# Must you read/watch something to have an opinion about it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 25, 2025, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296 "2025-07-25T00:24:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/61 "2025-08-27T13:05:07Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > I expect someone complaining about the effect of Chappelle’s jokes on an unpopular minority, in a thread about how funny his latest tour was, might also not be well received. I’m pretty sure that’s true. I did watch _Adolescence_. Honestly, i don’t care very much whether it was “fair to incels” any more than i care whether a work of fiction is fair to murderers or pedophiles. I do think that if you want to reduce sexual abuse of children you ought to understand what motivates pedophiles. (And i feel bad for people who find children sexually alluring, that must truly suck.) But i feel no moral obligation to be " fair" when portraying them. Since _Adolescence_ hopes to do something about kids becoming incels, it is a better work to the extent it gets the motivations right. This is a case where i understand the work, but maybe don’t understand the world enough to comment usefully. It certainly looked plausible to me. I think comments from an incel, or someone who understands incels, could be a valuable addition to a discussion about the work. And i think it could be valuable even if the commenter only read detailed reviews. But to the extent they wanted to complain about being “unfairly” portrayed, i lose interest. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/62 "2025-08-27T13:42:44Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Since _Adolescence_ hopes to do something about kids becoming incels, it is a better work to the extent it gets the motivations right. This is a case where i understand the work, but maybe don’t understand the world enough to comment usefully. It certainly looked plausible to me. Yes, that’s the issue. If it was simply an episode of a crime show, then it really wouldn’t matter whether the portrayal was accurate or not. But since it was created at least partly for the purpose of drawing attention to an issue, and to trigger social change, it does matter whether it gets the motivations right. (I don’t know if Chappelle’s jokes were also intended to make a political point? I wasn’t really following that controversy.) > [@puzzlegal](#): > > I think comments from an incel, or someone who understands incels, could be a valuable addition to a discussion about the work. Because I was curious about this, and thought it might be a useful addition to that thread, I did search out a couple of reviews of _Adolescence_ from actual incels. What surprised me most was that one review in particular appeared to be a thoughtful and reasonably fair analysis; not at all what I had expected from a member of such a forum. (And IIRC, his conclusion was that it was well produced and well acted, and that many aspects of the programme were indeed accurate, but some were quite far off base. However, I didn’t post it because of the widespread belief in guilt by association, and because I thought the contribution would not be welcome. It’s just easier not to bother. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/63 "2025-08-27T14:01:26Z")
Key difference between the Chapelle situation and the Adolescence and Poor Things ones: I’ve not heard anyone claim that Chapelle’s jokes weren’t making fun of trans-folk, just that it was fine to do so because funny. That argument is fair game. For the latter two? The people participating who saw it did not think it was attacking men or even incels or did not feel it was misogynistic or for the male gaze. The people who had not seen it were arguing it was. And then on that as a given fact what the problems with it interacting with society were. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/64 "2025-08-27T16:30:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Key difference between the Chapelle situation and the Adolescence and Poor Things ones: I’ve not heard anyone claim that Chapelle’s jokes weren’t making fun of trans-folk, just that it was fine to do so because funny. That argument is fair game. For the latter two? The people participating who saw it did not think it was attacking men or even incels or did not feel it was misogynistic or for the male gaze. The main thing I heard about Chappelle’s jokes was that they were “punching down”, ie joking about trans people in the same way he does any other group. I don’t believe “punching down”, should be taboo in general. But I haven’t watched it and don’t intend to, which is why I don’t have a strong opinion. As for _Adolescence_, you can argue whether it’s critical of men (not directly, based on what I know). But it’s undeniably critical of Incels, since it depicts them as adopting a belief system that leads to murder, and as a malign online influence on (other) adolescent boys. (It’s the common trope that “the internet is corrupting **our children** ”.) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/65 "2025-08-27T17:04:16Z")
Chapelle - again there is no one disputing that it was “punching” at the group. The debate is about “punching down” … Adolescence - Your comment was > [@Adolescence on Netflix. Open spoilers after OP](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adolescence-on-netflix-open-spoilers-after-op/1015925/10): > > There are a bunch of men who see it as propaganda against them, in a culture where white men are freely blamed for problems while excuses are made for other demographic groups. And that simply was not what the show did or was about. At all. In terms of of “incels”? Yes a part of it was broadly how much of our kids lives are impacted by influences that parents are clueless about. About how we parents connect and fail to connect with our children. About how some is luck of the draw. Falling into specific Andrew Tate misogynistic material was part of it yes. If we define incels as that specific philosophy then it does acknowledge the misogynistic aspects of it. But the violence that resulted was, in the show, not so simplistically a direct result of it How individual public figures react to a show or an issue is a separate subject. