Counter To "No Right To Critisize" Argument?

[AxelxGabriel]

I'm having an argument with this guy over how I hate this one character in a story, but he just says I have no right to complain about the character because I haven't gone through what the character has been through.

I honestly want to counter this, but I don't know how! Any suggestions?

 

[Thaluikhain]

But that reasoning, you can't hate anyone, because you won't have gone through exactly what they have.

(Alternatively, mail the guy exploding spiders, and say he can't judge you)

 

[Mangod]

Do yourself a favor and ignore the guy. He's not worth arguing with.

 

[Spambot 3000]

You could always make up a story about how you were forced to slave away at an envelope factory all your childhood, thus making his criticism of your criticism invalid.

 

[JoJo]

Do yourself a favor and ignore the guy. He's not worth arguing with.

This. If the sort of argument in the OP is what he's down to, any attempt at reason has long gone. I'm not sure what there is to argue about not liking a character anyway, that's purely subjective opinion.

 

[Eamar]

Do yourself a favor and ignore the guy. He's not worth arguing with.

This.

It's a non-argument, and I'm sure he knows it. He must dislike plenty of characters himself without having lived their experiences. He's not looking for a logical argument, he just doesn't want to hear a different opinion for whatever reason. Nothing you say is going to change his mind, so don't bother.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm having an argument with this guy over how I hate this one character in a story, but he just says I have no right to complain about the character because I haven't gone through what the character has been through.

I honestly want to counter this, but I don't know how! Any suggestions?

That isn't a very compelling argument as presented, but it would be nice to have more context for this story. Who is the character? Why do you hate the character? Why did this guy think "you haven't gone through what the character has gone through" was a valid defense?

 

[Olas]

You can hate anyone or anything for whatever reason you want. There are no rules about it.

But if you just want a way to shut him up, ask him if he hates Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, etc... because I'm pretty sure he's never lived through their life experiences either.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Something exists, everyone has a right to criticize it. Doesn't matter if it's free, paid for, good or bad, if it's out there, you are allowed the right to find something wrong with it.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yaknow, someone telling me they hate a character in my stories, I'd take it as a compliment. I actually do write some characters to be hateful and stuff.

Then again, it's his character and his story, so he shouldn't feel so insecure about them as to pull off such a stupid rebuttal.

 

[FalloutJack]

Here's one: "It's a fictional character. I'm not SUPPOSE to live its life. It's the job of the writer to invoke sympathy, so not doing so is a failing on HIS part."

 

[DoPo]

I'm having an argument with this guy over how I hate this one character in a story, but he just says I have no right to complain about the character because I haven't gone through what the character has been through.

Neither has he, therefore, he has no right of writing that character.

 

[Coakle]

Main point: Hating and not understanding the character don't always go hand in hand



The fellow you are arguing with is saying that the character's actions are understandable or justified. For him, this is enough to believe that people who hate the character have a deficient of knowledge that led them to that conclusion. He might be right, since you didn't give a lot of information. He doesn't actually mean that empathy is a myth.


I always try to assume the person who I'm arguing with is smarter and more read than me. This means I can assume that the character in this story is not intended to be hated by the reader. This leaves us with three veins to mine.

Spoiler: 1. Line in the Sand

Line in the Sand - You hate the character because they crossed a serious line. Even though you know why they did it you'll still hate them for it.

Example:

Spoiler: Spoiler: The Last of Us (sorry if you haven't played)

Joel deciding that Ellie's life took priority over a cure. People who argue whether or not Joel made the right call understand the character. It's the lines that Joel did or didn't cross which makes people love or hate him.

.

Spoiler: 2. Meta reasons

Meta reasons - The character is a product of unhealthy or undesirable trends in whatever medium they appear in. If you blame the character for ruining an otherwise great show.

Example:
You can come up with a your own.

Spoiler: 3. Death by a Thousand Cuts

Death by a Thousand Cuts - An important facet of the character's design is unappealing or feels wrong. Things like voice, tone, appearance, their thought process. Nitpicks are important if they impact how you see the character.

Example:

Navi in Ocarina in Time.

Edit: Got Ellie's name wrong and rambled on less.

 

[Pink Gregory]

"Bollocks" seems like a good answer.

You have the right to criticise everything. It's whether or not your criticism can have any weight that is of importance. Besides, this is a character in what I assume is fiction. Presumably you can't appreciate the character if one hasn't had the same experiences in the same way that you - apparently - can't criticise.

Which is bollocks.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

"I'm not saying that (insert character's name) shouldn't (insert the thing that annoys you); I'm not saying it doesn't make sense that he/she (insert the the thing that annoys you). I'm saying that when he/she (insert the thing that annoys you), it makes the character unlikable to me.

I can see where you're coming from if (insert character's name) was a real person and I was being insensitive to their personal life struggles, but this isn't the case. There's a big difference between not empathizing the personal plight of a character in a story and not empathizing with the personal plight of a real-life person."

Countered.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Take the high ground and fuck the debate. You leave, feeling cool; he leaves, feeling cool. Everybody wins.

 

[lacktheknack]

"Previous experience NEVER justifies assholishness."

Then punch him in the gut and howl "YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'VE BEEN THROUGH!"

You won't be justified, but he'll shut up and you'll feel better.

 

[Bruce]

I'm having an argument with this guy over how I hate this one character in a story, but he just says I have no right to complain about the character because I haven't gone through what the character has been through.

I honestly want to counter this, but I don't know how! Any suggestions?

Okay...

Since he was never banished from his underwater race of frog people for apocalyptic stupidity and clumsiness, well you'd better not hear him talking smack about your homie Jar Jar Binks.

 

[Asita]

I'm having an argument with this guy over how I hate this one character in a story, but he just says I have no right to complain about the character because I haven't gone through what the character has been through.

I honestly want to counter this, but I don't know how! Any suggestions?

That isn't a very compelling argument as presented, but it would be nice to have more context for this story. Who is the character? Why do you hate the character? Why did this guy think "you haven't gone through what the character has gone through" was a valid defense?

Pretty much this. I've seen the same thing expressed many times in both valid[footnote]Albeit poorly phrased[/footnote] ("You're approaching this from your perspective, not the character's"[footnote]This would be your "why the hell did the people in the Mist rally around that crazy old lady? She had all the hallmarks of a classic doomsday cult leader" "Dude, chill. You're in the audience and the situation isn't real to you, these characters are seeing an almost literal hell on earth and probably experiencing a fear you can't even imagine. People have bought tickets for the crazy train for far less. They are not going to be as rational in that world as you are in this theater." exchange[/footnote]) and invalid (effectively "listen, I like the character and I just want to shut you up"[footnote]This would be your "I don't care if you say there's a plothole in this scene, you aren't a bestselling author so your opinion is invalid" 'defense'[/footnote]) manners, and context is phenomenally important in differentiating the two. We haven't been given enough to truly work off of here, just enough to give a more visceral than informed reaction.

 

[Vale]

I think it's fair to completely ignore an argument as nonsensical as that one. Maybe not the guy, perfectly normal people do really weird shit sometimes.