?

With two, it was MEANT to be an objective claim, but I'm not saying anything about the actual quality, I'm defending the potential of bias. In fact, I'll even make this similar statement right now, because it communicates the same idea-- "it's still very reasonable to think that the 2010s is the best decade of music in history without that being the result of hype/shiny-new-toy syndrome"

I don't like the decade, but I would still claim/argue that the statement as a whole is true. To disprove it, an argument would have to be made that if someone feels that way, it's likely to be the result of hype/shiny-new-toy-syndrome, which to me, would be an outrageously egotistical and presumptuous thing to claim. Providing evidence of the quality or lack of quality of the 2010s instead would would neither support nor dismiss that.

Re: (4), I already explained how it might be arrogant, and is clearly an objective claim. Maybe read that part of my post 44 again. Re: (2), I said all along that it is treading close to an objective claim, so it is understandable that others might take you to task on that one. Nothing more to say on that one.

 

[Shareefruck]

And I'm explaining why I don't see how it is clearly an objective claim. All you said about 4 was that it's clearly objective and that implies arrogance.