I like the Simpsons but hate the dogma, or just dogma in general!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I like The Simpsons, it's good to me. There is absolutely no difference between enjoyment and goodness because to me they are completely inseparable. I know you don't agree with my philosophy on art and fiction. I'm not saying that Season 4 and beyond is bad, in fact, I do think episodes after Season 3 are good, I just believe that there's a certain nostalgic innocence I sense in the show's first three seasons.
I agree that the Simpsons has no difference between goodness and enjoyment. Oh, btw, the quality of each first three seasons are different from my points. Season 1 started out as a rough season, despite being an underrated and charming, neon-like season. Season 2 was when things start to improve, as it is full of emotions, humor, entertainment, and some drama. Season 3 was when the show started to get to be a masterpiece, even though not every episode is perfect. This is just as for the quality of the first three seasons. Your point on the Golden Era of the show is interesting and nice because you said that it has its nostalgia innocence you sense in those seasons, and I thought this is a great unpopular opinion. There are many nostalgic things that are enjoyable to anyone!
 
I agree that the Simpsons has no difference between goodness and enjoyment. Oh, btw, the quality of each first three seasons are different from my points. Season 1 started out as a rough season, despite being an underrated and charming, neon-like season. Season 2 was when things start to improve, as it is full of emotions, humor, entertainment, and some drama. Season 3 was when the show started to get to be a masterpiece, even though not every episode is perfect. This is just as for the quality of the first three seasons. Your point on the Golden Era of the show is interesting and nice because you said that it has its nostalgia innocence you sense in those seasons, and I thought this is a great unpopular opinion. There are many nostalgic things that are enjoyable to anyone!
I mean there is no difference between goodness and enjoyment of any works or art/fiction. If I think The Simpsons, for example, is a good show, it's because I naturally like it. My positive opinion about art/fiction has, or should have, nothing to do with hearsay. That's my philosophy.
 
I mean there is no difference between goodness and enjoyment of any works or art/fiction. If I think The Simpsons, for example, is a good show, it's because I naturally like it. My positive opinion about art/fiction has, or should have, nothing to do with hearsay. That's my philosophy.
Oh, understood. I naturally am a fan of the Simpsons because there are things I enjoy about this show. That's interesting that you like it because you actually naturally like it. It's okay. I understood that you can be different at times.
 
@comeau you are not contributing to a constructive discussion about the dogma of Simpsons fans. Plase be more constructive and less instigating.
I have every right to criticize dogma of The Simpsons, or dogma of anything for that matter. I like the Simpsons but detest fans who act like it's empirically great and would harrass those who don't like it or think it's garbage. I think The Simpsons is good but I would never conceitedly put it on a pedestal and bash Simpsons haters because they have a right to their opinion.
 
I don't think sports teams and TV shows are comparable.

Sports teams are more about talent and skill whereas TV shows are more about one's enjoyment. If a sports team lost rounds to the opposing team, yes, it is objectively bad.

But for TV shows or other works of fiction, it is art and there is nothing factual about art being good or bad. To say so is dogmatic which is exactly what I'm criticizing on my post.

The Simpsons is good but the dogma hurts it and that makes me as a fan really angry.
Actually, there are pretty comparable.

Both involve skill and talent (just in different ways)

And both have objective and subjective measures for being bad.

In sport, there are objective and subjective ways of showing poor quality. Objectively, it's when a team loses. But subjectively, it could vary. There could be many reasons why a team loses, some that make the loss a lot more understandable.

Same thing with tv shows. The objective way is ratings and general consensus. If a show has low ratings and is rated by most people as bad, then you could argue it's objectively bad. But of course there are subjective ways to rate a show as well.
 
Oh, understood. I naturally am a fan of the Simpsons because there are things I enjoy about this show. That's interesting that you like it because you actually naturally like it. It's okay. I understood that you can be different at times.
Yes, I do have weird views on many things. I am a unique mental species of human and proudly so.
 
I have every right to criticize dogma of The Simpsons, or dogma of anything for that matter. I like the Simpsons but detest fans who act like it's empirically great and would harrass those who don't like it or think it's garbage. I think The Simpsons is good but I would never conceitedly put it on a pedestal and bash Simpsons haters because they have a right to their opinion.
He wasn't talking to you. He was talking to someone else
 
Actually, there are pretty comparable.

