# Things I still don't get ... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 17, 2011, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925 "2011-01-17T09:05:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/181 "2011-01-22T09:27:42Z")
Forget not getting a title or two. I don’t get entire mediums. Singing. Dancing. Music. Now I can understand if it’s in relation to something else, like a movie or video game. I can appreciate the rising and falling emotions that’s intended. Or nostalgia in relation to something else. But outside of that very narrow scope I feel like an alien when I see people talk about their love of music, especially re: culturally important music. When I see people dancing I think they look foolish. Hearing someone sing makes me feel embarrassed for them. I’m great at parties. I’m OK with movies, but my appreciation is general and my ability to grade them feels like I’m using a dull blade. I just tried to empathize with fictional people and their fake problems for 2 hours, so I guess I enjoyed myself. Why else would I do it? The more serious the movie’s subject matter the less seriously I can take it. If I detect the story is trying to get at some philosophical or political point my mind rebels. Even “good” dialogue sounds either corny, stilted, rehearsed, too perfect, or just plain fake. Plays. Something awful adults make kids do against our will, then you grow up to find people do this on their own and people who don’t know them come to watch. An entire culture and everything. No external pressure. For fun. RE: the earlier 2001 discussion and its pace, name a mainstream movie that’s slower paced than 2001. Most of the movie has nothing in particular happening for 10+ minutes. It has good stuff, like HAL, some of the space scenes, but c’mon. It’s an insomnia cure in film form. And props to Ligeti’s Requiem stuff during the monolith scenes and during the long space shots in the last act. Creepiest [music](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2AAmIC6f0&feature=related) I’ve ever heard (see, if I just heard this without the context of the movie I would wonder what the big fuss is about some weirdos chanting and someone banging on broken instruments). RE: people not getting sports, does the fact that people follow pro-video game matches blow your mind? Or maybe that’s easier, since the link to the game itself is a lot stronger. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/182 "2011-01-22T10:33:19Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > RE: the earlier 2001 discussion and its pace, name a mainstream movie that’s slower paced than 2001. _The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford_ springs readily to mind. > [@](#): > > RE: people not getting sports, does the fact that people follow pro-video game matches blow your mind? Or maybe that’s easier, since the link to the game itself is a lot stronger. People following pro-videogame matches makes even _less_ sense to me than regular sports fandom, to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/183 "2011-01-22T23:15:45Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > There’s something to that. Another situation - why can you walk down the street in a Peyton Manning jersey or whatever and nobody thinks a thing, but you wear a Star Trek uniform _once_ and you’re a nut? Why is your fandom mainstream and my fandom crazy? Not to explode your basic point about different views of different fandoms, but I’m not sure your example fits. A Peyton Manning jersey is fine. But a Star Trek T-shirt and baseball cap would be equally acceptable. Wearing an entire Star trek uniform is weird. Wearing a Peyton manning jersey plus football pants and spikes and shoulder pads is equally weird. And BTW I completely agree with this: “But why should I go off and invest time in learning why some particular thing is interesting to others on the assumption I’ll eventually find it interesting, if I don’t find it interesting enough in the first place to care? Why should I devote time and effort into trying to make something interesting when I find it boring? Can’t you accept that someone may not get it, and may not care enough to go learn enough to get it?” ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/184 "2011-01-23T01:20:46Z")
for what it’s worth, i’m a pretty big sports fan and i think people who wear jerseys are tacky, and those who body paint ARE crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/185 "2011-01-23T05:43:02Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Not knowing what the point of poetry is (for example), or not having any idea what makes Shakespeare a great writer, has nothing to do with taste. I know I’m coming in late here, but it has everything to do with taste. Shakespeare is not a great writer, there is no such thing as a great writer in any absolute sense of that word. There are a lot of people who hold the opinion that Shakespeare is a great writer because his writing appeals to their tastes to such a degree that they call it great. If, hypothetically, the tastes of those same people were different (than they are now, not from each other), Shakespeare might be widely considered a hack. Some people have a really hard time with that concept, because the “greatness” of Shakespeare is so ingrained that it just feels natural, it could be no other way, it’s an inherent part of what we define as writing, etc. But that’s the key, that we’ve just defined it that way, not that there is any more reality to it than that. For me, my answer to the OP is that I cannot get why some people have such a hard time with what I just said. I don’t get how anyone can believe that Shakespeare simply IS great, and anyone who disagrees is just wrong. To me, it’s just totally obvious that greatness or lack thereof in anything artistic is nothing more than by agreement among a bunch of people. ---
**Author:** ![campp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@campp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/campp)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/186 "2011-01-23T13:36:46Z")
The adoration of the _ **Late, Great Jim Croce** _ ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_A.Robrin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sam_a.robrin/32/14497_2.png) [@Sam\_A.Robrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_A.Robrin)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/187 "2011-01-23T14:28:21Z")
