Prefacing this: please excuse my novella below.
saturdayindex wrote:Let's keep a few things in mind guys:
First of all, everyone is ENTITLED to his or her own opinion. We are all entitled to love or hate any artist we choose, and free to express that. We should also be aware that getting defensive when someone disagrees with us isn't always the best way to react.
Of course they are. They're entitled to an opinion. Are they entitled to troll? Are they entitled to spout blatant falsities on forum renown for its general calmness? Are they allowed to continue to to after being corrected by some actual evidence? I didn't get defensive because he disagreed with me (about the album), I got defensive because he was (and has been) trolling. I linked him a 24 year time lapse and he said "if I didn't know any better I'd think they were all recorded at the same time". He has something against the band or the poster, obviously.
See, I'm entitled to my opinion that Tomorrow's Harvest is not a good album. Does that mean I say things like "Tomorrow's Harvest contains many samples of whales dying and it's the same thing as last time"? No, because that'd be false, there's a I reason I preface most of my posts with "I feel" or "in my opinion" regarding that album, and it's somewhat offensive to put this on me even remotely and it's somewhat offense that one of my closer friends from this site agreed more with your message when he knows better even despite not liking the artist in particular that he has not put out the same exact thing over and over again, I know he knows this because I was there when we listened to a lot of the songs.
This site has barely any moderation at all (by the way, thank you for taking care of Lens' antics), mostly because it has not required it. However, trolls like Lens Larque still post all the time and dig up old shit irrelevant to the conversation to use against people like me and has previously personally put down turquoise70 on several occasions (and when I say put down, that's an understatement) for having SRS so she can be better represented on the outside how she feels on the inside. Hell, even Mexicola and I have had a series of private messages about how annoying he can be in total agreement.
I'm not stupid, I know exactly what naicob was doing here. He saw that I liked an album, tried for whatever reason purposefully to discredit it by using a bullshit reason. Unless you're one of those people who believe there are no such things as objective truths, he's wrong until he revises his statement to better criticize the album and not the artist he apparently knows so little (and yet so much, by his own word) about. I corrected him, in honestly the tamest possibly way I could and in the way I felt was appropriate for Twoism as this is Twoism, not /mu/. If anyone is upset, I refuse to accept part of the blame. Did I call him an asshole, or a dipshit, or a pleb or "entry-level"? No, I didn't, because:
a. This is Twoism and we should try not to be dicks (in my opinion)
b. I try as hard as I can not to be a dick
What he did is roughly equivalent to someone drinking a glass of wine by a particular vineyard that produces many varieties and saying "yeah, yep it's exactly the same as it's always been, for TWO decades" when it tastes and smells totally different. Is this a bannable offense like what a lot of Lens has done is in my opinion? Hell no, it's free speech (however wrong it is), free speech that pertains to the topic, but so is the person who responds to dismiss the incorrectness of such a declarative, ignorant (or blatantly volatile in an attempt to troll) post. I don't think it warrants an admin coming in and posting a message like that, considering
nothing really happened that warranted a message such as that one.
2020k wrote:Rodheh, you too. Good lord, this thread is about as angsty as the "Broken" album.
No. No, not me too. I never started the angst or attempted to continue it or wanted it or asked for it or needed it (with my OCD) or made a post containing it. The closest I came was "don't eat chalk", because I was positive at that point he was trolling, and that's hardly angsty in any way. This is nothing. This is Twoism with occasional trolls. It can happen to any forum.
People lie all the time. This is absolutely nothing compared not just to something like 4chan but pretty much anything else, WATTM in example. This thread is still less than almost every thread regarding a release there in terms of confrontation.
I have not, and never will, accept the idea that it is my fault somehow by responding to the troll, and I have heard every generic point to support that idea and I disagree with all of it.
Now, will anyone quote my wall of text, or part of it, because they agree with it? Who the hell knows...it's easier for people to take a stance of neutrality than to take a stance of what is right. You don't have to like Hesitation Marks at all - you just have to not have your reason for not liking it not be bullshit, unless you want to be called out for it. Sorry if I sound cocky, I really am, but I'm right and he's wrong and that's the end of it. What he stated and continued perpetuating was not a matter of taste. Had he stopped at "nothing surprising", I might have inquired "Oh? Didn't care for it?" and he could have responded with an actual opinion and not a false declarative statement that he's called out for and responds with "grow up". He can either concede his initial statement and continued statements and state a criticism that is coherent or he can deal with the responses.
Just to reiterate, the very first response, HIS response, was:
"
Nothing surprising, nothing new. SAME SOUNDS, same simplistic chord progressions, SAME BEATS, SAME LYRICS. Uninteresting pop music shrouded in an even more uninteresting superficial veil of painfully old gimmicky EMO OVERTONES. Same lame schtick for over 2 decades now."
This is the man that told me to grow up. Almost comical.
No John, you are the demons.
