Without a dispute over the use of property, disagreements like this (movie good/movie bad) don’t have any discussion value in the political problem space. Unless you object to the statement of that fact, or the writing of the fact. But that’s all you can reasonably object to. Making a person sign a statement that they like it, when they don’t, is silly. Nothing changed, but you did force the person to do something with his body that does fall in the realm of the political.
Whether or not a person likes something is their subjective appraisal of a phenomena. The appraisal itself is a fact of existence, but it only enters the world in how it influences action. And it is only through perceived actions that something can be objected to. So, my point is right or wrong is a product OF the preference, the valuation itself is an IS, not an ought.
Where the confusion comes in is that at the individual level there may be flaws of knowledge that play a role in how specific things are valued, primarily in understanding the causal chains created by the action. An example, most of us would probably agree with is that it is almost certainly true that there are flaws in the thinking of a teen who commits suicide. I assume (and I’m guessing it’s correct) that for a person to commit suicide they believe that there is no way for any action they take to improve the miserable state they find themselves in, and in this mental dead end, not continuing and gaining relief, though permanent, from the misery would constitute the only reasonable option, and one that becomes preferable to hoping that some miracle (which they no longer believe to be possible) will improve their situation. Now you and I as adults, would argue, that there are significant flaws in the logic, and that the emotions are playing a huge role in driving the thought process, but I don’t think you can argue that they don’t believe dying is better than continuing as a subjective experience of reality. The proof is in the action.
My point is that we should attack flaws in thinking that influences the preferences. That’s where truth statements can be found that can be invalidated. “Life can’t get better.” For example, if it’s their first crush dumped them and they never believe they will find another girl like her. Well, no you won’t exactly, BUT if you’ve met 100 people who you’ve known sufficiently well to be able to realize an interest and then pursue a relationship the odds are that within the next 100 you meet +/- some number you’ll meet another girl who will evoke similar feelings. Another piece of evidence would be that the majority of adults don’t marry their first love. etc., etc.
The point of this post is to affirm the preference as inviolate. I believe this is foundational to understanding and supporting individual sovereignty, that preference itself ought to be honored as the inviolable source of human action. The facts (in error or not) which provide substance or weight to support a preference are something that can be argued about as IS statements can be challenged in terms of their truth value. In the case of a priori statements, the question to ask is do these logically consistent statements apply?
The secondary concern is in how the impact of your actions interferes with and disrupts the preferences of others played out in action. What they prefer is not at issue, who’s preference has the right of way in a dispute IS something that rises out of values and knowledge. Societies common narrative provides the substrate from which the collective “we” judge who’s preference takes precedence in a dispute. The accuracy of the truth statements that make up the narratives are absolutely fair game for discussion and refutation, but the actual values (like human life or honesty or property or environmental protections) are not. I can’t change the fact that you love and want to preserve the environment, all I can do is chase down errors in the knowledge you use to support that preference.
I hope this dichotomy becomes both clearer and the divide becomes cleaner. I can’t tell you you’re wrong to want something. I can attack assumptions if they are truth statements, but normative statements about your own personal ethics or values or preference are facts of existence to me.