Solange blasts Grammys after Beyonce lost AOTY

February 18, 2017

16 hours ago, Harry said:

No. I already told you I won't go into the race conversation with you because over several conversations my mind has been more than made up and I won't delve further. You are the one that decided to bring it up by quoting me. You know where I stand with this. I don't want to have this conversation again because it goes around in circles. You literally once said that Beyonce doesn't deserve her success due to the colour of her skin. No matter how much you try to retract that statement, I can't take you seriously with discussions over race - particularly concerning her.

"Yes, singing's an art form but doing it doesn't make you an artist." - what... in the hell? Do you hear what you say? So you agree that the act of singing is creating art but you don't agree that it makes you an artist? By definition that doesn't make sense. Transparent fools like you think the term "artist" is equivalent to genius or something. It's not. It's just a term. Stop being so holier than thou. You can be an "artist" and be a **** artist. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't get to come in and rewrite the script for people that have worked at their ART FORM for their entire lives. I'd love to watch you go to an opera house and tell a singer there that they aren't an artist simply because they are singing the words written by someone else. You'd be recognised for your ignorance and disrespect and laughed out of there.

I know that you hate black people and love to divert the conversation away from them but if you look at one of my earlier posts in this thread I did actually say it was a non-white thing. As @ItsTommyBitch pointed out, the black artists that receive so many awards most take them from the """"black"""" categories, and that's the main problem.

And once again, if you actually read my damn posts - which history shows that you're damn near incapable of doing - you'd know that I'm sceptical of making the whole Grammys thing totally a race issue. It's littered with flaws all over - it's a total sham. I do think it's totally run by whites and the winners do clearly display that, but there's no point having a rational conversation about that with someone like you.

And you have made your mind up too fast, and it's based on misunderstandings and bias at that. and it drives me crazy that you have a completely untrue perception of me that you won't shift on. It pains my heart when people get the wrong idea about me and being accused of racism is the most absurd thing that anyone has ever accused me of and I won't stand by and allow you to spread this untrue perception of me around this site. I can confidently say that I NEVER said that Beyonce did not deserve her success because of the colour of her skin. Show me the quote you're talking about and I'll dis-prove. As I said, you just want to see what you want to see and are completely blinkered when it comes to my intentions. And you've based your opinion of me from this mindset.

I didn't say singing involved the creation of art. It's an art form that doesn't involve creation. Interpretation isn't the same as creation either, I don't think changing the way the song is sung is art creation either, it's just re-interpretation. Someone writes you a song and you sing it - there's no creation process in that. Hearing the song is an artful experience for the listener, they are experiencing a piece of art...but they wouldn't have this experience if the songwriter hadn't produced the song for the singer to sing, therefore, the songwriter is the creator, therefore, the artist in this situation. I say all this as someone who loves to sing. I know what I am and what I am not. And no, I don't think the term "artist" is equivalent to "genius" and I know you can be a good artist and a bad artist. Assumptions, again. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, the exact opposite in fact. I am using the technical and dictionary definition of "artist," which is "creator." A singer hones their talent, not their artistic creation. An opera singer is just that - an opera singer. The artist is the person who created the song that they are interpreting.

No, I do not hate black people and diverting the conversation away from them is nothing to do with any dislike of them. I'm trying to draw attention to the people who are genuinely under-represented at the Grammys. When was the last time you saw a Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Israeli, etc. pick up a Grammy award? You know the truth but you don't want to address it because you don't have an answer for it. We're socialised to only care about one racial minority and that is black people, we're socialised to believe that they are the only minority going through problems. We talk about their lack of visibility and representation in music despite the fact that blacks have the second best visibility levels and representation levels after whites. And in most areas of life, this is also true, in the western world anyway. I see whites and blacks on tv but Asians are rare. I hear whites and blacks in music but Asians are rare. I see whites and blacks winning awards but Asians are rare. Yet, when it comes down to lack of winners from non-white groups, all people want to talk about is the lack of black representation! Wake up and realise that you're being socialised to ignore whole racial groups to the point where they don't even enter your radar. Fighting for justice for blacks is all well and good but don't ignore other racial groups. We should aim to provide the best opportunities for every race, not just the most 'prominent' 'talked about' ones.

I did read your post, actually. I just disagree with it. Doesn't mean I didn't understand it. Black artists mostly win in the 'black' categories because the majority of black artists nominated are genuinely making music from these categories! If you want to talk about how blacks are socialised into certain genres but discouraged from others, fine. But that isn't what we're talking about. Based on the direction that these artists have chosen, they are being nominated correctly. White rappers have been put in urban categories. Michael Jackson has been nominated in the pop category. Tina Turner has been in the rock and pop categories. Janet Jackson has been in pop, dance and rock categories. Beyonce was in the rock category this year. They have been graded pretty accordingly. Remember that Taylor Swift got nominated in the country category with all her albums, including the very poppy Red, even with songs that were clearly 100% pop, until she formally announced that she wanted to be seen as a pop artist for 1989. She kept getting put in country because that was the genre she was always associated with, so it felt weird to label her as anything else, at least in the academy's mind. It happens to white artists too.

And I have read your posts. You arrogantly assume that I can't have understood what you wrote or else I would be agreeing with you. There is more than one way of looking at something. I know what you said about Grammys having their flaws, which I agree with, but you also think that there is an inherent racism (towards blacks specifically, while ignoring other races) involved among the majority of academy members which I disagree with because the evidence suggests otherwise. But you don't seem to want to address this evidence because it doesn't align with what you want to believe.

16 hours ago, Harry said:

Right. Because the only way an artist can be authentic is if they tweet about it or pull it out of their ass in an interview.

Who cares if Beyonce's music and imagery only just started to be so black-centric? She's lost either way. Either she's pulling "the race card", or she's just another boring pop artist that has nothing to say. What do you want? We have our pop stars making major statements and we slam them?

Did Gaga suddenly exploit the black community with Angel Down because she wasn't making Black Lives Matter songs on The Fame?

You guys will really go out of your way to talk total and utter bullshit just to talk down a popstar.

I don't think that's what they meant. I think what they were referring to is that Beyonce's involvement in black activism seems a bit too timely and convenient and her attempts at race positive music is actually nothing more than an ego trip for her.

It does matter if her music and imagery only just started to be so black-centric considering that there have been artists who've been making political black music for years before BLM started, before supporting the black struggle was relevant and cool like it is now. But Beyonce only wants a piece of it when it becomes relevant and cool. If she wants to make pop music, that's fine with me, as long as she creates good pop music. If she wants to make political music, that's fine with me, as long as she creates good political music. Despite what people are billing the album as, it is hardly a black empowerment album, with the exception of Freedom. It's an album about Beyonce's relationship with Jay, end of. It's only getting sold as a black liberation album purely because there's one song of that kind on it and she's a black artist. Which is pretty racist, when you think about it. Despite what her fans are telling us, Formation is not a black liberation anthem. It's a song about Beyonce and her ego, that's it. It's all about her and she's slyly convinced people it's about black people in general via inserting racial situations in the music video. People have been fooled by the packaging, not realising that the average black person does not have access to designer clothes and helicopters, which she boasts about in the lyrics. People think that because all the videos have positive black imagery in them that the entire album is about black liberation. It isn't. If you just listen to the music without the videos initially, like I did, you will hear only a teeny amount of actual racial content.

Gaga did not exploit the black community with Angel Down because it was a genuine song about the plight of black people. It wasn't an ego trip like Beyonce did with Formation. It was genuine, heartfelt and devoid of ego. Beyonce did it right with Freedom, a true song about black strength. But she got it wrong with Formation, where she does a disservice to blacks by aligning them with tacky stereotypes and tacky pop culture references and making it all a track about herself and her ego.

8 hours ago, Harry said:

I don't understand how release a project on a scale like Lemonade and going to the Super Bowl of all places and doing that performance is not making a statement?

And my attitude is certainly not "stop criticising Bey, you're all jelly". Talk about generalizing.

It is a statement but she only did it at a time when such a statement stood a chance of being welcomed. If she'd done this back in the 90's, before BLM was around and there was a white president, the reaction would have been very different. As it was, the timely nature of black rights being relevant again and having a black president made the statement a lot less of a risk than it could have been a long time ago. And I notice that she only wants to talk about black rights, no other political issue seems to concern her. Despite her and Jay holidaying in France, having big fanbases in France and generally having a connection with France, Beyonce didn't offer a word of condolence to the crowd at her Paris show in light of all the recent attacks there. Despite the fact that basically everyone else who performed there (including other black artists like Rihanna), had mentioned it. A French reviewer actually mentioned in their review of the show that they were disappointed that she didn't say anything about it. Beyonce is all about herself and her ego, the lives of her fans don't matter to her, so long as they give her lots of money for her albums and over-priced tours, where they can hear her sing songs about how great she is.

