Abusing the word 'objectively' to describe things that are subjective

[the]

Why are you doing this?

State of it:  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:cookdandbombd.co.uk+%22objectively%22

[madhair60]

Legitimately

[ASFTSN]

Genuinely

[Norton Canes]

Honestly

[New Jack]

Literally

[the]

^ That's the title of my new romcom sorted then.

This is worse than inappropriate emphasis though, because saying something is "objectively bad" is applying the opposing definition of what it is. No assessment of badness will be objective, ever. It's subjective and that's the end of it.

Imagine if every time someone mentioned Peter Sissons off the news, they called him "the deceased Indonesian female knee surgeon Peter Sissons off the news", it'd start to grate wouldn't it.

You may now resume the 9 millionth CaB list thread of general word usage that annoys you.

[Stoneage Dinosaurs]

I've always just taken that to be people jokingly overemphasising how indisputably right they are about a thing for comic effect and that.

[Clownbaby]

I n d  u b i t a b l y

[monolith]

No but I'd chuck weed killer on their lawn so that it spelt out "I am a prick".

[popcorn]

I think this mistake goes beyond a simple word error or language shift and is actually revealing of a fundamentally confused brain. The use of the words "objective" or "subjective" in any sort of argument about art/film/music/whatever is a giant red flag that screams "I'm confused about all this on a fundamental level, I don't know how to make any sort of argument whatsoever, I don't know the difference between up and down and I'm probably making a shit YouTube video review right now".

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite." What the fuck are you talking about? Terminator 2 is "objectively" the best? By what measure? Prove it! And that's such a cowardly statement in the first place. You should be making the case for why Terminator 1 is just better that Terminator 2, not fudging with nonsensical claims about objectivity and subjectivity. Own your opinion. Convince me. I know it's all subjective, you don't need to tell me that. Stop being so boring and have an interesting opinion, you bastard! Fuck! Jesus!

[BeardFaceMan]

I think this mistake goes beyond a simple word error or language shift and is actually revealing of a fundamentally confused brain. The use of the words "objective" or "subjective" in any sort of argument about art/film/music/whatever is a giant red flag that screams "I'm confused about all this on a fundamental level, I don't know how to make any sort of argument whatsoever, I don't know the difference between up and down and I'm probably making a shit YouTube video review right now".

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite." What the fuck are you talking about? Terminator 2 is "objectively" the best? By what measure? Prove it! And that's such a cowardly statement in the first place. You should be making the case for why Terminator 1 is just better that Terminator 2, not fudging with nonsensical claims about objectivity and subjectivity. Own your opinion. Convince me. I know it's all subjective, you don't need to tell me that. Stop being so boring and have an interesting opinion, you bastard! Fuck! Jesus!

I agree with this so much it (objectively) hurts.

[colacentral]

My favourite subject this:

https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,58017.1920.html

And it kicks off again on this page:

https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,58017.2100.html

Incredible; I still can't believe it.

[popcorn]

To clarify; you can subjectively enjoy The Last Jedi.  That's 100% valid but if you do, then it would be salient to acknowledge that there are objective issues within the writing.

aaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiaaiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee

[the]

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite."

In that example, I'd say 'objectively' has been mistaken for a synonym of 'technically'. Maybe that's what's happening.

[colacentral]

I think this mistake goes beyond a simple word error or language shift and is actually revealing of a fundamentally confused brain. The use of the words "objective" or "subjective" in any sort of argument about art/film/music/whatever is a giant red flag that screams "I'm confused about all this on a fundamental level, I don't know how to make any sort of argument whatsoever, I don't know the difference between up and down and I'm probably making a shit YouTube video review right now".

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite." What the fuck are you talking about? Terminator 2 is "objectively" the best? By what measure? Prove it! And that's such a cowardly statement in the first place. You should be making the case for why Terminator 1 is just better that Terminator 2, not fudging with nonsensical claims about objectivity and subjectivity. Own your opinion. Convince me. I know it's all subjective, you don't need to tell me that. Stop being so boring and have an interesting opinion, you bastard! Fuck! Jesus!

Yeah, that latter paragraph is bang on. It's cowardly status quo thinking - I'll not steer too far from the peer-approved opinion, despite disagreeing with it completely. I hate the term "guilty pleasure" for the same reason.