> [@kushiel](#): > > Every single new series they take in, they automatically slash the guys. These are the people who live slash/yaoi as a lifestyle, not just a preference. > > Secretly, I think these are the people who would drop slash like a hot potato as soon as it fell out of style or became too mainstream. They are the lesbians until graduation of fandom. Having been involved with science-fiction fandom for many decades, my observation is that there are types therein who are (as I call it) “looking for Mr. Spock”–much as some socialist women are looking for John Reed, libertarian women are looking for John Galt, and Christian women, yes, are looking for Jesus Christ. Slash fiction (which doesn’t, to my knowledge [and desperate, fervent hope], exist in the other three) places just one more barrier to the unattainable male, who only needs the right woman in his life–and little Mary Sue is sure she’s the one, if he can just be made to see how special she really is. Unmeetable ideals are bumpers against the insecurities of people who doubt their capability of even achieving the adequate. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/188 "2011-01-23T15:59:57Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > I know I’m coming in late here, but it has everything to do with taste. Shakespeare is not a great writer, there is no such thing as a great writer in any absolute sense of that word. There are a lot of people who hold the opinion that Shakespeare is a great writer because his writing appeals to their tastes to such a degree that they call it great. If, hypothetically, the tastes of those same people were different (than they are now, not from each other), Shakespeare might be widely considered a hack. > > Some people have a really hard time with that concept, because the “greatness” of Shakespeare is so ingrained that it just feels natural, it could be no other way, it’s an inherent part of what we define as writing, etc. But that’s the key, that we’ve just defined it that way, not that there is any more reality to it than that. > > For me, my answer to the OP is that I cannot get why some people have such a hard time with what I just said. I don’t get how anyone can believe that Shakespeare simply IS great, and anyone who disagrees is just wrong. To me, it’s just totally obvious that greatness or lack thereof in anything artistic is nothing more than by agreement among a bunch of people. You don’t seem to have recognized the intended meaning when I said: > [@](#): > > not having any idea what makes Shakespeare a great writer, has nothing to do with taste. _Not enjoying_ reading Shakespeare may indeed in many cases have something to do with taste. But not being familiar with the arguments for _why_ Shakespeare is generally considered great has _nothing_ to do with taste. It has to do with a lack of cultural literacy. (One may disagree with those arguments, of course, but not being familiar with them is not an issue of taste). ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/189 "2011-01-23T16:11:14Z")
**Slot machine players** - I guess I understand the rush that comes with the thrill of winning in games like Blackjack or Roulette where you at least have a choice. But slots, I don’t get it, the zombies playing don’t even seem to enjoy it. It’s almost haunting when they describe ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ machines, like raw statistics have a personality which seems to fulfill some empty hole in their soul. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/190 "2011-01-23T17:08:37Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > RE: people not getting sports, does the fact that people follow pro-video game matches blow your mind? Or maybe that’s easier, since the link to the game itself is a lot stronger. It _completely_ blows my mind. And I’m not only a hard core gamer, I work in the video game industry. I’d meant to use that as an example upthread, but I guess it slipped my mind: the idea of watching someone play _Call of Duty_ is just about the most tedious thing imaginable, and I love the hell out of _Call of Duty_. I feel the same way about people who watch chess games, and my junior high chess team was national champions two years running. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/191 "2011-01-23T17:28:56Z")
In Cujo, rather than hiding in the car, how come that lady didn’t just throw him a chewy, and maybe rubbed his belly a little? ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/192 "2011-01-23T18:16:54Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > _Not enjoying_ reading Shakespeare may indeed in many cases have something to do with taste. But not being familiar with the arguments for _why_ Shakespeare is generally considered great has _nothing_ to do with taste. It has to do with a lack of cultural literacy. (One may disagree with those arguments, of course, but not being familiar with them is not an issue of taste). So, are you agreeing that the arguments themselves are based on taste? If you are separating familiarity with the arguments from the basis of the arguments, then I did indeed misinterpret what you said. However, other posts of yours seemed to imply that it was not possible for a person to both know well the arguments as to why Shakespeare is a great writer and disagree with the conclusion (that he is a great writer). In other words, you seemed to be saying that the only way a person could possibly not agree that Shakespeare was a great writer was that that person was ignorant of the reasons why. If you are really saying that it is possible for a person to be intimately familiar with Shakespeare’s writings and all the conventional reasons why he is great, and yet legitimately hold the valid opinion that he is not that great a writer, then I admit I misread your statements. ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/193 "2011-01-23T18:45:49Z")