You may not be saying this phrase in particular, but seem to be very short with people who dare to criticise Beyonce, no matter how valid that criticism is. You also tend to correlate any criticism of her with racism, even though some of us are just as harsh on white artists.

February 18, 2017

54 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

And you have made your mind up too fast, and it's based on misunderstandings and bias at that. and it drives me crazy that you have a completely untrue perception of me that you won't shift on. It pains my heart when people get the wrong idea about me and being accused of racism is the most absurd thing that anyone has ever accused me of and I won't stand by and allow you to spread this untrue perception of me around this site. I can confidently say that I NEVER said that Beyonce did not deserve her success because of the colour of her skin. Show me the quote you're talking about and I'll dis-prove. As I said, you just want to see what you want to see and are completely blinkered when it comes to my intentions. And you've based your opinion of me from this mindset.

I didn't say singing involved the creation of art. It's an art form that doesn't involve creation. Interpretation isn't the same as creation either, I don't think changing the way the song is sung is art creation either, it's just re-interpretation. Someone writes you a song and you sing it - there's no creation process in that. Hearing the song is an artful experience for the listener, they are experiencing a piece of art...but they wouldn't have this experience if the songwriter hadn't produced the song for the singer to sing, therefore, the songwriter is the creator, therefore, the artist in this situation. I say all this as someone who loves to sing. I know what I am and what I am not. And no, I don't think the term "artist" is equivalent to "genius" and I know you can be a good artist and a bad artist. Assumptions, again. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, the exact opposite in fact. I am using the technical and dictionary definition of "artist," which is "creator." A singer hones their talent, not their artistic creation. An opera singer is just that - an opera singer. The artist is the person who created the song that they are interpreting.

No, I do not hate black people and diverting the conversation away from them is nothing to do with any dislike of them. I'm trying to draw attention to the people who are genuinely under-represented at the Grammys. When was the last time you saw a Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Israeli, etc. pick up a Grammy award? You know the truth but you don't want to address it because you don't have an answer for it. We're socialised to only care about one racial minority and that is black people, we're socialised to believe that they are the only minority going through problems. We talk about their lack of visibility and representation in music despite the fact that blacks have the second best visibility levels and representation levels after whites. And in most areas of life, this is also true, in the western world anyway. I see whites and blacks on tv but Asians are rare. I hear whites and blacks in music but Asians are rare. I see whites and blacks winning awards but Asians are rare. Yet, when it comes down to lack of winners from non-white groups, all people want to talk about is the lack of black representation! Wake up and realise that you're being socialised to ignore whole racial groups to the point where they don't even enter your radar. Fighting for justice for blacks is all well and good but don't ignore other racial groups. We should aim to provide the best opportunities for every race, not just the most 'prominent' 'talked about' ones.

I did read your post, actually. I just disagree with it. Doesn't mean I didn't understand it. Black artists mostly win in the 'black' categories because the majority of black artists nominated are genuinely making music from these categories! If you want to talk about how blacks are socialised into certain genres but discouraged from others, fine. But that isn't what we're talking about. Based on the direction that these artists have chosen, they are being nominated correctly. White rappers have been put in urban categories. Michael Jackson has been nominated in the pop category. Tina Turner has been in the rock and pop categories. Janet Jackson has been in pop, dance and rock categories. Beyonce was in the rock category this year. They have been graded pretty accordingly. Remember that Taylor Swift got nominated in the country category with all her albums, including the very poppy Red, even with songs that were clearly 100% pop, until she formally announced that she wanted to be seen as a pop artist for 1989. She kept getting put in country because that was the genre she was always associated with, so it felt weird to label her as anything else, at least in the academy's mind. It happens to white artists too.

And I have read your posts. You arrogantly assume that I can't have understood what you wrote or else I would be agreeing with you. There is more than one way of looking at something. I know what you said about Grammys having their flaws, which I agree with, but you also think that there is an inherent racism (towards blacks specifically, while ignoring other races) involved among the majority of academy members which I disagree with because the evidence suggests otherwise. But you don't seem to want to address this evidence because it doesn't align with what you want to believe.

I don't think that's what they meant. I think what they were referring to is that Beyonce's involvement in black activism seems a bit too timely and convenient and her attempts at race positive music is actually nothing more than an ego trip for her.

It does matter if her music and imagery only just started to be so black-centric considering that there have been artists who've been making political black music for years before BLM started, before supporting the black struggle was relevant and cool like it is now. But Beyonce only wants a piece of it when it becomes relevant and cool. If she wants to make pop music, that's fine with me, as long as she creates good pop music. If she wants to make political music, that's fine with me, as long as she creates good political music. Despite what people are billing the album as, it is hardly a black empowerment album, with the exception of Freedom. It's an album about Beyonce's relationship with Jay, end of. It's only getting sold as a black liberation album purely because there's one song of that kind on it and she's a black artist. Which is pretty racist, when you think about it. Despite what her fans are telling us, Formation is not a black liberation anthem. It's a song about Beyonce and her ego, that's it. It's all about her and she's slyly convinced people it's about black people in general via inserting racial situations in the music video. People have been fooled by the packaging, not realising that the average black person does not have access to designer clothes and helicopters, which she boasts about in the lyrics. People think that because all the videos have positive black imagery in them that the entire album is about black liberation. It isn't. If you just listen to the music without the videos initially, like I did, you will hear only a teeny amount of actual racial content.

Gaga did not exploit the black community with Angel Down because it was a genuine song about the plight of black people. It wasn't an ego trip like Beyonce did with Formation. It was genuine, heartfelt and devoid of ego. Beyonce did it right with Freedom, a true song about black strength. But she got it wrong with Formation, where she does a disservice to blacks by aligning them with tacky stereotypes and tacky pop culture references and making it all a track about herself and her ego.

It is a statement but she only did it at a time when such a statement stood a chance of being welcomed. If she'd done this back in the 90's, before BLM was around and there was a white president, the reaction would have been very different. As it was, the timely nature of black rights being relevant again and having a black president made the statement a lot less of a risk than it could have been a long time ago. And I notice that she only wants to talk about black rights, no other political issue seems to concern her. Despite her and Jay holidaying in France, having big fanbases in France and generally having a connection with France, Beyonce didn't offer a word of condolence to the crowd at her Paris show in light of all the recent attacks there. Despite the fact that basically everyone else who performed there (including other black artists like Rihanna), had mentioned it. A French reviewer actually mentioned in their review of the show that they were disappointed that she didn't say anything about it. Beyonce is all about herself and her ego, the lives of her fans don't matter to her, so long as they give her lots of money for her albums and over-priced tours, where they can hear her sing songs about how great she is.

You may not be saying this phrase in particular, but seem to be very short with people who dare to criticise Beyonce, no matter how valid that criticism is. You also tend to correlate any criticism of her with racism, even though some of us are just as harsh on white artists.

whatever girl

February 19, 2017

22 hours ago, Harry said:

whatever girl

Listen, we'll never see eye to eye if you continue to be like this. Every time I really try to make you change your mind about me, you bail out. I think it's because you don't like to admit when I've made a good point and don't like to admit when your view of me is in the wrong. I take so much time to respond to you with the best possible points and for you to throw it all back in my face is so disrespectful. Just so you know, every time you blank me like this, it confirms to me that you can't handle the fact that I'm making good points. It confirms to me that you don't want to face up to the idea that your logic is being challenged. Like a child, you put your hands over your ears and chant "la la la la la" whenever someone says something that you know is true but you can't handle. If you want to truly be respected for your opinions, act like an adult and have the guts to respond properly. By failing to respond properly and making an immature comeback, it suggests your theories are so weak that you have nothing to fight back with. You never see me making comebacks like "whatever girl" because I know my theories are strong enough to continue responding with.

And I notice you completely chickened out when I asked you to show me the moment of 'racism' I apparently displayed. Maybe it's because you know it's based on misunderstanding and couldn't stand the thought of me refuting it? For the record, I can't recall exactly what this quote involved but if that quote said what I imagine it said, I was likely saying that Beyonce doesn't deserve awards for being black in the same way that a white artist shouldn't get awards for being white. Race shouldn't come into it, base it on the music. The best person should win, regardless of race. Race doesn't correlate with talent, talent correlates with talent. This theory is the opposite of racism so I don't know where you got that idea from.

February 19, 2017

15 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Listen, we'll never see eye to eye if you continue to be like this. Every time I really try to make you change your mind about me, you bail out. I think it's because you don't like to admit when I've made a good point and don't like to admit when your view of me is in the wrong. I take so much time to respond to you with the best possible points and for you to throw it all back in my face is so disrespectful. Just so you know, every time you blank me like this, it confirms to me that you can't handle the fact that I'm making good points. It confirms to me that you don't want to face up to the idea that your logic is being challenged. Like a child, you put your hands over your ears and chant "la la la la la" whenever someone says something that you know is true but you can't handle. If you want to truly be respected for your opinions, act like an adult and have the guts to respond properly. By failing to respond properly and making an immature comeback, it suggests your theories are so weak that you have nothing to fight back with. You never see me making comebacks like "whatever girl" because I know my theories are strong enough to continue responding with.

