Has the vitriol subsided?

[Fix42YellowClocks]

I'm wondering because I haven't been on the site generally for almost a year now due to the prevalent and overwhelming nihilist attitudes. It would ruin my moods to the point I just couldn't come on and post anymore. I understand the right to criticize music, even if you're a fan of the band, but it went way past that. It was made out to be a sin to put out MX, almost like it should be illegal to make such music. I agree that Paradise and Princess of China (of Coldplay's fault not Rihanna's) are definitely subpar but people were letting it mire all the good work they had ever put out.

 

When you listen to Coldplay, the first thing that comes to mind shouldn't be how bad Paradise is. It should be how great songs like Clocks, Talk, Viva la Vida, Warning Sign, Us Against the World, and others are. All I ever heard was Paradise was so bad so that must make the whole album horrible. Wrong. And for all of those people who talk about how we need the old Coldplay back, I'd argue that songs like Us Against the World and U.F.O. are more like Parachutes than anything we've seen on the previous albums. It is their worst album? I'd say yes. But not by a large margin and it's still a great one by any standard and we don't have to act like it's an abomination. There's a difference between critics and reactionaries, and I was witnessing the latter.

 

Is it better? Can I read about the new album without hearing everywhere that Paradise is a demon child now? Honestly.

[Batman]

Hello thar Coldplay fan! :cheesy:

 

Is it better? Can I read about the new album without hearing everywhere that Paradise is a demon child now? Honestly.

Hmm well, I believe most of the people now have calmed down about the different kind of style Coldplay used for this album. You can say you love/like/hate Paradise and everybody will probably just shrug their internet shoulders and go "Mkay".

 

But there's still much more RAEG left for Princess Of China :saw:

[Coldplay]

It's sort of a running joke to make fun of MX in this community, the way I see it. Nothing more than that.

 

I do personally think that it's Coldplay's worst effort, but that doesn't mean that it's awful. It's still a nice album. It would just make a handful of people laugh if I made some joke about it being awful.

 

I still supported them cos they're special to me and I thought it was an alright album. Saw the show, bought the (overpriced) T-shirt.

 

I definitely see what you're coming from. But perhaps don't take other people's opinions so much to heart ? The majority of bands I listen to, my favorite album turns out to be the one everyone hates, for some reason, and I don't really care.

[Prospector]

It's sort of a running joke to make fun of MX in this community, the way I see it. Nothing more than that.

 

:nod:

Right now it's more like a joke than serious issue. I do like the album, but some of the jokes are actually funny. So yeah, welcome back :)

[Cobalt]

It would ruin my moods to the point I just couldn't come on and post anymore

 

Then perhaps it may have been better to shy away from the big opinion threads in the first place, I guarantee that there's always differing opinions and at least one is rather harsh

 

But it has chilled a bit from the initial 'shock' people may have had

[Fix42YellowClocks]

Hello thar Coldplay fan! :cheesy:

Hmm well, I believe most of the people now have calmed down about the different kind of style Coldplay used for this album. You can say you love/like/hate Paradise and everybody will probably just shrug their internet shoulders and go "Mkay".

 

But there's still much more RAEG left for Princess Of China :saw:

 

Hello. :) And I'm glad to hear that. That's the way it should be. And that's fair enough. I do think it's another generic song in some ways but it has nothing to do with Rihanna. She was a lot better than I thought she would be. The lyrics and melody just aren't there for me.

 

It's sort of a running joke to make fun of MX in this community, the way I see it. Nothing more than that.

 

I definitely see what you're coming from. But perhaps don't take other people's opinions so much to heart ? The majority of bands I listen to, my favorite album turns out to be the one everyone hates, for some reason, and I don't really care.

 

I can definitely see that. And it's not that I'm taking their opinions to heart. I'll speak to more to that in a moment. And nothing wrong with that. Always good to be an individual!

