Hey. New blog post.
but I reckon a lot of you might've seen this already...
I've noticed that a lot of the music you like has ladies involved in it; have you got any views on gender and stuff in music?
I've written in the past that in rock/indie music, because the male experience has been so well documented, only rock/indie music made by females has any value. Obviously, this doesn't apply in all cases, but I still feel that it mostly holds true. for more along these lines, check this thread out...
I don't think i agree with all of what you're saying, but i'm more sympathetic to what i've read so far than i thought i would be.
"...only rock/indie music made by females has any value."
Early nomination for "Most Retarded Opinion of the Day" award.
P.S. Cobbling together a bunch of unreadable tripe enthusing about what my redneck aquaintances gleefully term "Eurotrash Art-Faggotry" - in this instance, a band you've actually recommended that you don't listen to more than once = Spam.
"I've written in the past that in rock/indie music, because the male experience has been so well documented, only rock/indie music made by females has any value. Obviously, this doesn't apply in all cases, but I still feel that it mostly holds true. for more along these lines, check this thread out...
I've had that series c and p'd into a word document and sat on my desktop to read for ages now... maybe tonight. A few points -
Can you foresee a day when gender equality has reached such a level that comments like "the male experience has been so well documented, only rock/indie music made by females has any value" become completely unacceptable?
Given that you have used the term rock/indie does that mean that a male hip hop artist could sing about the same thing as an indie artist and yet the hip hop artist is producing valid music and the indie artist isn't? Would this still apply if the hip hop artist was proding sub-de la sould daisy age nonsense whilst the indie chappie was genuinely being inventive musically? Or is rock/ indie definitively no longer inventive?
I divide rock/indie along two lines. Recorded music and live music. With so many amazing historical bands around for me to explore I find it hard to justify buying much new stuff. (For example however good the new Arctic Monkeys album is should I really buy it when I am missing a couple of Husker DU albums). With live music it is different. I can't go see Husker Du, so I have to see some current noisy alternative rock band. Now surely there are 17 year old boys out there who have never been to an alternative gig in their life. Surely - however derivative and pointless and repeating old ground their 19 year old heroes records are - that 17 year old has the right to go out and see noisy, live rock n roll, and if that is produced by blokes who are repeating the stories of the male experience so what? That 17 year old has never had that story told in a live environment.
...you clearly don't understand even the first thing about listening to music, and you probably ought to stop now, do the rest of us a favour.
nice to know you've got redneck acquaintances, too. what do you do, come a Friday evening? invite 'em round for a shandy and discuss casual misogyny?
Fuck off, you patronising has-been. Your articles are shit.
a) If there's one term that could never be misogynistic, it's "faggotry". Fail.
b) Discussing misogyny is something you can pretty much guarantee misogynists never do. Fail.
c) It's nice to have confirmation that these articles aren't a wind up and you actually are that delusional. Suffice to say, what I listen to tends to actually be music, as opposed to the hipster wankery you seem to believe needs greater publicity.
d) I believe I mastered the critical technique of filling the space where insight and ideas should be with "It's like [douchey artist] is like [other douchey artist] doing [something douchey], motherfucker!" years ago.
I've often found that homophobia and misogyny go hand-in-hand.
But perhaps you and your redneck friends know better. Do you have any racist friends to add to the pile? What a lovely person you must be.
Please don't bother letting me know.
"I've often found that homophobia and misogyny go hand-in-hand."
I guess that would excuse you from needing to know the difference between the two concepts, then...
While I recognise that you're a big fan of the 'talk-to-the-hand' style of conversation, there is something I'd be interested to know: How you've determined that the term 'faggotry' as used here can only in this case refer to the sexuality of the maker of a piece of music, rather than a euphemistic term evoking the style and execution of that music - which is how I took it when I first heard the phrase.
Indeed, the term 'art-fag' which this phrase stems from, is more often applied to women and straight men than it is to solely gay men at any rate.
As a professional writer, you should have been able to decode this.
...to TV Ghost right now, and clicked the video link (which I watched on mute). By the powers of observation, namely being able to lipsynch the harmonies, notice the glances downwards, and look of indie shyness, I turned up TV Ghost and pressed stop on youtube.
Everyones a critic.
Dude, I've been checking. This isn't the first time you've used "gay" or "faggot" or similar as a put-down on the DiS message boards. Not by any means.
I don't really believe you have redneck friends, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think you're another sad 20-something indie boy who likes to talk tough on message boards, safe in your anonymity.
Stay the fuck away from me, homophobic asshole.
Interesting. If you actually have been checking, it should be easy to provide some examples of me being homophobic to someone - (NB: I don't think me calling someone gay because they didn't like a particular Arnie movie should count, but I'm happy to discuss this). Furthermore, if you really, really have been checking, you'll have seen that this isn't the first time I've referred to this phrase and it's origins.
Lastly, I wasn't aware any of my posts on this thread came under the 'tough-talking' banner. If I was of that persuasion however, I doubt it would do any good from an anonymity point of view, as a good number of people here already know me personally. A few even know where I live.
So I guess for you: Still Fail.
P.S. If I actually had come up with "Eurotrash Art-Fag Liberals", I would claim the credit. It's a wonderfully evocative term that has a great dual purpose in revealing the mindset and character of the user while simultaneously sending up that of target - which makes it ideal for satire. It may be crude, but it's a beaut.
For some reason your reply didn't show up on my screen before.
Re: Can you foresee a day when gender equality has reached such a level that comments like "the male experience has been so well documented, only rock/indie music made by females has any value" become completely unacceptable?
The comment I made was specific to a certain type of music (as you picked up on in the next paragraph). The gender imbalance isn't the same everywhere, clearly - just that in rock music (an artform, lest we forget, set up by and for males, along male lines and utilising male forms of expression) and by inference "indie" music, there's still a massive disparity. Will this always remain the same? Well... nothing always remains the same, but for this to be corrected you'd be looking at five decades of music being created almost exclusively by females to rectify the balance. You think this is going to happen? Me neither.
Again, with hip-hip vs rock... it's a matter of balance. Female experience is still more interesting in hip-hop because it hasn't been as well documented, but hip-hop hasn't been around as long as rock so the pantheon isn't as well-established. So there isn't (quite) as much of an imbalance.
I completely sympathise with the way you divide rock/indie music into live/recorded. I have done similar for many years now.
Incidentally, I wasn't suggesting that ALL rock/indie created by males is automatically invalid nowadays. Clearly that's not true. Just that you have an artform that has excluded over half the world's population from its shared experience for 50 years now...
I explain quite a bit of this better (and some a whole lot worse) in the linked Riot Grrrl thread above
... is just coming across as a bit of a wanker here. Not sure what everyone else thinks. Maybe its because I'm a girl. I don't think his posts warrant any kind of intelligent reply because they are absurdly cocky and wanky. He's like the music message boards equivalent of the Have Your Sayers on the BBC or Daily Mail message boards. See Charlie Brookers comments in the Guardian:
"if (for example) you're a uniquely inadequate, unfulfilled and unattractive sort of man, and the article you're reading happens to have been written by a woman – any woman – you can vent your annoyance in a series of inadvertently revealing messages, then masturbate into a sock. (This describes 33% of all messages on all news websites. Check if you don't believe me.)"
And before it is pointed out that Everett is not a woman, I know. I was merely illustrating a point about a certain type of person...
oh my god, it takes skill to break to break down a 'professional' writer to the degree that he starts new accounts to defend himself.
high five stealthy. high five.
Easy enough to verify or not, I'd imagine. I've NEVER felt the need to hide behind false identities. Unlike... um... 99.95% of people here.
(The reason you might find a sudden influx of new posters is because I linked this thread onto Facebook and Twitter. Why? I don't appreciate homophobia, whatever form it takes.)
the 'homophobia' accusation is rly, rly cheap. you've throw a lot of insults stealthys way this thread, and he's batted them down, one by one. i for one look forward to him dismantling this and making you out to be the hack you're presenting yourself to be.
you've become a poor mans kissinginkansas, and as someone who supposedly does this for a living... me oh my, where is the justice? not only that, but now trying to pretend you're only linking this thread everywhere because you're appalled at imagined homophobia?! at least be honest with us, and apparently, with yourself.
lurk a bit on 4chan man, you might learn some tricks of the trade
(I'm no Dt. Brusma, and I'm not going to investigate further)
Enjoying the bant between Stalthy and ET here
oh dear lord, i hope she's at least trolling
"Maybe its because I'm a girl" :''D sounds like something creakyknees or gs3 when theyre pretending to be women would say
im just going to stop replying now so stealthy can have a free run of this tomorrow :D
you just click the reply button to reply to. make sense?
"I've NEVER felt the need to hide behind false identities."
I find this hard to believe, given that 'Everett True' isn't even your real name.
But have ZERO problem throwing the word retard around.