And I notice you completely chickened out when I asked you to show me the moment of 'racism' I apparently displayed. Maybe it's because you know it's based on misunderstanding and couldn't stand the thought of me refuting it? For the record, I can't recall exactly what this quote involved but if that quote said what I imagine it said, I was likely saying that Beyonce doesn't deserve awards for being black in the same way that a white artist shouldn't get awards for being white. Race shouldn't come into it, base it on the music. The best person should win, regardless of race. Race doesn't correlate with talent, talent correlates with talent. This theory is the opposite of racism so I don't know where you got that idea from.

Maybe you did make good points but I simply didn't read the post because it was very long and my respect for you is verging on non-existent.

I don't need to prove to you what you said. You know what you said and you even tried to retract it. I'm not about to search through months and months of posts by you just to find it when you'll no doubt brush it off anyway.

February 20, 2017

21 hours ago, Harry said:

Maybe you did make good points but I simply didn't read the post because it was very long and my respect for you is verging on non-existent.

I don't need to prove to you what you said. You know what you said and you even tried to retract it. I'm not about to search through months and months of posts by you just to find it when you'll no doubt brush it off anyway.

Oh, so you find my "walls of text" as some people call them, intimidating? I've got news for you - when you've got a point to make, you have to explain it properly and give examples or else people will dismiss it because you haven't delved deep enough. I follow the "point explain example" mode that I was taught in school and have followed it through university. So, its served me pretty well so far. If you don't read what someone says but continue to dismiss them, well, you've made yourself look foolish to anyone who has bothered to read the post. I find it funny that you've been lecturing me for apparently not reading your posts (which is untrue and you have no way of knowing I haven't read them) and then you hypocritically say to me that you haven't bothered to read mine! So, it's one rule for you, another for me, right? How convenient for you. And by the way, due to my paranoia, anxiety and OCD, I have an innate urge in me to recite things aloud, no matter how mundane. It helps me to process things and assure they have the right tone. I do it for my own posts and I do it for everyone else's posts. So, rest assured, I have read aloud every single word you have ever written. Which must make you feel a bit sheepish when you think of all the nasty stuff you've said to me.

Of course I've tried to refute what I said...because it wasn't true! You took what I said and saw something that wasn't there. Naturally, we defend ourselves when someone has the wrong idea about us. Seeing as you can't even remember the quote exactly and can't be bothered to find it, well, you're basing your perception of me on that flimsiness? This is what drives me crazy - the fact that you misinterpreted something I said a while back that you can't even fully recall. And that's how you've come to a conclusion about me. I take it really badly when people get the wrong idea about it. It actually hurts in my chest. And to see you spreading lies about me whenever a topic of race comes up is slanderous and if you really knew me, you'd see how much of a mistake you've made. You think you're such a know-it-all but you've got it all wrong.

February 20, 2017

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Oh, so you find my "walls of text" as some people call them, intimidating? I've got news for you - when you've got a point to make, you have to explain it properly and give examples or else people will dismiss it because you haven't delved deep enough. I follow the "point explain example" mode that I was taught in school and have followed it through university. So, its served me pretty well so far. If you don't read what someone says but continue to dismiss them, well, you've made yourself look foolish to anyone who has bothered to read the post. I find it funny that you've been lecturing me for apparently not reading your posts (which is untrue and you have no way of knowing I haven't read them) and then you hypocritically say to me that you haven't bothered to read mine! So, it's one rule for you, another for me, right? How convenient for you. And by the way, due to my paranoia, anxiety and OCD, I have an innate urge in me to recite things aloud, no matter how mundane. It helps me to process things and assure they have the right tone. I do it for my own posts and I do it for everyone else's posts. So, rest assured, I have read aloud every single word you have ever written. Which must make you feel a bit sheepish when you think of all the nasty stuff you've said to me.

Of course I've tried to refute what I said...because it wasn't true! You took what I said and saw something that wasn't there. Naturally, we defend ourselves when someone has the wrong idea about us. Seeing as you can't even remember the quote exactly and can't be bothered to find it, well, you're basing your perception of me on that flimsiness? This is what drives me crazy - the fact that you misinterpreted something I said a while back that you can't even fully recall. And that's how you've come to a conclusion about me. I take it really badly when people get the wrong idea about it. It actually hurts in my chest. And to see you spreading lies about me whenever a topic of race comes up is slanderous and if you really knew me, you'd see how much of a mistake you've made. You think you're such a know-it-all but you've got it all wrong.

Not intimidating, just dull, generally speaking. You constantly say that your points are always well researched but as I've noticed many times, your posts are riddles with inaccuracies fairly often. And yes you're true that is fairly ironic - or at least it would be if I claimed to read and take in everything you say to me all of the time, although I do read them 95% of the time. You straight up lie and say you read all of mine when you clearly ignore things that I say virtually every time we converse. If you want to think I'm a hypocrite, that's fine by me.

I don't feel sheepish because I don't think I've said anything innately horrible to you. I've inadvertently offended you before and apologised for it, but I've never said anything prejudice. What does make me feel a little sheepish, however, is the thought of you reading out loud the homophobic comment you made against me and then thinking it acceptable to click the 'reply' button.

I remember exactly what you said. You said that Beyonce only receives her level of success due to her race, therefore downplaying the extreme hard work and talent of a woman based on the colour of her skin. You even admitted that was wrong of you to say.

February 20, 2017

15 minutes ago, Harry said:

Not intimidating, just dull, generally speaking. You constantly say that your points are always well researched but as I've noticed many times, your posts are riddles with inaccuracies fairly often. And yes you're true that is fairly ironic - or at least it would be if I claimed to read and take in everything you say to me all of the time, although I do read them 95% of the time. You straight up lie and say you read all of mine when you clearly ignore things that I say virtually every time we converse. If you want to think I'm a hypocrite, that's fine by me.

I don't feel sheepish because I don't think I've said anything innately horrible to you. I've inadvertently offended you before and apologised for it, but I've never said anything prejudice. What does make me feel a little sheepish, however, is the thought of you reading out loud the homophobic comment you made against me and then thinking it acceptable to click the 'reply' button.

I remember exactly what you said. You said that Beyonce only receives her level of success due to her race, therefore downplaying the extreme hard work and talent of a woman based on the colour of her skin. You even admitted that was wrong of you to say.

I try to make my posts engaging to read, I would never submit something that I deem as dull. All subjective, of course, but I know that to keep people reading, you can't be dull. So, I just think you skim-read so you don't risk stumbling across something I say that you might agree with. Granted, maybe not all my posts are 100% accurate and I have sometimes failed to research something occasionally because I thought I knew enough to the point where I didn't need to research. But certainly those statistics that I quoted earlier on in the thread are pure fact, you can look it up on Wikipedia. There's no bias, just quoting of facts (except the little bit at the very end). And if you don't mind me saying, you often have inaccuracies in your posts but when I point them out, I apparently have no right to do so. I have not "straight up lied" about reading your posts. Reading that aloud made me want to throw something across the room. You have no idea what I do behind this screen. You have no idea about the rituals I go through due to my OCD. My OCD commands that I have to research something pointless online, especially if I see a hyperlink. Then I have to read it aloud over and over until I say it perfectly. If I stumble, I have to clap my hands and make a sound effect and start again. Going on this site is actually like walking on eggshells in case I see a word or phrase that I have to research that sends me into a tailspin. I actually didn't spend much time on this site yesterday because I went off on a "pointless online research kick" as I call it, one thing leading to another and it didn't even interest me. It's debilitating and it makes me very upset. So, I can assure you that I read everything you have ever written to me and taken it in. It's in my nature to do so. You just think that I haven't read it properly because I disagree with you. Logical fallacy, there. I certainly don't assume you have failed to read my posts because you disagree with them because I actually value different opinions and believe everyone has the right to them.

You're clearly very arrogant if you think you've never said anything innately horrible to me. Coming out of the blue and constantly getting at me alone has been horrible enough. Seriously, it all started when you disagreed with my thoughts on Justin Bieber and after that, you just hated me. Your hatred for me is baseless. And your 'apology' for what you once said to me was not genuine. Considering that what you said was so nasty and no one had ever said this it to me before and you said it publically, I don't know if I can ever forgive you for it. You knew what you were doing when you said it. No, I did not feel sheepish about the 'homophobic' comment I once made to you because it wasn't homophobic, it was a valid criticism of the gay community's relationship with women that needed to be said. Considering I'm a woman who'd suffered from this issue, I thought I was well within my rights to say so. And a homosexual mod found no issue with what I said and actually agreed with my sentiments. I have no problems with your orientation, I just thought you could stand to hear a problem your community has with its treatment of women that I was feeling that you were showing towards me.

