[lotharbot]

> "It implies that there is no valid reason for liking X."

Taken more charitably, it merely implies that one does not understand the valid reasons for liking X.

There's a difference between saying "there's nothing of value here" and "I don't see why this is of value" -- one is phrased as an objective statement, while the other is a statement of perspective.

Long ago, my wife told me she didn't understand why people liked a particular music genre I listened to. I had her listen to a couple of favorite songs and talked about what I thought was interesting about them, and as a result she developed a mild fondness for the genre which grew over the next several years. She wasn't expressing contempt; she was expressing a lack of understanding which was overcome as a result of experience and education.

[ska]

"Taken more charitably, it merely implies that one does not understand the valid reasons for liking X."

And therein lies the rub. Interpreting others statements charitably and trying to make your own clear and unambiguous can reduce an awful lot of social friction.

[wutbrodo]

This is a really good point. I try to interpret every statement charitably (until the point where it strains credulity). As such I don't tend to think about those who prefer seeing attacks in every comment and thus don't usually think about the "be careful about avoiding ambiguity" part of your comment.

[JoshTriplett]

That does work up to a point, although that can be taken too far as well. When people interpret any expression of disinterest as "you must not understand it well enough or you'd like it", that's painfully wrong in the other direction, too.