Well you originally gave the blanket statement: "quality is subjective" and now you've suddenly changed your argument to say that quality can sometimes actually has some elements of objectivity.
I didn't change anything. "quality is subjective" was a general statement. I later elaborated what that means with specific examples because you didn't get what I was talking about. There exists different elements of subjectivity and objectivity on a spectrum depending on whether or not the metrics you are measuring are quantifiable, or merely opinion.
What are you doing here? I was following your reasoning to it's logical end and you've just dismissed it by saying "not correct bro". Care to elaborate?
Not correct because you are restating my position incorrectly.
You said:
You're right, everything is subjective. That also means all discussions are pointless, because everything is subjective so there's nothing to talk about,.
Which is an inaccurate summary of what I said.
I said:
Quality is subjective depending on what characteristics define quality to any random viewer.
Which does not mean that "everything is subjective and therefore all discussions are pointless". If I really thought all discussions are pointless I wouldn't be having this, what do you call it? - "discussion" with you right now.
Entertainment, on the other hand, is valued by how entertaining it is, and that is very subjective relative to nutritional value metrics.
I know that, which is why I said that very same thing.
As a piece of entertainment, I'd say that I laughed a lot more at the Nikki Glaser episode than the Patrick and Harris podcasts, which makes it rank high in that aspect.
What is entertaining to me might not be entertaining to others. Obviously, in this thread, both
DragoonKain
and I have explicitly stated how entertained we were by Nikki. You weren't as much as we were. Subjective opinion. I've never doubted this.
You’re judging the quality of different episodes based on on how well it satisfies your purpose for consumption, like entertainment value and educational value.
Yes, which is a perfectly fine way to judge entertainment. Others might have different criteria. That's fine too.
That's not what quality is.
It is if you want it to be, depending on what your measure of excellence is.
peculiar and essential character : nature; an inherent feature : property; capacity, role… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Definition of quality
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a
: peculiar and essential character
: nature her ethereal quality— Gay Talese
b
: an inherent feature
: property had a quality of stridence, dissonance— Roald Dahl
c
: capacity,
role in the quality of reader and companion— Joseph Conrad
2a
: degree of excellence
: grade the quality of competing air service —
Current Biography
b
: superiority in kind merchandise of quality
You’re judging the quality of different episodes based on on how well it satisfies your purpose for consumption, like entertainment value and educational value. That's not what quality is. Quality is independent of your particular feelings of satisfaction. I could be watching Jake Paul vlogs for entertainment and may find them entertaining, but it doesn't mean they're of high quality, nor have I fooled myself that they are – they're just a guilty pleasure (I swear!) and I’m just that retarded. As well as this, there are endless examples showing the disassociation between personal satisfaction one gets and actual quality, people can recognize things as being low quality regardless of how well it satisfies their purpose for consumption, so there must be some universal way determining the quality of things independent of subjective values. I can give some examples of some more objective universal characteristics can fall under "quality": production value, dependability, originality, creativity, utility, constructiveness, consistency – these are all independent from how much it satisfies your original purpose for consumption and allow you to more objectively look at things. This is why reviews exist and are useful in helping people decide and they aid in progress.
You are using your own tastes to arbitrarily pick and choose what metrics define quality for yourself. That's fine. I also didn't say that how much something satisfies your own purpose for consumption is the only metric of quality. It's whatever you want that is contextually relevant to the subject being analyzed. As you said, things like production value, etc are also measures of quality. This is the same reason why someone can say that Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is a high quality movie because of its production values while another person can say that Transformers 2 is a low quality movie because the story is shit, and they'd both be correct.
When I look at this episode, I think it’s pretty low quality, it lacks originality – Joe always has these sorts of guests on, creativity – has the same conversations, dependability – talking about shit they don’t understand like how Covid is spread (great for a casual off air l chat with a mate, useless for a podcast), constructiveness – I’ve already heard a lot of this shit and there more potent forms of entertainment and comedy in other formats if I were looking for that. Those are just my opinions (and rushed examples for the purpose of this discussion) on the quality of things, it’s up for discussion and I can change my mind about the value of it, even if it doesn’t change how I feel.
According to my definition of quality, your assessment that this is a low quality episode is perfectly acceptable. I'm not sure what your contention is now.
There is quality then there is your subjective preference which has no relationship to quality.
Everything you listed about how you define "quality" in relation to this episode was subjective too. A person who has never seen JRE before would probably think this is a very original, creative, and constructive episode relative to you. Joe even said during the episode that he's sorry for repeating certain things so much, but they only sound repetitive to regular watchers. It's not perceived the same by everyone/everyone judges quality using different criteria = subjective.
You can like whatever you want to like, I won’t judge you for it,
Agreed.
but don’t masquerade around like that makes it high quality in and of itself so you can shut down others pushing for better and wanting to constructively discuss quality, because that's exactly what you did.
How am I shutting down discussion when my first response to you was a question? That sounds more like I'm trying to get insight into your train of thought (which I was). Lighten up, dude.