 

:nod:

Right now it's more like a joke than serious issue. I do like the album, but some of the jokes are actually funny. So yeah, welcome back :)

 

Okay. Just wondering. And thanks [:

 

Then perhaps it may have been better to shy away from the big opinion threads in the first place, I guarantee that there's always differing opinions and at least one is rather harsh

 

But it has chilled a bit from the initial 'shock' people may have had

 

I appreciate your suggestion and you may be right. But it's not the opinion that bothers me. I've been called gay for years (not sure how that would even be a negative thing) for being a guy who likes Coldplay and any meaningful/emotional music but doesn't bother me. When people say they made an awful album, I completely disagree but they have every right."I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

It's when they say that they shouldn't have put out the album, that they should've retired after Viva. That bothers me. Because the bands has a right to free speech and expression as much as we do. If we can say how we feel about the music, but because you don't like it they shouldn't have made it? I can't stand double standards. Because they made one supposedly bad album they should quit? It just. It's beyond criticism. It's illogical and senseless and tommyrot spewing from the mouth. If Coldplay don't deserve freedom of expression, neither do you!

Also, when you're mind is being constantly bombarded by negative upon negative upon negative- it's not healthy, for anyone regardless of what it's about. Whether it's daily reading pages of negative Coldplay remarks or pages of negative whatever, natural gas drilling remarks I don't know. It weighs on the vulnerable nature of the mind. Criticism is important and has an crucial place in society but when it's nonstop and unrelenting, when does it cease to lending to the idea of a. Coldplay. Fansite? I know where to go to read a proliferation of negative Coldplay remarks (Satriani and some Radiohead fansites), why should it be here as well?

[Cobalt]

I appreciate your suggestion and you may be right. But it's not the opinion that bothers me. I've been called gay for years (not sure how that would even be a negative thing) for being a guy who likes Coldplay and any meaningful/emotional music but doesn't bother me. When people say they made an awful album, I completely disagree but they have every right."I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

It's when they say that they shouldn't have put out the album, that they should've retired after Viva. That bothers me. Because the bands has a right to free speech and expression as much as we do. If we can say how we feel about the music, but because you don't like it they shouldn't have made it? I can't stand double standards. Because they made one supposedly bad album they should quit? It just. It's beyond criticism. It's illogical and senseless and tommyrot spewing from the mouth. If Coldplay don't deserve freedom of expression, neither do you!

 

I don't get it. So first you say everyone has a right to have their own opinion... but then you say they don't have the right to the opinion that Coldplay should have never put the album out because Coldplay have a right to freedom of expression and also because it upsets you? Then you go on saying you hate double standards? What the heck?

 

Criticism is important and has an crucial place in society but when it's nonstop and unrelenting, when does it cease to lending to the idea of a. Coldplay. Fansite? I know where to go to read a proliferation of negative Coldplay remarks (Satriani and some Radiohead fansites), why should it be here as well?

 

Then you go onto this point, where it is implied that they can't have such negative opinions on this website? Wut? They are allowed to say that they don't like it as much as you are allowed to say how much you love it, you know.

[Italian Plastic]

The best thing about MX is that the band are really proud of it. I'm happier with seeing a band happy with what they've created than enjoying it myself tbh.

[Troxley]

The silly arguments that people start are worse than people being critical of Coldplay or their music. I like Paradise, but if someone says "Paradise is the worst thing ever created" there's no use getting my feathers all ruffled. Just ignore it.

[Tnspieler1012]

I'm wondering because I haven't been on the site generally for almost a year now due to the prevalent and overwhelming nihilist attitudes. It would ruin my moods to the point I just couldn't come on and post anymore. I understand the right to criticize music, even if you're a fan of the band, but it went way past that. It was made out to be a sin to put out MX, almost like it should be illegal to make such music. I agree that Paradise and Princess of China (of Coldplay's fault not Rihanna's) are definitely subpar but people were letting it mire all the good work they had ever put out.

 

When you listen to Coldplay, the first thing that comes to mind shouldn't be how bad Paradise is. It should be how great songs like Clocks, Talk, Viva la Vida, Warning Sign, Us Against the World, and others are. All I ever heard was Paradise was so bad so that must make the whole album horrible. Wrong. And for all of those people who talk about how we need the old Coldplay back, I'd argue that songs like Us Against the World and U.F.O. are more like Parachutes than anything we've seen on the previous albums. It is their worst album? I'd say yes. But not by a large margin and it's still a great one by any standard and we don't have to act like it's an abomination. There's a difference between critics and reactionaries, and I was witnessing the latter.

 

Is it better? Can I read about the new album without hearing everywhere that Paradise is a demon child now? Honestly.

