Which, along with other criteria, are probably what constitute what we have come to call a “value judgement”, no?
> And pompous evaluations (the phrase is redundant: formal evaluations are by definition pompous) were more apt to stop the conversation than encourage its continuations.
>
> And as far as I can tell, _negative_ aesthetic evaluations (other than those expressed by silence) are implicit atacks on those who don't share them. I love Dorothy Parker's little squib:
>
> I'd rather flunk my Wasserman test,
> Than read a poem by Eddie Guest.
>
> Nevertheless, it is also offensive in its poorly concealed contempt for the millions who _did_ read Guest.
This is the issue, then, isn’t it? That value judgements are offensive. Don’t conservatives (not pomos) think the same way? They don’t like the idea that one theory might be “better” than another - in particular that their theory (say creationism) is at the receiving end of judgement calls (now, I use quotes for “better” and other judgement words, because these all imply a criteria, which I will withhold getting into until called for). (Also, liberals have the same idea too in a different sense, it seems - they don’t, per popular depiction of them, want kids to be ranked by skill or performance in some test. They are ridiculed for wanting everyone to be a winner.).
—ravi