Using the process of inference you've used, I guess it must be because you think people with mental and leanring difficulties aren't really people
We live in a misogynisic and homophobic world, which means that phrases like 'art-fag' - whilst actually quite descriptive, and theoretically possible to be used in a harmless way - are totally unacceptable. As is the trend for using "Gay" to mean bad.
Try googling art-fag and see how many people using the term are lovely, reasonable people. And how many are clearly bigots. Try using the urban dictionary and tell me whether you believe that the art-fag entry backs up your case that it is harmless.
You might just be a reasonable person who uses the odd word and phrase thoughtlessly. I certainly do sometimes. I'm not perfect. But that is something to fight against if you want to align yourself with the reasonable and distance yourself from the scum of the earth.
You have rubbed yourself all over with shit and sat in a toilet, and you're wondering why some people want to pull the chain.
personally, the form of homophobia i'm most concerned about is when a person (let's call them a "homophobe") dislikes or discriminates against a person because of their sexuality. The form where somebody uses a word associated with homophobia, with no clear homophobic intent, whilst using the richly deep and varied and ever changing form of communication that is the English language.. yeah, sometimes i wouldn't pay that as much attention. In fact, if you judged someone on the basis of such word usage alone you could be accused of being as superficial as the evil homophobes that you rail against. Think about that whilst you type out another faggoty response to this thread
... unless you know 100% how your words will effect everyone who reads them then you risk upsetting, hurting, depressing people. If that is a chance that you are prepared to take then that is your choice, but don't expect me to like you for it.
Secondly, to use ETs words - you are either with us or against us. You are either fighting bigotry or you are part of the problem. You are part of the problem.
Thirdly... look at the urban dictionary definition of art-fag and tell me it is harmless.
I think an us vs them attitude to anyone who doesn’t share your stringent semantic code (even, gasp.. non-homophobes) coupled with an extreme humourlessness might be far more damaging to the plight of the homosexual rights movement than somebody using the word “art-fag”.
Just look at me for example – before I started reading this thread I loved gays. Now I’m not so sure…
Because with the last line of that post you've just done it. Things get a little heated and you're immediately generalising and stereotyping..
but i THINK that bit was supposed to be a joke. You might have to just give me the benefit of the doubt
I actually did go to the urb-dic definition for that term just now and was pleasantly surprise to note that the first entry pretty much replicates exactly what I've said about it on this thread already - specifically that it doesn't necessarily refer to gay men at all. One of the entries in fact, explicitely states that art-fags are girls! So I can't imagine what you hoped to achieve by directing me there.
Moreover, I'm not trying to say the term was harmless. I know full well it's pejorative in nature - which, when you think about it, is why it was used in the first place.
Lastly: "Given that you have used the term rock/indie does that mean that a male hip hop artist could sing about the same thing as an indie artist and yet the hip hop artist is producing valid music and the indie artist isn't?" - You wrote this abomination of a sentence wilfully and without thought for the conventions of the English language or the minds of innocent readers; and one day you will get your comeuppance - much in the same way Everett True is now getting HIS comeuppance in the form of being defended by retards.
... was nothing to do with the definition (which is clear and does get it's point across - if homophobia was not an issue the term would be a good one) and everything to do with the sorts of people who seem to use it. Bigots and idiots seem to be the ones who happen to want to go online and define the term, I can only assume that the term is generally used by bigots and idiots.
"Moreover, I'm not trying to say the term was harmless. I know full well it's pejorative in nature - which, when you think about it, is why it was used in the first place."
So let me get this straight, you used a term that incorporates a slang term for homosexuality that has often been used by homophobes, in a way that is meant to criticise? Pretty much the definition of homophobia.
'Bigots and idiots seem to be the ones who happen to want to go online and define the term, I can only assume that the term is generally used by bigots and idiots.'
Replace 'define' with 'needlessly, pointlessly and ultimately fruitlessly argue about'.
... absolutely everything that is wrong with the world. Standing up for what is right is the absolute point of everything. You are a fool and you listen to Radiohead.
'Standing up for what is right is the absolute point of everything'. Amazing stuff.
I do quite like 'Let Down', actually.
Your claim that your point was nothing to do with the definition of the term would carry more weight if you hadn't written this: "look at the urban dictionary definition of art-fag". But I also see that you seem to be asking me to accept that the people writing those definitions are homophobes (because only a homophobe would write anything using the word 'fag' in the first place - because 'fag' is homophobic). Putting aside this circular reasoning, the fact remains that not only were those definitions clear that the term didn't necessarily apply to gay people at all, but the words used appeared to be clear of any homophobic content at all - save for actually using the word 'fag'.
Indeed, as I see it, the term 'fag' is just as often used by gays themselves to refer to a certain mode of behaviour, which is what is being alluded to when you see the term being used to describe things that are patantly non-sexual - like clothing, or in this case, a style of music. Moreover, that means that even gays themselves are aware of the shift from 'fag' meaning 'just gay' to 'fag' as describing a certain quality that may be present in gay people, but crucially can be applied to other things as well.
Not that this is particularly relevent to anything I was saying yesterday: Your problem now is that your argument rests on the term 'fag' remaining a word unchanged in definition AND being a word whose meaning has undergone a subtle shift. You can't have it both ways.
You said “Your claim that your point was nothing to do with the definition of the term would carry more weight if you hadn't written this: "look at the urban dictionary definition of art-fag".
I said "look at the urban dictionary definition of art-fag" because of definitions given like “A pretentious, often rich and/or bored young person, usually "bisexual", with a form of mental disorder which both males and females with short hair and undercuts” (sic), not to help you with the definition. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but I reckon if I was at school with the retard who posted that and was a little bit camp, arty and sensitive I might end up on the end of some bullying. God forbid if I actually was gay and in the guy’s class.
You said “But I also see that you seem to be asking me to accept that the people writing those definitions are homophobes (because only a homophobe would write anything using the word 'fag' in the first place - because 'fag' is homophobic).”
Not what I said or meant.
You said – “Indeed, as I see it, the term 'fag' is just as often used by gays themselves to refer to a certain mode of behaviour, which is what is being alluded to when you see the term being used to describe things that are patently non-sexual - like clothing, or in this case, a style of music. Moreover, that means that even gays themselves are aware of the shift from 'fag' meaning 'just gay' to 'fag' as describing a certain quality that may be present in gay people, but crucially can be applied to other things as well.”
Yes, and I’ve heard black rappers call themselves niggers as well, but you know what, I tend not to call people niggers when I meet them. I forget why, but I just don’t. I do take your point and I do look forward to the day when words like fag and coon can be used without fear of being accused of homophobia or racism. But the fact of the matter is we still live in a homophobic and misogynistic world and some people will get offended (both gay and straight). If you choose to use the term “art-fag” you have to accept that you are running that risk. And I am sure that people who use the word “art-fag” are more likely than people who pointedly don’t to use the word gay to described music they don’t like. And people who use the word gay to describe music they don’t like are more likely to slag off one of their mates new trousers for being gay, meaning not very nice, but also meaning in a slightly camp way, implying that being gay isn’t a good thing, and you’re rapidly on a slippery slope to downright bigotry.
You said “Your problem now is that your argument rests on the term 'fag' remaining a word unchanged in definition AND being a word whose meaning has undergone a subtle shift. You can't have it both ways.”
I am unsure of your point – please clarify.
You massive racist gay-hating nazi, stealthy.
THE REPLY SYSTEM ISN'T HARD
Everett True should stop linking his stuff here.
TO LEARN HOW TO FUCKING REPLY PROPERLY
Stupid overly sensitive touch screen
the most hackneyed form of identity politics? seriously?
"You only think that because you're what we mavericks call a poor, bourgeois 'norm'. Read some Foucault and get off my dick.
P.S. I do REALLY like caps though. Denotes urgency, which I respect.
I just feel like what I have to say is absolutely relevant to the entire thread."
You're an uptight square who's harshing my buzz.
to slap one's back every single time he coughs out some half-baked, much-argued nonsense onto his keyboard.
a quote - "I don’t mind people holding my name up as an Ideal of Something or Other, but this fellow’s way off-the-mark."
it's either arrogance or delusion, but either way i'm not going to waste any more time reading any of these fluffy fucking blog posts, or these dumb threads where everett's 'friends' do the work once he's created friction (to later be used as evidence that he is still popular/relevant).
...did I miss anything?
Ladbrokes won't give me any odds, but he's all but popped the cork. Kep y'posted.
...while you're here, I've got a question:
- What was the name of the journalist who called Radiohead a "lily-livered excuse for a rock band"? For the longest time I thought it was you, but recently I've heard otherwise. Can you clarify please?
I have nothing else to contribute to this gay debate.
from a recent interview:
"I don’t think I’ve ever deliberately set out to destroy any band’s career. Saying like you see it can, however, come off a tad harsh when laid down in print. I saw Radiohead circa 1992 and really didn’t think they were much cop. I wrote words to the effect that they were a pitiful lily-livered excuse for a rock’n'roll band. I don’t think it did their career much harm. So much for the all-powerful music press."
