>>105794170>but the incredibly intellectual 'criticisms' literally does not affect anything in any way.Neither do the positive criticisms or resoundingly positive posts by that same token.
However. How much effect has shouldn't be the standard by which we measure whether or not something is a discussion.
>it kicks off the shitstorm generating machine.I'm going into a very long segue here so try to bear with me:
The reason people always assume 4chan "hates everything," is because in any given group of people, someone is going to dislike something. There's very, very VERY little consensus the larger a group.
If, for example, we examine this thread:
Let's hypothetically say that of people who have seen star vs, 90% have a positive opinion about it. That's a really high figure, obviously. But even with a number that high, this thread would have at least one person in it who didn't care for the show. Now think about threads with even more people. Like for instance a thread with 150+ unique posters. You'd have about 15 people who didn't like the show talking about it.
Hell, with 150 unique posters, you'd find someone who disliked ANYTHING up to 99% all liking the subject in question. With a popular enough subject, even with 99% of the people who have watched read or whatever a given material, you're going to find at least one person who didn't like it.
It's inevitable that at some point that any given topic is going to have someone who dislikes it, especially as the number of unique posters increases.
With that in mind, the only way you're going to avoid people with a critical or negative opinion of something is to completely discourage posting negative opinions in a thread. Which I would hope you might see a problem with.
Then again, at the risk of arguing against myself:
"I'm a fan of ignoring shit you don't like."