Both involve skill and talent (just in different ways)

And both have objective and subjective measures for being bad.

In sport, there are objective and subjective ways of showing poor quality. Objectively, it's when a team loses. But subjectively, it could vary. There could be many reasons why a team loses, some that make the loss a lot more understandable.

Same thing with tv shows. The objective way is ratings and general consensus. If a show has low ratings and is rated by most people as bad, then you could argue it's objectively bad. But of course there are subjective ways to rate a show as well.
Ratings and general consensus don't mean shit to me. I don't fucking care if a movie's or TV show's rating is high or low on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or other sites or books or whatever. Those are meaningless and frankly dogmatic and elitist which I hate. I'd just ignore it. Because at the end of the day, I rate works of fiction or art however I wish. If I think The Simpsons is good, it's because I like it. My affinity of it has absolutely nothing to do with hearsay and dogma like I said in my post. Those are what I'm extremely against as a Simpsons fan. The more I like something, the higher the rating I would give it.
 
Last edited:
Ratings and general consensus don't mean shit to me. I don't fucking care if a movie's or TV show's rating is high or low on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or other sites or books or whatever. Those are meaningless and frankly dogmatic and elitist which I hate. I'd just ignore it. Because at the end of the day, I rate works of fiction or art however I wish. If I think The Simpsons is good, it's because I like it. My affinity of it has absolutely nothing to do with hearsay and dogma like I said in my post. Those are what I'm extremely against as a Simpsons fan. The more I like something, the higher the rating I would give it.
It's ok if you don't think ratings and common consensus don't mean shit to you. But to say they don't have any importance and that they are elitist is questionable. You could very much argue the same for sports, that losses mean jack shit and are meaningless. You could even argue that there is no such thing as objectivity.
 
It's ok if you don't think ratings and common consensus don't mean shit to you. But to say they don't have any importance and that they are elitist is questionable. You could very much argue the same for sports, that losses mean jack shit and are meaningless. You could even argue that there is no such thing as objectivity.
Most things are opinion. I am a proud contrarian. I tend to think that many movies and singers/musicians/bands, particularly ones that are praised the shit out of are bad in my book because I don't like them and would rate them very lowly. For discretion reasons, it is best that I don't say which movies or whatever are awful because many people will get all butthurt and tell me my views are "incorrect". Again with the dogma! If I'm brave enough and don't fear about being judged or bullied by bigots, I'll say what are bad movies or whatever to me. I hate having to censor myself all the damn time! I don't dislike anything for no reason.
 
Most things are opinion. I am a proud contrarian. I tend to think that many movies and singers/musicians/bands, particularly ones that are praised the shit out of are bad in my book because I don't like them and would rate them very lowly. For discretion reasons, it is best that I don't say which movies or whatever are awful because many people will get all butthurt and tell me my views are "incorrect". Again with the dogma! If I'm brave enough and don't fear about being judged or bullied by bigots, I'll say what are bad movies or whatever to me. I hate having to censor myself all the damn time! I don't dislike anything for no reason.
Wait I'm confused. Do you specifically dislike media that is popular just because it is popular?

My arguement in this situation is that there is nothing wrong with common consensus as a measure of quality. I am very confused about the stance you have taken.

And you do not need to censor yourself. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion on media.
 
Wait I'm confused. Do you specifically dislike media that is popular just because it is popular?

My arguement in this situation is that there is nothing wrong with common consensus as a measure of quality. I am very confused about the stance you have taken.

And you do not need to censor yourself. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion on media.
Yes. I do (in part) dislike media that is popular because it is popular, but more specifically because it is driven by the elitist dogmatic bigots; they think they are better than others and view the work of fiction or art as "undeniably great" and would bully those who speak the contrary, like me.
 
