Trigger words: overrated (12)
Indicator sentences: I don't think your definition of overrated is correct.
Negotiation parts: Let me give you an example of a case where it's easy to determine whether something is underrated or overrated. At the beginning of each sporting event season, various publications rank each team from first to last based on how well they think they'll do. At the end of the year, you can look at the final standings and see which teams were overrated and which were underrated. A team that was predicted to come in 3rd but actually came in 10th was overrated. In other words, overrating is only relevant based on future performance. You argue that whatever ranking is given now is incorrect based on what results will say in the future. Do you agree with this definition, at least for sports team rankings? Now, things get muddier when you don't have a clear ranking system. There's no final results for which movies or bands are best, instead what we have is a bunch of rating systems that change over time. So in these cases, I would take overrated to mean, "this band is ranked highly in x system now, but in 20 years, it will be ranked much lower." X can mean popular opinion polls, or rolling stones top lists or whatever you choose. Saying the Beatles are overrated means that while they consistently appear at the top of "best bands" lists in various media, in the future they will drop in popularity relative to other bands. You are making a prediction about the future. While I'm sure people do use overrated to mean, "Everyone thinks this is good but I don't" that's not a good use for this word. The word has "rate" in it which means that it only makes sense in the context of a rating scheme. [STA-CITE]>While I'm sure people do use overrated to mean, "Everyone thinks this is good but I don't" that's not a good use for this word. The word has "rate" in it which means that it only makes sense in the context of a rating scheme. [END-CITE]This is exactly the instance of "overrated" that I am speaking out against, so we are in agreement. However, I never considered the implication of the "rating" aspect, so I am going to give you a ∆. I never denied there were specific cases where "overrated" would be appropriate, but you suggested one that I hadn't thought of. [STA-CITE]>This is exactly the instance of "overrated" that I am speaking out against, so we are in agreement. [END-CITE]I understand, but I think even in this case, the word has the implication that "sometime in the future everyone will realize that this is not as good relative to these other things." This is different than just saying, I don't like it. Of course, someone should have to *defend* why something is overrated. If overrated is a prediction: "X is overrated means X will decline in popularity faster than things that enjoy a similar level of popularity right now" then I'm going to guess that almost no one uses the word that way. If they did then I could say "Oh interesting, lets make a bet on whether X is overrated or not". However, I think most people would not take kindly to that. But I think that's precisely what people mean. They essentially mean that other things that are rated lower are actually better. And in my opinion there's the implicit notion that after enough time has passed, most people will realize this. Actually better? As in there is an objective aesthetic standard that humans eventually converge on? Then I oppose it even more. Only rarely is an objective standard implied. This is usually when there's some rating system being used. For example, "They voted *that* the best song ever? That song is so overrated" Usually, it's just referring to where it fits in public opinion. "Breaking Bad is overrated" means that in a few years when people talk about the best TV shows of this era, Breaking Bad will be considered worse than some other shows that maybe aren't considered so great now. [STA-CITE]>What I mean is, generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets." [END-CITE]People who are not professional critics can certainly have valid criticisms about film that are not dependent on their enjoyment. I understand and agree with the sentiment that one should examine art more critically than simply "like" and "dislike". However, basing judgement purely on the consensus of professional thought doesn't encourage this, it merely appeals to authority. Critics are not always in agreement, the opinion on artwork changes over time: one could certainly find a current critic's darling overrated, and consensus may agree with me them in a decade. For example, John Updike was widely celebrated as great novelist during his lifetime, yet more recent critics have found him to be [lacking](http://www.themillions.com/2013/10/metronomic-virtuosity-on-the-collected-stories-of-john-updike.html). One reading him during his heyday could have found the same issues as current critics do, and yet they would (according to your metric) be unjustified in their judgement until enough critics shared the same viewpoint. One of the major issues that the modern establishment has with Updike is his narcissistic, misogynist viewpoint and yet you'll note the linked article only quotes male critics from any generation. I don't believe one needs to be a woman to note this issues in his writing, however, it does speak to another point: critics are not a perfect representation of the populous. The critical establishment has been very white, male, and upper-class for a long time, and celebrated and promoted authors of a similar mindset. Film critics skew Western. While this doesn't invalidate their opinions, it means the critical consensus is often based on the perspectives of a small-subset of the the population. Thus novelists artists like Updike are often hailed as great American novelists, when their perspective is as narrow and singularly focused as the authors who get labeled as great "African-American novelists" or "women authors", and so forth. Examining the perspective of the critics themselves is as important as examining their views. I think I can get behind "overrated" in a critical context but not in a "some guy complaining online" context, which may be a difficult view to change, since I think most people here agree with me. Your point is well taken, of course critics can be wrong. A good film criticism example is BIRTH OF A NATION, which most people associate with racism and the origin of the KKK, and it is obviously a distasteful and offensive film by today's standards. While it still holds a lofty place in film history, it has become more and more taboo I think to praise it as the historic work that it is; it popularized a huge number of cinematic conventions and devices. It did not INVENT those devices, but *due to the controversy* of its content even at the time, resulting in its immense popularity (it was the most profitable film of all time for two decades) it lead to them being more widely adopted. It's also, really, a very well-made movie in spite of everything. You could definitely argue that it's not as good as people make it out to be because of its content, but that's not WHY it's considered "great." But I think the controversy of BIRTH OF A NATION is well-documented and has always been inextricable from discussions of the film. With someone like John Updike, where critical consensus on the **quality** of his work has changed, as opposed to the historical influence, we could argue against the authority of critics. I guess I'm more saying that it is perfectly alright to think John Updike is a horrible, misogynist writer, but if some aspect of his style was incredibly influential that is not easy to deny. If someone said, "I think BIRTH OF A NATION is overrated because it is not an entertaining film because it is racist" you are missing the point of why it is rated highly. However there is more to criticism than merely charting influence; there is qualitative greatness that is NOT definitive, and that is what is sometimes in dispute when we say things are "overrated." ∆.
Trigger words: justified
Indicator sentences: I have no clue what you mean by justified.
Negotiation parts: Something is popular or it is not, and we can examine the factors that make it so. We can also evaluate popularity over time, popularity in different contexts etc. In order to apply "justification" to preference you need a realist conception of aesthetics ie. a way of not only describing but evaluating preferences, and that would be a very difficult thing to do.