> Good on the author for acknowledging (twice) that not everyone shares their sense of aesthetics.
I disagree. For example:
> unless you like them, I'm not questioning anyone's personal taste
This type of soft-pedaling is too pervasive in people’s writing nowadays. It diminishes the author’s point when they are too afraid to commit to their own opinions because they might offend someone that disagrees. This constant affirmation of “you might disagree, and that’s OK,” is irritating.
It's unnecessary in this article agreed. The author has an obvious preference, just own it already.
Being tolerant is a virtue, but practice this by action, in life.
When writing a polemic, say what you mean! If anything, amp it up a little. Hyperbole and saturation is great when discussing matters of taste.
If you're going to critique architecture, you have the best examples. Just channel some Loos who ridiculed those in favor of ornamentation for being childish uncivilized country idiots. Had great effect, we're still living in its detritus. So just do the opposite here!
The opposite (that it's not OK to disagree) is one of the things that has driven political and social discourse to its current hyperbolic and occasionally dangerous character. It's the source of much of the so-called "culture war".
So to be clear: I disagree, you are wrong... and to follow the mindset underlying your complaint, "fuck you".
I disagree. For example:
> unless you like them, I'm not questioning anyone's personal taste
This type of soft-pedaling is too pervasive in people’s writing nowadays. It diminishes the author’s point when they are too afraid to commit to their own opinions because they might offend someone that disagrees. This constant affirmation of “you might disagree, and that’s OK,” is irritating.