One of the biggests instances in which I see this implimented is with artwork or books, a specific example being Stephenie Meyer's Twilight. Anyone who says that they don't like the novels or who criticizes them will surely be met with a rabid fan screaming about how that person is just jealous of Meyer. Again, this is ridiculous. I'm sure that these people who dislike the novels have their reasons, even if some of them are as irrational as saying that the series is just too popular. Is the implication then that they're just jealous because of the novels' popularity? That seems to be the reasoning behind the fans' attacks, but really, that just doesn't make sense. As I said, I think that disliking something just because it's popular is irrational, but that doesn't mean that the person is jealous. If anything, you'd think that a jealous person would want to get in on the popular trend of series so that they too might become popular.
I find this cry particularly interesting when the person saying they dislike something is offering legitimate critique. It almost comes across like the fans are blind that their beloved series--or whatever it is--could have any sort of flaws. Everything has flaws, and just because someone points them out as a reason that he dislikes something doesn't mean that he is jealous. Just because someone disagrees or has different tastes does not mean jealousy, nor does it mean their an idiot, which is another thing that drives me nuts.
True, there is a legitimate grey area when it comes to people. On occasion, someone will be jealous of someone else and shows signs of having an aversion to them, but that doesn't mean that all cases are like this. Sometimes people just really do not like one another and it has nothing to do with jealousy. Automatically assuming or accusing someone of being jealous is silly and irrational.
In any case, the notion of people thinking that disliking something equates jealousy just baffles me. Another thing that baffles me is the argument "I'd like to see you do better!" or similarly, "As if you can do any better!" To me, not only is this a feeble attack, as well as an admission that whatever it is is not quite as good as it could or even ought to be, but it is also bogus. Someone does not need to be practiced in something or an expert at it to be able to critique it. As an example, I'm not the best singer in the world, but I can still offer critique to other singers who need help. So, just because I'm not as good as they are means that my opinion and critique is invalid? I don't think so. Maybe I can't actually, physically, materially do any better than that person, but that doesn't give them an excuse to be lax and it doesn't mean that my opinions are worthless. I cannot figure skate, but if I see a performance that is sloppy or could be a little better and I voice my opinion, does that mean I shouldn't talk unless I can personally do better? No. That's just ridiculous. Obviously, I'm basing my opinion off of something, whether it's as mundane as my own personal preferences or the fact that I've seen it done better elsewhere. Just because I cannot do it myself, doesn't mean my input should be discounted as worthless.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is as coherant as I would like it to be, but it is what it is. If need be, I'll come back and edit/add to it.