1. LOL. You do know you're in the lounge where half of us have forgotten that coldplay even exists?

 

2. Chill. Those so-called nihilists have just as much right to voice their opinions as you. If Coldplay's next album sounded like it was made by a band you hate, you would not only be outraged, but also annoyed by the influx of new fans who prefer it to the older coldplay you fell in love with. It's your own humble opinion that their recent work is better than some say it is (though one quick peek in the coldplay section tells me there are infinitely more positive fans than naysayers).

 

There's no such thing as 'going way past' fair criticism of a band. You can't limit how much someone can love and hate an album. In any case, don't go around acting like it's the fault of someone else voicing their honest opinion that you aren't having fun anymore.

[Reilly]

^DOUBLE PENETRATION

 

From what I recall the main reaction from people in the MX forum was very positive, I think there were possibly more threads about hate towards it but in comparison of posts, one positive thread would garner pages, and pages, and pages, about how great the new album or single is. Whereas an MX hate thread would peak at about 12 replies and then die out.

[Cyan Kat]

I don't recall many people saying 'coldplay should slit up

people would just post why they disliked a song and maybe have a little bit of a joke about the lyrics and then there'd be all these offended fans saying how coldplay have evolved and we're narrow minded because clearly we just want the oldplay back when infact they were being narrow minded for not accepting our views.

Besides there has always been waaay more supporters of MX than people who dislike it, just look at the polls and every song will be rated at 10.

[Reilly]

^ :nod: (At the poll thing)

 

I think people who loved it were, how should we put it, very, concise in putting across their opinions (IE dis is da gr8 albuum of ur tyim i <3 milo ef da haturz!!1) and the people who disliked it with a passion would write a LOT more and reply to others a LOT more. So we noticed the people who like it a lot less, in reality they completely outnumbered the haturz, the polls show that.

 

Basically those who didn't like it normally had the capacity to express themselves properly, what a coincidence. I'm not saying absolutely everyone who loved it is a moron and can't express themselves though.

[Troxley]

^ :nod: (At the poll thing)

 

I think people who loved it were, how should we put it, very, concise in putting across their opinions (IE dis is da gr8 albuum of ur tyim i <3 milo ef da haturz!!1) and the people who disliked it with a passion would write a LOT more and reply to others a LOT more. So we noticed the people who like it a lot less, in reality they completely outnumbered the haturz, the polls show that.

 

Basically those who didn't like it normally had the capacity to express themselves properly, what a coincidence. I'm not saying absolutely everyone who loved it is a moron and can't express themselves though.

I liked the album.....um....because....well.....um.....it....well....it's.......it's Coldplay.

:uhoh:

[Reilly]

I know you're kidding but that was literally a lot of people's attitude. I remember the top comment on the Paradise video was "I liked it before I even hit play", and numerous other opinions of "How can you NOT like it?! It's Coldplay!! <3".

[Violet]

I liked the album.....um....because....well.....um.....it....well....it's.......it's Coldplay.

:uhoh:

 

That's not really a reason, though, is it?

[Reilly]

^I'm beginning to learn that poster likes satirical humour and it can be hard to pick up on.

[Troxley]

I know you're kidding but that was literally a lot of people's attitude. I remember the top comment on the Paradise video was "I liked it before I even hit play", and numerous other opinions of "How can you NOT like it?! It's Coldplay!! <3".

I know, that was my point. I don't think "I'm gonna love this!" before I hear a Coldplay song, I think "I hope this is good." and sometimes am disappointed....

[Fix42YellowClocks]

I don't get it. So first you say everyone has a right to have their own opinion... but then you say they don't have the right to the opinion that Coldplay should have never put the album out because Coldplay have a right to freedom of expression and also because it upsets you? Then you go on saying you hate double standards? What the heck?

 

When one's freedom of expression seeks to prohibit others', it is immoral and not justified. As a caveat to that, there is an exception. If someone seeks to abuse free speech by curtailing the rights of others without moral justification, you have the right of restricting them in return. Coldplay is harming no one, they are not abusing others' rights and are not denying anyone free speech, so the people who are saying they shouldn't put out music have no valid justification to inhibit them, regardless of their criticisms.

