thread: 2006-01-26 : A Public Service Announcement

On 2006-01-26, Sydney Freedberg wrote:

> What are the objective standards of quality of fun, then? It’s pretty hard to defend one’s fun when I don’t know what the standards are.

“Objective”? “Defend”?

This is Vincent’s blog, and Vincent’s under no obligation to adhere to anything but his own entirely subjective standards. (Which I tend to agree with, and which may correspond to objective truth, but neither of those points is the issue). To the extent you* agree with his standards and statements, then you participate and benefit. To the extent those standards and statements upset or irritate you, there’s not much point in “defending” yourself, only in quiet withdrawal possibly accompanied by a polite statement of dissent.

This isn’t a public accomodation, or even an academic forum, it’s more like visiting someone’s else’s place of worship: “Yes, I find your hymns moving, and the sermon today was insightful, but I really don’t feel comfortable participating in your Sacred Day of Slaughtering the Goats. Go on without me, I’ll see you next week.”

* Not “you” = “Fred”; “you” = “one,” “a person in general.”


This makes VAX go "Vincent used those words in his first post."
"You may feel free to defend your favorite fun if you're so moved, but you should do so in terms of its objective quality"

This makes SF go "Err - yeah - he did..."
But kinda as a "do this if you must," rather than "this is necessary."

This makes VAX go "That's not how I read it."

This makes VB go "I'm comfy with 'feel free.'"
Not necessary, not discouraged, just feel free. Defending your favorite fun in terms of its theme and participation is appropriate and on-topic, if you want to do it.

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":