it;s for the same reason that kitchens in high clas restaurants are all white

That's what I thought tbh. I'm not really sure what Kantbot is on about with this "taste is objective" nonsense but I do agree with his opinions on the current state of fantasy fiction.

and operating rooms

its a bit like the claim "words have no meaning because somebody somewhere *could* use a word to mean something totally different than what is understood by its use generally"

you should understand what people mean when they say taste is objective

they aren't strictly wrong

I think someone's taste can be indicative of certain desirable personality traits but this isn't the same as taste being objective.

its objective in the sense that humans consistently recognize that taste, and that taste is based in some evopsych reason

I mean, to me the word objective means its universally true, as in its even true to non humans or robots or aliens.

nothing fulfils that definition of objective

Yeah, I think most things are subjective

no, literally nothing

at least

I can't think of anything

that would fulfil the definition of objective as you put it here

so my standard for 'objectivity' is quite a bit lower

it's worthless

I think thats only a problem if you try to over rationalise everything

Human beings have limits we all live fine with these limits its not a problem

So, liking big titty elf mages as opposed to the original origin of wizards as philosophers and alchemists is indicative of personality traits that our evolution drives us to dislike?

I would seriously doubt that hentai doujins are capable of inspiring the depth of emotion that like, a great work of classic literature is capable of inspiring

and that goes for all humans

"well there ***coooooould*** be someone where it was true"

the point is

the thing itself is consistent

and it is what produces the reaction - at least insofar as human brains are somewhat similar

I think the issue is that people mistake consistency for objectivity. These are still ultimately concepts that don't exist outside of our minds. There's nothing objective about them. I don't even fully beleive reality exists as we see it, but I don't think we can ever know.

google defines objective as "not dependent on the mind for existence"

Weaboo that's why my standard for objectivity is quite a bit lower

or I mean

I get that

But it's still a dumb word to use.

my standard for objectivity is quite a bit lower, so the aesthetic objectivists have a good argument

so saying like "9/10 people agree" that doesn't fit google's definition.

its not a dumb word to use, people understand what you're talking about

if you want to be super strict about the definition of objective

then nothing meets it

because nothing is both mind-independent and comprehensible

Yeah, okay, I get that.

Okay so there is objective taste but not in a literal sense.

merriam webster "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind"