Dangerous, Dirty, and Unfun

I came across this post by Scott H. Payne on the League of Ordinary Gentlemen the other day. The content is pretty non-controversial: he likes How I Met Your Mother, and based on the few episodes I’ve seen, I’m apt to agree with his insights.

What bothered me was the intro.

I don’t watch much TV.
In fact, on the whole I tend not to like TV at all. I find the vast preponderance of shows to be dull and generally lacking in any real entertainment value.

My problem is, I don’t see how this statement has anything to do with anything. You can read what he has to say about How I Met Your Mother, and if you’re familiar with the show, the points will probably make sense. That Mr. Payne doesn’t watch a lot of TV seems immaterial to the greater discussion.

Of course, that intro isn’t just some non sequitur, so why is it there? From where I’m sitting, it’s an example of one of the lazier and unnecessary types of argument, and it goes like this: I don’t like General Thing X, but I do happen to like this specific Example Y, so that means it must be good. It’s a means of establishing that much more authority for your claim above and beyond the actual strength of your arguments, but really, who cares?

I can’t really pick on the author, for a number of reasons: firstly, we ALL make arguments like this. Secondly, he actually admits to watching garbage TV (which you know I approve of). Thirdly, the “I don’t watch TV, but…” declaration doesn’t really add to or subtract from the rest of the post, so it’s harmless. Our collective compulsion to do this sort of thing is what’s really pernicious.

How many times have you claimed something like “I don’t like chicken parm, but this chicken parm is awesome!” Think about it for a second. What you really mean is that the quality of this particular chicken parm is so transcendentally high that it manages to blast through the barriers of your general distaste for chicken parm. But what you’re actually saying is, this is a good chicken parm, but I wouldn’t know a good chicken parm from a hole in the ground, since I don’t eat a lot of chicken parm to begin with. I’ll read a smart critique of a TV show, and if it’s persuasive on the merits, then great: but the author not having a lot of experience with TV isn’t really going to sway me. Let’s stop doing this, people!

Another problem. In one’s travels, one comes across, from time to time, another human who proudly asserts that he or she doesn’t watch TV. Like they’re displaying some great fortitude that the TV-watching public doesn’t share. Do you ever encounter someone that says “I don’t read books” or “I don’t exercise” with the same pride as the non-TV-watcher? A lot of people don’t read or exercise, of course, but you have to think that they wouldn’t shout that type of thing from the rooftops. Whereas the non-TV-watcher speaks from a position of moral superiority. Probably because they spend all of their non-TV-watching time reading and exercising. (I’m excluding those who don’t own a TV for financial reasons; I’m including those who don’t own a TV for financial reasons but realize they don’t miss TV and then gloat about it.)

Why do these people get away with this type of smugness? If I’m being charitable, I’ll concede that not watching TV is morally neutral. If I’m being me, I’ll admit that when someone says “I don’t watch TV,” I hear “I’m intentionally cutting myself off from something that profoundly shapes the culture that I live in.” How is that acceptable? I guess if there’s just nothing on that you like, you can’t be held responsible for not watching TV. But I have a tough time wrapping my head around the idea that there’s not something on TV for everyone.

That being said, yours truly numbers Real World/Road Rules Challenge among his favorite shows. So, you know, grain of salt and all.