[Kelvin]

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite." What the fuck are you talking about? Terminator 2 is "objectively" the best? By what measure? Prove it! And that's such a cowardly statement in the first place. You should be making the case for why Terminator 1 is just better that Terminator 2, not fudging with nonsensical claims about objectivity and subjectivity. Own your opinion. Convince me. I know it's all subjective, you don't need to tell me that. Stop being so boring and have an interesting opinion, you bastard! Fuck! Jesus!

Taking out the word objective, I think that's a slightly different argument. It's possible to think something is better made (in your subjective opinion), but to prefer the thing that you believe is more flawed or inconsistent. I like loads of bad films, and it's not because I think they're "better" films than somethign else - even by my own standards - it just means I enjoy them in spite of any failings. 

[Kelvin]

I hate the term "guilty pleasure" for the same reason.

Heh, whereas, without wanting to be rude, I really dislike the dismissal of the phrase "guilty pleasure". It has a clear meaning; something which you know is not well made, in a traditional technical and/or storytelling level, but which you enjoy in spite of it's problems. That's not cowardice. It's just an acknowledgement that you can appreciate qualities in something you believe is very flawed.   

[the]

It's cowardly status quo thinking - I'll not steer too far from the peer-approved opinion, despite disagreeing with it completely. I hate the term "guilty pleasure" for the same reason.

Interesting, never noticed that that might be part of it too.

I also hate 'guilty pleasures', 'cheesy' and all the other shit that lets you wriggle out of committing to liking something. Either you enjoy it or you're arsed cigs, face up to your sad little ballet of shame and feeling insipid and fucking nail your approval to the wall.

Like the chap below, in fact:

Taking out the word objective, I think that's a slightly different argument. It's possible to think something is better made (in your subjective opinion), but to prefer the thing that you believe is more flawed or inconsistent. I like loads of bad films, and it's not because I think they're "better" films than somethign else - even by my own standards - it just means I enjoy them in spite of any failings. 

Edit: oh.

Heh, whereas, without wanting to be rude, I really dislike the dismissal of the phrase "guilty pleasure". It has a clear meaning; something which you know is not well made, in a traditional technical and/or storytelling level, but which you enjoy in spite of it's problems. That's not cowardice. It's just an acknowledgement that you can appreciate qualities in something you believe is very flawed.

That's just the pleasure part though. It's the guilt part that's disingenuous.

[Soup]

Yeah but it still comes back to a division which is slightly false. What makes a work "technically" good? It's like when I used to argue with a lad I sat next to in my Spanish class 'cos he thought the punk music I was into was crap and I thought all the tedious fret-wanking shit he was into was crap. But it really pissed me off when his argument came down to the fact that his music was tougher to play on the guitar, which was an objective factor that put anything I had to say in the shade, even though I couldn't give a toss if it's harder to play on a guitar.

I think part of the problem is the impulse to have a recourse to some factual, quantitative methodology of worth, the same impulse that sees people get worked up over RT or IMDB scores or whatever. Frankly, if you're going to talk about a work and what it means to you, do so without feeling that you need to prove it. It's internetified, win-the-argument, youtube-movie-review bollocks and I hate it and, objectively, if you think that way you're appreciating art wrong.

[Sebastian Cobb]

People say nonsensical things like "Terminator 2 is objectively the best film but Terminator 1 is my favourite." What the fuck are you talking about? Terminator 2 is "objectively" the best? By what measure? Prove it! And that's such a cowardly statement in the first place. You should be making the case for why Terminator 1 is just better that Terminator 2, not fudging with nonsensical claims about objectivity and subjectivity. Own your opinion. Convince me. I know it's all subjective, you don't need to tell me that. Stop being so boring and have an interesting opinion, you bastard! Fuck! Jesus!

If someone said that it'd be pretty obvious to me that the word they were looking for is 'ostensibly' and in your dedication to pedantry you've probably chose to overlook that.

[Kelvin]

That's just the pleasure part though. It's the guilt part that's disingenuous.

Only if you take the phrase as incredibly literal. I'd say that my enjoyment of Strictly Come Dancing is one of my few "guilty pleasures". It's something I know is utter trash in most ways, and genuinely quite embarrassing in those respects, but which I enjoy for a small handful of other reasons. 

