FRHD Chat Thread

in all fairness too, some musicians i do respect have done worse than kanye

hell, jimmy page even kidnapped and slept with a 14 year old girl

 

whats wrong with 14 year old girls??

 

nothing but of course they must be the best because your gf is probably 14

 

hehehe, she sure is! Ya, shes 14

anyway, yeah, kidnappiing is no good, is it?

 

you think kidnapping might be good?

 

haha, i havent had a whole lot of experience in that field, but id be willing to bet it really isnt an asset in the community!

 

maybe you should do a bit a research
kidnapping is terrible

 

dude, i wasnt doubting that! i said "kidnapping is no good"

 

Wow man nice choice of lyrics that was totally a great example of Kanye being serious!

Also the fact that you don't even know Miles Freakin' Davis suggests to me you might want some context in the music world before you comment on who may or may not be a "genius."

 

wait, kanye is ever serious?

 

Your argument was that calling them mainstream "writes off" their achievements. That's literally it, rewritten. The word "mainstream" was the catalyst, so to say that you don't disagree with that label being stamped to their character is disingenuous. You quoted it and emphasized it. The reason I refused to argue the rest, which was the "writing off achievements" part is because that's not only subjective but...I didn't say anything about that. I am unfamiliar with those celebs. I do not care about them nor their achievements. I do not care for subjective debate. So if you don't disagree with the mainstream part, which you are now proclaiming not to, then what's the point in responding since it's clear that I do not care to argue the rest?

So it's not a good case against me being cultured either, since subjectivity holds no water here and therefore can be easily disregarded. If you don't care for subjective debate, the entire first paragraph was pointless as f*ck. You don't disagree with the factual point I made, you rather, well...*believe* that it writes off their achievements, despite the fact that that's entirely irrelevant and wasn't mentioned.

 

IMO, this is the most pointless arguement in the universe, but im tolerating it and not asking stig to block it, becasue i know lots of my arguements are prob pointless to other ppl.............yes, im talking to you Ishu

 

Says Fred Gibson of all people.

 

Y'all are right and I'm kind of bored anyway so I'll get this train back on the rails here

My dipsh*t little stepbrother (and when I say little I don't mean kid, he's not stupid) took my sarcasm out of context and told my ex that I don't like to be around her & when I seen her vehicle at the gym, I scoffed. I swear my social life is nothing but damage control, trying to fix things I never even did.

 

It's called a roundhouse kick

 

I quoted the phrase "mainstream celebs", actually. I don't know why you're fixating on that, so I will now explain, very clearly, with easy-to-understand bullet points what my point is.

• Yes, they are well-known. This is incredibly obvious, and in fact crucial to the point I am making. I have no idea how you could even consider that I was saying they weren't, especially after I have (multiple times, now) made it clear that that is not the point I am making.
• "Since when is not being fluent in the knowledge of every mainstream celeb in existence synonymous to lacking in culture? I don't pride myself on being able to name celebrities and what their impact was off the top of my head." - This is as ridiculous a sentence as "Since when is not being fluent in the knowledge of every head of state in existence synonymous to not knowing politics? I don't pride myself on being able to name politicians and what their impact was off the top of my head." would be in response to being told you don't know about politics since you don't know who Obama, Trudeau, or Merkel were.
• These are very important, prominent figures within their respective subjects, and not knowing who they are is tantamount to ignorance of the subject.

I hope this aids you in understanding what I've been saying. Maybe I shouldn't have quoted the phrase, since you seem to be incapable of moving past it despite my (now multiple) clarifications.

If you wish to tell me what my argument is, at least have the decency to characterize it correctly instead of this horrible mess.

 

• I'm fixated on it because it's my entire f*cking argument. I called them mainstream, which somehow led to this. You took issue with me calling them mainstream, claiming that it belittles their work, which implies that you believe mainstream is a label best stamped to people who are famous for no good reason. Which is true in the context that mainstream possesses some otherworldly definition that it does not, something that, ironically, the mainstream media has portrayed that word as. It is as such; to call someone ignorant for being rude, which is almost a societal norm in how much it is practiced. However, the word "ignorant" is lack of knowledge on a particular subject, IE me not knowing who those celebrities were is me being ignorant of them, rather than rude toward someone.
  
