>>10631I thought it was somewhat meaningful to engage in a debate on this one shitty media. About "Debunking THE WORST Review Of The Boys Season 4" at
https://web.archive.org/web/20240708030202/https://invidious.private.coffee/watch?v=KE9ycGU0ACY ->
(1.) The Critical Drinker said general ideas and didn't give specific examples to support them therefore his arguments were invalid.
(1a.) The point of that video was to be an overview, not a long well-defined argument. Also I thought specific supporting arguments were obvious. Without supporting points it doesn't mean his arguments were invalid. Also, the reviewer of the review didn't give specific counter-points either, so that's hypocritical. And a long drawn-out review where every detail is explained doesn't make it necessarily good, just long; sometimes viewers just want short-and-sweet (<10 minutes). An argument being "hollow" doesn't mean it's untrue. This criticism is probably more virtue signaling from this guy. If the point of the video is to be an overview, then this antithesis falls flat. If the point of the video is to be a well-defined argument, then that antithesis is valid. It's like saying vanilla ice cream is bad because it doesn't taste chocolately. They serve different purposes and are valid in their own right. His criticism is like: I'm butthurt and am going to pretend that the in-depth details on your points just don't exist and/or are invalid because you didn't specify them. A stronger argument would be to say that he's wrong about these general ideas, not to criticize him for lack of supporting claims. With arguments, it's better to address the core idea and not fairly unimportant stuff like the medium or form in which the argument is delivered.
(2.) Says some dumb crap [not worth addressing]. Says that some users "reviewbomb because they only care about politics in storytelling" are braindead.
(2a.) Dumb take. There's different stories: stories with no politics, stories with politics that aren't super-arguing for a certain viewpoint, stories where the focus is politics, and stories which pretend to be stories but are actually just political propaganda. Of those 4, the last one (the pretending one) is the most dishonest brainwashing crap.
(3.) Says more dumb crap, not focused on the main content of the video [not worth addressing]. The season criticizes both left and right.
(3a.) Nope. Like 99% of it is caricaturizing or criticizing the right. It somewhat criticises the left, but not in any meaningful way.
(4.) Some people don't like it so ignoring them is fine.
(4a.) Wrong. If you want a show to be good, it has to be well-liked by many. "Good" here means popular and having a high score with the audience. Just because you can't control how everyone will react to it doesn't mean you should completely ignore all viewer criticism and try not to make it better-received. Storytelling is a social activity, so being antisocial and self-centered doesn't help.
(5.) The political stuff in the season is used to tell the story, so it's fine.
(5a.) No. Sure, the politics-in-your-face is used to tell a story, but the story it tells is a shitty one. This aspect detracts from other positive aspects that season 4 might have.
1/2