Obsessed vs. The Warning

[VenusBlackStar 1,301]

Love both Mariah AND Eminem and "Obsessed" is strangely one of my favorite tracks of hers but Em just brings it on "The Warning" but I loved Mariah first omg I can't pick

[StrawberryBlond 13,286]

7 hours ago, Didymus said:

Because you try to tear artists down with unwarranted arguments. That's the only reason I do it. It's not egomania, I think. It's just not liking seeing people acting like they're being smart when they're criticizing something. Then I will indeed gladly tear their arguments apart when they lack consistency and logic.

I will gladly start doing that when you bring more-than-basic arguments. I'm sorry, but if you seriously think people will try to see where you're coming from when you're writing that Beyoncé is constantly ripping off her fans, or that Radiohead has nothing to say, or that Björk just tries to be weird for no reason, there's nothing to try to understand. Even in that thread about Madonna's Met Gala look. I actually thought you had something interesting to say there (which I directly said to you) but your argumentation felt very flawed to me, and, as I always do, I just pitted counterevidence against your arguments. Usually it's very simple, such as "Actually Gaga did put tour dates on sale before her new album was released", or "Actually Madonna did wear suits all through her career.". That's not disrespectful arguing, it only comes to that when you keep rejecting facts in favor of brainless negativity.

When do I do that though? That's been surfacing multiple times now, but I don't understand what I did that creates that impression in your head.

If you want to do that, do it more politely. That's all I ask. Don't insult my intelligence.

I do put forward music-based arguments, but you bash those too, if you like the artist. If you think some of my argument is flawed but the rest of solid, you should be a lot nicer overall. I dissected your counter arguments but you were adament that my position was utterly ignorant. That's want gets to me. The Madonna suit thing was a clear example of you misinterpreting my theory. Covering up can be just as controversial depending on how you do it. But in our sex-obsessed society, there can only be one definition of sexuality and controversy - rampant raunch. I was trying to get people to open their minds to new possibilities.

You really have no idea why you come across like you're better than everyone? Well, you can't be reading your posts very deeply, then. They are the tone of a teacher lecturing a student. You can't put yourself on the same level as the other person and realise things are getting too heavy-handed for a forum. The fact you can't see this problem is evidence that I'm not the one who needs to change. It's funny how you can criticise me all you want but one critique of you and you're convinced I'm complaining about nothing. You're perfect but everyone else must bow to your will (your obsession with taking control was big in my overrated thread). Again, one rule for you, a different one for everyone else.

[SlaeUrAnus 14,743]

This turned out to be a mess.

[Didymus 32,745]

6 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's funny how you can criticise me all you want but one critique of you and you're convinced I'm complaining about nothing. You're perfect but everyone else must bow to your will (your obsession with taking control was big in my overrated thread). Again, one rule for you, a different one for everyone else.

lmao

Like I said: I give people permission, gladly, to correct me when I'm wrong or use bad arguments in a post where I'm trying to make a statement. That already happened too many times and I readily admit I've been wrong. I'm under no denial of the irrelevance of my opinion (and I'm 100% sure I already told you that many times). But in a serious discussion I would be happy someone exposed my double standard.

About the "dissection of my counterarguments".. What do you want me to say? When you keep denying for about six pages that Gaga selling tour tickets before TFM was released is the same as Beyoncé doing it with an absolutely ludicrous reason I cannot help but conclude that you're, like I said above, rejecting facts (that aren't even loaded with emotion or even personal judgment) in favor of brainless negativity. All the "music-based arguments" I've seen were these: "The Beyoncé album is basic." "Lemonade has bland production." "Björk's music is mostly aural torture." "Daddy Lessons is an inauthentic attempt at making a country song." "Beyoncé looks like an amateur if she tries another genre." "If you can't play the guitar you're not an authentic rock performer." This is literally how you argue, except these opinions are hidden in an essay designed to tear the artist down completely with "convincing facts". I tear down the supposed facts because they're not true, you resist. That's the only reason these conversations take so long.

You don't have to bow down to my will at all. Our conversations never start that way. They start with me correcting a statement you make and then it spirals out of control because you can't acknowledge a very simple point that would move along the conversation. To use an extreme example: you claiming Beyoncé was a monster because she stole If I Were a Boy without the girl's knowledge, which I proved to be untrue, with a hilarious bonus feature: the original writer defending Beyoncé because of the negativity she was receiving (oops, there goes your "Beyoncé can't do wrong! She never gets punished!" argument too, my bad). You completely skipped past that and went on with your Beyoncé hate, adding somse more biased arguments to the table. You try to win, when there's nothing to win. It's about being truthful and separating your opinion from factual statements. That is really all this is about.

[StrawberryBlond 13,286]

13 hours ago, Didymus said:

lmao

Like I said: I give people permission, gladly, to correct me when I'm wrong or use bad arguments in a post where I'm trying to make a statement. That already happened too many times and I readily admit I've been wrong. I'm under no denial of the irrelevance of my opinion (and I'm 100% sure I already told you that many times). But in a serious discussion I would be happy someone exposed my double standard.

