Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about in any of the comments in this thread. I was just trying to say that I haven't felt so bamboozled since the one time I tried doing policy debate, which was different from the usual form of debate I participated in (Lincoln-Douglas). I was a decent debater, but policy debate was entirely inscrutable. Gish galloping was the name of the game - trotting out as many arguments, as quickly as possible, in as little time so as to trip up the opponent on some minor point they missed. I linked to Kritik because your seemingly random inclusion of critical theory reminded me of this convoluted type of argument which, if not responded to, will lose you the entire round.

Everything you said in this thread reminded me of that experience. Good day to you.

Could you critique my sort of closing argument just below where I mention the Gish-Galloping thing? I wonder if that is a bit more explicit and clarifying with respect to what I've been discussing here. I feel as if I wrapped up decently there and I am actually intellectually interested in your assessment of that and if you feel in any sense that I perhaps cleaned up my thinking to where you can at least parse the conclusion I come to. Genuinely would appreciate

The first paragraph of your closing remarks, beginning with "I think this was a bit tricky..." made sense. The first sentence was a bit of painful run-on, but I think the argument you're trying to make is that it's impossible to prove that "enshittification" doesn't destroy the product in it's entirety.

> Why don't we just normalize ex post facto law while we're at it?

This really puzzled me...I re-read it half a dozen times. I know what ex post facto law is. The connection to an excessively long-running television series (e.g.) defeats me.

Finally, you claim that a quote from earlier in this thread corroborates/provides evidence that "enshittification is inevitable and ultimately good" (which I think is your thesis?). But the quote you provide proves the exact opposite - that "more content cheapens the art/media you used to adore".

In only a handful of paragraphs, you flip-flopped positions entirely.

Gish-galloping is a cool word, thanks for introducing that to me. I genuinely had never heard that or would have ever stumbled upon that but for you so props. Its quaint

I think this was a bit tricky in the sense its such a qualitative matter essentially and the heart of the the opposing position seems not really falsifiable (the longer a series runs = crappier a series "becomes" -> the more it dilutes the overall qualitative artistic and intangible entertainment value+prestige of not only the series as a whole but also the individual episodes that precede such enshittification and with which one could hypothetically have previously expressed and documented satisfaction. Regardless of whether this was said outright, the logic here seems to be such.

Why don't we just normalize ex post facto law while we're at it?

I feel like we all might have gotten a bit lost in the plot here but I will leave you with this quote that I feel corroborates the encapsulation I have presented here:

> I tried to vibe with this POV. What's wrong with more content? But it really does cheapen the art/media you used to adore. Even if you try to ignore it, i.e. you don't have to watch / read all the Star Trek content that has been produced in the last 20 years, and after picard season 1 I completely checked out of all of it, but it just kind of makes everything you loved seem so empty. It was all about generating positive cash flows...the whole time.

And good night to you sir :)

Also, historical revisionism anyone?

*passing example

Outside of you