Nice. It probably gave them a kick up the arse if anything.
"Stan Lee never left my shop. I fear his mind may no longer be in mint condition."
whereas Stan Lee erred on the side of genius for many years.
OR MAKE IT BETTER
They rock. Um, in a very abstract, genial sort of way.
If I wanted to read the fucking shit you write, I'd visit you blog - we all know the url, you've pasted all over the forum. Stop endlessly promoting your pathetic narcissistic blog and start building a time machine so you can visit a time when you were actually comparatively revelant.
Stealthy, if terms like 'retarded', 'gay' and 'faggotry' no longer had the sting of phobic abuse, I suspect you wouldn't enjoy using them quite so much. Douchebag - lots of us (and by 'us' I mean queers) do still resent the use of these terms; they contribute hugely to discriminatory practice (see for example the routine underachievement of lesbian, gay, bi and trans young people in education). _Obviously_.
Everett: I'm not sure there's a homogenous male experience, but there _is_ a percepible homogeneity of discourse (and some interesting transgressions) in male voices in rock (I'm thinking of the Dandyism of metal in particular, and *mental note* must get around to replying to Niall Scott's unpleasant 'Metal and the Monster Male' Supersonic paper). Might be worth focusing on the parameters of male (masculine?) discourse in (insert form here - rock? pop? r&b? hip-hop?) and on how they are negotiated by women working in those forms... I think the story would read very differently in r&b, for example.
If these terms weren’t pejorative in nature, what would be the point of using them at all?
Not being funny or anything, but I resent being told what I mean by my own words - especially after I've already explained myself. Furthermore, I would suggest that if black people can get over the term 'black' being prepended to almost every single negative concept, emotion and happenstance in the English language - then you can get over the fact that just maybe, a term that used to be solely the preserve of homosexuals (or in the case of ‘gay’, never was) could have evolved other meanings not necessarily related to being actually gay.
Incidentally, I read the other day that a higher proportion of gay students at certain well-regarded British universities gained firsts than did their straight peers. Maybe the LGT kids you're referring to are just lazy. And maybe you can take this pseudy cultural studies crap where it’s appreciated, as well (the “dandyism of metal” – what a load…).
I don't really care what you mean by your own words, Stealthy - by which I only mean to ask, why can those who argue for the plasticity of language (an argument on which I'm sold, btw) so seldom admit the plasticity of meaning dependent on the reader (among other factors)? It's straightforward Saussurian linguistics (and not cultural studies): there can be a broad gulf between signifier and signified. The problem with the use of 'gay' as a pejorative isn't that it's necessary to presuppose homophobic intent in every case; it's that the sting of the word is felt differently by those who do experience homophobic discrimination.
I'll trade you your study for several that support my contention, if you like. Lots of research shows both that LGBT young people are underachieving in education due to widespread homophobic culture and bullying within schools, and that they do count the pejorative use of 'gay' as a significant part of that homophobic culture.
Surely when you refer to someone as black you are doing so because of their skin colour which happens to be the colour of a forest or alleyway at night, and the back of the cave and other things that have scared all normal humans throughout history?
Contrast this to when you refer to someone as a nigger or ’faggy’ you are clearly choosing to use a word that originated and was intrinsinctly linked to a period of oppression. The power of the word can diminish, and one day it might lose all negative connotations. Some people may have dealt with the oppression by reclaiming the word. I look forward to the day when I can call someone a nigger and the idea that I might be racist would not even cross their mind, it just happed to be the first word that popped into my head. In this fantasy world racism would be such a bizarre, antiquated concept that words did not have to be chosen with any care at all. But you’d be an utter fool to suggest we are at that point in human history quite yet. And likely as not we never will be.
Personally I detest it when my ignorant little cousin says x band are “well gay”. “Art-fag” does not raise my heckles in the same way, but as a civilized human being I recognize that it is all part of the same thing. It is a slippery slope and given the nature of our society – which is still racist and homophobic on many levels – it is not a slope I want to spend much time on.
Your argument appears to rest on the fact that you are assuming homophobia is not a problem (wrong) or assuming that language is not a part of the problem (wrong).
The third alternative - most likely IMHO - is that you are confident in your ability to decide where to draw the line, and confident in the fact that anyone who is offended is either misguided or over-sensitive.
The danger with that point of view is that, at best, you are encouraging more bigoted people than yourself by encouraging a tone of language and at worst you are trampling on the feelings and lives of others because you have decided what they are allowed to be offended by and what they are not.
All of the above does not alter the fact that I believe it is entirely reasonable to be completely offensive if the heart is in the right place and the joke is good enough or the point being made is strong enough.
At least the homophobes are out of the closet there.
ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING ZING
i now have more respect for his trolling skills than his journalism. ET vs /b/ next please.
ALSO, language, why do people get so mad? we use gay all the time, from hanging out with too many solihul sk8rs in th 90s, it doesn't have anything to do with EVIL BUMSECKS, same as when you say "thats retarded" or "thats awesome" or "thats fucked", it's just the way common parlance has evolved. same with artfag; kelly's true metal friends refer to us and ours as artfags, it's neither gender nor sexuality specific, it's not even that derogatory, its just a way of using a few words instead of more than a few. such is progress...
... i am sure that you won't mind if from now on this board, when someone says something really stupid i call them a dumb johnnyforeigner. oooh, the new saturdays album is so crap and johnnyforeignerish. i trust that would not bug you at all, even if all your mates started saying it and you had to put up with it day in day out on the net, in the class room, on the bus. year after year.
try some empathy.
(and SIMPSONS ALREADY DID IT) but anywayss, if you were to that that it would be just you proving a point out of spite. wheras the term "gay" has been misappropriated by >9000 people and morphed meanings to the extent i can now call something gay and be understood without infering anything about its sexuality. sure, it was pretty crass for kiddie skaters back then to start using a term for homosexuality to denote an unpleasant scenario, but that was last century and can't be undone, in much the same way it was appropriated from the victorian era when it meant happy. words shouldnt have to require a knowledge of their origins to be used.
sorry man, i know what yr trying to say but the battles already been lost. im sympathetic to anyone who has to suffer abuse based on something as trivial as whether they like boys or girls, but Fact Is, people in this thread are fucking loving the fact they can get on their high horse and bitch about HOMOPHOBIA being REALLY WRONG, when noone's actually shown any hobophobic sentiment. i think thats way more fucked than actual slagging of sexualities.
ps, when i used the term fucked, obviously i didnt mean fucked in the pure 1930s sense of "had sex with". i apologise to anyone who has sex regularly and took offence to my usage of the word.
"if you were to that that it would be just you proving a point out of spite" - no it would be me fighting fire with fire.
i am not disputing whether you could be understood, i am disputing whether you are right or wrong. by your logic >9000 people commit muggings every year so the police shouldn't bother trying to arrest them.
perhaps the greatest difference between us is that i am prepared to stand up and fight battles however much they appear to have been lost (at the risk of over-dramatacising things - like Churchill did at the start of WWII despite the smart money being on Hitler) whereas you will take the easy option and go with the flow even though you yourself admit it was 'crass'.
(forgive my stereotyping, this is an 'indie' board and therefore i assume you are white - please correct me if i am wrong). Do you ever call black people niggers or coons? Would you consider starting calling shit things "negroid"? how many of your mates would have to do so before you started?
1) muggings are different to me using words. mugging is a deliberate violence. this is you choosing to be offended when theres no offence meant cos you have dictionary issues.
1a) i think comparing yrself to churchhill fighting the nazis runs more than a "risk" of over dramatising the situation but it's wrong regadless. i said the battle is over cos >9000 use the term gay without being homophobic. liek jesus, my friend ben uses it and he has more bumsecks than anyone ever, should i tell him you want him to stop too? he'll be bummed. I mean, bummed in the 90s teen angst movie manner, but you didn't take offence cos you knew about that one, yeh?
2) nigger is word invented to be offensive to a specific minority. however much people use it and in whatever context, it'll always have that stigma. gay isnt.
3) i can't be arsed with this reallyyyy. if you want to fight for the word gay to be rereclaimed as a homophobic slur, then fine, whatevs, everyone needs a passion. why stop there, why not take it back to what it meant when it was invented?
anyway, i'm going to leave this here. i didn't mean to cause offence.
It's even better when that person also goes on to compare themselves to Churchill in the same post xD
"forgive my stereotyping, this is an 'indie' board and therefore i assume you are white - please correct me if i am wrong"
must be white half dragging me on this board, my right hand keeps trying to search for hip hop on google but whiteylife makes sure negrolife keeps off black boards
Incredible. I missed that.
Why do you have to assume anything, WildEye? On the internet, as in Real Life, it usually ends up making you look daft.
- Soap opera where a has-been-hack turns web-board-troll, has online irrelevant arguments and harvests web clicks by posting about Lady GaGa/Paris Hilton/Harry Potter on his 'music blog' (a tactic learnt in the SEO module of "music blogging class").