About the "dissection of my counterarguments".. What do you want me to say? When you keep denying for about six pages that Gaga selling tour tickets before TFM was released is the same as Beyoncé doing it with an absolutely ludicrous reason I cannot help but conclude that you're, like I said above, rejecting facts (that aren't even loaded with emotion or even personal judgment) in favor of brainless negativity. All the "music-based arguments" I've seen were these: "The Beyoncé album is basic." "Lemonade has bland production." "Björk's music is mostly aural torture." "Daddy Lessons is an inauthentic attempt at making a country song." "Beyoncé looks like an amateur if she tries another genre." "If you can't play the guitar you're not an authentic rock performer." This is literally how you argue, except these opinions are hidden in an essay designed to tear the artist down completely with "convincing facts". I tear down the supposed facts because they're not true, you resist. That's the only reason these conversations take so long.

You don't have to bow down to my will at all. Our conversations never start that way. They start with me correcting a statement you make and then it spirals out of control because you can't acknowledge a very simple point that would move along the conversation. To use an extreme example: you claiming Beyoncé was a monster because she stole If I Were a Boy without the girl's knowledge, which I proved to be untrue, with a hilarious bonus feature: the original writer defending Beyoncé because of the negativity she was receiving (oops, there goes your "Beyoncé can't do wrong! She never gets punished!" argument too, my bad). You completely skipped past that and went on with your Beyoncé hate, adding somse more biased arguments to the table. You try to win, when there's nothing to win. It's about being truthful and separating your opinion from factual statements. That is really all this is about.

You can't think your opinion's that irrelevant if you gladly spent time and effort arguing it. And I haven't been having double standards. So I take issue with someone saying I do. Hence, I criticise your bad argument in saying I do. A lot of the time, you're just seeing what you want to see.

It's funny you keep bringing up the TFM argument when I already stated before that my free pass for that didn't come from biased judgement, just my personal morals on the matter and I said that if the situation had been reversed and Beyonce had put out tickets before releasing an 8 track album (with a single that had already been heard and one that was sold as a double-disc re-release in most of the world), I wouldn't have had a problem with it. So, where is the double standard? But you also have to realise that why I also thought Gaga was a separate case was because TMB was her first proper tour. When she toured with TF, it was mostly all festivals and nightclubs and her sets and costumes were basic. TMB was her first proper arena tour covering many places and her sets and costumes were high quality and elaborate. So, most people who went were likely going because they wanted to see songs from TF before as they never got a chance to with her last "tour." TMB was actually referred to as the biggest-earning debut tour. The tour for TF was so small and festival driven that it wasn't even considered a tour. The whole thing was a very different thing to your regular tour. Therefore, to compare it to the fifth tour by a veteran artist who put tickets on sale before releasing a 12-track album doesn't quite wash. And those arguments you listed are opinions, I never said they were facts. Don't put words into my mouth. I present research as a reason behind why I have these opinions, that's all.

See, there you go again - "correcting" a statement I make. Therefore, you seem to say that my opinion is wrong and needs fixing. And it spirals out of control because you start the argument in the first place and I find it rude not to reply. Again, you seem to act as if I just haven't understood something because if I did, I'd agree with you. Which is an attitude I can't abide. And actually, here is a statement from Beyonce's official Wikipedia page about the song and BC Jean's original reaction:

Spoiler

After Jean's version of "If I Were a Boy" was rejected by her record company, she was upset that Beyoncé recorded and released the ballad. Roger Friedman of Fox News wrote that Jean was first informed that Beyoncé recorded the song by a stranger. The Daily Telegraph reported that Beyoncé's father and then-manager Mathew Knowles pursued the publishing rights of "If I Were a Boy" after realizing that it had the potential to become a big hit. Jean used her Myspace account to express her frustration: "I have been reading some of these comments and to set the record straight from the horse's mouth – IF I WERE A BOY is my song; YES, I wrote this song; It is my story; a painful one, and the song is very dear to me. You can hear the original version on my myspace site." Friedman later reported that Beyoncé and Jean had come to terms. The deal included a promise that Beyoncé would record a duet with Jean for her debut album.

Yeah, Beyonce sure kept that promise. But anyway, I don't care if the girl has forgiven her and moved on. That's not how I function. I judge people by my personal morals, not anybody else's. Suffice to say, I can find forgiveness very hard and struggle to give people second chances when I've deemed them to be untrustworthy. If I were BC, I'd have never forgiven Beyonce, so I judge the situation as if she had my mindset. Plus, she was annoyed at the beginning and I think that a victim's original opinion on the case should be seen through to the end.

I have never claimed my opinions to be true, Re-read them, I never have. Some people around here think that never making reference to it being my opinion (although I write "I think" a lot) means I'm stating it as a fact. But in actuality, I just have the confidence to refrain from writing "in my opinion" at the end of every sentence. But in real life, no one takes this tentative, spineless attitude to putting forward an opinion, so why should it change online?