Overrated 'Classics' (Review Thread: Lists are For Fags)

[Armageddon's Child]

Boo fucking hoo!

Look, kid, you're fooling no one. You've yet to raise any objections to the vast majority of the 'negative' posts that appear on these forums. You know, the ones of the "They suck" variety tossed out by those who can't string four words together to make a sentence. You're quiet as a church mouse until someone trashes a band you're emotionally invested in, especially if they do so in a manner that is not easily deflected with reflexive appeals relativism. At that moment, they become 'pompous' - not because they are pompous, but because their ability to clearly articulate a viewpoint different from your own casts a shadow on the whole phoney persona of magnanimous, open-minded Mumblefood which you've clearly invested much of your sense of personal self-worth in. In fact, they have to be pompous, so you can dismiss their viewpoint without examination - if they aren't, then your whole little house of tolerant cards crashes down around your ears.

I'll refrain from adding "you useless faggot."

Oops.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

And thus in this way you can never be wrong.

Oh, the irony...

 

[Manbient]

Boo fucking hoo!

Look, kid, you're fooling no one. You've yet to raise any objections to the vast majority of the 'negative' posts that appear on these forums. You know, the ones of the "They suck" variety tossed out by those who can't string four words together to make a sentence.

I actually do, but lately it's been "your kind" where it's not just you articulating what it is you don't like, it's doing so in a way where it's blatantly obvious you have no interest in considering the other side might be thinking. How often do you lose an argument? or are you just THAT sure you're never wrong?

You're quiet as a church mouse until someone trashes a band you're emotionally invested in, especially if they do so in a manner that is not easily deflected with reflexive appeals relativism. At that moment, they become 'pompous' - not because they are pompous, but because their ability to clearly articulate a viewpoint different from your own casts a shadow on the whole phoney persona of magnanimous, open-minded Mumblefood which you've clearly invested much of your sense of personal self-worth in. In fact, they have to be pompous, so you can dismiss their viewpoint without examination - if they aren't, then your whole little house of tolerant cards crashes down around your ears.

I ALWAYS consider what people say. ALWAYS. i ALWAYS consider being "wrong". You've made a guess here as well hoping it was right. What are these bands i'm "emotionally invested" in are you talkin about? Enslaved? lol. I enjoy enslaved, all periods, and i couldn't care LESS if you didn't enjoy them. What i care about is the way you are just SO SURE you're right, and it's us feeble idiots who SHOULD dislike the music but are just too stupid to do so. Don't like the music i like, fine. But why the hell do you have to look down on others so strongly for liking something you don't? Explain it to me please... why can't you explain things in a way where it's not overbearingly obvious you mean to belittle everyone else who doesn't "get it"?

I'll refrain from adding "you useless faggot."

Oops.

good work, i bet you got a little tingle typing that one out, didn't you?

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Spin, spin, dodge, spin.

Poor, dumb, defeated Mumblefood...

 

[Manbient]

now answer the question.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Poor, dumb, defeated Mumblefood thinks he has the credibility to ask questions and expect an answer from me...

When you grow up, develop decent taste, stop listening to shit bands and learn the difference between ambient and drone doom, we'll talk. Until then, stop cluttering up the threads of your betters, peon.

 

[Manbient]

Poor, dumb, defeated Mumblefood thinks he has the credibility to ask questions and expect an answer from me...

When you grow up, develop decent taste, stop listening to shit bands and learn the difference between ambient and drone doom, we'll talk. Until then, stop cluttering up the threads of your betters, peon.

Good job. Don't answer me, make rediculous, obviously offensive statements to try and get me angry, make assumptions about me (i know far, FAR more than you ever will about ambient and drone, this is not debatable. It has been my main interest for the past 4 years, and it was obvious in the arguments we had about it you weren't even clear what drone was! ), and do EXACTLY what i am criticising you for. good job on "defeating" me. Avoiding answering my questions and favoring the ad hominem approach is clearly proving your "victory".

the way you're carrying yourself right now is pathetic. You're not a god, and you SHOULD answer the criticisms of you honestly. There's nothing special about your ability to rationalize your inabilities to enjoy certain music. It's possible to use the same kind of rationale for ANY music and come to a logical reason why it isn't very good. ANY MUSIC.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

 

[Justin S.]

