The facts say you are wrong.
Godzilla can physically crush as many deer as he wants, he’s still wrong about Sting.
I believe I said that. Meh. Not a hill I’m going to die on. I’m not even going to get a hangnail on, really. Just food for thought.
This has nothing to do with people on the Dope disagreeing with you, and the only one claiming a superior viewpoint on this matter because “everyone” agrees with you is you.
OK, this needs to be parsed out for me. “Superior?” Where the hell did that come from? And I flat out stated that if everybody disagrees with me then I am wrong. It’s Miller that raised the Moral Imperative argument, not me.
The sheriff is a really nasty guy, Munney is just a guy trying to get by. So we got some guys neither bad nor good and a really bad guy. But yeah, no "good’ guys.
There may be something to the notion that consumers of art can get meaning from it that wasn’t originally intended by the artist, but no amount of playing “Every Breath You Take” at weddings is going to turn it into a romantic love song. And no amount of playing the chorus of “Born in the USA” at political rallies is going to turn it into a rah-rah patriotic song.
When you selectively quoted @Derleth, you left out an important qualifier.
That, I think, is a good and succinct summary.
And does it really need to be said that the “Everyone” in the thread title is hyperbole?
Yes it does, because that changes the thrust of the question. “Pop Culture Stuff Everyone Seems to Misunderstand” is a different question than “Pop Culture Stuff Some People Seem to Misunderstand.”
“Some people think I’m an idiot” is different than “Everybody thinks I’m an idiot.” 
It would be impossible to point out that “everyone” misunderstood something, since you’d be part of everyone! But maybe the pedants like to practice believing in impossible things.
The whole point of the concept of intentional fallacy is that it doesn’t matter whether or not there are any “missed” parts. The audience’s experience of the piece is what matters. There is no “right” way to experience or interpret a piece of art.
Maybe that’s what you intended to say, but that’s not how I interpreted it. 
Good one
I think it’s about how you define yourself. Lois McMaster Bujold wrote in one of her books, “You are what you do. Choose again, and change.”
Munney was trying to be a good guy, but when it got too tough, he choose to become a bad guy again. Because for him, being bad was easy. “I’ve always been lucky when it comes it killing folk…”
Munney is the protagonist because he’s the only one who really makes a choice. Everyone else just goes along like they always do, without reflection. While Munney is definitely a bad guy at several points of the movie, he at least stops to think about why he’s doing these things.
Little Bill is the villain, though, because while he does think about these things, what makes someone good or bad, he only thinks about it as far as he needs to to justify his own bad behavior.
In my opinion if you have a view of a particular piece of art, you should be able to support your argument. So I would ask a fellow, “How do you define love? What, in your view, makes this a love song?” Then I get to say, “Here is how I define a stalker. This is what, in my view, makes this a stalker song.” And here I might include authorial intent to strengthen my argument. It’s a factor that should be included in the analysis of any work. If I can support my argument both textually and in terms of authorial intent I’ve clearly made the better argument. Let’s say the reverse were true, and Sting(?) intended this as a love song. That’s when I’d say, “The author failed to communicate his message and here’s why.” Of course this is all subjective. But some interpretations cannot be supported textually. Some interpretations are better than others.
Of course a song can mean something different to someone. Ok here’s an example. One of my earliest “love” songs for my husband is the Gin Blossoms’ song “Hey, Jealousy.” It’s a song that reeks of desperation as much as love, as is much of the album, but it has the line, “Tomorrow we can drive around this town and let the cops chase us around” and that is tied to a specific memory we have, thus it’s one of our songs.
But I would never argue with a straight face that this is some sweeping romantic ballad. It’s a little sweet and a little pathetic, and the textual evidence points to the song being about settling for an old flame because there aren’t a lot of other options. No amount of me personally romaticizing the lyrics can hold up under the weight of what it’s really about. I have no problem retaining the personal meaning while at the same time acknowledging the intended meaning.
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” —Lewis Carroll. 
I’m as big a fan of the death of the author as the next English literature undergrad, but it’s hardly the only valid way to approach a text. Particularly when approaching texts that are from foreign cultures, or are particularly old, it can be more useful to consider what the author intended, rather than relying solely on your immediate reaction to it. Approach Shakespeare using solely your 21st century cultural knowledge and associations means you’re going to miss out on a lot of what’s going on in the plays.
And, certainly, there’s no contradiction between favoring reader response analysis, and expecting a particular reader to have some basic familiarity with the whole text. If you take a class on post-modern literature, and you hand in a paper on John Barth that’s based entirely on looking at the cover of his book, you’re still going to get an F.
I am 70 years old and never realized this until now.
Of course, but even in Shakespeare’s day the courtiers and the groundlings in the same audience are going to be seeing different plays. Who’s to say which is right?
Stop looking at my transcripts!
Well, I mean, someone had to buy the roast beef.