9:30: Man, Shake, Stick
- A man shakes a big stick at a target that can't be missed, and misses. Tonight's target: Radiohead barn door.
9.35: Pin The Tail On The Man
- A blindfolded donkey pins it's tail on a man. Panel discussion: "Who's the most donkey now?"
10:00: Brad Pitt's Pits
- Investigative documentary into Brad Pitt's armpits.
10:01: Solipsistic Nation
- Gok gives this week's bunch of solipsists an ego makeover, with the help of a lobotomy from Dr Hilary.
- Happy-ending film spoiler: HE GOES HOME!
00:00: The History Of History
- Tonight: do the small keyboards on laptops cause Napoleon Complex on the internet?
- Lots of people talk about nothing, hosted by Nicky Campbell.
07:00: Morning Maties!
- Wake up and smell the (decaffeinated, politically correct, fair trade) coffee.
is on for 1hr 55 minutes. I spotted an err.
Sending findings to Five forthwith - we CAN correct this! Or not.
So...wait a minute...who's gay and who's a homophobe? I can't figure this shit out. Is Everett gay, or is he the homophobe. Am I gay? Goddamnit.
...this thread is full of sixth form students throwing big words at each other.
A Bryon Gysin reference that makes no sense in a paragraph that praises Amy Winehouse and uses the word zeitgeist...Everett you pretentious clown.
More by the gender thing than the homophobe witch-hunt bit.
The "female experience".... ?? But do not men and women experience the same thing sometimes, are not some things relevent to some of either, is not some music completely unrelated to gender? I don't think I'm terribly bothered if the music I listen to documents my experiences as a woman.
is that he isn't byron coley
on the person's post that you want to reply to
all these replies to find out whether i'm the only person to point out that Brazilian isn't a language?
they're merely retarded. and gay.
i mean....instead of taking the time to put his word-bird noggin into action and ream out a 'right-on' power to the gender..'hmmm..isn't it interesting that...blah blah'.....hypothesis.......he just discusses the superficial arguments regarding her gender and posts a load of photos for people to gawp at....no mention of her many musical talents, instead treating her as a pure object.....nothing more....one of the decades most dazzling performers and dextrous wordsmiths, and all we get from a 'music critic'...the bastion of intelligent and lyrical music debate...is a few upskirt pics.
for shame everett.....for fucking shame.
it's people like you y'know, it really is.
It left me genuinely confused over whether she was a hermaphrodite or not, and what point was actually being made in the post. I wasn't going to say anything, because it seemed a bit off topic and, y'know, maybe a waste of time? I don't think i could name or hum a lady gaga tune.
But, now that it's been mentioned, i'm gonna lay my cards on the table here; i'm confused.
it's all very well when he's wittering about girls in riots and whatnot.....he can pat that on the back and say 'good on ya girls' have a game of football on me........but if there isn't a direct message to latch onto, he just treats the females like pop-meat....it's disgusting.
poor lady G.
...for Mr Stealthy and Mr Johnny Foreigner to reclaim the word nigger as an insult to go alongside their use of the word gay...
bless. get a new job dude
It's 1.30pm, brilliant sunshine, barely a cloud in the sky...
BAN REQUEST for Everett_True. He is spamming the boards, abusing users and replying incorrectly. And he doesn't have a clue about music.
Does it say when to reply to the thread and when to reply to the post?
Surely it the poster's decision whether they beleive what they have to say is best placed as the last thing on the thread as a whole, or in direct reply to something someone has said.
PS reply in the right spot and stop spamming.
you silly joke of an account you!
(1) I am not ET, but thanks for the compliment.
(2) My last post was CORRECTLY posted in reponse to the whole thread, due to the fact that over the course of the whole thread a few people have banged on about posting 'correctly'. I was replying to all of them.
(3) This post is in direct response to drakepress therefore is posted here.
(4) If every single post should be a reply to an individual person why does this website offer the functionality to respond to the whole thread?
(5) If one wishes to be anally retentive one should attempt to get one's facts / argument straight shouldn't one drakepress?
BUT if you reply to THE WHOLE THREAD, it is supposed to relate to the original post. You were taking issue with other posts within the thread, so ya should've replied under them. INCORRECT then, i guess. (I'm reading this now and realise I sound like a pedantic little git, it doesn't bother me, but you keep harping on about it).
Don't be complimented by being called Everett True, he is awful. When I say awful, I mean as a music critic, I'm sure he's a lovely, decent and nice guy in everyday life.
I'm in no way anally retentive, but I do find people that say such patronising things as "should attempt to get one's facts straight, shouldn't one?" simply awful.
Now go away.
From his music blog:
"I’m Wild Eye, a 30-something Londoner disappointed with the current state of music journalism.
I want to inspire people to pick up a guitar or plug in a sequencer, to write and create. To fight for what is right. I want to point them in the direction of quality music, from all time greats to bands you can see for free in back rooms of London pubs. I want to destroy crap bands. I want to amuse and I want to provoke debate. I want to talk about music criticism as well as music itself.
As much as anything I want to shame the average music journalist into writing something readable and enlightening, not boring and pointless. And point my readers in the direction of the decent, professional writers that are out there. There are still a few, despite what the NME is trying to do."
i mean, that does sound like an admirable statement of intent, albeit quite juvenile and vague.
"To fight for what is right" sounds like some silly slogan from the punk wars. Most people don't need music journalism now anyway.
I do not claim to be a music journalist, let alone a good one. that does not alter the fact that I believe I can write better shit than the majority of writers on sites like this, or in the nme, or guardian etc etc.
Apologies if this is a very low standard to have set myself.
The punk wars have not yet been won and never will. That is no reason not to fight them. This is 1977. There are no more heroes.
No-one needs music journalism, especially with the accessibility of music on the net.
BUT, and this is a big but, lots of people like music and reading people that you grow to trust is a good way of minimising the amount of myspace pages you have to click on before you find a band you can love.
SECOND BUT, music journalism - at it's best - and I am not claiming to be the best - is as much about the writer, politics and life as it is about music. I do not know what your interests in life are, but if you have no interest in reading about politics and the human experience then I pity you. Music journalism is a fantastic place to read about P and the HE – if you can track down decent journalists who care about something more than who are the latest hip band and how to phrase their reviews so they keep getting sent free tickets and CDs.
good music journalists > WildEye > Majority of professional music journalists (nme, guardian, etc).
he doesn't reply to other people, even when he is replying to them.
also something tells me this is meant to be a reply to drakepress' post up there. so: LEARN TO REPLY PROPERLY.
Every Everett True post is a bolt of pure divine insight. A shot of intelligence that is so filled with gravitas and significance that it has to be placed front and centre for all to see. Maybe you mere mortals can survive being slightly indented to the right, but ET is not like you or I. He must be allowed to take his rightful place
one of the funny things about this thread is that it's hit 120 replies without you or any of the supporters you've recruited actually addressing Stealthy's main point. Quibbling over his use of language is just a distraction. Here's that point again:
Having friends who namedrop Saussure once in a while doesn’t stop you from being the music-critic equivalent of the guy who sends me unsolicited emails about getting my dick enlarged. Do us all a favour and fuck off.
on a side note, i had a lovely bit of saussure on my chips last night...ma's homemade receipe with tomatoes from the garden...bootiful
have you learnt to reply properly yet?
and sure, if i had my own band of blog cronies i'd probably feel the same. But you might want to try to provide some evidence of the fact, or at least something displaying even the slightest bit of intelligence, insight, wit or personality.
that a well known and formerly well respected journalist is trolling an internet message board? bizarre...
it's like when you first heard that stan collymore enjoys shagging middle aged women in car parks of a tuesday night... i keep tilting my head so the water will run out of my ear.
hey everett how come your threads are the only ones that get these sort of reactions? we mostly muddle along okay without your honour.
