If your only exposure to the various books in the X-Men line is the Uncanny X-Cast podcast, you'd get the impression that it's just accepted that X-Force (vol. 3) was the only consistently good book in the line, X Factor is entirely useless, and Greg Land is a wonderful artist. Start with certain other online reviewers and you'll come away with the impression that it's a universally accepted, scientifically proven fact that X-Force (vol. 3) was rubbish and X Factor is the only Xbook worth reading, and that it's literally impossible NOT to believe that blindness would be preferable to having to look at Greg Land's art. It's not that both sides disagree, it's that they seem completely unaware that anyone in the world holds the other opinion.
Reactions of older readers for DC Comics' New 52 relaunch are getting this as well; many are still in shock that people are enjoying anything coming out of it.
A lot of famous movies hailed as classics, such as Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump did more poorly with critics than one would expect. They still did good, but it wasn't all acclaim. As an example, Forrest Gump's tomatometer is only 71%, and both it and Jurassic Park only have an average rating of 7 out of 10.
With movies that have multiple cuts and director's cuts, many fans automatically prefer the director's cut simply because it's marketed as the "film presented in the way the director intended". They will often regard the original release as inferior even if it's the release that they originally loved for decades, ignorant of the existence of a director's cut. Such fans will often dismiss those who stick to the cut that they "loved growing up", regarding them as improperly viewing the movie through a Nostalgia Filter.
Harry Potter: Potterheads, if you're going to study English in college, be prepared — they diss Rowling all the time there. Some creative writing classes devote entire lessons to teaching pupils not to put the books on a pedestal. Same goes for other popular and well-loved books.
The Da Vinci Code: Two sides. One, "holy crap, how do people actually like this trash?!" and two, "Wait a minute, I thought it was a good book!"
People who talk about what is and what isn't 'real music' or how 'there isn't any good music anymore'. If someone has heard examples of a genre that they dislike they will automatically write off the whole genre as bad and 'how can anybody listen to it?'
In a similar manner, don't tell certain vinyl collectors (the kind who collect old, rare records merely to put on display) about how you listen to your records. Expect a massive diatribe if you casually mention you opened a sealed record.
People who refuse to share rare music on the grounds that they have something hardly anyone has are like this. Especially when someone else shares their copy of the same material and says they're doing it because they want to make people happy.
This is one of the main reasons that the Television Without Pity forums maintain strict "no talking about the boards on the board" and "Talk about the posts, not the other posters" policies. Posts like "I don't get why everybody wants her to win" or "What's wrong with all these people who don't like him?" will net at least a warning and possibly a ban.
This overlaps often with Critical Dissonance. Many reviewers, especially Video Game reviewers, seem to think that because their tastes are limited, that means that any game they review should be strictly along those.
A very notable example are the reviews of Grand Theft Auto IV, which gushed about recreating a living, breathing world, while minimizing the gameplay and technical issues, which were noted strongly in user reviews.
A common form is if they think the content of a game is "kiddie", they will put that well above if the gameplay is any good, how the game performs, replay value, and other factors that would appeal to many gamers more than whether a game is kiddie or not. Because they don't like kiddie games, it's clear no one else will.
Players also respond to video game reviews (seemingly more so than other forms of reviews) especially strongly in this way. Expect any review of a video game that disagrees with someone's opinions to be met with numerous comments about how the person/the site is biased and that reviews should be objective, even though an objective review is impossible; any criteria or theory you choose to follow in a review is in and of itself a form of bias.
One game reviewer talked about this, stating more or less, what while most reviewers talk about what the game is, what you do, and why they thought it was fun, a truly good reviewer also talks about why you the reader might like it.
Shipping wars. So many vicious, seething, blood-boiling wars have been launched because so many fans could not comprehend how anyone could not support their One True Pairing. Not even fans who don't ship them with anyone or have no interest in shipping will be spared, because shippers believe that their OTP champions true everlasting love and if you don't agree with them, then you must not believe in love.
The comparisons of earlier works to newer, updated, or reimagined versions. Those who stick by the earlier works and admit they were enjoyable are often accused of wearing a Nostalgia Filter. At the same time, those who prefer the newer versions are accused of not understanding what made the original compelling in the first place or only capable of liking newer productions simply because they are more recent and made on better budgets with newer technology (especially CGI effects).
The Internet Wrestling Community, or the IWC. As a whole, they tend to favor wrestlers with a higher "workrate." At times, this tends to conflict with who's actually over and receiving a push in various promotions.
