# 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:** 7
**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 20, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/121 "2011-01-20T01:11:45Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > MA in what? Journalism. Which has a pretty strong focus on “Communication” and “English”. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > First of all, I think there is a very large distinction between “getting bored by it” [implicit: bored from time to time] and “Shakespeare is boring.” Yes, even the greatest writer who ever lived wrote a less-than-great stanza or two, but that’s not the same as generally equating his work with boredom. If the person watching/reading the work is bored by it, then the work is boring to that person. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Open up a (_gasp_) book and find out. I’ve read Shakespeare’s works, I’ve seen Shakespearian Plays performed by professionals who know what they’re doing, and I’ve watched films of Shakespearian works, and as a general rule they fail to maintain my interest. Now, I enjoy watching a proper Shakespearian play performed by a professional Shakespearian Company- but that’s because I’m enjoying watching professionals work, the costumes, etc. The actual plays themselves just don’t hold my interest any more than _Pride & Prejudice_ or those innumerable Chick-Lit stories twentysomething women like to read do, for the most part. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, it does. It has a _lot_ to do with taste. Personally, I _hate_ poetry, despite knowing perfectly well what the “point” of it is. Or, you could just accept that our viewpoint on the subject is different to many (if not most) other people’s. I’ve lost count of the number of things where I’ve had to make peace with having the minority opinion. ---
**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 20, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/122 "2011-01-20T01:30:42Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Fargo has been mentioned. I love Fargo. I understand the acclaim. I have the DVD. But can someone explain to me what Marge meeting her old classmate had to do with anything? Did it have some relevance to the movie in some allegorical way or something? Did it somehow trigger something in her mind that led her back to the car dealership? Was it just something the writers thought would be interesting but really had nothing to do with the rest of the story? The scene does serve an important purpose in the plot. The problem is, it doesn’t serve that purpose well. Marge needs a reason to second-guess the story Jerry told after she leaves the dealership. When she meets her old classmate, and later learns that he was completely bullshitting her, that’s the impetus for her to rethink the story Jerry gave her and to go back and double check it. The problem with that, of course, is that it comes across like Marge had never heard of lying before. She’s supposed to be a competent and experienced police officer. If nothing in Jerry’s story rang false to her the first time around, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for her to have second thoughts when she meets some other guy, who has absolutely no relation to the case she’s working on, except that they both feature kind of pathetic guys who lie a lot - and she didn’t even know that until she went back in the first place. Great movie. Weak scene. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/123 "2011-01-20T01:31:12Z")
Here’s something I don’t get, and I think it’s because America has a very different approach to watching movies than I do, or I was brought up to do. Opening weekends. Not only does choosing the perfect dates for the opening weekends, and the competition of other movies at that date, absolutely obsess distributors and studio executives, but it’s even borne out by the fact that Americans really do flock to the cinemas as soon as possible, camping out on opening nights or at least lining up for hours, and the statistics really do point to a correlation between opening weekend and overall box office take. It’s hard for me to believe that this is still a major way consumers behave, when the movie will still be around five days later, and will be out on DVD in a few months, so there’s really no need to rush and get so excitable. The tradition of movie-going in America seems to be based on the fact that they invented movies in the first place, so it’s very deeply embedded in their culture for it to consistently play out like this. But I really find it difficult to get my head around. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/124 "2011-01-20T01:42:02Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Here’s something I don’t get, and I think it’s because America has a very different approach to watching movies than I do, or I was brought up to do. > > Opening weekends. > > Not only does choosing the perfect dates for the opening weekends, and the competition of other movies at that date, absolutely obsess distributors and studio executives, but it’s even borne out by the fact that Americans really do flock to the cinemas as soon as possible, camping out on opening nights or at least lining up for hours, and the statistics really do point to a correlation between opening weekend and overall box office take. > > It’s hard for me to believe that this is still a major way consumers behave, when the movie will still be around five days later, and will be out on DVD in a few months, so there’s really no need to rush and get so excitable. > > The tradition of movie-going in America seems to be based on the fact that they invented movies in the first place, so it’s very deeply embedded in their culture for it to consistently play out like this. > > But I really find it difficult to get my head around. You find it difficult to wrap your head around the idea that people want to see a movie that they’ve been looking forward to as soon as possible? