The flawed argument of ?If you don?t like it, then don?t watch it?
I?m sure plenty of you must have heard this argument, and it usually happens because of one single reason: you criticized a Youtube reviewer hence labeled a troll.
Well, don?t worry about it: this argument is as flawed as it can get since it?s used by trolls and fanboys alike to defend their ?new? ?comedic? ?God?.
There are mainly two problems with this sort of argument, both focusing mainly on the hypocrisy of it, twisting and twirling around it like mad vultures flying around a rotten animal carcass.
The first flaw is quite basic: it can be applied to anyone, anywhere, on the slightest flinch, which is the first sign of a dumb phrase. To put it simply, if one tells you ?if you don?t like it, then don?t watch it? to a critical comment you wrote on somebody?s YouTube channel, then by only saying ?if you don?t like my comment, then don?t read it?, it all pretty much falls to pieces right there.
This is where the whole thing falls apart in the bad antics display that always infect the fanboy hive mind, this phrase is always considered to be ?the phrase? to be used if you want to sound smart, sassy, and just an overall master of comebacks?and it very well might be.
But it isn?t due to the wrong concept and poor timing of it or the standard use by the YouTube hive mind. It also comes down to; whoever?s using it is likely a dumb and silly little troll.
In short: It really makes no sense to demand somebody who just watched something from YouTube (which is actually public for a reason) NOT to say anything bad about it and to DEMMAND that they close the window and say nothing about it all.
HOW IS THAT EVEN SUPPOSED TO WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE? YouTube comments in the end aren?t there only to spew positive comments to whatever video there is since luckily for us, we?re not trapped in a world where everybody has the same taste. To demand not to say ANYTHING bad to ANYBODY is a human impossibility to the nth degree, since, if such thing was even possible we wouldn?t have YouTube reviewers to begin with.
If criticism is what you?re watching, then criticism is what you?ll receive all the time, not praise. That?s how the real world works, and that?s how it will always work: ?If I watch something something and don?t like it, I have all the reasons to point out why I didn?t like it.?
The standard trolls of the hive mind think of the argument as perfect and flawless, when they don?t see that their simple phrase can be used ad continuum thanks to the inherent flaw of it trying to be used to stop a comment which, in reality, is nothing more than a simple opinion piece, or a review even, and that?s what brings us to the second and perhaps most hurtful flaw:
You?re using the argument to protect A REVIEWER from receiving negative comments, when a reviewer actually watches stuff he doesn?t likes and rant about it endlessly to begin with (a.k.a: hypocrisy). This point is far easier to point out due to the natural INAPLIABILITY to the whole thing and how absurd the argument gets when it goes full circle and that you boil it down to one single thing: