Talk:Seddie/@comment-3180503-20141004004519/@comment-24139638-20141004180712

@Tash: We're on a website dedicated to iCarly. As hilarious as the show was at it's peak, I feel like we're the last ones who should be getting on our high horses about high brow taste or arguing about someone liking something cliched, mainstream and "basic".

I don't want to say that people are inherently wrong for liking cliched and sub-par things 

The problem with this is that there is no universal standard for what's sub par (or heck, even cliched depending on who you talk to). Something that's sub par to you, might be a masterpiece to someone else, and neither of you is wrong. You just have different tastes. Plenty of people find Ariana generic, cliched, and even sub-par. I think she's fabulously talented, vocally speaking. Is my opinion wrong because someone who thinks they have really good taste, thinks she's awful? That's the real sticking point for me. By insisting that someone else's taste is bad because it's generic or sub-par, you're assuming that your own tastes are the standard for good. And they're not. Everyone has different tastes and opinion.

  but I'd like to see her and other people try to stand out more, rather than blend into the crowd of the mainstream.

But what does that mean? Like things that are obscure and less mainstream? We all have obscure interests, but if our mainstream ones are the one's that we're more passionate about, then who cares? I'd rather someone be genuinely passionate about generic mainstream "drivel", than force themselves to like obscure things for the sake of seeming like a special snowflake.

People like what they like and I don't think any of us really has a right to judge that.