Ah, yes, I can remember this quote now. It was a bit too far, I'll admit. I can't remember the exact wording of it but I think the quote gave the suggestion that she only gets praise based on her skin. That wasn't what I meant, so I retracted it. I simply meant to say that I felt critics have been very quick to praise black artists, especially of late, for songs that I didn't really feel were all that, partly due to white guilt. In comparison, it annoyed me when I saw genuinely good work from white artists (though not suggesting that only white artists can make good material) get mixed reception. Despite their work being just as multi-layered, intense and personal, if not moreso, as the work from black artists, the critics were weirdly failing to get it. I don't care who gives me good music, I just want it coming from someone. Gender, age, race, religion, public persona, etc. has no bearing on how I judge music (unless the artist puts any of this to the forefront in their music). I would never give an artist a better score because they were white like me. Nor would I give a black person a better score because they're an oppressed group. Good material is good material and I welcome it from anyone. But the music is all it should be decided on. And I sometimes think the critics brought too much politics into it to the point where they were scared to give a lower reception to a black artist. If I give a black artist a good score, it's for no other reason than for good music, and vice versa. When I hear a song from a black artist that is so obviously bad but critics give it good reviews, I really am flabbergasted. I understandably start wondering if they're bringing politics to the table. But for the record, I think some parts of Lemonade are really good. I think Beyonce deserved more Grammys from Lemonade than she got. I think the album rightfully got Best Urban Contemporary Album. Didn't look at all the nominees but Lemonade for Best Music Film would have been understandable. Freedom deserved Best Rap/Sung Performance. Again, didn't listen to all the nominees, but Don't Hurt Yourself would have been a good contender for Best Rock Performance because I think it's the best song from the album. I daresay elements of that song remind me of you and I. It's the song that comes to mind whenever we're at loggerheads these days.

February 20, 2017

22 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I try to make my posts engaging to read, I would never submit something that I deem as dull. All subjective, of course, but I know that to keep people reading, you can't be dull. So, I just think you skim-read so you don't risk stumbling across something I say that you might agree with. Granted, maybe not all my posts are 100% accurate and I have sometimes failed to research something occasionally because I thought I knew enough to the point where I didn't need to research. But certainly those statistics that I quoted earlier on in the thread are pure fact, you can look it up on Wikipedia. There's no bias, just quoting of facts (except the little bit at the very end). And if you don't mind me saying, you often have inaccuracies in your posts but when I point them out, I apparently have no right to do so. I have not "straight up lied" about reading your posts. Reading that aloud made me want to throw something across the room. You have no idea what I do behind this screen. You have no idea about the rituals I go through due to my OCD. My OCD commands that I have to research something pointless online, especially if I see a hyperlink. Then I have to read it aloud over and over until I say it perfectly. If I stumble, I have to clap my hands and make a sound effect and start again. Going on this site is actually like walking on eggshells in case I see a word or phrase that I have to research that sends me into a tailspin. I actually didn't spend much time on this site yesterday because I went off on a "pointless online research kick" as I call it, one thing leading to another and it didn't even interest me. It's debilitating and it makes me very upset. So, I can assure you that I read everything you have ever written to me and taken it in. It's in my nature to do so. You just think that I haven't read it properly because I disagree with you. Logical fallacy, there. I certainly don't assume you have failed to read my posts because you disagree with them because I actually value different opinions and believe everyone has the right to them.

You're clearly very arrogant if you think you've never said anything innately horrible to me. Coming out of the blue and constantly getting at me alone has been horrible enough. Seriously, it all started when you disagreed with my thoughts on Justin Bieber and after that, you just hated me. Your hatred for me is baseless. And your 'apology' for what you once said to me was not genuine. Considering that what you said was so nasty and no one had ever said this it to me before and you said it publically, I don't know if I can ever forgive you for it. You knew what you were doing when you said it. No, I did not feel sheepish about the 'homophobic' comment I once made to you because it wasn't homophobic, it was a valid criticism of the gay community's relationship with women that needed to be said. Considering I'm a woman who'd suffered from this issue, I thought I was well within my rights to say so. And a homosexual mod found no issue with what I said and actually agreed with my sentiments. I have no problems with your orientation, I just thought you could stand to hear a problem your community has with its treatment of women that I was feeling that you were showing towards me.

Ah, yes, I can remember this quote now. It was a bit too far, I'll admit. I can't remember the exact wording of it but I think the quote gave the suggestion that she only gets praise based on her skin. That wasn't what I meant, so I retracted it. I simply meant to say that I felt critics have been very quick to praise black artists, especially of late, for songs that I didn't really feel were all that, partly due to white guilt. In comparison, it annoyed me when I saw genuinely good work from white artists (though not suggesting that only white artists can make good material) get mixed reception. Despite their work being just as multi-layered, intense and personal, if not moreso, as the work from black artists, the critics were weirdly failing to get it. I don't care who gives me good music, I just want it coming from someone. Gender, age, race, religion, public persona, etc. has no bearing on how I judge music (unless the artist puts any of this to the forefront in their music). I would never give an artist a better score because they were white like me. Nor would I give a black person a better score because they're an oppressed group. Good material is good material and I welcome it from anyone. But the music is all it should be decided on. And I sometimes think the critics brought too much politics into it to the point where they were scared to give a lower reception to a black artist. If I give a black artist a good score, it's for no other reason than for good music, and vice versa. When I hear a song from a black artist that is so obviously bad but critics give it good reviews, I really am flabbergasted. I understandably start wondering if they're bringing politics to the table. But for the record, I think some parts of Lemonade are really good. I think Beyonce deserved more Grammys from Lemonade than she got. I think the album rightfully got Best Urban Contemporary Album. Didn't look at all the nominees but Lemonade for Best Music Film would have been understandable. Freedom deserved Best Rap/Sung Performance. Again, didn't listen to all the nominees, but Don't Hurt Yourself would have been a good contender for Best Rock Performance because I think it's the best song from the album. I daresay elements of that song remind me of you and I. It's the song that comes to mind whenever we're at loggerheads these days.

well you already contradicted yourself in this very post. you say that sometimes you fail to research properly then proceed to tell me how terribly in depth you look into every little thing? what am I supposed to take away from that?

you also say how you do indeed read and properly take in everything I say then immediately misquote me. I didn't say the thought of you reading your homophobic comments aloud made you feel sheepish. I said it made me feel sheepish.

and we've been through this what feels like a hundred times but let me say this again; it wasn't the (arguably valid - which once again I have already said) mere observation of the prevalent misogyny in the gay community, it was you randomly pulling it out of your ass in the middle of an irrelevant conversation to shut down my entire point rather than addressing it. i lost respect for you in that moment and you continue to spout your ignorance when we get back into it which drives that home even further for me. particularly when you forever bring up the opinion of a single other gay man in order to invalidate me because of course all gay men must feel exactly the same way because we're all the same. you say I can't hear points made by you but you showed the utmost disrespect by ignoring my points and said the only reason I disagreed with you was due to my sexuality and therefore obviously a rampant woman-hater by default. that's homophobic, point blank.

"When I hear a song from a black artist that is so obviously bad but critics give it good reviews, I really am flabbergasted." - if you can't read this and understand why I think you have a holier-than-thou attitude that I completely despise then I don't know what to tell you. "my opinion of a song is negative and I can't possibly be wrong about it so the only reason other people like it is because this artist happens to be black". please.

February 21, 2017

17 hours ago, Harry said:

well you already contradicted yourself in this very post. you say that sometimes you fail to research properly then proceed to tell me how terribly in depth you look into every little thing? what am I supposed to take away from that?

you also say how you do indeed read and properly take in everything I say then immediately misquote me. I didn't say the thought of you reading your homophobic comments aloud made you feel sheepish. I said it made me feel sheepish.

and we've been through this what feels like a hundred times but let me say this again; it wasn't the (arguably valid - which once again I have already said) mere observation of the prevalent misogyny in the gay community, it was you randomly pulling it out of your ass in the middle of an irrelevant conversation to shut down my entire point rather than addressing it. i lost respect for you in that moment and you continue to spout your ignorance when we get back into it which drives that home even further for me. particularly when you forever bring up the opinion of a single other gay man in order to invalidate me because of course all gay men must feel exactly the same way because we're all the same. you say I can't hear points made by you but you showed the utmost disrespect by ignoring my points and said the only reason I disagreed with you was due to my sexuality and therefore obviously a rampant woman-hater by default. that's homophobic, point blank.