You are kidding me. Seriously. You are fucking kidding me.
he's accusing users of being homophobes and posting articles on twitter and facebook telling all his cronies that Drowned in Sound is full of racists and homophobes. and then he's coming back to JAG his articles to the same degenerates he's outing. sad, pathetic stuff really
how about nbacitysports Co.,Ltd(www.2009-sneakers.com) wholesale nike air jordan sneakers,cheap nike air jordan fusion air force one sneakers,discount buy nike max shoes,sell nike retro jordan shoes,cheap shipping nike dunk sneakers,china supply nike top air force one womas boot, buy aaa quality adidas supra new balance puma bape shoes,authentic jordan sneakers jordan retro sneakers,buy sneaker for cheap, wholesale nike sports shoes,Nike air Max Sneakers wholesale, nike air max 2009 sneakers for sale, wholesale Nike trainers and sneakers,we wholesale choeap nike jordan shoes,discount wholesale Jordan Fusion,custom nike jordan sneakers cheap gucci handbag shoes sunglasses chp, cheap designers jackets, buy ugg 5815 boots,high quality nike air zoom signature basketball shoes,China Nike product manufacturer,nike air max series,wholesale nike original shox shoes,nike jordan force 8 shoes, china nike jordan shoes online,Wholesale Simply Sneakers Jordan Sneakers Air Force nes Nike SB Supra Cheap Nike Shoes Cheap Jordan sneakers Free Shipping
China Cheap Nike Sneakers Wholesale Jordan Sneakers Wholesale Gucci tennis shoes Authentic Nike SB, Air Jordan Shoes, and Nike Retro Sneakers,China wholesale cheap discount custom jordan nike Air Jordan Sneakers, Air Jordan Release Dates, Wholesale Cheap:Nike Shoes,Jordan Sneakers,Cheap Dunk Air Force One, Wholesale Jordan Sneakers Nike Dunks Wholesale, cheap jordan-cheap dunk-cheap sneaker-cheap nike Wholesale jordan fusion,dunk SB sneakers Nike Dunks, Nike Shox, Air Force one,China Cheap wholesale Air Jordan Shoes,discount Gucci Jordans Sneakers buy sneakers,jordan shoes,nike jordan shoes,wholesale cheap Jordans,discount jordan sneakers,customs nike air force one china wholesaler for jordans sneakers, Buy nike,New adidas,Jordan retro,Prada shoes,Gucci sneakers,Puma store r Jordan 6 Fusion mens sneakers, discount sale michael jordan shoes,nike air force ones,jordan sneakers,air jordan fusions,nike air force 1,gucci shoes,puma sneakers,timberland shoes,Wholesale Air Jordans sneakers,discounts Jordans kicks shoes Cheap Discount Basketball Sneakers on Sale,Air Jordan Force One Fusion New cheap Air Jordan Force One 1 Fusion Sneakers Nike Retro Air Jordan Melo M5, Discount Nike Air Force Ones Running Shoes Cheap Gucci sneaker,Nike SB DUNKS and Air Jorda Force Fusion
Occasionally saying "Hi, I've written this article, this is what it's about, I know a lot of people on here like this band/album/whatever, see what you think", well, that's one thing. And a lot of people who link to stuff they've written elsewhere actually contribute to discussions on here. Two examples off the top of my head: jimitheexploder and godisinthetv sometimes link to blog posts and such, but they take part in lots of discussions on here. They're part of the life of this site.
But coming in here every other day and flopping your link on the table, without so much as a by-your-leave, is just irritating. "Hey. New blog post." Hey. Pretty arrogant. And he's started doing it all the time.
As for "an article he's written", that might be true for the original post, but the Lady Gaga link is just three photos and two and a half sentences that don't say anything. If that counts as writing you might as well nominate the Metro's paparazzi pages for a literary prize.
but you get my point.
(is that irony?) I'll respond to this here:
Maybe DiS feels it’s absurd for a music website to be challenging homophobia, ablism and racism on its boards. Fine – then they can state that position and defend it, rather than allowing the prevailing culture to look like an accident. That’s one unpleasant spotty oik communitiy they’ve got going there, by the looks of things."
Charming. If you'd spent some time on the boards you'd realise that people on here do take a dim view of out-and-out bigotry when they see it, including the moderators. On the other hand, they usually take a dim view of spamming as well. I notice that nobody in the ET camp has explained what gives him the right to continually link to posts on his blog without actually contributing anything of interest on here.
Also, it's pretty funny how hard Petra, Everett and others are trying to imply that Stealthy is a racist, as if accusing him of homophobia isn't enough. If you click on his profile you might get an idea of why it's funny.
might explain why they all seem to be supporting him
Everett has fixed this.
it has not been approved. others since have.
(cut and paste don't work) in the messages, Lauren S says something about how abusive our message boards are, then says 'i wouldn't resort to calling someone a homophobic motherfucker'
then, almost immediately, backtracks when she realises Saint Everett said that - 'oh sorry, i wasn't accusing you, that was just a random example'
Christ on a bike
Reread my posts. I neither mentioned nor implied racism. I'm not implying Sealthy's a homophobe either. I don't care what he means by what he says; I don't care about intent. Language has a life outside of intent, as I have already stated perfectly clearly.
No? "Maybe DiS feels it’s absurd for a music website to be challenging homophobia, ablism and racism on its boards."
Looks like a mention to me, and I can't see why racism has anything to do with this thread. Or ablism for that matter. As far as I can see, Everett's been bringing up the irrelevant R-word has as a way of smearing people who disagree with him, and I assumed – although obviously, assumptions are dangerous – that you were doing the same. It's possible I'd confused you with Maggie, in which case, forgive me. It's not always easy to keep track when several new users pitch in at once.
And if you want a linguistics discussion, can you do it somewhere else? Social board's usually pretty good. I'm not really into the whole "check me out I've read some books with long words in" competitive thing, though – I grew out of that at university – so I'll probably give it a miss. Soz.
and posting quotes from other conversations held elsewhere.
As I've now had to reiterate 3 times, language and intent are not the same thing. I'm sorry if my saying that makes you feel I'm competing with you in some sort of theory-off. It's really very simple, whether you quote it from Saussure or not.
My original response was on-topic - I asked specifically whether ET thought the genre context added different flavours to the gender politics of music. That doesn't belong on the social board. Didn't stop board members here from being derogatory, though. This place truly is pathetic.
the inevitable 'I can't believe you cretins drove Everett True away from my site' post.
Interesting (ish) thread going on over on DiS, touching on gender imbalance in indie music and involving the outing of an admitted user of homophobic insults
Tue at 8:52am · Comment · Like · Share
not sure “interesting” is the right word. there’s a much older thread that you’ll be interested in about sexism in indie, see if you can dig it out.
Tue at 9:08am · Delete
I'm not sure "admitted" is the right word either.
If he can't figure out a reply system that's simple enough for a five-year-old to grasp, he doesn't stand a chance with the search function.
God, he really hates the people who use his site, doesn't he?
hate is far too strong a word, but I have never seen him stand up for the people who use his site on a daily basis.
How about some nice words now and again eh?
people complaining on his blog about homophobic language going unchecked on this website, while they are discussing a thread with 150 posts debating the very subject. WHAT MORE DO WE HAVE TO DO???
this is in the right place, yeah?
but I'll bet anyone who is interested a billio pounds that he is EXACTLY like Al Gore in South Park. Shit, I bet he even wears the cape.
mad props to johnnyforeigner who pretty much nails the arguement.
are you in fact admitting to being a homophobe?
GUYS, AMNUCK JUST ADMITTED TO BEING A HOMOPHOBE!
What, because my surname is Browne you think you can belittle me?
And still I gave myself away.
DAMN YOU, LANGUAGE!
Is it worth pointing out that this thread started out with a relatively sane post, ET making a link to an article written about Fab Moretti's side-project band?
Admittedly it then all got enmired in the same bullshit that always seems to happens in these threads, but I don't see how people can really stand up for Stealthy on this one. He was the one that lowered the tone, and although the whole racism/homophobia thing that stemmed from his comments was pretty tiresome, the general DiS CONCENSUS-ERISER kicked in and it became another "EVERETT TRUE R SO GHEY" thread.
Him not directly using the reply system that people with thousands of posts on here fuck up on a DAILY BASIS became a rationale for the OMIGOD HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE ITNERNET LOLMAOCOPTER. bullshit of this idea of smug superiority over ET just
AREN'T WE ALL JUST SO AWESOME PATTING OURSELVES ON THE BACK?
Whatever anyone says, Everett True really was a pretty iconic writer in his time, he started up Careless Talk Costs Lives as an antidote to the whole debased early-noughties NME, and when that didn't work out in 12 issues, he did Plan B, which was the best magazine around until THE RECESSIONBOMB hit advertising and it had to close.
This entire thread makes for a pretty depressing read. Not just for this weird, cautionary example of how the internet bringing down the barriers that kept icons apart from 'the masses' can sometimes be for the worse, but for how petty the entire thing is. People took offence at his linking to (admittedly slightly shit) dismissive pieces about bands, and said "why don't you link to nice articles about bands?". As far as I can see, that's what he's done.
It's the idea that HE HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE. That's such utter bullshit. For the most part, I like lurking on Drowned in Sound, and then getting into arguments over stupid shit, and I say stuff that's stupid, but this witch-hunt does a dis-service to witch-hunts. A friend of mine just said "it's not even conversation, it's just gibbons hooting and scratching their armpits, generally" sums up the prevailing quality of this whole thread.
Now, since the internet inevitably brings out people's worst sides sometimes, and from this thread and the resulting petty blog-posts by Everett, everybody involved ends up coming out looking pretty awful, including people on DiS that are usually much much better at doing the internet.
I know this whole rant sounds preachy, and I wouldn't claim to have not written my fair share of bullshit on the web-tubes in my time, but it's just something that in this particular case is really frustrating.