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/125 "2011-01-20T01:43:25Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > You find it difficult to wrap your head around the idea that people want to see a movie that they’ve been looking forward to as soon as possible? One person, no problem. But they rely on millions of people to do it, consistently, _and_ it pays off. It’s a cultural thing that I don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/126 "2011-01-20T01:56:48Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > One person, no problem. But they rely on millions of people to do it, consistently, _and_ it pays off. It’s a cultural thing that I don’t understand. But if you can understand it for this person, why not for this one? And if you can understand it for those two people, why not for these two? And these three and those three? Eventually you wind up with everyone who watches movies regularly wanting to see the movies they’ve been looking forward to sooner rather than later. ---
**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 20, 2011, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/127 "2011-01-20T02:03:54Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Well, I just teared up a little bit. I find the sonnets fascinating and beautiful (hint: it just takes a little effort, then it gets easy). I always found them incomprehensible until I stumbled onto the authorship debate and the theory about the 17th Earl of Oxford. Once you plug him into the equation, it all makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/128 "2011-01-20T02:05:45Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > But if you can understand it for this person, why not for this one? I’m talking about the culture, not the individual. I grew up in a country where you see movies whenever you like, and opening day is no different to any other day as long as it’s still running. America seems to obsess over opening weekend. I think, as you are in amongst it, it’s hard for you to see what I’m talking about. In fact the movie-watching culture I experience may be equally incomprehensible to you. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/129 "2011-01-20T02:09:35Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The scene does serve an important purpose in the plot. The problem is, it doesn’t serve that purpose well. Marge needs a reason to second-guess the story Jerry told after she leaves the dealership. When she meets her old classmate, and later learns that he was completely bullshitting her, that’s the impetus for her to rethink the story Jerry gave her and to go back and double check it. The problem with that, of course, is that it comes across like Marge had never heard of lying before. She’s supposed to be a competent and experienced police officer. If nothing in Jerry’s story rang false to her the first time around, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for her to have second thoughts when she meets some other guy, who has absolutely no relation to the case she’s working on, except that they both feature kind of pathetic guys who lie a lot - and she didn’t even know that until she went back in the first place. > > Great movie. Weak scene. I kind of thought it was something like that, but it didn’t seem like it could be. It’s just too weak, especially for the Coen brothers. Not that I don’t believe you but do you have a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Prelude\_to\_Fascination](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Prelude\_to\_Fascination](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prelude_to_Fascination)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/130 "2011-01-20T02:20:10Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Here’s something I don’t get, and I think it’s because America has a very different approach to watching movies than I do, or I was brought up to do. > > Opening weekends. > > Not only does choosing the perfect dates for the opening weekends, and the competition of other movies at that date, absolutely obsess distributors and studio executives, but it’s even borne out by the fact that Americans really do flock to the cinemas as soon as possible, camping out on opening nights or at least lining up for hours, and the statistics really do point to a correlation between opening weekend and overall box office take. > > It’s hard for me to believe that this is still a major way consumers behave, when the movie will still be around five days later, and will be out on DVD in a few months, so there’s really no need to rush and get so excitable. > > The tradition of movie-going in America seems to be based on the fact that they invented movies in the first place, so it’s very deeply embedded in their culture for it to consistently play out like this. > > But I really find it difficult to get my head around. It’s because we’re special. Actually, I feel the same way you do, and always have. I remember when the first Star Trek movies were being released, and my friends _had_ to be at the theater opening night. I didn’t want to fight the crowds, and see people in costume, etc. So I was willing to wait days, or even weeks, for the crowds to die down, then I could enjoy the movie in (relative) peace and quiet. For a lot of Americans, there’s a certain feeling (superiority?) in being the first, or among the first, to see a movie (or get the latest gadget). It then becomes something they can brag about, almost like the child’s game of “I know something you don’t know!” In this case, it’s the ending of the movie, or whether it’s good or bad. [/armchair psychology] ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/131 "2011-01-20T02:33:02Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I can almost agree with this. However, I can understand how people enjoy watching a _game_. > > But what I can’t understand is loyalty to a team. These players don’t represent your region, they were imported for cash. They have no loyalty to you, so why car about them? The team who won the championship in 1995 is not the same team you’re watching today - all the players, coaches, and maybe even the rules are different. But you speak of them as though they remain the same team throughout the previous 150 years. > > Fine, enjoy the individual game. But team loyalty is just absurd; pull your fervour back a bit. I can’t explain team loyalty, but for some people it is an undeniable force. It gets tied up in your identity. Imagine, if you will, watching a football game with your father or grandfather or uncle or brother every single Sunday, every single winter for your whole life. Your family member is happy when the team wins, unhappy when they lose, and has built an entire tradition around the late game because the team is a west coast team and always has a late game. That’s not just “a game.” That’s an integral part of your childhood, memories, family bonding, and tradition. And everybody, even people who don’t watch sports, have a tradition. Now multiply that across multiple generations, across an entire city, state, or region, for over fifty years, and suddenly you have a huge and passionate fan base. This last year, knowing that my beloved Denver Broncos had changed to the point that I didn’t even recognize them as a team, I decided “Fuck it, I’m going with the winners.” And I set about trying to be a Steelers fan. But not only could I not get invested in the tradition of the Steelers, I felt like a traitor. What sort of person could just give up on a beloved (team/pet/family member/whatever) just because there’s a few lean years? Loyalty and consistency matter to me, and I couldn’t forget that. Now Elway is back and I already feel reconnected to the team and excited about next year. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Okay, I don’t understand “fandoms” either. You know, the type of fans of a TV show or manga series who argue with each other about which of the characters are in a hidden gay relationship with other characters, who are actually depressed when their show is cancelled, and who write endless bad stories about themselves interacting with their favourite characters. > > My inability to invest emotionally in a fictional milieu to an extent that parallels my investment in my friends and family probably explains my inability to empathize with sports fans. given my tendency to be deeply involved in fandoms, I think about this issue a lot. I think in a lot of ways, fandom takes the place of religion (or at least acts as a sort of quasi-religion). It’s a community with a shared story. And like with sports, it’s fun > [@Tahssa](#): > > I also find 2001 and most of Shakespeare to be boring. With S it is because of the old language. I find spending ten minutes looking up words so I know what he is talking about just to read a 20 line sonnet boring. We read S in high school and college and that was fine but I don’t consider it recreational reading. > > . You shouldn’t be reading the Swan of Avon. Oh yes, I mean, you _can_ read it, and get quite a lot of pleasure from it. But the point isn’t to read it quietly to yourself and look up every other word. The point is to see it performed, to get caught up in the beauty and the rhythm of the language, in the emotion of the actors. Due to various reasons, I did not study Shakespeare at all in high school. When I admitted that to my Shakespeare prof, he said “Good, high school teachers do more to destroy Shakespeare than anybody else” and over the years I’ve come to see he’s right. > [@kushiel](#): > > Poetry. The expression of emotion and the human condition, the celebration of the English language, the thrill of the perfect image, the perfect economy of words, the timelessness of rhythm. If you are ever interested in understanding poetry, I strongly, strongly recommend Stephen Fry’s **An Ode Less Traveled: Unlocking the Poet Within**. I studied literature for six years and have already learned more about poetry in the first 5 chapters of his book than in all those years combined. And since it’s Stephen Fry, it’s clear, easy to understand, witty, and wonderful. > [@](#): > > Straight girls who only like slash. As in, they won’t touch het at all and _every_ ship they have is male/male. What’s hard to understand? As a straight girl, I am attracted to men and the male form. I don’t need to have a place to insert myself to enjoy porn, which means instead of worrying about identifying with the female, I can just enjoy beautiful boys doing dirty things to each other. Is it strange that straight guys like porn that don’t involve cock? And now my response to the OP: I don’t get Facebook. It’s terrible. I hate it. If it went away tomorrow, I’d do a dance of joy. ---
**Author:** ![Ephemera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Ephemera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ephemera)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/132 "2011-01-20T03:06:01Z")
> [@bouv](#): > > Thank you! Winter is terrible, snow sucks ass, and if I could I’ve move someplace that’s warm (or at least not cold and snowy) in a heartbeat.\* > \*Ok, I realize that there’s technically nothing stopping me, but I do have friends, family, and a job here. Snow’s not synonymous with winter in a lot of places. On average, I only see it once every two to three years, and winter’s one of my favorite seasons. ---
