Every year, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association releases their list of nominees for the Golden Globes and puts on a big star-studded show. Just as reliably, critics and social media addicts complain incessantly about how poor the association’s choices are, how corrupt the organization is, and how little their awards matter. And yet, nothing ever changes: the celebrities keep showing up, the show keeps getting broadcast, and people keep complaining.

Why? It’s a difficult question with nebulous answers, but I’m going to try to get to the bottom of it. Here are my guesses as to why we still pay attention to the Globes, as viewers, as fans, and as critics.

As Viewers

Award ceremonies have a somewhat dubious place in TV viewer’s minds. Despite often garnering killer ratings, few people would actually say that they enjoy watching them. They’re generally dry, sycophantic affairs, with predictable cues and writing designed not to actually offend anybody in the room. It’s no wonder that much of the post-show discussions revolve around the red carpet and what people were wearing.

But the Golden Globes differ from the norm in one small but significant way: everybody is drinking. In some cases, quite a lot. This leads to shenanigans that you don’t normally see on other live shows, along with unpredictable moments (like Taraji P. Henson passing out cookies and Lady Gaga bumping a hysterical Leonardo DiCaprio) and a lot of poorly-censored swearing (like Ricky Gervais’s jokes about Mel Gibson’s misogyny and anti-semitism). It’s a bit of a trainwreck at times, but at least it’s a FUN trainwreck.

Also, as much as both critics and celebrities decry his presence, Ricky Gervais’s repeated stints as host have made the show watchable. It’s not that his jokes are usually as offensive as his reputation would lead you to believe, but that he lends a gleeful aura of mischief to the proceedings. Everybody’s just a little off-kilter, not sure what he’s going to say, and that’s exciting.

The Golden Globes may be a joke to the average viewer, but at least they’re not dry. That’s more than you can say about the Oscars.

As Fans

Again, the credulity of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is questionable at best. The organization is made up of less than 100 “foreign journalists” who actually reside in Southern California, and they have been accused of nominating people and films because doing so will get more famous people to attend their event. This accusation can be hard to prove, but it certainly looks to be the case. People still haven’t forgotten all of the awards for the critically panned The Tourist, arguably to get Johnny Depp to show up, and this year’s nomination of Narcos for best drama over Mad Men, The Americans, and The Leftovers certainly looks like an effort to procure producer Sean Penn. These types of choices nod to a voting body that’s more interested in photo-ops than actual artistic merit.

But the one positive aspect of this insane system is that, every once in a while, a program that slips through the cracks at other events gets rewarded at the Golden Globes. Take, for instance, Tatiana Maslany’s nomination for Orphan Black in 2014, before the Emmys ever recognized her. Or this year, look at Mr. Robot’s victory for Best Drama and Christian Slater’s win for Best Actor. Mr. Robot is a series with a very devoted fanbase that feels neglected elsewhere, so seeing their show win big (even against a selection of nominees that bafflingly didn’t include the heavy-hitters of the year) is gratifying.

The same can be said for fans of even smaller shows that somehow get rewarded here. I’m sure that the handful of people who watch Mozart in the Jungle were thrilled to see it win Best Comedy, and hardcore BBC devotees may have been excited to see Wolf Hall somehow eek out a win instead of Fargo. As a fan, there’s the potential draw of seeing your favorite movies and shows get recognized after a year of cultural neglect.

As Critics

One thing that is clear on Twitter, year after year, is that critics HATE the Golden Globes. While no award show is ever going to seem “perfect,” given how subjective the visual arts can be, this year’s winners were especially absurd. The aforementioned Mozart in the Jungle, the big winner of the night, didn’t appear on a single critic’s list on Hitfix’s TV Critics Poll this year. To suggest that it’s better than Transparent, Veep, Master of None, Silicon Valley, You’re the Worst, Louie, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, and even the perennially snubbed It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia is borderline absurd. Seeing Fargo, considered by many to be the very best thing on television all year, ignored in favor of Wolf Hall, with Kirsten Dunst’s career-best performance being passed over for American Horror Story’s Lady Gaga, is even worse.

Their film awards left something to be desired, too. As great as The Martian is, its classification as a comedy or musical is completely nuts. There’s no reason why a story about a resourceful astronaut being stranded on Mars should be competing against Amy Schumer’s Trainwreck. Meanwhile, The Revenant picked up Best Actor, Director, and Best Picture. There’s at least some merit here, as the craft behind the film is quite impressive, but few would have predicted its win in a year with such greats as Mad Max: Fury Road and Spotlight.

But I’m about to say something that few critics will openly admit: we LOVE disagreeing. As much as the HFPA’s choices feel like crimes against artistic accomplishment, seeing such things rewarded challenges our convictions and makes us defend our stances. Because at its heart, criticism is the rationalization of subjective thought. It’s about consuming art, reacting to it, and then studying and vocalizing our own reactions to make sense of why art works. When we come to terms with our reactions and speak with other critics and fans, it allows us to debate our thoughts and weigh the merits of differing pieces against each other.

Having a “villain” like the HFPA pop up and make ridiculous proclamations about the best movies and television shows of the years makes this “debate” process even more enjoyable. Sure, it’s crazy that this small organization of faceless journalists can so publicly crown a show like Mozart in the Jungle as the absolute best serialized comedy in the world, but it’s up to us to say WHY other shows are so much more deserving. If we’re going to talk about the problems with The Revenant and how it’s not the best film of the year, we have to actually explain WHAT those problems are. That very process is what being a critic is all about.

People don’t become critics because it’s an especially lucrative career. They do it because they care deeply about whatever medium they choose to write about, and they value the continued existence of critical discourse. The Golden Globes are the perfect vehicle to give our work purpose, to back up why the best art of the year actually matters.