Ihateregistering1 said:
Vault101 said:
and people get angry about all kinds of things, some of it is valid, some of it is dumb, some of it makes for discussion
You've sort of just killed your own point here: who gets to deem what is 'dumb' and what is 'valid' for people to get angry about?
I think this point is a very good one. The thread's point I mean.
People talk about sexist or offensive tropes all the time, and underlying these critisms is an idea of wrongness that's usually never explored as well as it could be. If offensiveness is purely subjective, then it can't be any different from saying "I don't like this" and further criticism is just "I don't like this because it doesn't jive well with what I enjoy, which is [insert what I enjoy]"
If that's the case, then it isn't so much anything can be offensive, but people's interpretation of art will be a complex and subjective extension of tastes and psychology.
If things are like that, then the question remains "Why should I care that you're offended? I'm not." There needs to be an objective idea, measurement, or principle by which you can say "[a work] is this way, but it should, or would be better, if it were this way."
Otherwise like I said above all you're doing is saying "I don't like this and would like it better if it were this way." That second statement isn't going to move me to agree with you unless we like the same things.
I personally tend to answer this conundrum of normative claims about a subjective experience using Stoicism, virtue ethics, Epicureanism, and Aristotle's poetics, which I could actually write a paper on, so I won't really go into for the sake of my sanity.
In short, being offended at something isn't particular useful or conducive to your happiness, nor is you being offended meaningful in any way, but criticisms of certain aspects of things in art can be good (or bad) as opposed to right (or wrong).