**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 20, 2011, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/133 "2011-01-20T04:54:32Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I kind of thought it was something like that, but it didn’t seem like it could be. It’s just too weak, especially for the Coen brothers. Not that I don’t believe you but do you have a cite for that? It’s just my interpretation. Well, it’s an interpretation that I’ve seen a few times and adopted as my own, at any rate. The movie is my only cite. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/134 "2011-01-20T05:37:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It’s just my interpretation. Well, it’s an interpretation that I’ve seen a few times and adopted as my own, at any rate. The movie is my only cite. Fair enough. It makes more sense than anything I can think of. I wonder of the Coens have talked about it. ---
**Author:** ![Andrew\_Trezise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Andrew\_Trezise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andrew_Trezise)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/135 "2011-01-20T05:42:24Z")
Fargo…Cohen Bros…isn’t it? I’ve known of its cult status. I saw the beginning of it once on tv, lots of snow and all that, but I didn’t persist with it. I was going to say something about Donnie Darko…but that would be opening a can of worms, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/136 "2011-01-20T10:45:27Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > I’ve read Shakespeare’s works, I’ve seen Shakespearian Plays performed by professionals who know what they’re doing, and I’ve watched films of Shakespearian works, and as a general rule they fail to maintain my interest. I was referring to reading about Shakespeare. There are literally hundreds of fantastic books exploring and explaining what makes his writing special. > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@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. > > Yes, it does. It has a _lot_ to do with taste. Personally, I _hate_ poetry, despite knowing perfectly well what the “point” of it is. Since you lack reading comprehension (how’s that MA working out for you?), let me repeat myself: not knowing the point of poetry or not having any idea what makes Shakespeare a great writer is not a matter of taste. It’s a matter of ignorance (SD: “Fighting ignorance since 1973” btw). Whether you enjoy poetry or Shakespeare is perhaps a matter of taste, though from experience it is likely combined with ignorance. Anyone I know who has ever found something boring and then happened upon a good professor or book about it, has totally changed their minds. Perhaps you lack this life experience? > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Or, you could just accept that our viewpoint on the subject is different to many (if not most) other people’s. I’ve lost count of the number of things where I’ve had to make peace with having the minority opinion. I just can’t accept that you have given an honest effort at the appreciation. This is drawing from my own experience. I could be wrong. If so, I’m sorry. ---
**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 20, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/137 "2011-01-20T12:20:58Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I was referring to reading about Shakespeare. There are literally hundreds of fantastic books exploring and explaining what makes his writing special. And you can read those books and still A) Disagree with the authors or B) See that the _authors_ think Shakespeare is special and still simply not see what they see in it. > [@](#): > > Since you lack reading comprehension (how’s that MA working out for you?), let me repeat myself: not knowing the point of poetry or not having any idea what makes Shakespeare a great writer is not a matter of taste. It’s a matter of ignorance (SD: “Fighting ignorance since 1973” btw). My reading comprehension is fine. Before I go on, however, in the interests of keeping this conversation civil, I will say that where I come from, calling someone “Ignorant” is an appalling and highly offensive insult. I’d appreciate it if you could find a less… impolite term. > [@](#): > > Whether you enjoy poetry or Shakespeare is perhaps a matter of taste, though from experience it is likely combined with ignorance. Anyone I know who has ever found something boring and then happened upon a good professor or book about it, has totally changed their minds. Perhaps you lack this life experience? There are some subjects for each person that are just inherently boring and _nothing_ can change that. For example, my own interest is British Military firearms and the British Empire. I can- and have- discussed at length in esoteric detail about the complete service history of a particular firearm, service dates, minor differences in different marks and models, and details right down to the rifling twist and barrel diameter. But here’s the thing: Most other people (who aren’t arms historians) don’t care. I don’t go around saying “Anyone who doesn’t think the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk III Rifle is the greatest and best military service rifle of the pre-Vietnam War era is