Feel free to pick holes in this, and I know this thread has more-or-less run it's course, but I just wanted to say something, and then that turned into shit-loads of things. Too much coffee.
that he seems to have little time or respect for the boards or the people that come here, yet he still feels he can come and post links to his blog on here? I know you cant pick who reads your work, but why does he bother? And the fact that he does it repeatedly, while by now if you like him you are probably reading his blog reguarly, and if not, then you probably arent. And he only comes here to advertise his blog and nothing else, making him seem a bit like a spammer. All of which dont add up to a good reason for all of the above, but maybe explains why people arent running to defend him...?
I was going to walk away from this without saying anything else, but you've missed the point, icehockeyhair. As well as my previous comments about spamming, there's this:
"It's the idea that HE HAS NO RIGHT TO BE HERE." –– I don't think this at all. Everett True has as much right to use these boards as anyone else. As much, and no more. If ClicheGuevara starts a thread on the social board which is just a link to a Telegraph article, with no kind of discussion, he gets pilloried for it, and rightly so (even though I like CG). I don't see why the music board should operate along different lines.
And for the record, I'm aware of ET's pedigree – not that past glories can excuse present mistakes, writers being like bands in that regard – and I loved CTCL and Plan B. That's why it upsets me so much to see him dribbling these tepid grey ropes of pointless wordspunk into the uncaring tissue of the internet. I'd like to think he can still do better.
The jokes about the reply system – I stand by them. Anyone who can't figure it out deserves ribbing, and that includes the people with thousands of posts. It includes Prole. And I miss Prole. As for "smug superiority", the worst examples of that are all coming the other way, as far as I can see. Everett, Maggie and Petra try to talk to other people like kids, come out with lines like "you clearly don't understand even the first thing about listening to music" and references to critical theory, they deserve to be taken down a peg. They're lucky nobody went for the classic: STFU, n00b.
Will try to make this reply less rambly through editing it to within an inch of it's life.
The spam thing: I disagree. It's about music. This is the music board. He doesn't claim to be anyone else, so it's not a Jag. It's him, writing a blog, saying "I wrote this". I just don't see how that's spam, but I guess that people disagree about things. That's fair enough.
"Wordspunk" = good work
The stuff about replying in the wrong place was also me being beside the point, as yeah the whole replies thing can be pretty amusing, and yeah if I were in a better mood I would've not even mentioned that.
I wasn't really talking about that whole tangent about critical theory, but yeah, I agree that ET and his buds don't come out of this whole thing smelling like roses.
What I found really depressing was the way Stealthy did instantly jump in with some vitriolic bullshit; it was just so stupidly bull-in-a-china-shop, and pretty puerile. He took one phrase, and then made an entire posturing YER SUCK MY BALLS EVERETT TRUE stand, the brave tyke. If I were Everett True I'd be condescending to shit like that.
Sorry if it seemed like a rant about DiS in general, cos most of the time it's all gravy around here. My vitriol was more at this thread than anything else. That and someone made some idiotic remark about something a friend of mine said, and made it out to be some great insight into the workings of the ET-minions, which it wasn't. And NOW look what's happened.
its any self-promotion
self-promotion is just called "annoying"
my comments re: NOT KNOWING HOW TO FUCKING REPLY PROPERLY were largely because this 'debate' was inane enough without having a clue who he was replying to.
nice Abe Simspon quote.
Animal Collective once complained about having phrases they wouldn't use inserted into an interview with plan b, "art fag" being one of them.
trying to destroy/discredit the dis boards?
I thought it was about the first well-argued response I've read.
Who's that girl at the top of your piece about Free Speech?
It would appear she's totally surplus to requirements, but very hot.
he's got a real weired thing for the G gal.
when I was in primary school. I would not use the word 'gay' as an insult to a homosexual person, as I'm sure no-one else who uses these boards would. The word is used as a generic insult, which obviously has to be used in the right context. I'm sure people stopped taking it literally a long time ago. I wouldn't however use the term 'nigger' because people I know would take offence to it, and it is a lot harder to say it in a context where it will not be interpreted as racist.
I'm not racist or homophobic, I would say the vast majority of DiS isn't either. I don't see why Stealthy is having to justify what he said, when most people are aware that he is neither racist or homophobic. I do believe that people are being unfair to you however, I mean no disrespect to you as a journalist or whatever (hell, you wrote those amazing liner notes to Discovered Covered which sums up my feelings on Daniel Johnston better than anyone could), but I think there is a need for some perspective.
I don't for one second imagine you're racist or homophobic, either.
With regards to Stealthy, you might want to ask him this one question - When does the use of homophobic language become a homophobic act in itself?
Stealthy is in fact my lover. The ebony to my ivory. He's very tender
it's like a revelation for me... maybe hard work *does* pay off?
I have a warm feeling inside.
... i.e. this message-board, it's perfectly acceptable to be homophobic and then get yr cronies to SHOUT DOWN ANY FUCKING TWAT who dares to criticise?
I would imagine.
To repeat a bit of what's been said above, it's not a particularly pleasant fact but everyone is well aware that the term 'gay' is used in contexts well outside of homophobia. In contexts like Stealthy's post here - as far as I can see (and correct me if I'm wrong) he's said nothing here to indicate that he holds any homophobic attitudes (other than use of the term art-fag), so I'd presume he wouldn't go around in the physical world behaving in a homophobic manner.
I might be wrong - for all I know he might go around verbally abusing or beating up gay people for a hobby - but his words here don't give any indication of that.
..."Interesting. If you actually have been checking, it should be easy to provide some examples of me being homophobic to someone"...
even on just the opening page of comments on Stealthy's Profile page, there's a half-a-dozen examples of him using homophobic insults. or don't they count, because he was only "joking"?
Post them, then.
I'd suggest opening a new thread. You can call it "Compilation of 'Gay'".
Let's lift the lid on the amoral sewer that runs beneath this messageboard. One thing, though: do it on the social board. That's where this shit belongs.
I knew you couldn't write, but I thought reading was at least within your grasp.
I was going to let that little thread of conversation slide - because life's too short for dignifying pettty slander - but since you've brought it up again, it's worth pointing out that IF was the operative word.
Or, put simply (which I thought I already had): Please back up your claims with some evidence. Before I leave work, if possible.
please go away.
Ban Request. i'm not messing
so it's ok for everyone to throw insult after insult at me, but not for me to retaliate for 10 seconds...
wow! fair system you've got here.
I've made the point about bullies not liking to take what they dish out elsewhere...
anyone who tries to reply on your blog?
Because otherwise it would read like this thread.
posting on these boards. fucking idiot
it didn't appear.
Your blog thread reads like ET propaganda.
Have you been banned?
No, didn't think so.
this isn't about your insults. it's about the fact you come on here to JAG you blog, then accuse people of being homophobes, post on your blog about it, then come back here to us heathens and degenerates pimping the very same article. how fucking sad
you're one of the worst music writers i have ever bothered paying any attention to. you should work for The Sun
Yeah, that's it. That's completely it. It's a personal vendetta driven by fanboy loyalty.
FYI: I don't give a fuck about Animal Collective, and I wouldn't shed a tear if every band in his hamfisted "Defending The Indefensible" series split up tomorrow.
Now, can you tell me which series of blog posts inspired ET to start posting on this here website?
Wow. You seem bright.
Have you considered that's it's probably got something to do with the fact that those 'Defending...' posts manage to combine the shittest writing ever with the least interesting targets? Jack White? Coldplay? Phil Collins? Everyone - EVERYONE - who's had anything derogatory to say about these folks, exhausted all their possible vitriol years ago.
So you can imagine (actually, can you?) that having some tool come in here with his quarter-of-an-A4's worth of sub-NME anal-beard trimmings, acting like he's Moses come down from the mount is going to provoke a certain about of oppobrium.
Or the short version: It's because he's shit. He's like Noel Gallagher having a fistfight with a gangreneous puppy in Notting Hill Gate!
Stealthy Post Count - 23357
It would appear he's here far more often than you in fact...
you should have a long think about what you've done
(Taken from elsewhere on the web.)
..."But perhaps the most depressing thing is the extent that DiS posters seem unwilling to discuss the issues properly. Or even admit that there is an issue to debate..."
I was more referring to the fact that I've just echoed what pretty much everyone else has been saying for the last hundred posts or so.
Without a doubt it's an issue that deserves debate, but I think it's wholly ridiculous to hinge the entire argument round a post of Stealthy's that was well and truly out of the entire issue's context. The entire thing smacks of scapegoating a single person for the sins of the thousands of people who say the same sort of stuff everywhere, every day.
There's discussion to be had on the issue, but it's not a debate if there's shit-throwing from both sides, it's a fundamentalist free-for-all.
Oh look, a bee just flew across my screen.
Erm... where were we? Probably something vaguely deep I wouldn't get... can't remember now...
I think someone was boring the dying arse off of me? Maybe it was another Bloc Party thread?
Ooh, I found 50p under my mousemat!