I think this original post is actually all about social influence.
Feel like you use the term dogma with the concept that a certain idea has become "consensually true" because a big part of the public opinion agrees on it when most of them didn't even "thought deeply about it" and then it's hard to hold on different views. But that's absolutely necessary. It's how the human mind is used to work. It's called heuristic.
Our mind can't work without short cuts as well as has a hard time dealing with social disapproval. But what definitely our mind can't stand is acknowledging its own holes.
For some reason, our mind has to create an opinion about everything it finds. To do this and in order to fit in the group, our mind will unconsciously disrupt the way we perceive a certain thing when we know how the group perceives this same thing.

For example, Justin Bieber used to be a laughing stock back in 2012 or so, people ranted about him because they saw other people slandering him, so they thought it was socially acceptable to go off on him. This was funny tho because also so many people used to publicly express their parasocial relationship with Bieber, and lots of people became his fan because they saw that it was reasonable to love him to the bone. Very polarizing environment amongst teenagers back then. Most people picked a side, kind of had to pick a side.
Just like if someone shows you two songs you never heard before but that person tells you that the first one you're gonna listen has 1B more views on Youtube. You're more likely to like a song that you know has more social praise.
Influencing your perception is what your mind unconsciously wants in order to adapt better to the mass.

A lot of people fell in love with The Simpsons in the first seasons. It was something incredibly charming, fresh, funny and entertaining. I'm pretty sure that not few people consider it the best TV content they have ever seen.
So public opinion has created an aura making those episodes look magical. Something almost everyone agrees on.
Exactly the same happens with the newest seasons. They are considered bad and people let this social bias carry their opinion. "If everyone thinks this is bad, it probably has to be."

But going against the "dogma" just for the sake of it, in an attempt to be countercultural, is... nonsensical. We social human beings are influenciable and that's totally normal, reasonable and acceptable, and trying to attack or defy this is challenging human nature. And you will lose and feel frustrated because you're in a battle you can't win.
People don't like their opinions to be criticized and it's okay. Because everyone has their own opinion and their own biases... similar mental processes acting in different ways.
Whoever insults and discredits you for thinking different is letting their emotions carry them and is a disrespectful person, probably influenced by the fact that he's aware he's in the "majority" side. The movie Twelve angry men does an amazing job showing how being on the "socially accepted" side affects your perception of others and your behaviour towards others, how our mind divides the world into ingroup and outgroup.

Having an opinion (not matter if it differs with the "social dogma" or fully agrees with it) is fair, undertandable and healthy until you start questioning others' feelings.
You have to focus on what you like and on how you perceive things. Not on what others like or how others perceive those same things.
 
I think this original post is actually all about social influence.
Feel like you use the term dogma with the concept that a certain idea has become "consensually true" because a big part of the public opinion agrees on it when most of them didn't even "thought deeply about it" and then it's hard to hold on different views. But that's absolutely necessary. It's how the human mind is used to work. It's called heuristic.
Our mind can't work without short cuts as well as has a hard time dealing with social disapproval. But what definitely our mind can't stand is acknowledging its own holes.
For some reason, our mind has to create an opinion about everything it finds. To do this and in order to fit in the group, our mind will unconsciously disrupt the way we perceive a certain thing when we know how the group perceives this same thing.

For example, Justin Bieber used to be a laughing stock back in 2012 or so, people ranted about him because they saw other people slandering him, so they thought it was socially acceptable to go off on him. This was funny tho because also so many people used to publicly express their parasocial relationship with Bieber, and lots of people became his fan because they saw that it was reasonable to love him to the bone. Very polarizing environment amongst teenagers back then. Most people picked a side, kind of had to pick a side.
Just like if someone shows you two songs you never heard before but that person tells you that the first one you're gonna listen has 1B more views on Youtube. You're more likely to like a song that you know has more social praise.
Influencing your perception is what your mind unconsciously wants in order to adapt better to the mass.

A lot of people fell in love with The Simpsons in the first seasons. It was something incredibly charming, fresh, funny and entertaining. I'm pretty sure that not few people consider it the best TV content they have ever seen.
So public opinion has created an aura making those episodes look magical. Something almost everyone agrees on.
Exactly the same happens with the newest seasons. They are considered bad and people let this social bias carry their opinion. "If everyone thinks this is bad, it probably has to be."

