✨ To be clear on this point: I write big, sprawling, long-form essays about cartoons because I'm brainpoisoned and it gives me an excuse to infodump about things I like, but I also kind of despise the insistence of a lot of online spaces that the only 'honest' way to engage with something you like is a college dissertation. I like video essays as much as the next person, probably more(she says, furiously reloading Dan Olson's page in the hopes it will materialize a video faster), but the environment of 2 hour+ maxi-musings has given people a really warped idea of what the 'correct' way to enjoy something is, and as a knock-on effect, what the 'correct' things to enjoy even are.
"Well, you have to address the flaws and shortcomings!" No you don't. Why? For what reason? If something doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you. Why would you need to 'address the controversy'? You're sitting at home playing or watching something, not taking an active hand in the production process. You aren't responsible for the curation and optics of content you didn't make. Are you being critical in this way because it's emotionally-rewarding or actually contributes to a discussion, or because you were told you had to in order to justify your enjoyment to others? I promise, there really isn't some vast unfathomable Council of Good Taste that is going to come down from on high to punish you for just uncritically liking something on its own merits.
Go ahead. Have some trash every now and then. You don't have to explain that any more than you have to explain why you buy Twinkies.