Both are arguments brought up to dismiss valid points from either side by misrepresenting or inflating a previous topic of conversation.
Because of this, I propose a trade-off. Antis never speak of Shakespeare and Pros never speak of hair as bringing up either accomplishes nothing and simply makes the offending side look ignorant of the actual points brought to the table. As an added bonus, we promise not to abort Shakespeare's baby in the process.
Any takers on this agreement?
This is idiotic. Antis don't give a **** about the hair but pros do care about the quality of the story.
The hair is brought up to dismiss valid criticism. While it really is a moot point compared to the valid criticism, it is still used whether Antis "give a ****". Having your critique disregarded by some dullard who waltzes in and screams "HAIR" is annoying whether they care or not, I'm sure.
The "Shakespearean" line is the over-inflation of what one VA had to say about DmC. While you can bring constructive criticism in regards to the story, plastering the word "Shakespearean" all over anything discussing the story is no less dismissive and annoying as someone plastering "Hair" in another topic.
They are both inhibiting the actual brawl that could be taking place where people have to support their stances by giving people the easy out to dismiss an entire conversation with a single word that has very little relevance, so I propose we simply do away with them. Is that so wrong? --- Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent and discerning if he holds his tongue - Proverbs 17:28 For all intents and purposes, just know me as The Mute...