It is an impressively arrogant move to conclude that just because you don’t like something, it is empirically not good. I don’t like Chinese food, but I don’t write articles trying to prove it doesn’t exist.

The remark skewers a common rhetorical fallacy: mistaking personal taste for objective judgment. By calling it “impressively arrogant,” Fey highlights how some critics treat dislike as evidence of nonexistence or worthlessness, rather than as a subjective response. The Chinese-food analogy sharpens the point through absurdity—disliking something doesn’t obligate (or entitle) you to mount a pseudo-empirical campaign against it. More broadly, the quote defends pluralism in culture: art, entertainment, and even cuisines can be valuable to others even when they fail to please you, and criticism should distinguish between preference and proof.