But going against the "dogma" just for the sake of it, in an attempt to be countercultural, is... nonsensical. We social human beings are influenciable and that's totally normal, reasonable and acceptable, and trying to attack or defy this is challenging human nature. And you will lose and feel frustrated because you're in a battle you can't win.
People don't like their opinions to be criticized and it's okay. Because everyone has their own opinion and their own biases... similar mental processes acting in different ways.
Whoever insults and discredits you for thinking different is letting their emotions carry them and is a disrespectful person, probably influenced by the fact that he's aware he's in the "majority" side. The movie Twelve angry men does an amazing job showing how being on the "socially accepted" side affects your perception of others and your behaviour towards others, how our mind divides the world into ingroup and outgroup.

Having an opinion (not matter if it differs with the "social dogma" or fully agrees with it) is fair, undertandable and healthy until you start questioning others' feelings.
You have to focus on what you like and on how you perceive things. Not on what others like or how others perceive those same things.
I have every right to criticize dogma!

Art/fiction dogma is cancer! I detest it immensely!

You can't force people to like something or think something is good just because "everyone else" does! That has to come naturally; that's up to the person to decide; either they like (good) a particular or don't like it (bad).

Yes, I'm aware there is general consensus on a lot of things besides art/fiction but it doesn't mean you should be snobbish and tell others that they're "objectively wrong" for not liking a particular work of fiction such as The Simpsons. That is a very bigoted and condescending mentality to have! That's exactly what I mean by dogma!

The Simpsons is good because I like it, not because it's a "fact" that many people claim to be. It's not! It's my opinion which I humbly claim, never arrogantly!

But not everyone likes The Simpsons...so...if some people don't like it, which there are, it's bad to them. And who are you to tell them that they are "objectively wrong" for being against it?

Call me a traitor but as a Simpsons fan, I defend Simpsons haters because I advocate for free speech, not censorship. Do I agree with their points of contention? No, at least not entirely. But one criticism I totally understand is that thanks to the dogmatic elitist Simpsons fans out there who are notorious for imposing their snobbery on Simpsons haters, it's no wonder why they detest The Simpsons in the first place.

Again let people like whatever they want! I always choose who and what I like. But I don't choose to like something or someone. Choice, as in liking, comes, or should come, naturally; never forced by others.

Yes, admittedly, I do have a love/hate relationship with The Simpsons personally, but I like it way more than I don't like it. Like I said The Simpsons is awesome in its own right but it gets too much praise, especially the earlier episodes. The main issue I have with Simpsons is the dogma and high-and-mighty fans, not the Simpsons itself. I would say the same thing about the Beatles.

Of course, it is true that older works do become popular over time. Some people may have not liked The Simpsons back in 1992 but they might like it now. Episodes today are seemingly disliked by most of today's fans, but maybe 15 years or so down the road, they may like it. Time has the final say.

But if you are one of those snobbish elitist Simpsons fans or or snobbish elitist art/fiction "authorities" in art/fiction that I'm talking about in my post, you better screw off and take your fucking bullshit elsewhere. I don't need or want anyone to tell me what I'm "supposed to" like in art/fiction. I like what I like and I don't what I don't.

You're "good" art/fiction may be my "bad" art/fiction.

I'm a goddamn contrarian and I am not ashamed!

I can list a whole bunch of shows/movies/bands/artists, etc. I think are awful even if the elite says otherwise. Well, screw them! I won't list them until the snobbish bigots are mature enough not to get all butthurt over it and tell me crap like "dude, you've got bad taste or this is an "morally incorrect" list. Well, so do you, buddy!

I'm not gonna censor myself anymore. I will one day write a list of "bad" media (movies, shows, singers, bands, etc. I hate) and don't give me that whole "just because you hate it doesn't mean it sucks" bullshit! Badness and hatred are inherently inseparable, at least to me.

I am not gonna stand by being kicked around just because I hold unpopular opinions I want the world to know.
 
Last edited:
I have every right to criticize dogma!

Art/fiction dogma is cancer! I detest it immensely!

You can't force people to like something or think something is good just because "everyone else" does! That has to come naturally; that's up to the person to decide; either they like (good) a particular or don't like it (bad).

