It’s one of many responses designed to shut down discussion, which at this point I’d say comprises roughly 2/3rds of the reaction to any review.
It’s part of a larger school of recognizable, often-repeated responses to a review that exist chiefly to stop all substantive discussion about a work and instead argue over whose opinion is “objectively” more “correct”. You may have also seen:
"This review is wrong and should be taken down, because clearly [completely subjective opinion]"
"This reviewer automatically hates all [genre] because [gut feeling based on having half-read the reviewer’s other work]"
"You didn’t like this show because you haven’t [read the light novel/played the video game/bought the commemorative plates] and you can only understand this masterpiece if you’ve [barrier of entry that makes no sense for a standalone TV series or film]. You would love it if you’d [jumped through flaming hoop/obsessed over the franchise on 4chan]"
All of these replies, including “you just don’t like anything!” are disingenuous - it isn’t about any of that, and it never is. It’s a simple exercise in logic; if the reviewer had a positive opinion about the show, or a negative one the respondent agreed with, they wouldn’t be making these arguments. Say like I hadn’t read the light novel or played the VN but still enjoyed [show X], suddenly it doesn’t matter that I hadn’t played/read any of that. You never see these arguments when it’s a positive opinion - all these barriers of entry, the accusations of “hating an entire genre” - all of that melts away when the opinion is positive. Somehow none of these objective standards for understanding something or reviewing it “properly” matter when the person using these responses agrees with the review - even when it’s negative. What does that tell us? That the respondent is only looking to have his or her opinion validated and repeated. All these “well you’re supposed to review it THIS WAY or you’re doing it wrong” or “you just hate everything, that’s why you didn’t like this!” responses are transparent smokescreens that are trying to sound like the respondent is an expert on what “real criticism” is, knows the “right way” to talk about a show. Here’s what they’re really saying: “I liked this and you didn’t and that hurts my feelings.”
To me, it always boils down to simple subjective disagreement, which is the root of art discussion and debate to begin with and the stepping stone to lively and engaging conversation about the work. The idea is that the review generates discussion - people who disagree with you lay out their arguments and detail why they enjoyed or didn’t enjoy something, and through that conversation we all come to a greater understanding of the work itself. This is how it’s supposed to work.
Instead, a lot of the response to criticism now is a hyper-defensive attempt to delegitimize and dismiss opinion the respondent doesn’t agree with on “objective” grounds, which are always specious and nonsensical. They’re not actually interested in hearing another viewpoint or engaging with the material on a level that might make them think twice about what they saw, or even help them understand why they enjoyed it so much by asking them to flesh out and contextualize their opinion.
The biggest mystery to me is why so many people who clearly have absolutely zero interest in actual discussion and debate about art, which is the entire point of criticism, seem to be the chief consumers of said criticism. If you don’t want to hear anyone’s opinion but your own, why are you bothering to read anyone else’s opinion? The world may never know.
yup. gets real boring and annoying seeing those same responses pop up all da time. =3=