No, that's not what they're suggesting. That's a straw man that begs the question. They're suggesting there's no such thing objectively. Not everyone agrees on what's great because it's subjective and different people value different things. You're trying to reify your taste and in the process confounding your subjective values whith objective values (which can't exist.) PG does the same thing in one of his essays, whereupon this was repeatedly pointed out.
"Not everyone agrees on what's great because it's subjective and different people value different things."
You are confusing people's disagreement with the competing definitions of "objective" and "subjective". These are separate things. Something can be objectively true and yet people will still disagree about it. Objectively, vaccines for Covid-19 can lower the risk of death for those who get a case of Covid-19 -- people disagree about it, but it is not a subjective question. Objectively, Darwin's theory of natural selection explains much of the development of the diversity of life on Earth, but people still reject the theory. There are many objective facts in the world that people still disagree with, because some people are irrational. What you seem to be confused about is the role disagreement plays in determining whether something is objectively true, which is to say, it plays no role at all -- many things are objectively true, yet fiercely contested by irrational people. The fact that irrational people exist does not mean that everything in the world is subjective, it only means that some people have some experiences which they experience subjectively. George Orwell made the remark that some people could not be brought around to facing to reality till their wrong beliefs were tested on a battlefield, and it is true, if you shoot someone in the brain, the argument that everything is subjective comes to a sudden end.
Except we know for a fact people value different things. It is undeniably subjective. No, you have no argument here. People disagree because they value differently.
You are simply playing with words in a manner that is pointless. There are clearly objective facts about this universe that can be plainly stated. And there are rules of logic that allow us to objectively identify certain sets of assertions as containing a contradiction. Therefore, as I said above, “Are you suggesting that it is difficult to judge what ideas are great and what ideas are idiotic? I actually find this easy.”
You keep making the same mistake, which is to assume the existence of feelings disproves the existence of an objective reality. Reality exists outside of our feelings.