A case of inverse Opinion Myopia: the general feedback loop of "Oh my God, grown men like My Little Pony now?!"/"Yeah, we like My Little Pony now, what are you gonna do about it?" has led many bronies to forget that the show has just as many fans in its target demographic (that is, small children, especially of the female variety) as it does grown men and women, which occasionally causes friction when people who haven't forgotten this ask them to try and make their... not quitework safe material a little less accessible for the young'uns. Which has apparently led to the newly-penned "Brony Pledge", which is less a "pledge" and more of a "stern reminder from one of us to the rest of you". Which, admittedly, is in and of itself rather more decorum than one usually sees from fandoms that have an excess of Rule 34.
Animation vet Bruce Timm has said that he rarely lets internet criticism get to him for precisely this reason. He reasoned that statistically speaking, the people who post on message boards are a very small fraction of the actual fandom and audience, so just because some people are screaming Ruined Forever!, that doesn't make it representative of the general opinion of his work.
Anyone who spends five minutes on a comic book message board would think Ultimate Spider-Man is the most hated cartoon of all time, when in reality, it does quite well among its target demographic of young children. Brian Bendis pointed out that even though "It's for kids!" is a common admission of a lack of quality, the network and advertisers don't actually care what the small Periphery Demographic of grown men think. In the United States at least, kids are still the primary consumers of superhero animation and the tie-in toys, so anyone is else pretty much irrelevant as far as the execs are concerned.
Any religion, world-view, lifestyle choice or other strongly-held view does have examples of this, although it is by no means universal.
This seems to be Truth in Television as far as American politics are concerned. Generally news networks that tend to favor one position will consider the opinion of anyone who does not share their position to be wrong, stupid, and/or morally corrupt simply by virtue of not sharing their position. This extends to political discussions. There's a weirdly specific example in the UK, where not only the media but politicians in Parliament will dismiss an opponent's suggestion by branding it with the painfully childish words "barmy" or "loony". Often no workable alternative is suggested, or reasons given that the idea is "barmy": the proposal is insane because the speaker says it is.
Virtually universal among anyone who discusses politics on the web as well. If you're liberal, expect to be derided by conservatives as a baby-killing, valueless, faithless monster...who is actively trying to destroy America. If you're a conservative, you'll be derided by liberals as a 'teabagging', sanctimonious, callous hypocrite...who is actively trying to destroy America. That a small but loud faction on either side actually fits these stereotypes doesn't help matters.
Centrist positions aren't terribly safe on the internet either; usually nothing riles up both than someone who doesn't have an "angel vs. devil" view of the spectrum. Between the Hard Left and Right, you'll either get called a weakling for not being with either or against either or just hiding under the label. It's fair to say no side (even if it's NOT a side) is safe on the internet. As with the liberal and conservative extremes, there are some centrists who flatly state arguing alongside the centrists with genuine valid arguments which doesn't help. Moderates within American political parties often face this from their own party members. During 2012 GOP primaries, moderate Republicans got hit with it the most, with the more conservative members of the Republican Party accusing more moderate GOP'ers of being "secretly liberal and trying to infiltrate the party"...even if they only held ONE liberal opinion. Moderate Democrats got it too though, with more liberal Dems fuming at the moderate Dems for not being fully on-board with their beliefs; Senator Joe Lieberman, for instance, had a neoconservative view of foreign policy but is actually reliably liberal on most other issues, which resulted in being disowned by the Democratic Party.
In certain debates that have got even more polarised than usual (religion and abortion being obvious and overlapping examples), anyone who doesn't 100% agree with one side will be treated as the worst example of the other, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So a pro-choicer who thinks that the time limit for abortion should be slightly reduced will be treated as a misogynistic religious lunatic by other pro-choicers, while someone who is generally anti-abortion but thinks it should be allowed in extreme cases will be told by other anti-abortion people that they're secretly in cahoots with the "baby-killers."
Non-voters are often villainized for not wanting to decide the future of their country/state/city, etc. Politics tends to be complicated, by design, yet if someone doesn't think they're informed enough to make a good choice, or that they simply see no significant difference between the candidates, they might as well be peeing on the flag for all the respect they get.
After Richard Nixon was re-elected in a landslide, Pauline Kael was reported to have commented that she couldn't understand how it happened: nobody she knew had voted for him! (In fact, it was a Beam Me Up, Scotty! misquote from a speech where she admitted how alienated she was from Middle America because she didn't know many people who voted for Nixon.) It's commonplace for divisive and/ or "sectional" political figures to be almost universally loved in one region and almost universally despised in another: for instance, not many New Yorkers will admit to admiring Sarah Palin at a party, whereas she seems to be extremely popular with residents of some other states.