This is bullshit, bullshit and thrice bullshit. There are plenty of involved discussions of racism, sexism and homophobia on the social board. But the music board is generally used for discussing music, funnily enough. And the emphasis is on "discussing", hence the negative reaction to threads which are devoid of any content save an entreaty to visit someone's blog. Like this one, which nobody replied to in 48 hours until you bumped it, nevertheless continuing to limp wearily on long beyond its natural life. And yes, I know I'm not helping.
It was completely innocuous. I linked to a blog. Everyone decided not to reply to the link. Fair play. That's their choice. I linked to another blog entry, figuring it wasn't worth starting two threads, someone asked me my view about something, I gave it, and... bam! Stealthy weighed in with a gratuitous insult involving a homophobic slur.
And... bam! All his cronies followed suit.
Now, I have no idea who Stealthy is, and neither do I want to know. I checked his profile briefly, saw that he was fond of using homophobic insults (as he readily admitted himself) and decided I really didn't want anything to do with him. If you do, that's up to you.
And...um... discussing. Is that what you call these threads? Fucking prick. What did you grow up reading? The Daily Mail?
Please stop. Please.
Stealthy never admitted to using homophobic terms. You know this. He perhaps admitted to using terms YOU deem homophobic while simultaneously denying that they were in fact homophobic, but that's about it.
And as for people "weighing in with a gratuitous insult"... do the words "fucking prick" not come under that?
I'll implore you once more; please stop. Not necessarily admit defeat, just stop. People will continue to slag you off regardless of whether or not you post but if you leave it be you just might be entitled to a little bit of that moral high ground you're perched on.
This thread in particular I call a car-crash which nobody's coming out of covered in glory, and I'm starting to profoundly regret touching the damn thing.
I was referring to the threads on the music board where people interact with each other and have conversations about music. You know, the ones you don't post in.
an accomplished man who acts in a humble manner is infinitely more persuasive than one who acts according to his own estimate of his worth.
if you posted your innocuous blog links with a quick summary, maybe highlighting the issue your trying to discuss, and rounded it off with a 'thanks for reading' then you would get a much more balanced response to your posts.
as it is it looks like you're using these boards as tool to trawl more traffic for your blog. you criticise the standard of debate here whilst taking no part in any threads other than your own and then expect people to take an interest in what you write.
the people who browse the forums owe you nothing and it baffles me that you think you behaviour will ellicit anything other than criticism. this one has obviously gone particularly bad but think back to the other threads you've posted here - have any of them drawn a positive response?
I accept that the word 'gay' shouldn't be used as a term for 'bad' as it suggests that being gay is worhty of insult in itself, and it does nothing to discourage casual homophobia that is still prevelant (particularly where I live). However, I think it's obvious when something is said with malicious intent. Where I live I'm certainly in the minority for NOT holding racist/homophobic views, so I've had a lot of chances to think about this, and I'd be incredibly offended if I was thought to be either racist or homophobic.
Maybe, like you hinted, the fact that the internet is a vehicle for free speech just allows naive views like mine to be aired, and gives them false legitimacy asd worthwhile views.
I accept that it is a term that shouldn't be used to just mean "bad", because it suggests that being gay is somehow grounds to be insulted in itself, which does nothing to get rid of casual homophobia which is still prevelant(particularly where I live). However, I'm sure it is obvious when the word is used with malicious intent. In my town I am certainly in the minority for NOT holding homophobic or racist views, so I have had a lot of time and chances to think about this. I would be incredibly offended if I was accused of either of these.
Though, like you hinted, maybe my possibly naive views probably shouldn't be aired, and is one of the downsides of the internet being a vehicle for free speech.
word gay for bad, hate the word faggot etc etc. I do think that it does contribute in some way to negative attitudes towards homosexuality.
That aside, this is generally quite boring. The fact remains Everett True has always been an annoying twat. Ever since he drunkenly tarnished the stage at a Flaming Lips gig at ULU in 1998 (?) I've never liked him. Plan B and careless talk were good in bits, but all his own pieces were just fucking annoying, especially the bit where him and his art student cronies sat around discussing the month's singles. Absolute smug bellends!
Even-handed. I like it.
if you actually read the boards you'd see that debate around the acceptability of these words actually comes up quite often, there are a range of views much like there would be anywhere, but there is rarely outright homophobia, but to whip up all this drama in an act of self promotion is really really pathetic. No one cares about your blog, no one cares about your opinions, you are not as important as you think you are please go away.
This would easily make the weekly mailout, if it was still running.
galactic frank, bamnan, disintegrated mind before he was banned.
everet true is thei music board equivalent of them, which is so sad it makes do an indie tear
I do love these harrowing train wreck threads. I know I shouldn't but my rubberneck instincts kick in and I find myself glued to them. And this one really is a beauty: from a seemingly innocuous a lame jag opening we got a ridiculous botched debate on semantics, a faded journalist angrily lashing out at just about everyone, some guy not only bringing Godwin's Law into play but also comparing himself to Churchill in the process (well played sir, well played), plenty of brutal abuse thrown around the place, someone making a regrettable attempt to display their academic chops and getting slapped down, some guy from a semi-popular band weighing in (and doing a good job to be fair but he should have know better than to wade into this mess), a plethora of wild accusations of homophobia, racism, misogyny...this one's got it all. Though if you ask me it could use a few more half-hearted death threats and some more libel. But apart from that, I love it. Encore!
threaten to sue True over copying my comments from here onto his blog without my permission, but decided against it :(
He's a great supporter of women in music (and the PVC/rubber clothing industry) - in the last week alone ...
Faded journalist doesn't like it when Mr Stealthy and others call him on his bullshit.
Faded journalist runs squealing to his blog to tell his acolytes about it.
Acolytes behave as though DiS is somehow the cause of all misogyny.
Faded jounalist returns to have another round of semantics. DiS posters tear his arsehole a little newer.
Faded journalist decides that he can simply read the posts and then willfully misinterpret them.
Faded journalist repeats his misinterpretations long enough and often enough that somehow, in his mind, they become the truth.
Faded journalist still gets ripped mercilessly.
Faded journalist refuses to fade away.
I grab my remmy to put an old horse out of it's misery.
... and will enlighten us all as to why it is wrong?
i don't think anyone on this thread will claim to be perfect, but where www.derailingfordummies.com is worth reading (i'm half way through now) is if you are a decent person who wants to be a better person.
it is of course ok to say, "i'm not homophobic, i'm not racist, job done", and to be fair you are half way there. but constantly questioning yourself and others in order to make the world a better place is hardly a crime is it?
For me adolesence, reading the music press, moving from childhood to adulthood, getting politicised, getting into music properly, all came along together. i came to a relatively left wing political position, which goes hand in hand with indie music, and hand in hand with siding with the underdog and fighting for the rights of minorities.
It depresses me how unpoliticised many on this board seem to be. That and not caring are worse than using the phrase "art fag". The phrase in itself is descriptive and not that offensive in the scheme of things. Refusing to accept that your words might have a negative effect on others, or refusing to even consider that they might is worse. Especially when you cannot argue with the fact that some people clearly don't like it. Some people do feel worse about life (whether because they are directly offended, or because it depresses them to see thoughtless people, it hardly matters in the context of this discussion).
Why would you not try to behave in a way that annoys fewer people?
Why would you not start from the point of view "some people don't like it so i won't say it"? The if you can be sure you are being over-sensitive maybe relax a little?
I say a lot of things that offend a lot of people. For example I do not have any problem with telling someone dropping litter in the street that they are a filthy bastard. But when i say things that risk offending I do it for a reason. I want to make the world a better place, I want to stand up for what I believe is right.
If you believe that the right to use the phrase "art-fag" is more important than a few people's rights not to be offended or upset by it then I suppose that is your choice. So long as you are prepared to admit that that is what you have done, and so long as you are happy to justify it.
And if you're not prepared to jsutify it then you are either lazy or insufficiently interested in politics for me to have mucch time for you.
none of the examples hold particularly true to anything said in this thread and I don't think the general situation described is really relevant either.
"Why would you not try to behave in a way that annoys fewer people?
Why would you not start from the point of view "some people don't like it so i won't say it"? The if you can be sure you are being over-sensitive maybe relax a little?
I say a lot of things that offend a lot of people. For example I do not have any problem with telling someone dropping litter in the street that they are a filthy bastard. But when i say things that risk offending I do it for a reason. I want to make the world a better place, I want to stand up for what I believe is right.
If you believe that the right to use the phrase "art-fag" is more important than a few people's rights not to be offended or upset by it then I suppose that is your choice. So long as you are prepared to admit that that is what you have done, and so long as you are happy to justify it."
Jesus, did you really devote time to writing that nefarious piffle?
You're too dedicated to be a troll. Therefore, your proposal that we curb the rights of people to say whatever they feel because it may upset someone else must be genuine, and leads me back to my original conclusion:
You, sir, are a purveyor of nefarious piffle.