Ill try to be more communicative than A.C. (although I agree with his general criticism).

Mumblefoot: I don't think you understand the nature of assertion and belief very well. Your internalization of others' criticism and subsequent defensive questioning only enacts the pointless "power" confrontation seen here- the way to avoid it would be to match your detractors in thoughtfulness and rigor.

However, now the gloves are off and A.C. is getting his jollies via mean-spirited irony (for whom A.C.?).

 

[Manbient]

Mumblefoot: I don't think you understand the nature of assertion and belief very well.

enlighten me, please. I can live in ignorance no longer!

Your internalization of others' criticism and subsequent defensive questioning only enacts the pointless "power" confrontation seen here- the way to avoid it would be to match your detractors in thoughtfulness and rigor.

are you insinuating that perhaps a better approach would be to extend my vocabulary to include words more accurately representing the meaning of my arguments? I suppose my methods haven't been entirely convincing, but i'm certain that Armageddons_Child enjoys the thought of being at the top of the totem pole. There is an undeniably condescending tone to his posts, would you not agree? It is never simply enough to let someone know why he doesn't enjoy a piece of music; it must always be paired with a realization for others that they are actually oblivious to important interpretive factors, the ones which provide the most accurate interpretation.

 

[Selkie]

lmao, I cut an pasted someone's Tolkien review expecting to get a Justin S. v Armageddon's Child bitchfest about literature. I feel cheated, erk.

 

[Justin S.]

enlighten me, please. I can live in ignorance no longer!

This is exactly what I was describing (and what A.C. had fun toying with). There is no need to type this, as I understand you will not likely "agree" with my statement, which can be interpreted as condescending. However, you should have perceived that I was not trying to be combative, but earnest. What motivates this affirmation of yours? To whom are you communicating this to? You think your sarcasm sways me at all?

are you insinuating that perhaps a better approach would be to extend my vocabulary to include words more accurately representing the meaning of my arguments? I suppose my methods haven't been entirely convincing, but i'm certain that Armageddons_Child enjoys the thought of being at the top of the totem pole. There is an undeniably condescending tone to his posts, would you not agree? It is never simply enough to let someone know why he doesn't enjoy a piece of music; it must always be paired with a realization for others that they are actually oblivious to important interpretive factors, the ones which provide the most accurate interpretation.

Undoubtedly A.C. can be extremely arrogant, especially when called arrogant/pompous/pretentious when he isn't being so. However, part of being a thoughtful person is placing great trust in one's perception (this does not mean beyond doubt), and this entails a certain "egotism". Yes, A.C. trusts his perception more than yours or anyone else's, and if he changes his mind, it will be again through his own perception. I fail to see what is hard to understand about this. Why do you expect him to cater to you? Do you not see how presumptive your demands are?

 

[Armageddon's Child]

It is never simply enough to let someone know why he doesn't enjoy a piece of music; it must always be paired with a realization for others that they are actually oblivious to important interpretive factors, the ones which provide the most accurate interpretation.

At the risk of sounding pompous, how about we try a metaphor.

You're watching a kid shoot hoops. He's consistently off on his jumper because of an easily fixed mechanical flaw. He wants to adjust the height of the rim until he can't miss.

Do you stand aside and let him, or do you show him how to correct the flaw so his shots go in on a regulation goal? Would the latter be 'pompous'? Condescending?

 

[Manbient]

This is exactly what I was describing (and what A.C. had fun toying with). There is no need to type this, as I understand you will not likely "agree" with my statement, which can be interpreted as condescending. However, you should have perceived that I was not trying to be combative, but earnest. What motivates this affirmation of yours? To whom are you communicating this to? You think your sarcasm sways me at all?

Well i would like to understand. If you can explain it to me, i'd be happy to spend some time thinking about it.

Undoubtedly A.C. can be extremely arrogant, especially when called arrogant/pompous/pretentious when he isn't being so. However, part of being a thoughtful person is placing great trust in one's perception (this does not mean beyond doubt), and this entails a certain "egotism". Yes, A.C. trusts his perception more than yours or anyone else's, and if he changes his mind, it will be again through his own perception. I fail to see what is hard to understand about this. Why do you expect him to cater to you? Do you not see how presumptive your demands are?