Ironically for Nixon, who was elected by a huge landslide in 1972. In August, 1974, a few days before he resigned, Gallup had as a poll question "Did you vote for Nixon in 1972?" — there was a 0% Answer to 'Yes'!
During the 2008 U.S. Presidential election this perhaps reached its height. There were people on either side who considered it impossible for an intelligent, thinking person to vote differently from them. As in expressing shock and dismay that someone could do such a thing. South Park parodied this in the episode that aired the night after the election, in which Obama voters had drunken parties and waited for happiness and perfection to happen, while McCain voters tried to kill themselves or hide from the end of the world. Of course, this being South Park, the hysteria was in fact all part of a plan to distract Americans for twelve hours...
Mocked, of course, by Stephen Colbert. Simply thinking that Bush Jr. was a great President rather than the greatest President*
This was in response to a question he'd ask interviewees where "great President or greatest President" were the only options given. Anyone who refused to answer was put down for "great President."
is enough for him to declare you wrong about everything else.
Douglas Hofstadter, in his various works on human cognition, has discussed how this phenomenon impedes our ability to understand other people. He admits to some examples of his own— for instance, being unable to comprehend how anyone could dislike chocolate and enjoy liver. (Admitting you have Opinion Myopia is the first step to overcoming it.)
Anything on the Internet. It's scary what people will do if you disagree with them and they aren't anywhere near you physically. A peculiar situation occurs when an opponent of X will enter a discussion with its proponent, only to end it after a while with "you are a proponent of X, therefore your view is biased and this debate is pointless". It's extremely common for people on the Internet to dismiss any kind of media that includes something they do not agree with as "propaganda." Putting aside the fact that in many cases, the word is applied to works that obviously do not fit its definition, it's rare for such people to admit that media supporting their beliefs would equally be considered propaganda.
Hilaire Belloc wrote about being amused how British internationalists like Shaw and Wells always seemed to think that transcending petty national distinctions went along with extremely British things like the diction of the Jacobean translation and five o'clock tea. He was exaggerating (that was kinda his hat), but there really is an element of "everyone's actually just like me" in the international peace movement, both of his time and since. He also thought it was really funny how disgusted people like the aforementioned always were whenever, say, the French, demonstrated that they didn't always agree with British Fabians on everything. Chesterton put this much more succintly in "The World State":
"Oh, how I love humanity/With love so pure and pringlish./And how I hate the horrid French,/Who never will be English."
This tends to be quite a issue during debates on which sports are better as well that those internationally that wonder why that sport is so popular in that country. This doesn't happen much with popular sports domestically (ex. American football and baseball in the U.S.) although it does happen, but it comes up way too often between two foreign sports. The most prominent example: Football/Soccer. Not many Americans are really big when it comes to watching the sport; which would be fine since everything can't be liked by everyone, but many just can't stand that fact. Though there are Americans that are guilty of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like and acting as though people are idiots for liking it. Naturally, this bunch tends to drown out Americans with legitimate complaints about the sport and Americans that love the sport. And then there's Soccer fans complaining about America's preferences towards American Football, Baseball, Basketball, and even Ice Hockey, as well as the actual sport themselves, even if they know nothing about them. There's a lot of debates between any two sports or so (and it's not limited to the above), but these debates....rarely go too well.
One of the most common symptoms of this malady in fans of various embattled celebrities is repeated use of the phrase "you're just jealous" around those celebrities' critics.
Another commonly used phrase is a variation on "I don't get the obsessive hate for That Thing I Like," especially when the so-called obsessive hate is little more than mild mocking, criticism or even just disinterest. The person uttering this phrase is utterly baffled and saddened that not everyone can recognize how wonderful That Thing I Like is, and such an attitude must surely be either a failure to recognize greatness or a character flaw on the part of the mocker, critic or disinterested party (variations on "you must be a really unhappy person because you spend all your time hating That Thing I Like" are also common). The notion that if something is heavily disliked by a lot of people, there's probably a good reason for it doesn't cross anyone's mind.
Parenting. God help you if you happen to have a different opinion on how to care for and raise your child, because someone, somewhere, will think that you are a horrible person who is destroying your child's life. There is no room for 'disagreement' with these people — you either parent the "right" way or you're a child abuser. Parenting forums can get incredibly vicious in particular, such as one forumer saying that a woman should have her child taken away because she didn't breastfeed.
Parents vs. Childfree. Some parents seem unable to conceive that you could not want to have children (which does not equal to hating children), and some childfree are no better by calling them "breeders" or equally-disparaging monikers.