"When I hear a song from a black artist that is so obviously bad but critics give it good reviews, I really am flabbergasted." - if you can't read this and understand why I think you have a holier-than-thou attitude that I completely despise then I don't know what to tell you. "my opinion of a song is negative and I can't possibly be wrong about it so the only reason other people like it is because this artist happens to be black". please.

What I was trying to say was that I'm human and perfection isn't achievable. It's not like I'm writing these posts for a thesis that will be graded by an institution or anything. It's just observations that I put down in text on a fun forum. There's no need to treat it as if you're an official marking it under strict analysis. Chill out a bit and don't be so mad at somebody every time they slip up a little on the research front. We've all been there, we think we've done enough research, then somebody comes along and is all "You idiot, that study's been debunked!" Well, not everybody knows the exact web address to find to discover this. Not everything can even be found on the same search engine at the same time. Online research is a complicated thing and to be 100% accurate isn't really possible. So, yeah, I try my best, but I occasionally slip up or I might say something that I thought was a proven fact but I misunderstood it or things have been updated without my knowledge. We all do that. But in your eyes, I'm not allowed to make mistakes like everyone else.

I didn't misquote you, I took 2 angles on it. I addressed the idea that you would feel sheepish knowing that I've read aloud all the nasty things you've said to me. You then said that I should be the only feeling sheepish for the nasty things I said to you. So I said that I didn't feel sheepish about what I'd said to you because I didn't think it was nasty. What's to be misquoted?

I really wasn't trying to shut down your point. I vaguely remember saying it at the very end of the post, once I'd argued your point. Understand that I would never use a personal criticism as a trump card to win an argument. It was merely an afterthought, something that had been bubbling in me for a while, but I was too afraid to express, for fear that, as I suspected, people would think I was homophobic. Because you can't make a criticism, no matter how valid, towards any oppressed group nowadays without it being misunderstood as a prejudiced attack. There's a tendency to think: "It's society who has a problem with us, we have no problems of our own." But critical self-reflection in identifying and tackling these problems is the first step towards acceptance from outsiders. I'm a feminist who tries to instill this idea among other women, even though so many of them want to believe that women are perfect and it's everyone else that needs to change. I was trying to tell you something about your personality that you might not be aware of that you could think to change, that's all. And no, I don't think that all gay men think the same way but I think if you're going to go so far as to use the word "homophobic" chances are that other gays will agree with you. If things are so bad that you use extreme terms like that, you'd expect there to be more agreement. And I never said that the only reason that you disagreed with me was because of your sexual orientation breeding misogyny. Just that it could be one of many factors. And I gather why saying what I did made you upset, which is why I tried to phrase it as best I could and have apologised profusely ever since. And maybe I have got it wrong, maybe that doesn't apply to you after all (although I do think your views on feminism need to be seriously reviewed). But there are other reasons why I think you have a problem with me. I've said many a time that I think you're an arrogant person in general who doesn't like opinions that differ from your own. That, I believe, is the ultimate factor in your dislike of me.

No, I don't really say these things because I have a holier than thou attitude but because these songs possess no qualities that a music professional should be enjoying. There are so many bad trends going around in rap music right now. Mainly poor flow, laughably bad rhymes (rhyming a word with the same word especially), fragmented enunciation, tacky pop culture references and disrespectful songs about women. Anaconda, Trap Queen, Hotline Bling, Broccoli, Bad And Boujee, all that nonsense is actually winning praise from critics. These songs contain everything that should be a turn-off for a music professional. I can't stand them as a non-music professional, so what does it sound like to someone who's qualified in this business? I remember urban music being so much better when I heard it growing up. This new contemporary style is very hit and miss. The soul is gone, the energy is gone, the effort is gone. So, why are critics liking it? Well, I can't help but think that it's partly because, with black liberation being a hot topic right now, white critics are feeling a bit guilty and are determined to find something good in the music black artists are making, even if there's nothing good to found. I mean, wasn't it critics who said that the rap music of today isn't as good as the stuff from the 90's? Yet they continue to give bad rap albums from today consistently good reviews? Whenever I see genuinely good, well-crafted, artistically credible music that isn't getting good reviews, it annoys me, regardless of the race involved. But lately, what with the focus being so heavily on black artists, I've noticed a racial disparity that I never realised before. And that is that black artists consistently seem to get good reviews for their work, good or bad (and they'll definitely get good reviews if it involves the current trend of racial commentary), while white artists, regardless of how good their work is, seem to get much stricter reviews. And I was pleased to find that finally, someone on this site actually researched this claim and admitted I had a point. One person is a start and I know it's not just me who sees it. If you make good music, you should get praised. If you make bad music, you shouldn't get praised. I don't care what race you are. As Gaga would say: "Stop the drama, start the music."

February 21, 2017

13 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

What I was trying to say was that I'm human and perfection isn't achievable. It's not like I'm writing these posts for a thesis that will be graded by an institution or anything. It's just observations that I put down in text on a fun forum. There's no need to treat it as if you're an official marking it under strict analysis. Chill out a bit and don't be so mad at somebody every time they slip up a little on the research front. We've all been there, we think we've done enough research, then somebody comes along and is all "You idiot, that study's been debunked!" Well, not everybody knows the exact web address to find to discover this. Not everything can even be found on the same search engine at the same time. Online research is a complicated thing and to be 100% accurate isn't really possible. So, yeah, I try my best, but I occasionally slip up or I might say something that I thought was a proven fact but I misunderstood it or things have been updated without my knowledge. We all do that. But in your eyes, I'm not allowed to make mistakes like everyone else.

I didn't misquote you, I took 2 angles on it. I addressed the idea that you would feel sheepish knowing that I've read aloud all the nasty things you've said to me. You then said that I should be the only feeling sheepish for the nasty things I said to you. So I said that I didn't feel sheepish about what I'd said to you because I didn't think it was nasty. What's to be misquoted?

I really wasn't trying to shut down your point. I vaguely remember saying it at the very end of the post, once I'd argued your point. Understand that I would never use a personal criticism as a trump card to win an argument. It was merely an afterthought, something that had been bubbling in me for a while, but I was too afraid to express, for fear that, as I suspected, people would think I was homophobic. Because you can't make a criticism, no matter how valid, towards any oppressed group nowadays without it being misunderstood as a prejudiced attack. There's a tendency to think: "It's society who has a problem with us, we have no problems of our own." But critical self-reflection in identifying and tackling these problems is the first step towards acceptance from outsiders. I'm a feminist who tries to instill this idea among other women, even though so many of them want to believe that women are perfect and it's everyone else that needs to change. I was trying to tell you something about your personality that you might not be aware of that you could think to change, that's all. And no, I don't think that all gay men think the same way but I think if you're going to go so far as to use the word "homophobic" chances are that other gays will agree with you. If things are so bad that you use extreme terms like that, you'd expect there to be more agreement. And I never said that the only reason that you disagreed with me was because of your sexual orientation breeding misogyny. Just that it could be one of many factors. And I gather why saying what I did made you upset, which is why I tried to phrase it as best I could and have apologised profusely ever since. And maybe I have got it wrong, maybe that doesn't apply to you after all (although I do think your views on feminism need to be seriously reviewed). But there are other reasons why I think you have a problem with me. I've said many a time that I think you're an arrogant person in general who doesn't like opinions that differ from your own. That, I believe, is the ultimate factor in your dislike of me.

No, I don't really say these things because I have a holier than thou attitude but because these songs possess no qualities that a music professional should be enjoying. There are so many bad trends going around in rap music right now. Mainly poor flow, laughably bad rhymes (rhyming a word with the same word especially), fragmented enunciation, tacky pop culture references and disrespectful songs about women. Anaconda, Trap Queen, Hotline Bling, Broccoli, Bad And Boujee, all that nonsense is actually winning praise from critics. These songs contain everything that should be a turn-off for a music professional. I can't stand them as a non-music professional, so what does it sound like to someone who's qualified in this business? I remember urban music being so much better when I heard it growing up. This new contemporary style is very hit and miss. The soul is gone, the energy is gone, the effort is gone. So, why are critics liking it? Well, I can't help but think that it's partly because, with black liberation being a hot topic right now, white critics are feeling a bit guilty and are determined to find something good in the music black artists are making, even if there's nothing good to found. I mean, wasn't it critics who said that the rap music of today isn't as good as the stuff from the 90's? Yet they continue to give bad rap albums from today consistently good reviews? Whenever I see genuinely good, well-crafted, artistically credible music that isn't getting good reviews, it annoys me, regardless of the race involved. But lately, what with the focus being so heavily on black artists, I've noticed a racial disparity that I never realised before. And that is that black artists consistently seem to get good reviews for their work, good or bad (and they'll definitely get good reviews if it involves the current trend of racial commentary), while white artists, regardless of how good their work is, seem to get much stricter reviews. And I was pleased to find that finally, someone on this site actually researched this claim and admitted I had a point. One person is a start and I know it's not just me who sees it. If you make good music, you should get praised. If you make bad music, you shouldn't get praised. I don't care what race you are. As Gaga would say: "Stop the drama, start the music."