Contrarian dogma is still dogma.
 
Whatever. 😒
Hey man don't be rude.

You seem overly focused on people's opinions and how they respond to your opinions.

Also I, like old mate Patches, greatly question your contrarian stance on media, and would also go as far to say that you are not much better than the dogmatic, elitist fans that you constantly deride.

Again I must emphasise that this forum and many other forums related to the Simpsons do not have a dogmatic viewpoint of the show. Where are you finding these elitist Simpsons fans who deride anyone who likes episodes past the classic era?

You say that elitist fans need to be less butthurt about opinions you hold, but are you not butthurt yourself? Everything you say in your "dogma is cancer" reply has an emotional feel to it, like you take people calling your opinions "objectively wrong" as a slight against your own character.

And please do share your unpopular opinions. But make sure you present them in a calm manner that does not deride anyone for holding a particular opinion
 
I disagree that there's no objectively good or bad and it's all based on opinion. There is such a thing as critical consensus.

Like I do not care for the Mona Lisa painting but that doesn't make it bad, it's very good, everything is in proportion, the lighting and shadow is well done, the textures are realistic, the color choice is not garish or clashing. I just personally find the expression on her face unnerving and so I dislike a good painting.

I also find in unnecessarily confrontational to describe others as having elitist views that are cancer. You say they won't let you disagree but are you doing the same thing by dismissing them?

I really hope you post about other topics because I find all this dogma talk boring and repetitive. (Doesn't make this a bad topic, though.)
 
Morality is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
I don't want to nitpick but I feel compelled to tell you that this has nothing to do with anything else you said. Appraisal of art on purely artistic grounds have nothing to do with morality. If I see a painting and say "this is ugly" it's not a moral judgement, it's an artistic judgement. I absolutely agree with you that moral judgement is a matter of opinion and not fact, and I also agree with you that artistic judgement is opinion and not fact. But still artistic judgements and moral judgements are two different things. Your comment about morality in a text about the subjectivity regarding the quality of The Simpsons comes right out of the blue.

Sorry, I don't mean to be a know-it-all but I cant help myself.

Anyway, in regards to the actual topic, I understand your point regarding how The Simpsons is one of those things where the idea that, at least it's golden age, is of great quality has almost become accepted as objectively true. Honestly, I feel that in this regard The Simpsons is to the medium of television what Don Quixote is to literature or what the Sistine chapel's ceiling paintings is to visual art. It's one of the things where it might be okay to say "I personally don't like it" but it's not okay to say "It's bad". And regardless of what one personally think is reasonable when it comes to the question of whether art can be objectivey good or bad, the sheer fact that the golden age of The Simpsons appears to be one of the few television shows that have found itself, in popular opinion, in the "objectively good" camp is interesting. How many other television shows are comparable to The Simpsons in that specific regard? As fas as television shows that are universally known (as opposed to ones that may have recieved nearly unanimous praise but are too obscure to be placed in the "everybody knows it's great" category) I can think of one; Seinfeld. Saying "Seinfeld is a bad show, and by that I don't mean that I personally don't like it but rather that it's simply bad" will make anyone lose all credibility as far as their understanding of scripted television shows go. Classic Simpsons is in the same boat.

I am one of those people that can be annoyed by the universal insistance that something is good (or bad) but I have to be honest and say that I can't bring myself to be upset with the fact that classic Simpsons of all things have acchieved the "objectively good" stamp due to the simple fact that I personally truly think it's the best television show of all time.
 
I have every right to criticize dogma!

Art/fiction dogma is cancer! I detest it immensely!

You can't force people to like something or think something is good just because "everyone else" does! That has to come naturally; that's up to the person to decide; either they like (good) a particular or don't like it (bad).

Yes, I'm aware there is general consensus on a lot of things besides art/fiction but it doesn't mean you should be snobbish and tell others that they're "objectively wrong" for not liking a particular work of fiction such as The Simpsons. That is a very bigoted and condescending mentality to have! That's exactly what I mean by dogma!

The Simpsons is good because I like it, not because it's a "fact" that many people claim to be. It's not! It's my opinion which I humbly claim, never arrogantly!