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/66 "2025-08-27T17:11:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Chapelle - again there is no one disputing that it was “punching” at the group. The debate is about “punching down” … I ended up later seeing some of his jokes on Facebook reels. The ones I saw all had a similar structure: he’d say some transphobic shit, then back off and offer a thoughtful, nuanced, compassionate take on trans issues, then close with this little sneaky “aren’t I naughty?” coda that was some transphobic shit. As near as I can tell, a lot of his defenders were like, “You have to watch the special, because he’s a lot more nuanced than you think!” ignoring his framing device. In some ways, the nuance made it _worse_: he knew what he was saying was shitty, and just didn’t much care. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/67 "2025-08-27T17:48:02Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Chapelle - again there is no one disputing that it was “punching” at the group. The debate is about “punching down” What do you mean? If it was punching, then it was punching down, surely? * * * > [@Adolescence on Netflix. Open spoilers after OP](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/adolescence-on-netflix-open-spoilers-after-op/1015925/10): > > There are a bunch of men who see it as propaganda against them, in a culture where white men are freely blamed for problems while excuses are made for other demographic groups. This is a larger issue, which is really outside the scope of this thread. Re adolescence, if you want to read a review from a Genuine Incel™ who did watch the show, I can paste a suitably broken link. Obviously this is a biased source, but he’s also in a far better position to judge how accurate it was than any of us. > [@DSeid](#): > > How individual public figures react to a show or an issue is a separate subject. Politicians overreact to single crimes, or presumed patterns of crimes, pretty regularly. Overreacting to a fictional crime is a new low. The UK has become notably anti-freedom over the last few years. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/68 "2025-08-27T18:11:00Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > If it was punching, then it was punching down, surely? Punching is not necessarily punching down. It can be in the eye of the beholder. Someone mocks white men … you might perceive that as punching down in today’s world and others might disagree. > [@DemonTree](#): > > which is really outside the scope of this thread. The issue for this thread is if those sorts of hearsay comments, from someone who has not seen the work, even cited to someone who says they saw the work, are worthwhile contributions to a discussion about the work. Answer: they are not. Even if they agree with your take on pet issues you have. > [@DemonTree](#): > > Overreacting to a fictional crime is a new low. Meh. Sometimes fiction brings attention to real problems. Some real reforms have occurred after fictional works highlighted real problems. The claim by those wanting action is regarding the real stabbings by youths in the UK. Whether or not that is a big enough issue to act on, or whether or not the show framed the issue fairly, I don’t know. But politicians taking advantage of a public interest brought up by something in the media zeitgeist to push their desired agendas is not a new thing. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/69 "2025-08-27T18:41:04Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > A spider? 😬 Gorgon or Minotaur is one thing, but spiders are creepy, and not in a good way. When I was a child I used to have nightmares about a giant spider - bigger than person size - invading my house, and the only way to get out was to run between its long, searching, hairy legs. 😨 Hey, I like spiders, but not _that_ much. It’s because this author wrote a romance I really liked about an android and a human, and so I’ve been trying to give her other books a chance to impress me as much as that one did. Hasn’t happened yet. Also, I went back to reread the android one and it wasn’t quite as good as I remembered. As much as I love the “genre” it’s almost like I love the aesthetic, the structure, the ideal of a romance novel way more than the execution. There are only a handful where I would say, “This is it. This is how it should be done.” But I do like to read weird things like spider romance sometimes, just to see if it gives me a new perspective. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/70 "2025-08-27T19:06:45Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > > [@DemonTree](#): > > > > which is really outside the scope of this thread. > > The issue for this thread is if those sorts of hearsay comments, from someone who has not seen the work, even cited to someone who says they saw the work, are worthwhile contributions to a discussion about the work. Answer: they are not. Even if they agree with your take on pet issues you have i disagree, and think such comments can be worthwhile, if appropriately informed. But also, anyone who claims that _Adolescence_ is propaganda against men is uninformed. And if someone claims it is propaganda against their, er, style of masculinity, then i have extremely little respect for the person saying that. Because he’s revealed something pretty unpleasant about himself. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/71 "2025-08-28T22:41:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Punching is not necessarily punching down. It can be in the eye of the beholder. Someone mocks white men … you might perceive that as punching down in today’s world and others might disagree. No, I think it is wrong and bad to punch someone regularly while telling them they must never punch back. Literally or metaphorically. > [@DSeid](#): > > The issue for this thread is if those sorts of hearsay comments, from someone who has not seen the work, even cited to someone who says they saw the work, are worthwhile contributions to a discussion about the work. Answer: they are not. Even if they agree with your take on pet issues you have. I agree with @puzzlegal that they can be, depending on circumstances. And this is not my ‘pet issue’, any more than transphobia is a ‘pet issue’ of the people complaining about Dave Chappelle’s jokes. Actually, I see it as a matter of (social?) justice. (Before anyone starts, please recall that not all wrongs are equally wrong.) > [@DSeid](#): > > > [@DemonTree](#): > > > > Overreacting