Me chill out? Lmao that's rich

Yes you did misquote me. "You then said that I should be the only feeling sheepish for the nasty things I said to you." Here's what I actually said;

20 hours ago, Harry said:

What does make me feel a little sheepish, however, is the thought of you reading out loud the homophobic comment you made against me and then thinking it acceptable to click the 'reply' button.

I didn't say anything about your feeling. Continuing to prove my theory that you do not accurately read what I say. You say "putting a different angle on it", I say being a manipulative liar. I know you quite enjoy telling people how they should feel, but it's not my style.

It was not an afterthought. That was the content of your post. It was an ignorant, offensive and prejudice comment.

I can't take differing opinions? You literally said in this exact same post out of NO WHERE that I need to change my views on feminism. What the ****? And you also still think you're the one person that's allowed to dictate what is "good" and "bad" music, and that any critic that disagrees is simply wrong - or full of white guilt, duh. You are so far up your own ass that you can't even see the irony in that. You don't deserve to call yourself an amateur critic or whatever because you can't even grasp the concept of subjectivity. Yet I'm the arrogant one, I can't accept other opinions... I generally get on with most people on this site and often have respectful and decent debates. You only think I'm arrogant because I think you're an asshole. But go off, I guess.

February 22, 2017

On 21/02/2017 at 6:16 PM, Harry said:

Me chill out? Lmao that's rich

Yes you did misquote me. "You then said that I should be the only feeling sheepish for the nasty things I said to you." Here's what I actually said;

I didn't say anything about your feeling. Continuing to prove my theory that you do not accurately read what I say. You say "putting a different angle on it", I say being a manipulative liar. I know you quite enjoy telling people how they should feel, but it's not my style.

It was not an afterthought. That was the content of your post. It was an ignorant, offensive and prejudice comment.

I can't take differing opinions? You literally said in this exact same post out of NO WHERE that I need to change my views on feminism. What the ****? And you also still think you're the one person that's allowed to dictate what is "good" and "bad" music, and that any critic that disagrees is simply wrong - or full of white guilt, duh. You are so far up your own ass that you can't even see the irony in that. You don't deserve to call yourself an amateur critic or whatever because you can't even grasp the concept of subjectivity. Yet I'm the arrogant one, I can't accept other opinions... I generally get on with most people on this site and often have respectful and decent debates. You only think I'm arrogant because I think you're an asshole. But go off, I guess.

I'm only like this when someone annoys me. If you're calm with me, I'll be calm with you.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I knew what you meant, I just didn't put it down properly. The repetition of the word 'sheepish' threw me off, leading me to leave out the word "one," after "only," as you can see. I knew that you were getting at the idea that I made you feel small by saying what I did, so I should be the one feeling sheepish - essentially "I shouldn't be the one feeling sheepish, it should be you for saying what you did." So I simply responded to this accusation by saying I didn't feel sheepish because I didn't think what I said was homophobic. You are desperately trying to twist my words and make me doubt myself. And I think you know that you're doing that.

Me, a manipulative liar? Well, I don't know about the liar part but I sure think you're manipulative, for the reason I just stated above. You love trying to catch people out and make them look like something they're not, it's not me you do it to. You just like to stir the pot for no reason. Almost everything you've ever quoted me for is regarding your over-analysis of a point I made, thinking it means more than it actually is, assuming I have an ulterior motive. We handled things semi-ok with the asexual analysis but other than that, you've steadfastly refused to understand what I'm trying to say. You're not interested in engaging with me over a neutral topic when I have quoted you in an attempt to be more friendly with you. You just want to argue.

Well, excuse me for reaching the end of my tether after all the horrible stuff you'd said to me, so I decided to ask the question that had been building up for a while. I've apologised many a time for it and still curse myself to this day that I did say it because it officially made you think less of me forever. If you push people to an certain extent, they find it more difficult to hold their tongue and things can come out too harshly. Don't act like you've never said something in anger that you later regretted. Also, don't act as if you've never said something that you thought would get accepted and it didn't get the reaction you were hoping for.

I'm telling you as a feminist woman, that you need to review some of your ideals of feminism, particularly, how you treat women (like me) who don't agree with you. I know many feminists would be shocked at the way you speak to me, the way you insult my intelligence, talk me round in circles to make me look stupid, spreading false rumours about me based on flimsy evidence, outing me as a virgin in a negative light in public (one of the biggest sins a man can make in the eyes of a feminist) and having a habit of picking on me whenever you get the chance. All from a man who claims to be a feminist. You want to be respected by feminists? Start by treating them with respect and calmly disagreeing with them if you have to. I'm not saying that I dictate what's good and bad, all I'm referring to is the objective part of hearing a song, picking up on the intricate, sonical qualities of it (hopefully) in the same way a critic might. I'm not professional but I try to approach it in the way a professional might. I like to think that I'm trying to be down-to-earth with what I hear, I'm not big on avant garde pretentiousness in music, I make my reviews in a no-nonsense way for the average person who only has limited money to spend on an album and wants to hear good quality for that money. Professional critics clearly have a different agenda when making their reviews, a way that doesn't translate well to the public, which is why I see so many negative reviews of albums by people who bought it on the strength of the critics reviews. I don't think I'm better than the professionals, I just think they have reasons why they say some of the stuff they do, specifically, payola. We know it happens, it's just that it's not really documented. And as we've seen with reviews of Gaga's recent material, not all critics respect the concept of "judge the music, not the artist." This is why I struggle to respect some critics.

You have respectful debates? I rarely see that. And I don't just see your arrogance taken out on me. You have a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with you and you get very aggressive when challenged, even when the other person is calm. I have the feeling you're the type of person who, as my mum would say: "could start an argument in an empty house."

February 22, 2017

Sorry, Lemonade was just no AOTY worthy. The songs are just not that great. Adele deserved it

February 23, 2017

4 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm only like this when someone annoys me. If you're calm with me, I'll be calm with you.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I knew what you meant, I just didn't put it down properly. The repetition of the word 'sheepish' threw me off, leading me to leave out the word "one," after "only," as you can see. I knew that you were getting at the idea that I made you feel small by saying what I did, so I should be the one feeling sheepish - essentially "I shouldn't be the one feeling sheepish, it should be you for saying what you did." So I simply responded to this accusation by saying I didn't feel sheepish because I didn't think what I said was homophobic. You are desperately trying to twist my words and make me doubt myself. And I think you know that you're doing that.

Me, a manipulative liar? Well, I don't know about the liar part but I sure think you're manipulative, for the reason I just stated above. You love trying to catch people out and make them look like something they're not, it's not me you do it to. You just like to stir the pot for no reason. Almost everything you've ever quoted me for is regarding your over-analysis of a point I made, thinking it means more than it actually is, assuming I have an ulterior motive. We handled things semi-ok with the asexual analysis but other than that, you've steadfastly refused to understand what I'm trying to say. You're not interested in engaging with me over a neutral topic when I have quoted you in an attempt to be more friendly with you. You just want to argue.

Well, excuse me for reaching the end of my tether after all the horrible stuff you'd said to me, so I decided to ask the question that had been building up for a while. I've apologised many a time for it and still curse myself to this day that I did say it because it officially made you think less of me forever. If you push people to an certain extent, they find it more difficult to hold their tongue and things can come out too harshly. Don't act like you've never said something in anger that you later regretted. Also, don't act as if you've never said something that you thought would get accepted and it didn't get the reaction you were hoping for.

I'm telling you as a feminist woman, that you need to review some of your ideals of feminism, particularly, how you treat women (like me) who don't agree with you. I know many feminists would be shocked at the way you speak to me, the way you insult my intelligence, talk me round in circles to make me look stupid, spreading false rumours about me based on flimsy evidence, outing me as a virgin in a negative light in public (one of the biggest sins a man can make in the eyes of a feminist) and having a habit of picking on me whenever you get the chance. All from a man who claims to be a feminist. You want to be respected by feminists? Start by treating them with respect and calmly disagreeing with them if you have to. I'm not saying that I dictate what's good and bad, all I'm referring to is the objective part of hearing a song, picking up on the intricate, sonical qualities of it (hopefully) in the same way a critic might. I'm not professional but I try to approach it in the way a professional might. I like to think that I'm trying to be down-to-earth with what I hear, I'm not big on avant garde pretentiousness in music, I make my reviews in a no-nonsense way for the average person who only has limited money to spend on an album and wants to hear good quality for that money. Professional critics clearly have a different agenda when making their reviews, a way that doesn't translate well to the public, which is why I see so many negative reviews of albums by people who bought it on the strength of the critics reviews. I don't think I'm better than the professionals, I just think they have reasons why they say some of the stuff they do, specifically, payola. We know it happens, it's just that it's not really documented. And as we've seen with reviews of Gaga's recent material, not all critics respect the concept of "judge the music, not the artist." This is why I struggle to respect some critics.

