The latest fad on Facebook and online in general is presenting lists of unpopular opinions.

And like much of human interaction, it boils down in many cases to either telling folks that what they like sucks, or that what they hate doesn’t suck.

I have indulged in this myself, and have come to an interesting epiphany.

In most cases, the people who want you to know that the thing you dislike doesn’t suck generally have an argument to present.

It may not be a persuasive argument to you, and it might not even be a good argument, but at the very least it is an attempt at reasoning you into a different opinion.

Whereas, in most cases, the people who want you to know that the thing you love does suck, have only stubborn negation.

For instance, take one of the unpopular opinions I presented, that Keanu Reeves can act. In order to argue this thing that many people consider wholly risible, I took the position that if he’s done a good job at his chosen profession even once, that that is sufficient to document that the ability exists, even if you want to counter that it’s rarely been exercised or not evident in the performances most people know. To this end I named two early Reeves films, River’s Edge and Permanent Record. These were in both cases tough dramas, and in both cases he gave the movies exactly what they needed.

Nor are these the only existing good Keanu Reeves performances. These are the two I pointed to, as someone who had seen more of them and possessed more information.

Inevitably, the reply came: “I saw Speed and he sucks!”

My counter-argument: I didn’t mention Speed. I mentioned those other two.

“I never saw them! But I did see Speed and he sucks!”

I had data; they had negation.

Similarly, in attempting to win an argument about Woody Allen having made good movies after Annie Hall – and we can leave questions of his character out of this particular discussion, thank you – I named several, including Radio Days, Broadway Danny Rose, Purple Rose of Cairo, and Match Point. This was my data, and it needs to be said that I might be full of crap; it is possible for an informed person with different aesthetic standards to make a case for Woody Allen being horrible based on those very same movies. But the responding arguments were all from people who did not possess this data, one way or the other, and just wanted to repeat their own denial.

Again, the negation of data.

Somebody who wants to sell you on an enthusiasm will generally produce reasons for the opinion. I like this because of this reason, and that reason, and the reason after that. I’m sorry you had such a bad time in New York; maybe if you go again you can visit this restaurant, or that museum, instead of what you did this time. I know you found this musician terrible; but that work is really unrepresentative and perhaps you should attempt the classic album Y. I know you fell asleep during this movie when you were thirteen, but it’s really a heavy movie for a kid that age, and I believe you’ll get more out of out if you watch it from a more mature perspective now. I know you read this early novel by Writer X and thought he couldn’t write his way out of a paper bag, but that happened to have been a still-amateurish early work and a work of juvenalia, but he developed his gifts really fast after that, and what he’s been writing in recent years is…and so on.

Right or wrong, the enthusiast offers reasons. They may be dumb reasons and they may be reasons only a completist would know, and they may be reasons that can inspire argument, but they are reasons.

For the most part – and yes, articulate exceptions exist – the person who wants to tell you that you enthusiasm sucks is satisfied with just taking a dump on it.

You can be talking about Writer X or Musician X or Comedian X or Movie X or TV Show X, and you might be making a very sophisticated point, or even an informed criticism, based on your enthusiastic consumption of same, and the person with the opposing opinion will step in and say, “Oh, I think that sucks.”

“Why?”

The nay-sayer is most often, not always, but most often incapable of response except with another declarative statement.

“It just sucks!”

And again, he may be right.

That’s the damnable thing. He may be right. Maybe you’re overthinking, for instance, the Power Rangers universe. Maybe it does objectively suck and none of your enthusiast’s reasons for praise have validity.

But on the other hand, it is something you love. Maybe your favorite form of music in all the world is the old bubble-gum band, Herman’s Hermits. You think all other music pale next to Herman’s Hermits. This is bizarre to me, but it’s the way you feel. And while I can imagine somebody having a positive effect on you with a sentence that began, “Great! What about —? Have you tried —?”, the only possible effect of the person who sneers that Herman’s Hermit sucks is to make you feel bad.

I appreciated the Harry Potter novels enough to write a book about them.  (For pay, but still.) Occasionally I’ll utter something positive about them or about the woman who wrote them. My appreciation of them is not single-mindedly positive — I’m a writer; I analyze –but I have clearly thought out my reactions, and they work for me. The only possible effect of you ever sneering, “Harry Potter sucks!” or “J.L. Rowling can’t write her way out of a paper bag!” is,  similarly, to make me feel assaulted.

There is a qualitative difference between how these two forms of opposition operate.

The enthusiast wants to give you data. The nay-sayer wants to tell you that whatever familiarity you have is irrelevant.

Between the two, I know what side I prefer, and which side has given me information I could use.

Tags: Bad Movies, Broadway Danny Rose, Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling, Keanu Reeves, Life Wisdom, Match Point, Movies, Permanent record, Power Rangers, Purple Rose of Cairo, Radio Days, River's Edge, Speed, Woody Allen | Category Books, Commentary, Life Wisdom, Movies, Sneaky Metaphors, Writing