Yes, it does. Unless you subscribe to popular=objective, which I do. It is different now though. Looking at the past tells us that. It isn't like every other fact. There is a lot of disagreement in this thread. It isn't a fact like 2+2=4 is a fact.
That proves the argument. "Thing" is only considered correct because the culture has decided it is correct. If it changes to the alternative you proposed, then that would be correct. It wasn't even always "thing". It used to be different, and that was correct too.
Yes. The culture decided it was so, and therefore it was. The majority of the United States seems to think the Bill of Rights is good, and therefore it is. The majority of Europeans seems to think the European Union is good, and therefore it is. Other cultures may not agree, but that doesn't matter.
I would argue that if a majority of an audience says something is good (subjective to them), then that thing is good objectively. If something is popular, then it is good. Not to say it is without flaws. That is different.
Take the example of spelling that another user brought up. They claimed it is objective, but that isn't really true. Is the correct spelling color or colour? The answer to that is cultural, and therefore subjective. Unless you hold as I do that popularity is similar enough to objectivity to qualify. The cultural or popular notion determine what is right regarding subjectively judged subjects. This notion, including the spelling and even usage of words, can change over time.
I agree with this. There's definitely way more available today, and in many more niche genres than there was available in the 70s and 80s. Arguably there is also a higher proportion of trash because of the ease of entry, but because the fanbases can be so segmented people can find stuff they really like that's more geared toward their specific tastes. Plus, there are greater search tools than before, like Spotify.
People still listen to Metallica's music, and their music still ends up in movies.
I don't really think all new music is bad, just most of it. The same could be said for back in the day though. Metallica is a bad example for you to use cause they are still widespread because they are really good. There are other bands you haven't heard of from the 70s and 80s.
1. Pick a topic -> look into topic -> write about topic -> post topic -> revise as I feel like it
Internet is an interesting medium because once it's out there, it's not really out there forever. You can change it as much as you want.
I started after reading that having a blog was beneficial. This was from a perspective of building a personal brand. At the beginning I was trying to do 1 per week, but I became burnt out on that, and noticed I wasn't really pursuing things I cared about.
I'm trying to get back into it this year, and only writing about stuff that actually catches my interest. This leads to having an irregular writing schedule. This is considered bad practice for building a brand, but I'm no longer worried about building a brand. I want to have a place to put my thoughts together, and put out there when I happen to have them.
Even with this change in perspective I've noticed my ability to write posts has gotten much better from when I started.