The Hospital Birth vs. Home Birth debate. Home birthers are irresponsible and putting themselves and their children at risk. Women who give birth in hospitals are "out-of-touch with their bodies" and total slaves to Big Medicine. Particularly vehement within any feminist forum.
Gender roles are another big one in parenting. If you want to raise your kid to disregard gender roles, have fun fielding all the comments/gifts/backseat-parenting from people out there who have very rigid ideas about what little boys and little girls should be/do/like (not to mention the teasing she or he will get at school if you go too far in this direction). And if you prefer traditional gender roles, be prepared for some more liberal/feminist people to treat you like you're no less than psychologically abusing the kid.
Jeff Vogel, of Spiderweb Software fame, wrote an amusing log detailing his first daughter's first 4 years of life. In the epilogue, his lists some things he's learned, one of which is "For almost every possible question you can have about parenting, you can find two books which will tell you, with no room for argument, two completely opposite answers."
This is pretty much the bread and butter for shows like Wife Swap.
Child leashes. If you use one, you're a horrible monster who treats their children like animals. If you don't use one, you're irresponsible and your child could get hit by a car/kidnapped by a stranger at any moment because of your negligence.
Case in point: mention Amy Chuaanywhere and the result will make Hell look like a birthday cake.
It's gotten to the point where some are starting to add "parenting" after "politics, religion and sex" in the list of things that are not appropriate dinner-table conversation.
Should parents beat their children?note (Note, we're not talking about plain old spanking, but rather, "old-fashioned parenting"; bringing out the belt and the paddle and the like.) One one corner it's "HELL YEAH!!! Kids are such spoiled pussies these days!!! Show the little shit that YOU'RE the parent, god damnit!" and on the other corner it's "No! It's unnecessary and teaches kids to associate bad behavior with fear! Teach them gently instead!"
The death penalty. While more liberal-minded people tend to think of it as the most horrid and anachronistic punishment men could come up with, more conservative individuals have their problems seeing the point in a judicial system that dispenses with the possibility of using just and final retribution on truly despicable beings. And of course, both seem unable to relate to the other position.
Newcomb's paradox is a particularly remarkable example of this. Quoth Robert Nozick, "To almost everyone it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly." This can still hold even if they've been explained the other side's thinking in detail.
In the gay community there's a divide between people who are for and against Pride Parades and general "In your face" activism. Extremes on one side claim such displays perpetuate negative stereotypes; at worst they believe all gays and lesbians should act the same and strive to fit in with the mainstream. Extremes on the other side think the first group is simply ashamed of their sexuality, completely disregarding any legitimate points that might be brought up.
Even beyond the Camp Gay/"separatist" vs. Straight Gay/"assimilationist" divide described above, there's also a general divide between "political gays" and the less politically-active gays. Many feel that every LGBT person should be active in fighting for his/her political rights, or not be surprised when they disappear/don't come to fruition. Others feel that being able to choose not to be political and to just treat their romantic and sexual lives the way straight people do is the best way of showing equality.
And there is the detestation of gay Republicans and gay pro-lifers by those who think that homosexuals must a fortiori adopt the liberal agenda on EVERYTHING.
While the majority of people have no issue with someone else eating outside their "comfort zone" (maybe saying "Hey could you not faceplant into that raw steak in front of me?") it's amazing how many will spend no small amount of time proselytizing the supposed health benefits of their lifestyle and/or overly dramatizing the downsides of the other (while, of course, ignoring the opposites), some going so far as to say "humans aren't supposed to eat meat ever!" Of course, while usually Played for Laughs, people espousing a pure-carnivore diet are becoming more frequent as well.
This is equally true of people who seem to take personal offence at the very idea of vegetarianism, or simply can't understand that some people really just don't want to eat meatnote Any vegetarian who has had a bacon sandwich waved in their face with a gleeful cry of "you know you want to!" will recognise this attitude.. Also, many vegetarians who would never dream of telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't be eating have to endure meat-eaters treating them as though they were the worst kind of moralising bigot simply because they've opted for the salad.
The same can be said for those that drink alcohol and those that don't. Apparently anyone who doesn't is trying to foist their high and mighty ideals on you by ruining your buzz, and vice versa.
No kidding! If you don't drink simply because you're not comfortable with it, be prepared for people to think you're judging them and need to try it to "loosen up". Simply deciding it's not good for you, but being okay with it for others as long as it's responsible isn't an option, apparently.
