I think that being informed is the issue here. In other words, you can have an informed palate and also like "crap" food for nostalgia or saltiness or whatver reason. However, if you like crap food and haven't experienced or learned about other foods, then you don't have an informed opinion. You have an opinion which you are fully entitled to, but it's not an informed opinion.

I just think it's possible for someone to like crap food and still be able to have authority on "fine" food.

absolutely. Though I have to admit that if I went to your bro's house and he offered me a Miller, I'd be a mite offended ;)

I mean, seriously, because I like the cheese-in-a-can, I can't assess and appreciate artisinal cheese?

Like != thinks-is-high-quality. If you present green can cheese as an example of good cheese, then yeah, I'm going to assume that cheese is not your forte.

If your favorite cocktail is something that completely masks the flavors of the main ingredient, then I'm going to assume you don't know much about top shelf liquors. I may be wrong in that impression, but I don't think it would be an entirely misguided starting point.

Though I have to admit that if I went to your bro's house and he offered me a Miller, I'd be a mite offended ;)

As would I! He also has a kegerator with microbrew, but for some ungodly reason, he likes The Miller. I drink his good stuff.

I just think it's possible for someone to like crap food and still be able to have authority on "fine" food

Definitely. Where I think the disconnect here is if you were to make the argument (and I don't know that anyone has) that, say, "green cardboard parmesan is good cheese," which to my mind is quite different than saying I like it or even that "green cardboard parmesan is good." (Or for that matter, "green cardboard parmesan is cheese.")

Or to use the other example - a super dirty martini may hit the spot sometimes, but that doesn't mean it's a good use of quality gin. It's just not.

Where I think the disconnect here is if you were to make the argument (and I don't know that anyone has)

I felt like Hec and Jess were, but they may have been just using "people who like crap" as shorthand for "people who believe crap is actually quality." Or I read it that way.

for some ungodly reason, he likes The Miller. I drink his good stuff.

Again, doesn't this prove my point? What is "the good stuff" if we're only defining quality by what people like without taking into account their level of informedness on the subject at hand?

However, if you like crap food and haven't experienced or learned about other foods, then you don't have an informed opinion.

What if one has experienced and learned about finer foods and beverages, and just doesn't like most of them? Is my opinion that, for example, there is no dish that can make Brussels sprouts edible, unsophisticated or useless? I mean, it would be useless to someone who liked Brussels sprouts, because I can't give them a nuanced opinion of any such dish, but is it an intrinsically worthless opinion? (I don't care; I'm just wondering how I fit into this discussion. I'm understanding the implication from Hec and Jessica to be that anyone who's experienced these finer foods/beverages would prefer them because they are intrinsically better.)

What is "the good stuff" if we're only defining quality by what people like without taking into account their level of informedness on the subject at hand?

How much food/beverage cred does someone need to establish before they can use a phrase like "the good stuff" without someone wondering if I mean microbrewed stout or Bud Light?

And also, where does the "just not liking stuff" come into the equation? I have a pretty decent palate, but I just don't like caviar. It doesn't mean that I don't know good food, it means that I don't like caviar.