[Astronaut Omens]

Totally disagree with the OP. None of the uses of the word listed by the google search I've seen so far show people using the word ignorantly or lazily; in every case the writers are talking about something very different to their subjective approval/enjoyment of something.

I'm never going to laugh at some classic comedy play like Moliere or Racine the way I laugh at Peep Show, that doesn't mean I can't recognise formal qualities in it like tight plotting. And "technical" just won't do for things like that.   

[the]

Only if you take the phrase as incredibly literal. I'd say that my enjoyment of Strictly Come Dancing is one of my few "guilty pleasures". It's something I know is utter trash in most ways, and genuinely quite embarrassing in those respects, but which I enjoy for a small handful of other reasons.

It's a question of who the embarrassment is projected at. Seems to be the same entity as who the guilt would be projected at, ie. whoever you consider to be judging you for liking something.

[colacentral]

Only if you take the phrase as incredibly literal. I'd say that my enjoyment of Strictly Come Dancing is one of my few "guilty pleasures". It's something I know is utter trash in most ways, and genuinely quite embarrassing in those respects, but which I enjoy for a small handful of other reasons.

But the goal of the thing is to entertain you and it achieved that. There shouldn't be guilt attached to enjoying something campy, which I think is what you're getting at: that's just peer pressure. It's no more or less disposable than say Silent Witness, except the latter is dry entertainment.

[Kelvin]

It's a question of who the embarrassment is projected at. Seems to be the same entity as who the guilt would be projected at, ie. whoever you consider to be judging you for liking something.

Bug that all guilt and embarrassment are. Are sense of shame about something, based on social expectations or norms.

I just feel you're taking the phrase too literally. I don't really feel shame for liking Strictly. I just recognise it's many faults and like it in spite of them. I'm 'guilty' for liking something I think is bad - not because of what other people think of it.

[the]

Bug that all guilt and embarrassment are. Are sense of shame about something, based on social expectations or norms.

I just feel you're taking the phrase too literally. I don't really feel shame for liking Strictly. I just recognise it's many faults and like it in spite of them. I'm 'guilty' for liking something I think is bad - not because of what other people think of it.

So you're judging yourself for liking something? Seems like wasted effort, why not just like it.

[the]

Totally disagree with the OP. None of the uses of the word listed by the google search I've seen so far show people using the word ignorantly or lazily; in every case the writers are talking about something very different to their subjective approval/enjoyment of something.

So what are they talking about? Because whatever it is, in most cases it's still not something that is objective as it's based on judgement of merit.

Not bothered about the opinions, just the persistent use of the word 'objective' to describe things that are subjective.

I'm never going to laugh at some classic comedy play like Moliere or Racine the way I laugh at Peep Show, that doesn't mean I can't recognise formal qualities in it like tight plotting. And "technical" just won't do for things like that.

Why not? Tight plotting is a technical discipline. (That said, the accomplishment of it is still subjective.)

[Kelvin]

But the goal of the thing is to entertain you and it achieved that. There shouldn't be guilt attached to enjoying something campy, which I think is what you're getting at: that's just peer pressure. It's no more or less disposable than say Silent Witness, except the latter is dry entertainment.

No, I'm saying I know the show has huge faults, by my own standards. Obnoxious hosts, crap inserts, terrible scripts, the hokey atmosphere - none of which I like, even ironically. I actually think they're bad, not because I think society deems them bad, but because I do. And yet, I like other things about the show; basically the dancing. The phrase simply means that, despite knowing something is flawed (by your own standards), you still enjoy it in spite of this. It's not "cowardly" to say that I like it in spite of things I - me - deem wrong with it.

So you're judging yourself for liking something? Seems like wasted effort, why not just like it.

Because I think loads of things about it are crap, arguably most of the show. I basically like it, in spite of most aspects of it being, imo, crap. And I'm not really judging myself. Again, I think that's taking the phrase too literally.

[popcorn]

I think part of the problem is the impulse to have a recourse to some factual, quantitative methodology of worth, the same impulse that sees people get worked up over RT or IMDB scores or whatever. Frankly, if you're going to talk about a work and what it means to you, do so without feeling that you need to prove it. It's internetified, win-the-argument, youtube-movie-review bollocks and I hate it and, objectively, if you think that way you're appreciating art wrong.

Correctamundo.

[gilbertharding]

Isn't it more accurate to describe this as misuse, rather than abuse?