It extends to almost any high-profile diet. Paleo ("Caveman") dieters can often be seen to bag incessantly on anyone who dares eat something that "isn't real food" because our pre-agricultural ancestors didn't have it, like pretty much any dairy or grain product. And the cheesehead community doesn't take too kindly to the thought of anyone not eating dairy.
It even extends to where you shop! In the USA, the stores you buy groceries from will be seen as indicators of your political/social type. If you shop at Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, or any other place that specializes in dainty organic foods, conservatives will assume that you are a wimpy, liberal pussy. If you shop at large chain grocery stores or big box stores, especially *gasp* WalMart, liberals will accuse you of being a barbaric ultra-conservative redneck who doesn't know what "good" food is. Ironically, the one source of groceries that both groups actually seem to admire is small farmers' markets. Liberals stereotypically like them because they provide organic produce, while conservatives stereotypically like them because they see it as a way to support salt-of-the-earth rural farming families. However, each group likes to pretend that the other overlooks the farmers, interestingly enough.
You will also be judged for the restaurants you like. If you happen to enjoy eating at Olive Garden, for instance, you will be berated as a clueless barbarian rube and accused of being directly responsible for "real" Italian food joints going out of business (despite the fact that small businesses serving Italian food are actually one of the most common small business types in America, and are clearly flourishing). For some people, you can use any restaurant chain—including Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Applebees, etc.—for a similar effect. And there is no reasoning with the people who get upset about this. These people are utterly convinced that enjoying the food at any large restaurant chain makes you a horrible, evil, clueless person who doesn't respect "real" food.
The discussion of obesity is also a hotly debated topic and it is more so if children are involved. There is no middle ground when it comes to someone's weight. If they aren't fat, then the person is presumed to be healthy. If someone is overweight or obese, it is assumed that the person is extremely unhealthy as they do nothing but sit on the couch while eating fast food everyday. Despite that it is possible for someone to be carrying a good amount of bulk while still being physically fit and having a proper diet (and equally possible to be thin with high cholesterol or a fast resting heart rate), it is ingrained in many peoples' minds that fat people are never healthy just because of their weight.
On a related note, working out to get strong and powerful is bad, because it makes you look fat. You should work out for the sole reason of making yourself look more attractive. Sure a strong guy might be able to lift a car above his head and crush it into an origami swan, but the aesthetic guy gets more sex, and Sex Is Cool, so he wins.
One interesting example is the type of apologist for a controversial issue who knows X is not right, but refuses to believe it is wrong either, and convinces themselves it is in a "grey area". If someone says X is bad, they will argue up and down that other people can't say that 'cause it's really a grey area. X having any benefit at all makes it a "grey area", even if the benefit is far, far outweighed by the damage. Oddly enough, they will never make this sort of argument to people who think that X is good.
In China, the term "50 Cent Party" (五毛黨/五毛党, wu mao dang) is used to label internet commentators who are allegedly paid 50 cents RMB by the government for every post/comment that praises, supports or defends it and/or the country itself. As a result, anyone who is seen as too friendly towards the Chinese Communist Party in their comments or posts will be slapped with the label "50 cents" (or "5 mao"note 1 mao = 10 cents RMB), regardless of whether they're actually paid or not to do so.
Go on any website dedicated to technology and if you find one person who claims to like Microsoft, they will be on the receiving end of 30 accusations of being paid.
Anyone who lives and breathes Sex Is Cool and its related tropes, and thinks that getting laid is the most awesome and important thing in the entire universe is just a virgin who has been hyped up too much by the media, and once he has sex he'll realize it isn't such a big deal. Also, anyone who thinks sex isn't such a big deal is just a virgin who doesn't know what he's missing (or is in denial about how empty and miserable his life is without sex, or has just had really bad sex, or is mentally ill in some way. Either way, He Needs To Get Laid).
The widespread notions of "Geek is Chic" or "Nerds are Cool". Does this mean actual geeks or nerds under the traditional definition (which simply means smart but socially inept)? Or does it refer to already cool hipster types who incorporate unneeded eyeglasses into their fashion template?
There is also the widespread notion that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are "gods" to geeks for obvious reasons. However, many geeks hold little value in pursuing material wealth, especially if they're kept too busy to enjoy it. And especially if all the trappings of wealth and megasuccess keep them from pursuing their passionate interest, which may be one that isn't a moneymaker. It is particularly ironic considering that (as has been previously established) everyone who claims to like Microsoft is paid to say that, and Apple is only successful because it "dumbs down technology" for the masses.
The banning of the burqa and possible banning of the niqab in France. French feminists believe that Islamic veils are oppressive and are an archaic form of sexism, while some Muslims in France believe that it is a woman's right to cover herself up.