And would you want homophobes to be politicised or not?
Firstly everyone has the choice to live life how they want. Personally - to keep it very simple - I think that you have an obligation to vote even if all you are voting for is to make sure Tories, Lib Dems or Labour get in, not the BNP.
Choosing how to deal with minorities is to a large extent a political decision. Ultimately it is everyone's choice whether they are racist or non-racist. And if they are non-racist they can choose whether to be happy to be non-racist and not worry about hurting or offending people, or happy to take non-racism as a starting point and then go on to try not to be offensive as well. That is either a political decision, or it is a non-decision (for most people on here it is a non-decision, I would prefer people took the political decision to try be better people.
The more I think about it the more 'art-fag' offends me.
Genuinely this thread has made me much more sure I'm right, and that I don't go anywhere near far enough. I must up my game.
And for politicising homophobes... of course I would prefer it if homophobes just fucked right off, but at least if they are politicised then (1) they are honest (2) they are identifiable and (3) they can be tackled.
From Ice Cube's "The Predator", or rather from Malcolm X
"Speaking as a black man from America, which is a racist society. No matter how much you hear it talk about democracy it's as racist as South Africa or as racist as Portugal or as racist as any other racialist society on this earth. The only difference between it and South Africa: South Africa preaches separation and practices separation. America preaches integration and practices segregation. This is the only difference. They don't practice what they preach. Or as South Africa preaches and practices the same thing. I have more respect for a man who let me know where he stands, even if he's wrong, then one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil."
the start of paragraph 2 assumes - quite possibly wrongly - that it is possible to be non-racist whilst offending people through careless use of language.
and deal with consequences however I see fit.
Does that compute with your black and white Lib-uh-rul view of the world?
Well done, you have posted something that I cannot respond to without resorting to swearing directly at you... apart from I have resisted by posting "Well done, you have posted something that i cannot respond to without resorting to swearing directly at you in a vicious way..."
"Radiohead are an English snooze rock band from Privilegeville, Oxfordshire. The band is composed of Thom Yorke (whining), Jonny Greenwood (wanking), Ed O’Brien (bit of everything), Colin Greenwood (farty noises) and Phil Selway (hitting things).
They met whilst masturbating each other in the dorms of some posh boys school. Originally formed in 1986 and named “On a Friday”, the name referring to the band’s usual rehearsal day in the school’s music room, music fans across the have subsequently spent 23 years wishing that they’d resist picking up their instruments on Saturdays, Sundays, Monday, Tuesdays, Wednesday and Thursdays. On a Friday’s greatest years were 1987-1991 when the members were at University and the band was on a fairly long hiatus, though, proving the maxim that walls have ears, groaning was heard coming from some seriously pissed off rehearsal room walls in the University Holidays. Some even walked out. And believe me a wall has to be pretty pissed off to walk out."
Because it suggests that you have a massive chip on your shoulder and that you don't mind insulting people (as the whole article is an attack on radiohead) by implying that they perform homosexual acts on each other.
He's exactly the kind of narcissistic wanker the world could do without.
"...And if you're not prepared to jsutify [sic] it then you are either lazy or insufficiently interested in politics for me to have mucch [sic] time for you."
See, you seem to think not gracing us with your presence is some sort of punishment. Whereas I think many on here would agree it would be a huge blessing if you just fucked off.
interestingly on this thread no-one has stuck up for the LGBT community, yet the moment someone (on an entirely different website) has a go at white, male, middle class millionaires it is a massive issue, showing the chip on my shoulder. I do not have a chip on my shoulder, and if i did then perhaps it would come from a similar place to Kele O's chip on his shoulder - perhaps he spends half his life dealing with people who insist they are not homophobic but are actually bigots.
and for what it is worth, i did not imply that they perform (present tense) homosexual acts on each other. It is called satire and the intended victim of those particular 4 words out of hundreds my satire was both radiohead and the whole public school system, boys exploring their sexuality in the dorms etc etc. i would not wish to assume that just because someone gave their mate a blowjob when they were 13 they are gay. (nor would I assume that it was a bad thing if they were). I'm sure many of you have done something similar, which is probably why you're so uncomfortable about homosexuality.
"i did not imply that they perform (present tense) homosexual acts on each other..."
"They met whilst masturbating each other in the dorms of some posh boys school"
If you had any awareness, you would have seen that what's got you into trouble here is not the superficial attacking of five white men - but your simple hypocrisy.
It's entirely immaterial whether your implication was that Radiohead enjoy or enjoy(ed) wanking each other off. If you're even going to the point where this behaviour is something to be (gasp) phobic about, then you're committing the very crime you've spent this entire thread decrying.
While I'm at it, criticising someone for having the nerve not to be born black and poor is PROPER GAY - especially when the people you're attacking go out of their way to spread awareness of disadvantage and misfortune in the wider world, when as rich white men they don't have to do shit. Sort it out.
some of my best friends are gay, also I work for a charity where over 50% of the males are gay (including my boss).
What you wrote wasn't satire, you were using it as an insulting (because you so how hate radiohead) and it was homophobic, (much worse than stealthy's comment that offended you so much) you big fucking hypocrite, fuck off.
See, I'm a "grown up." A "grown up" doesn't get offended by swearing. A "grown up" has the good sense to go somewhere else if he or she feels they're at risk of being offended. Try it. It may do wonders for you.
there is a difference between being offended by swearing, being offending by homophobes and racists, and being offended by someone swearing aggressively at you as a response to your bigotry. I would guess that for bigots being abused by those who dislike bigotry is water off a duck's back.
you've repeatedly shown yourself to be a bit of an arse crack in this thread. RE your Radiohead comments:
No, you didn't imply that. You flat-out stated they did. What WAS implied by you is that these homosexual acts are a bad thing, and worthy of scorn, which blows your entire argument vis-avis tolerance and understanding out of the water.
This alone would be enough to safely banish you to the internet pit, but it goes on:
"there is a difference between being offended by swearing, being offending by homophobes and racists, and being offended by someone swearing aggressively at you as a response to your bigotry. I would guess that for bigots being abused by those who dislike bigotry is water off a duck's back."
Through the terrible wording, poor phrasing and general idiocy, I managed to ascertain that I am the "bigot" in question. Again, I'm not the one who took the time to call a widely-respected, popular rock band "gay" and dress it up as "satirical criticism". Nor am I the one who took a little extra time to act as though this homosexuality was a negative trait. You did, sir. You. Did. You. Wanker.
You are the most intolerant and insufferable internet troll it's ever been my misfortune to stumble across.
"It is called satire and the intended victim of those particular 4 words out of hundreds my satire was both radiohead and the whole public school system, boys exploring their sexuality in the dorms etc etc."
You don't understand what "satire" means, I think it's safe to say. "Satire" is intelligent. "Satire" is funny. "Satire" isn't written by mouth-breathing lurkers with a sycophantic attachment to hack journalists. So, no, "[your] satire" didn't hit it's "intended victims" (those intended victims being a humanitarian, critically acclaimed rock band, harmless middle-class people, and scared, confused young men learning about themselves and their sexuality in private schools without the benefit of understanding, maturity or moral support).
You stated Radiohead engaged in homosexual acts as young boys in order to make them look bad. You did it for no other reason but this. Don't try to weasel out of it now, you fat fucking cunt hypocrite. You aren't funny, you don't have a purpose and you're a detriment to everyone who is unfortunate enough to come into contact with you. Fuck off, you moron, and think about where you're going wrong and how you can sort your head out as quickly and economically as possible.
Does that offend you?
You are a victim of...Truism!!!
I referenced Malcolm X via Ice Cube to make a point about how marginalised groups might sometimes prefer honest bigotry to subtle bigotry.
I am not certain I held Ice Cube up as a beacon shining light on all forms of bigotry.
How did reading 'derailing for dummies go?'
not after the question mark - it makes it look like the piece is called "derailing for dummies go?" which is most confusing
Everett True on the The Maccabees’ second album: “The record company brought in producer Markus Dravs for the ‘difficult’ second album. Why? The guy is a dickhead.”
as a homo half nigger, i'd rather not have everett true on my side, THANKS
i really don't like blacks?
pah. seriously though..
Surely the use of 'gay' and 'faggot'have graduated these days from homophobic comments to attacks on overt hetro masculinity?. I mean if i use the term to a straight person, and they get offended, surely the issue is possibly their hetro masculinity being brought into question. So if i call everett true a faggot, and he takes offence, isnt it possible he is taking offence at being likened to a homosexual? I mean he is straight so being called a faggot really shouldnt insult him unless he doesnt like being likened to a homosexual?
Either that or his is generalising and taking offense on behalf of millions of others without their consent on the issue, or indeed their individual point of view. I know plenty of gays who use the word faggot and gay.
It's great to be back on this site. Some old faces some new. Some good, some True.
It's like they saw this thread.
full of egregiously pedantic disseminations.