You have respectful debates? I rarely see that. And I don't just see your arrogance taken out on me. You have a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with you and you get very aggressive when challenged, even when the other person is calm. I have the feeling you're the type of person who, as my mum would say: "could start an argument in an empty house."

I'm twisting your words? You literally twisted my words and you just explained how you did so. You misquoted me, whether intentionally or not, and I said that's what you did. How is that twisting anything? You misinterpreted what I said and in turn accused me of doing something I wasn't. If anything, you're the only one twisting things here.

Not true. You always quote me first, and it's always to do with topics that we always butt heads on. You always quote me disagreeing with everything I say and then act surprised when it ends up like this. No, I'm not really interested in engaging with you. Because you're clearly intent on kicking up an argument with me. If you really thought I was arrogant, manipulative, a bully etc and all the other things you've branded me, you'd steer clear of me. You can't help but click the 'quote' button and stir things up with me, and I'm really interested as to why that is. You must be really fascinated by me.

So now you're finally admitting that you were angry and thus made a comment of a prejudice nature in order to knock me back a little?

Um guess what I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equality for both genders. If a man talks as much **** to me as you have, I deal with him in the exact same way with no question about it. I detest the idea that because someone is a woman I have to treat them with an extra layer of sensitivity as if they can't handle reality. That's the opposite of feminism in my eyes. It's sad that you seem to think you deserve special treatment because of your gender, but I don't work that way. Equality means equality always, not occasionally. I didn't out you as a virgin. You did that yourself, several times too - hence I knew about it. And also thought you were comfortable - since you had publicly shared it. If you're ashamed of that, which you shouldn't be, don't write about it online for the world to see I guess? I don't feel the need to be accepted by feminists. I know my views and I know I have good intentions. If you want to disagree, then that's fine.

Well that simply isn't true. I'm actually a pretty centred person, rational, and have a decent perspective. I don't feel the need to post my sob story like you do to get sympathy and play the victim in the midst of an argument - and I won't - but you just don't know me. Simple as that. If you want to keep repeating that you think I'm aggressive and arrogant, then by all means knock yourself out. I'll still sleep tonight.

February 23, 2017

20 hours ago, Harry said:

I'm twisting your words? You literally twisted my words and you just explained how you did so. You misquoted me, whether intentionally or not, and I said that's what you did. How is that twisting anything? You misinterpreted what I said and in turn accused me of doing something I wasn't. If anything, you're the only one twisting things here.

Not true. You always quote me first, and it's always to do with topics that we always butt heads on. You always quote me disagreeing with everything I say and then act surprised when it ends up like this. No, I'm not really interested in engaging with you. Because you're clearly intent on kicking up an argument with me. If you really thought I was arrogant, manipulative, a bully etc and all the other things you've branded me, you'd steer clear of me. You can't help but click the 'quote' button and stir things up with me, and I'm really interested as to why that is. You must be really fascinated by me.

So now you're finally admitting that you were angry and thus made a comment of a prejudice nature in order to knock me back a little?

Um guess what I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equality for both genders. If a man talks as much **** to me as you have, I deal with him in the exact same way with no question about it. I detest the idea that because someone is a woman I have to treat them with an extra layer of sensitivity as if they can't handle reality. That's the opposite of feminism in my eyes. It's sad that you seem to think you deserve special treatment because of your gender, but I don't work that way. Equality means equality always, not occasionally. I didn't out you as a virgin. You did that yourself, several times too - hence I knew about it. And also thought you were comfortable - since you had publicly shared it. If you're ashamed of that, which you shouldn't be, don't write about it online for the world to see I guess? I don't feel the need to be accepted by feminists. I know my views and I know I have good intentions. If you want to disagree, then that's fine.

Well that simply isn't true. I'm actually a pretty centred person, rational, and have a decent perspective. I don't feel the need to post my sob story like you do to get sympathy and play the victim in the midst of an argument - and I won't - but you just don't know me. Simple as that. If you want to keep repeating that you think I'm aggressive and arrogant, then by all means knock yourself out. I'll still sleep tonight.

Twisting words is something conscious and I wasn't doing it consciously, so I wasn't twisting words. If I did misquote you, it was accidental and yet you automatically assumed the worst of me, as usual. You need to stop assuming the worst of people when they make honest mistakes.

I do not always quote you first. You have quoted me a handful of times. I was actually making an effort to avoid doing all that as of late, except in a positive way but I just had to say something this time. If you're going to nitpick, I'll do the same. I do not always do it and there are some times I did it where I was trying to be civil so you could see a side to me that wasn't always argumentative. I'm genuinely trying to introduce you to another way of thinking whenever I do quote you, my arguing always has a purpose, it's never done for the sake of it. I keep quoting you because I do indeed find you fascinating. You're clearly very intelligent, so your posts are always engaging. But because you're so intelligent, I think you, if anyone, would be open to different theories and are driven to expand your own. I know I'm interested in any ways that someone can change my mind, even if I ultimately don't agree, for then I am more sure of my own opinion. I am also fascinated by your dislike of me and where it all started because I was never mean to you, you came along one day and started being mean to me. Not that this concept is knew to me - I've had people like this being drawn to me all my life. But it still hurts when it happens. And I'm trying to hard to make you see that you've got me all wrong because I want the most accurate possible image of me. I'm also genuinely interested in talking with you about music, but you've utterly refused as I'm apparently not educated enough in it, therefore not good enough to discuss it with you (that seems a bit snobbish). I'm still waiting on your response to my analysis of Fergie's video and why it did a disservice to feminism because I think it was a great analysis that I was very proud of and one that resonates with a lot of feminists. But you never responded and I was more than a bit bummed out by that. So, yeah, I keep trying to talk to you because, well...I'm a bit of a masochist, to say the least. I kinda like being in pain. It's the answer I give to anyone who asks why I listen to all music, even the stuff I hate. It just feels weirdly enjoyable and negative reviews are fun to write, much more fun than positive ones.

I wasn't making a point of prejudice, but I was making a point in anger, all the same. I wouldn't have said it had you not pushed me to the limit. You admitted yourself that my criticism was valid (therefore, you don't think it's inherently prejudiced), you just didn't think it was accurate when applied to you. If I truly didn't like the gays, do you think I'd still be trying to converse with you? Or be on a Gaga forum? Similarly, if I truly didn't like black people, do you think I'd be bothering to listen to their music and in some cases praise it? Or cite certain ones as beautiful and handsome? Or actively try to befriend them? Or defend them if I think they were a genuine victim of any kind of prejudice? I saw Hidden Figures on Tuesday by the way - great movie. Came out of the cinema and got the book it was based on in Asda.

I fully support your decision to treat women the same as men in an argument. I do the same. I make it very clear that I want women to have the same rights, not better rights, that I want to be treated the same, not better. We don't want to be worshipped, we just want to be free of oppression. However...until we're a bit closer to actually achieving that equality, you should be a bit more careful with what you say. I know this isn't coming across through a screen, obviously, but I don't like it when men shout at us, we're not used to that and find it very threatening. It also hurts so much more when a man calls us a nasty name than when a woman does. I can hold my own against a woman, but with a man, they find it so much easier to speak over me, to drown me out. You aren't aware of just how much men have given me trouble throughout my life, they've bullied me and put me down, yet I still strive to impress them, I still want one as a life partner, I still go on respecting them. It comes with the territory when you're a woman. And bear in mind that I think men should be treated better too. I don't mindlessly trash a man in an argument either. Humanity needs to move forward so we stop making such low blows towards each other regardless of the genders involved. Yes, I have admitted my virginity several times before but not everyone knows and I hadn't mentioned it in that particular thread. I pick and choose when to announce it and this wasn't the moment. You choose to announce it for me, completely unrelated to the topic at hand and said that my virginity meant I wasn't worth listening to and that I was jealous of any woman who felt confident with her sexuality. That is hands down one of the most sexist things I have ever seen and the most sexist thing anyone has ever said about me. I've never truly forgiven you for it and it meant I stopped taking your views on feminism so seriously as you clearly can't connect with women's thoughts and motivations. I'm not ashamed of it (but depressed, most certainly), but I am wary of mentioning it in case someone does laugh at me. Luckily, no one had ever taken issue with it until then, so it hit me like a ton of bricks and I cried that night. You call yourself a feminist but don't feel the need to be accepted by them? Isn't that an oxymoron? Well, I know my anti-racism views and I know I have good intentions, but that's not good enough for you, apparently. Again, you seem to operate under a different rule system to me.