Ignorant” because A) I don’t believe that and B) even if I did, it’s not a reasonable view to expect lots of people to agree with me on. Sure, I can try and make it all a bit less incomprehensible to someone who’s new to the whole thing, but ultimately, if you don’t like guns, there’s nothing- _nothing_ that I or anyone else can do to make that particular subject interesting. The same applies to a vast number of subjects, including Shakespeare. If Bill Bryson (one of my favourite authors and a very funny writer) can’t make me excited about Shakespeare’s works, no-one can. The only people who have come close are the Reduced Shakespeare Company, who did the very funny _Complete Works Of William Shakespeare (Abridged)_, which is a parody of Shakespeare’s works. > [@](#): > > I just can’t accept that you have given an honest effort at the appreciation. This is drawing from my own experience. I could be wrong. If so, I’m sorry. You’re wrong, but there’s no need to apologise. It’s not a personal failing on your part that there are learned, educated adults out there who don’t like/appreciate Shakespeare for whatever reason. > [@GuanoLad](#): > > I’m talking about the culture, not the individual. I grew up in a country where you see movies whenever you like, and opening day is no different to any other day as long as it’s still running. > > America seems to obsess over opening weekend. > > I think, as you are in amongst it, it’s hard for you to see what I’m talking about. In fact the movie-watching culture I experience may be equally incomprehensible to you. I agree with all of this too, and like **GuanoLad** , I don’t really understand it either. But at this stage I could probably write a book entitled _Things Martini Enfield Doesn’t Understand About Americans_ and we’d run out of forests before I ran out of conent. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/138 "2011-01-20T12:32:40Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > where I come from, calling someone “Ignorant” is an appalling and highly offensive insult. I’d appreciate it if you could find a less… impolite term. Would you care me to use a less efficient synonym that means _ **exactly the same thing** _? Ie: _lacking knowledge or experience_? In any case, perhaps the Straight Dope isn’t for you, it’s motto being _Fighting ignorance since 1973_. ETA: for the record, I never called you ignorant. ---
**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 20, 2011, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/139 "2011-01-20T12:40:38Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Would you care me to use a less efficient synonym that means _ **exactly the same thing** _? Ie: _lacking knowledge or experience_? Since “Lacking knowledge or experience” doesn’t carry nearly the same negative connotations as “Ignorant”, that’s fine with me, although I’d prefer it if you didn’t use _any_ synonyms for the word, to be honest. > [@](#): > > In any case, perhaps the Straight Dope isn’t for you, it’s motto being _Fighting ignorance since 1973_. Firstly, it’s a joke. Secondly, it doesn’t specifically call any one individual “Ignorant”. Thirdly, it’s dedicated to fighting Ignorance as a general concept. So not the same thing as you throwing the term at anyone whose opinion differs from your own, basically. And even though you may not have personally called me “Ignorant”, saying that people who hold the same views as I do are “Ignorant” is near enough to the same thing IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925/140 "2011-01-20T12:45:04Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > And you can read those books and still A) Disagree with the authors or B) See that the _authors_ think Shakespeare is special and still simply not see what they see in it. When you are in my position, and can clearly see that it _is_ special, then you _know_, internally, that the other person is _wrong_. There is something that they _don’t_ see, that you _do_ see. If they do see what you see, yet still reject it, then they should be able to give an educated explanation for the discrepancy. For example: “Shakespeare made amazing puns, that I will admit, but I do not think puns add to the richness of a work because \.” > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > There are some subjects for each person that are just inherently boring and _nothing_ can change that. For example, my own interest is British Military firearms and the British Empire. I can- and have- discussed at length in esoteric detail about the complete service history of a particular firearm, service dates, minor differences in different marks and models, and details right down to the rifling twist and barrel diameter. But here’s the thing: Most other people (who aren’t arms historians) don’t care. I think that is because they are “lacking in knowledge or experience,” off all of the connections that _make_ it interesting. People aren’t stupid – there is a _reason_ they find some things interesting – that reason is just as accessible to one person as it is to another, if they are able to gain the knowledge and experience that allows them to make the connections and unify their understanding of the subject enough for it to “make sense.” In my own life, if I “don’t get” why someone finds something interesting, and I have the time, I go buy a book about it, do some research, buy a “Teaching company” lecture series, etc, and _without fail_ I come out the other side fascinated by the subject. I have no doubt the same would be true for British Military firearms and the British Empire. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-i-still-dont-get/567925.md?page=8)