> [@Sam\_A.Robrin](#): > > Having been involved with science-fiction fandom for many decades, my observation is that there are types therein who are (as I call it) “looking for Mr. Spock”–much as some socialist women are looking for John Reed, libertarian women are looking for John Galt, and Christian women, yes, are looking for Jesus Christ. Slash fiction (which doesn’t, to my knowledge [and desperate, fervent hope], exist in the other three) places just one more barrier to the unattainable male, who only needs the right woman in his life–and little Mary Sue is sure she’s the one, if he can just be made to see how special she really is. > Unmeetable ideals are bumpers against the insecurities of people who doubt their capability of even achieving the adequate. I think your off base here. I’m a fan of yuri (lesbian anime). Why would I want to watch a romance involving two women and no men? It’s just a fetish. Personally I’ve decided that sexual fetishes don’t really make sense. Not a very satisfying answer I know, but that’s just one of the mysteries of life. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/194 "2011-01-23T18:55:52Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > So, are you agreeing that the arguments themselves are based on taste? If you are separating familiarity with the arguments from the basis of the arguments, then I did indeed misinterpret what you said. I agree that the arguments themselves are based on taste. And in the exchange you responded to I was indeed separating familiarity with the arguments from the basis of the arguments. > [@Roadfood](#): > > However, other posts of yours seemed to imply that it was not possible for a person to both know well the arguments as to why Shakespeare is a great writer and disagree with the conclusion (that he is a great writer). In other words, you seemed to be saying that the only way a person could possibly not agree that Shakespeare was a great writer was that that person was ignorant of the reasons why. I think I probably went too far in the language that I used, and for that I apologize. I was making an unfair generalization from my own experience. > [@Roadfood](#): > > If you are really saying that it is possible for a person to be intimately familiar with Shakespeare’s writings and all the conventional reasons why he is great, and yet legitimately hold the valid opinion that he is not that great a writer, then I admit I misread your statements. I believe that it is _possible_, but unlikely (from my own experience), and I tend to err on the side of skepticism until I hear an explanation that confirms to me that the other person really is familiar with the case for greatness as well as is experienced and comfortable with Shakespearean language itself. As an example of why I think it is fair for me to be skeptical, someone responded to me in this thread arguing that Shakespeare is boring, saying: _Why is [Shakespeare] not translated into contemporary English?_ This is the sort of statement that tends to corroborate my general attitude. Nonetheless, it is unfair of me to make judgments about specific people I do not know. I should be more gracious in giving the benefit of the doubt, and for not having done so enough, I sincerely apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/195 "2011-01-24T01:12:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It _completely_ blows my mind. And I’m not only a hard core gamer, I work in the video game industry. I’d meant to use that as an example upthread, but I guess it slipped my mind: the idea of watching someone play _Call of Duty_ is just about the most tedious thing imaginable, and I love the hell out of _Call of Duty_. Not only is watching other people play video games tedious, it’s frustrating for everyone- “There! Grab the thing! The THING! Shoot that guy! Rocket launcher ammo! Jump here… Dammit, you’re doing it _wrong_!” Frustrating if you’re the player because you’ve got all these other people trying to tell you how to play the game, frustrating if you’re watching because the gamer is invariably doing it differently to how you would and naturally your way is best. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/196 "2011-01-24T04:53:17Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I believe that it is _possible_, but unlikely (from my own experience), and I tend to err on the side of skepticism until I hear an explanation that confirms to me that the other person really is familiar with the case for greatness as well as is experienced and comfortable with Shakespearean language itself. As an example of why I think it is fair for me to be skeptical, someone responded to me in this thread arguing that Shakespeare is boring, saying: > > _Why is [Shakespeare] not translated into contemporary English?_ > > This is the sort of statement that tends to corroborate my general attitude. Nonetheless, it is unfair of me to make judgments about specific people I do not know. I should be more gracious in giving the benefit of the doubt, and for not having done so enough, I sincerely apologize. Cool, then I think we’re in agreement, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/197 "2011-01-24T06:45:29Z")
I still don’t get why, in “Strangers on a Train”, no one is the least bit concerned that that cop negligently killed the carousel operator. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/198 "2011-01-24T17:26:53Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > **Slot machine players** - I guess I understand the rush that comes with the thrill of winning in games like Blackjack or Roulette where you at least have a choice. But slots, I don’t get it, the zombies playing don’t even seem to enjoy it. It’s almost haunting when they describe ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ machines, like raw statistics have a personality which seems to fulfill some empty hole in their soul. I don’t really play, but there’s something to the act of pure chance deciding the outcome. It’s not about skill of play, it’s about being lucky. ---
**Author:** ![salinqmind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3ec8ea/32.png) [@salinqmind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/salinqmind)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/199 "2011-01-24T17:46:30Z")
> [@campp](#): > > The adoration of the _ **Late, Great Jim Croce** _ Same with me! That huge black mustache alone is bad enough, but his songs SUCK. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/200 "2011-01-24T17:46:33Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > **Slot machine players** - I guess I understand the rush that comes with the thrill of winning in games like Blackjack or Roulette where you at least have a choice. But slots, I don’t get it, the zombies playing don’t even seem to enjoy it. It’s almost haunting when they describe ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ machines, like raw statistics have a personality which seems to fulfill some empty hole in their soul. Which is why slot machines have become more entertainment oriented than cherry, plums and bars on a reel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925.md?page=11)