Maybe your online persona comes across differently then. I daresay mine does too. I don't post sob stories to get sympathy, I do it because it's real, it's what I'm feeling and I wear my heart on my sleeve as holding it all in isn't healthy. Sometimes, people need to know some back story to fully understand a person. Well, if I don't know you, can I rightfully say that you don't know me either?

February 23, 2017

27 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Twisting words is something conscious and I wasn't doing it consciously, so I wasn't twisting words. If I did misquote you, it was accidental and yet you automatically assumed the worst of me, as usual. You need to stop assuming the worst of people when they make honest mistakes.

I do not always quote you first. You have quoted me a handful of times. I was actually making an effort to avoid doing all that as of late, except in a positive way but I just had to say something this time. If you're going to nitpick, I'll do the same. I do not always do it and there are some times I did it where I was trying to be civil so you could see a side to me that wasn't always argumentative. I'm genuinely trying to introduce you to another way of thinking whenever I do quote you, my arguing always has a purpose, it's never done for the sake of it. I keep quoting you because I do indeed find you fascinating. You're clearly very intelligent, so your posts are always engaging. But because you're so intelligent, I think you, if anyone, would be open to different theories and are driven to expand your own. I know I'm interested in any ways that someone can change my mind, even if I ultimately don't agree, for then I am more sure of my own opinion. I am also fascinated by your dislike of me and where it all started because I was never mean to you, you came along one day and started being mean to me. Not that this concept is knew to me - I've had people like this being drawn to me all my life. But it still hurts when it happens. And I'm trying to hard to make you see that you've got me all wrong because I want the most accurate possible image of me. I'm also genuinely interested in talking with you about music, but you've utterly refused as I'm apparently not educated enough in it, therefore not good enough to discuss it with you (that seems a bit snobbish). I'm still waiting on your response to my analysis of Fergie's video and why it did a disservice to feminism because I think it was a great analysis that I was very proud of and one that resonates with a lot of feminists. But you never responded and I was more than a bit bummed out by that. So, yeah, I keep trying to talk to you because, well...I'm a bit of a masochist, to say the least. I kinda like being in pain. It's the answer I give to anyone who asks why I listen to all music, even the stuff I hate. It just feels weirdly enjoyable and negative reviews are fun to write, much more fun than positive ones.

I wasn't making a point of prejudice, but I was making a point in anger, all the same. I wouldn't have said it had you not pushed me to the limit. You admitted yourself that my criticism was valid (therefore, you don't think it's inherently prejudiced), you just didn't think it was accurate when applied to you. If I truly didn't like the gays, do you think I'd still be trying to converse with you? Or be on a Gaga forum? Similarly, if I truly didn't like black people, do you think I'd be bothering to listen to their music and in some cases praise it? Or cite certain ones as beautiful and handsome? Or actively try to befriend them? Or defend them if I think they were a genuine victim of any kind of prejudice? I saw Hidden Figures on Tuesday by the way - great movie. Came out of the cinema and got the book it was based on in Asda.

I fully support your decision to treat women the same as men in an argument. I do the same. I make it very clear that I want women to have the same rights, not better rights, that I want to be treated the same, not better. We don't want to be worshipped, we just want to be free of oppression. However...until we're a bit closer to actually achieving that equality, you should be a bit more careful with what you say. I know this isn't coming across through a screen, obviously, but I don't like it when men shout at us, we're not used to that and find it very threatening. It also hurts so much more when a man calls us a nasty name than when a woman does. I can hold my own against a woman, but with a man, they find it so much easier to speak over me, to drown me out. You aren't aware of just how much men have given me trouble throughout my life, they've bullied me and put me down, yet I still strive to impress them, I still want one as a life partner, I still go on respecting them. It comes with the territory when you're a woman. And bear in mind that I think men should be treated better too. I don't mindlessly trash a man in an argument either. Humanity needs to move forward so we stop making such low blows towards each other regardless of the genders involved. Yes, I have admitted my virginity several times before but not everyone knows and I hadn't mentioned it in that particular thread. I pick and choose when to announce it and this wasn't the moment. You choose to announce it for me, completely unrelated to the topic at hand and said that my virginity meant I wasn't worth listening to and that I was jealous of any woman who felt confident with her sexuality. That is hands down one of the most sexist things I have ever seen and the most sexist thing anyone has ever said about me. I've never truly forgiven you for it and it meant I stopped taking your views on feminism so seriously as you clearly can't connect with women's thoughts and motivations. I'm not ashamed of it (but depressed, most certainly), but I am wary of mentioning it in case someone does laugh at me. Luckily, no one had ever taken issue with it until then, so it hit me like a ton of bricks and I cried that night. You call yourself a feminist but don't feel the need to be accepted by them? Isn't that an oxymoron? Well, I know my anti-racism views and I know I have good intentions, but that's not good enough for you, apparently. Again, you seem to operate under a different rule system to me.

Maybe your online persona comes across differently then. I daresay mine does too. I don't post sob stories to get sympathy, I do it because it's real, it's what I'm feeling and I wear my heart on my sleeve as holding it all in isn't healthy. Sometimes, people need to know some back story to fully understand a person. Well, if I don't know you, can I rightfully say that you don't know me either?

So you can say that I'm twisting your words but the minute I say it to you I'm "assuming the worst"? When you actually were completely misquoting me and making an entire point out of that false claim? Even when I corrected you once or twice and you still insisted without bothering to check? Seems a bit dumb to me.

Well I don't think that's true. I don't think I've quoted you in a long time. I normally try and avoid these conversations between us because they go nowhere. I perfectly understand your ways of thinking and I hear them loud and clear, they just aren't revolutionary or new to me and I just generally don't like them. I think you're a bit more traditional than me.

I didn't admit the criticism was valid. I said that sexism is indeed rampant within the community of gay males - not that it isn't with straight males as well, but in a different ways. But it had nothing to do with that conversation that we were having. You decided to bring it up as a way to shut down and dismiss my argument. To me that's the same as me accusing you of homophobia if you disagreed with me on a conversation completely unrelated to sexuality. Ironically it reminds me of the kind of argument you've been making in regards to the original subject matter of this thread, the whole "race card" thing. Feels like you were pulling a certain card to me just to shut me up a bit, and yes it felt homophobic. You talk to me about double standards and operating under a different rule system, but you dismiss my issue with your homophobic comment as plainly as "of course I like gays, I'm on a Lady Gaga forum, aren't I!?", well... If I was so sexist would I be on a Lady Gaga forum? Would I be conversing with you? Would most of my close relationships be with women? Apparently that's sufficient evidence to prove oneself as non-prejudice in your eyes, so I must be in the clear now - right?

Well you know what as much as it's an unfortunate position, that's really not up to me to deal with. It's you. You say you wanted to be treated the same, then say in the very same passage that actually you don't want to be treated the same. You do want to be treated slightly better. No. That's not equality. I understand that kind of relationship with men, and I am not "yelling" at you, nor am I "mindlessly trashing" you. Sounds harsh but I feel like if you currently see women as weaker and less than men - which is totally what it sounds like - then that's on you and it's your perspective that might need a review... I don't feel that way, it's not my perspective. I understand that generally that is how society sees it, but I hardly think perpetuating that idea by sugar-coating everything specially for women is the answer. I'm actually really surprised that you said that as that doesn't seem to be very feminist at all, and now suddenly all your conservative views make sense to me.

Well yes it wasn't brought up with much tact, I can - and already have - admit that. And apologised for it. I don't expect you to be cool with it as per your reaction but there we go. I can see why you thought it was sexist but as someone that looks as sexuality and gender pretty fluidly, I don't really see the matter of virginity as a man/woman/sexism kinda deal and that's really what it comes down to for me. It was regretful that you didn't react well to that but I naturally assumed that you were happy to discuss it since I'd seen you bring it up fairly casually several times. But like I say, I can see now why it would come across that way to you but it really wasn't meant as a dig but a genuine explanation.

Oxymoron? Perhaps, but not really. Why is it? There are so many different definitions of feminism it seems today, many subsections that I disagree with - clearly we butt heads on it, for example you want women to be treated with an extra layer of respect and sensitivity whereas my belief is pretty simple and can be summed up in a word - equals.

Well we do know each other. I meant that in relation to you sharing your sob stories at every opportunity at a bid for sympathy whilst I don't. But it's not black and white, we don't know each other too well but we clearly do to an extent. Enough to have a dislike for each other.

Sign In

Solange blasts Grammys after Beyonce lost AOTY

Featured Posts

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Gaga Monster 13,001

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond 14,924

Link to post

Share on other sites

Harry 26,836

Link to post

Share on other sites

Archived

Themes