• The way you straw-manned it is ridiculous, yes. Your astounding hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again as you conflate ignorance of a person or party with ignorance of a subject. Culture is a subject just as politics is. You can be well informed on the political process without knowing the kingpins that spearhead the political movement. You can add anyone you want to that position hypothetically and pose a piece of logic that well fits within the confines of reality in regards to any political movement that exists, and thus, you can without a doubt, know politics without knowing the leaders themselves, whether it be just the names or their impact. It doesn't matter. You're not comparing like with like.

• Re-read my previous bullet to successfully refute your third. It is not tantamount to ignorance of the process, it is tantamount to ignorance of the people in charge. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope this aids you in understanding that it is not me who is not following logistics. Maybe I shouldn't have said mainstream, who knew you would have pulled such a debacle out of your rear.

If you wish to tell me what your argument is, have it make sense. Things are easier construed when they fit together like a puzzle rather than a laughable clusterf*ck.

 

"You took issue with me calling them mainstream" Can you read?

"complete misinterpretation, if the "mainstream" part was what i was taking issue with that would hurt my point, no?" - octo
"I did not disagree with you calling them mainstream, in fact I acknowledged that doing so would be idiotic." - octo
"Yes, they are well-known. This is incredibly obvious, and in fact crucial to the point I am making. I have no idea how you could even consider that I was saying they weren't, especially after I have (multiple times, now) made it clear that that is not the point I am making." - octo

Since you haven't gotten it by now I suspect you never will, but let's try it again, with an all-caps variant this time: I DID NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH YOU CALLING THEM MAINSTREAM. MY ISSUE WITH THE STATEMENT IS THAT IT IS AN INVALID COUNTERARGUMENT TO AN ACCUSATION THAT YOU ARE UNCULTURED FOR YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PEOPLE MENTIONED.

I am saying you have a lack of knowledge of culture, though, which you seem to have figured out (though I don't know why you're telling me, it's what I've been saying the whole time)

Whoa, an actual point!
This is true, it is technically possible to have a knowledge of the political process without any knowledge at all of the major players in politics. However, if you're talking to someone who claims to know politics and they have no idea who those prominent figures are, it would be a pretty good tip-off that they really don't.
Edit: And I would also say that with culture, the people at its head and the subject itself are incredibly closely tied. If you claim to be cultured, you should at least be familiar with the works of these people, which you seem not to be.

Maybe you should actually look into who these prominent cultural figures are instead of parading your ignorance (who knows, you might actually like some of their work!).

I agree! Try it sometime!

 

"complete misinterpretation, if the "mainstream" part was what i was taking issue with that would hurt my point, no?" - octo
"I did not disagree with you calling them mainstream, in fact I acknowledged that doing so would be idiotic." - octo
"Yes, they are well-known. This is incredibly obvious, and in fact crucial to the point I am making. I have no idea how you could even consider that I was saying they weren't, especially after I have (multiple times, now) made it clear that that is not the point I am making." - octo
" are best described as "mainstream celebs"?? seems like that's really writing off their achievements" - octo

Clearly what you are saying here was either;

1. poorly worded, or
2. you feel as though calling them mainstream isn't a good way to describe them, despite the fact that it's their greatest accomplishment (how can one deny that becoming immortalized by fame isn't an insane accomplishment?)

I have to actually quote you word for word for you to -maybe- see the fact that the comment I made about them being mainstream DID INDEED catalyze the response I just quoted. How is this even arguable? I said mainstream, you disagreed with that label. At the very least disagreed with it being their "best" description.

So the f*ck what if it's a tip-off? Since you gave no real refutation to that argument, I assume it's because you know I was correct there.
Maybe I would like their work, maybe I wouldn't. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

See, it could possibly be reasonable for you to assume that... if only I didn't clarify that statement 4 times now. If it will satisfy you, it didn't really get my point across as best as it could, but I didn't expect you to keep writing these things back at me so I didn't put too much thought into it. Now that I have clarified my position for the n-th time, can you actually address it instead of endlessly referring back to that post?

"Since you gave no real refutation to that argument, I assume it's because you know I was correct there." Okay, here's a refutation: A lack of knowledge of the works of those people (aka culture) constitutes a lack of knowledge of culture.