I understand this, but all i am asking for is an explanation as to why his opinions must always hold more value than the rest of ours. Surely he hasn't spent more time thinking about, listening to, and interpreting music he doesn't even like than people who do like it. His opinions read like demands for the rest of us to fall in line. I have yet to see him have a normal conversation with someone here that he disagrees with on a particular piece of music, and that bothers me. Sure, i should ignore it, i should do what i please, but i have a really hard time ignoring when someone is being so arrogant that they go so far as to belittle others for having a different understanding than them. For example: I enjoy drone doom. I have many reasons for enjoying it, but i'll save the reading time now. This is UNACCEPTABLE in the eyes of AC. There are NO redeeming qualities for this music, it is a marketing gimmick for scenesters. This is his opinion, and he has no interest in understanding further how and why someone like me would enjoy it. Of course, he is positive he already knows the reasons, and people like me aren't clever enough to see how my reasons aren't good ones and i'm being "fooled". What he DOESN'T realize is how much time i spend finding new ways to interpret music. A big part of what constitutes "taste" in music is frame of mind, and thus, taste in music is obviously never static. I can choose to align my reference points to be the same as AC's and not enjoy drone doom. I have that option. I also have gained the ability to CHANGE that, and come up with another interpretation. When presented with the choice of enjoying, or not enjoying, i think it seems only logical to pick enjoyment. Now either AC CHOOSES non-enjoyment, or he does not posess the ability to alter his frame of reference so that the option of enjoyment is available. Either way, i don't see why i should accept his opinion that i am "wrong" or i "fell for it". I never asked him to enjoy anything. I never asked him to share my taste in music. I AM, however, asking him to tone down the condescension and perhaps accept the fact that not everyone has the blight of being able to interpret what is heard as a flaw, and not be able to change his mind about it. There is a lot of music i don't enjoy. I have reasons that i don't enjoy said music. However, i don't feel it is my place to impose that all people also notice these flaws and forget the things which they enjoy. It shouldn't become an attack on someone, but in his case that is the inevitable result.

 

[Manbient]

At the risk of sounding pompous, how about we try a metaphor.

You're watching a kid shoot hoops. He's consistently off on his jumper because of an easily fixed mechanical flaw. He wants to adjust the height of the rim until he can't miss.

Do you stand aside and let him, or do you show him how to correct the flaw so his shots go in on a regulation goal? Would the latter be 'pompous'? Condescending?

The easy answer you wan't isn't really so simple. What is his "goal"? What is his "purpose"? Is he playing hoops to have fun? Will he have more fun sinking more hoops which require less skill? If that's the case, isn't your "goal" entirely inconsequential?

let's look at the other side. Does he want to attain a greater skill level? is that his only goal? If so then i think providing the help needed to him will make him happy. I suppose that's merely a theory, that the ultimate goal is maximization of happiness, but there are multiple routes to attaining that goal, and both are related to something extremely subjective.

The condescending thing to do in that situation would be to tell the kid "no, you aren't allowed to lower the net you have to learn to sink it up high" when the kid isn't really interested in that. Maybe he isn't playing basketball because he wants to achieve a high level of skill. Maybe there are alternative methods of attaining this skill. and MAYBE, just MAYBE, there are MANY skills which exist in a balance and you are a coach specializing in one small area, and other coaches with a different understanding of some aspects of basketball and would seek to resolve the matter differently, but equally effectively.

Besides all that, this situation has an obvious line drawn. You sink, or you don't. This line doesn't exist in music.

 

[Don Corleone]

@mumblefood:

IS IT WORTH IT?

 

[Manbient]

@mumblefood:

IS IT WORTH IT?

Not at all. I will always be dumb, defeated ol' Mumblefood. It is laughable that i continue to persue this

I still will though.

 

[Don Corleone]

i have nothing to say about your pursuing this...argue away. but i hope you realize the two have given up on actually responding to you long ago.

 

[biggsy]

at least mumblefood and justin s. look like decent posters at the end of this argument.

 

[Stimuli]

i didnt read the arguement... but just one thing

comparing basketball to music is retarded...if one can not see that... they.. too... are retartded...