to a fictional crime is a new low. > > Meh. All very well for you to say, when you don’t have to live with the consequences. * * * > [@puzzlegal](#): > > i disagree, and think such comments can be worthwhile, if appropriately informed. But also, anyone who claims that _Adolescence_ is propaganda against men is uninformed. And if someone claims it is propaganda against their, er, style of masculinity, then i have extremely little respect for the person saying that. Because he’s revealed something pretty unpleasant about himself. TBH, I can’t really remember what people were saying about it back in March, and since Twitter is so ephemeral, I couldn’t find anything in my searching, either. I don’t recall seeing anyone saying it was propaganda against their ‘style of masculinity’, though. I dug out the quote from the review of _Adolescence_ by an Incel on how accurate it is. I don’t think there’s anything offensive here: > [@](#): > > Although it was blatant anti-incel propaganda, I at least appreciated that it was psychologically accurate. I like how the kid had extreme body dysmorphia, and constantly fluctuated between being troll, being a simp, feeling worthless, and easily irritated in his desperation for power. ---
**Author:** ![Zoobi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/13edae/32.png) [@Zoobi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoobi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/72 "2025-08-28T22:47:27Z")
It wasn’t anti-incel propaganda. That part is nonsense. I guess I don’t have to have the read the rest to know the author is full of shit and trying to push some martyrdom idiocy then I guess lol ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/73 "2025-08-28T23:09:38Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > No, I think it is wrong and bad to punch someone regularly while telling them they must never punch back. Literally or metaphorically. A very separate concept than whether all “punching” is “punching down”. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/74 "2025-08-28T23:10:36Z")
It wasn’t anti-incel propaganda, but it assumed that the audience would find incels unsympathetic. I can see a self-identified incel feeling that it came across as anti-incel propaganda. And i would agree that it was anti-incel. ---
**Author:** ![Zoobi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/13edae/32.png) [@Zoobi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoobi)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/75 "2025-08-28T23:34:38Z")
I guess. I suppose we need to consider a movie like Schindler’s List unsympathetic to Nazis and anti-Nazi then. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/76 "2025-08-28T23:47:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > A very separate concept than whether all “punching” is “punching down”. An idea which no one has suggested, so pretty irrelevant. I was replying to this: > [@DSeid](#): > > Someone mocks white men … you might perceive that as punching down in today’s world and others might disagree. * * * > [@Zoobi](#): > > some martyrdom idiocy Incels 110% view themselves as victims - of women, other men, society in general. That’s half the point of the ideology. > [@Zoobi](#): > > I suppose we need to consider a movie like Schindler’s List unsympathetic to Nazis and anti-Nazi then. No shit. ---
**Author:** ![Zoobi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/13edae/32.png) [@Zoobi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoobi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2025, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/77 "2025-08-29T00:06:25Z")
Nevermind. I don’t think you’ll see the point. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2025, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/78 "2025-08-29T00:56:08Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > An idea which no one has suggested, so pretty irrelevant. I was replying to this: Huh? That was in reply to this: > [@DemonTree](#): > > If it was punching, then it was punching down, surely? So uh yeah that was exactly what you were suggesting. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2025, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/79 "2025-08-29T01:27:13Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > I think there is a distinction between having an artistic opinion on a work and an opinion on the objectionable content contained in a work. You need to have read/consumed a work to have an artistic opinion on it, not necessarily to point out it has objectionable content. > > I have never read Mein Kampf, the Turner Diaries or Gone With The Wind. But I have no problem condemning them as horrendously objectionable. This. Although not just objectionable content, but various other characteristics that don’t require direct reading to make judgements on. “Full of misspellings”, “ends on a cliffhanger and the author’s dead so it won’t be continued”, “factually incorrect”, etc. And then there’s issues of personal taste like “it’s a mystery and I don’t like mysteries”; sure it _might_ be the exception, but that kind of opinion is certainly a reasonable take. And you _can’t_ read everything, so at some point you need to form opinions like that so you can decide what to actually read. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2025, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296/80 "2025-08-29T02:12:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And then there’s issues of personal taste like “it’s a mystery and I don’t like mysteries”; sure it _might_ be the exception, but that kind of opinion is certainly a reasonable take. And you _can’t_ read everything, so at some point you need to form opinions like that so you can decide what to actually read. Well, but if people are talking about the hot new mystery, “i don’t like mysteries” is not a useful comment to add to the discussion, unless it’s an answer to a direct question like, “why won’t you read this book”. But a discussion of why a book might be objectionable to people other than the ones discussing it, or might be appreciated by people who wouldn’t obviously be drawn to it, are both things you might be able to usefully add to a discussion without necessarily having read the book yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-you-read-watch-something-to-have-an-opinion-about-it/1021296.md?page=5)