But not everyone likes The Simpsons...so...if some people don't like it, which there are, it's bad to them. And who are you to tell them that they are "objectively wrong" for being against it?

Call me a traitor but as a Simpsons fan, I defend Simpsons haters because I advocate for free speech, not censorship. Do I agree with their points of contention? No, at least not entirely. But one criticism I totally understand is that thanks to the dogmatic elitist Simpsons fans out there who are notorious for imposing their snobbery on Simpsons haters, it's no wonder why they detest The Simpsons in the first place.

Again let people like whatever they want! I always choose who and what I like. But I don't choose to like something or someone. Choice, as in liking, comes, or should come, naturally; never forced by others.

Yes, admittedly, I do have a love/hate relationship with The Simpsons personally, but I like it way more than I don't like it. Like I said The Simpsons is awesome in its own right but it gets too much praise, especially the earlier episodes. The main issue I have with Simpsons is the dogma and high-and-mighty fans, not the Simpsons itself. I would say the same thing about the Beatles.

Of course, it is true that older works do become popular over time. Some people may have not liked The Simpsons back in 1992 but they might like it now. Episodes today are seemingly disliked by most of today's fans, but maybe 15 years or so down the road, they may like it. Time has the final say.

But if you are one of those snobbish elitist Simpsons fans or or snobbish elitist art/fiction "authorities" in art/fiction that I'm talking about in my post, you better screw off and take your fucking bullshit elsewhere. I don't need or want anyone to tell me what I'm "supposed to" like in art/fiction. I like what I like and I don't what I don't.

You're "good" art/fiction may be my "bad" art/fiction.

I'm a goddamn contrarian and I am not ashamed!

I can list a whole bunch of shows/movies/bands/artists, etc. I think are awful even if the elite says otherwise. Well, screw them! I won't list them until the snobbish bigots are mature enough not to get all butthurt over it and tell me crap like "dude, you've got bad taste or this is an "morally incorrect" list. Well, so do you, buddy!

I'm not gonna censor myself anymore. I will one day write a list of "bad" media (movies, shows, singers, bands, etc. I hate) and don't give me that whole "just because you hate it doesn't mean it sucks" bullshit! Badness and hatred are inherently inseparable, at least to me.

I am not gonna stand by being kicked around just because I hold unpopular opinions I want the world to know.

Before you type your next long rant I have to inform you on something...

This is a terrible way to deal with an argument.

The post you're responding to wasn't hostile whatsoever, and even somewhat sympathetic towards your predicament. So try actually reading through what they're trying to say instead of instinctively firing off a huge angry response. If you're never gonna listen to differing opinions you will lose people's patience instead of making others able to see where you are coming from. I know it's easy to get emotional about something you have strong feelings about, but don't direct the anger at someone who doesn't have ill intent.
 
Hey man don't be rude.

You seem overly focused on people's opinions and how they respond to your opinions.

Also I, like old mate Patches, greatly question your contrarian stance on media, and would also go as far to say that you are not much better than the dogmatic, elitist fans that you constantly deride.

Again I must emphasise that this forum and many other forums related to the Simpsons do not have a dogmatic viewpoint of the show. Where are you finding these elitist Simpsons fans who deride anyone who likes episodes past the classic era?

You say that elitist fans need to be less butthurt about opinions you hold, but are you not butthurt yourself? Everything you say in your "dogma is cancer" reply has an emotional feel to it, like you take people calling your opinions "objectively wrong" as a slight against your own character.

And please do share your unpopular opinions. But make sure you present them in a calm manner that does not deride anyone for holding a particular opinion
@JacobZeier1992 I have to agree, as sharing your thoughts in an aggressive manner can cause a problem to users. There are many people that may have anger issues or can easily got hurt with their feelings. I know most of them in the club are adults, but there could be teenagers in the club, as they could have self-control issues over time. So, please, think about something in a nicer, assertive manner next time because there may be people that are prone to mood swings.

Also, btw, I have to agree about @OldSchoolerSimpsons. Introducing yourself is good, but the rest of it felt too much of an aggressive thread, even though the points are interesting and neat. However, this aggressive, good argument is actually understandable to me, so that's why I talked about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top