 

However, we have a right as moral agents to sequester those who look to abuse their freedoms to quiet Coldplay's expression. The right to expression is not unquantifiable or limitless. If people seek to quiet others on no moral basis, as some members here have, we have a moral obligation to check their abuses of speech freedoms to uphold the sanctity of expression for all. We are not violating their rights because they are using speech immorally and beyond its reasonable and practical bounds.

 

To argue that members here have a right to free speech to stop Coldplay from expressing free speech is completely irrational and contradictory. To not allow any exceptions in this libertarian idealism will prove the downfall of free speech as a whole, as any can restrict others on no reasonable basis whatsoever in a lawless system of chaos. By allowing people the ability to restrict freedoms against another who is usurping and denying others' freedoms by quelling without justifiable cause, that is the only way we can ensure free speech is preserved.

 

This is not a simplistic problem and cannot be understood or argued as such. There are complexities.

 

Then you go onto this point, where it is implied that they can't have such negative opinions on this website? Wut? They are allowed to say that they don't like it as much as you are allowed to say how much you love it, you know.

 

Not that negative opinions shouldn't be allowed. That the proliferation of a large majority of negative opinions should be juxtaposed with the so-called idea of a fansite. If there is an overwhelming population arduously and incessantly providing negative and vitriolic remarks, how does that quantify as the definition as a fansite? Individuals should not be mislead in what they are dedicating irredeemable time to be apart of. This is not a question of the right to express opinion; if you're a fan of something and the topics you read are overwhelming negative, does this not contradict the idea of what it means to be a fan (someone constantly assailed by a subjective bias in favor of something, against would be quite the opposite)? It shouldn't be called a fansite but an objective criticism site. Fansite implies appeal to pathos and a particular subjective (not objective) understanding of a topic, i.e. one positively slanted in the subject described. An overwhelming population of negativity does not qualify the idea of a fansite and people have a right to know what they're being involved in without being misled by monikers. If they want an objective criticism site they will read reviews by Pitchfork and NME, not join a community called coldplaying which implies an inherent bias they connect with favoring the band in choosing to invest viable time.

 

You're simplifying the argument to a superficial rights one, I'm questioning the structure of what a fansite should be and how, by claiming that misnomer, you could be wasting people's time who are mislead by the supposed intent of the site material. In this scenario, one cannot find a haven to provide positively biased ideals on a topic, then you are providing an environment for an objective, not subjective understanding (which is the opposite of what a fansite intrinsically implies). To say that everyone should have to listen to objective remarks is absurd, especiallyif someone should seek a place that will nurture their biases, not criticize every facet of every detail. If they can't share their slanted positive ideals in a fansite, where can they possibly go?

[The Mad Hatter]

why is this suddenly a discussion on natural rights

[Fix42YellowClocks]

why is this suddenly a discussion on natural rights

 

I'm explaining my response to Cobalt about the logic of my statement. This is a lounge forum, almost anything is allowed including natural rights discussion. I cannot argue my point of the seemingly conflicting idea of why I have the right to argue people shouldn't be allowed to tell Coldplay to stop expressing themselves without a fundamental argument to the freedoms we enjoy. I'm not averse to deep intellectual conversations anywhere at any time. They should be encouraged and if you want to criticize my logic I'll take it to another level to get my point across.

[Blue Nails]

I'm going back on topic if you don't mind. :)

The really bad vibes only lasted for a few days (in my memory). I didn't like it either, but that was because I thought the 'negative' people had a point.

Right now, the general mood is pretty good. The MX discussion occasionaly pops up again, but it's a forum after all. We need our disagreements.

As long as you've formed your opinion and are able to stick with it, you won't be bothered by it.

[Cyan Kat]

Not that negative opinions shouldn't be allowed. That the proliferation of a large majority of negative opinions should be juxtaposed with the so-called idea of a fansite. If there is an overwhelming population arduously and incessantly providing negative and vitriolic remarks, how does that quantify as the definition as a fansite? Individuals should not be mislead in what they are dedicating irredeemable time to be apart of. This is not a question of the right to express opinion; if you're a fan of something and the topics you read are overwhelming negative, does this not contradict the idea of what it means to be a fan (someone constantly assailed by a subjective bias in favor of something, against would be quite the opposite)? It shouldn't be called a fansite but an objective criticism site. Fansite implies appeal to pathos and a particular subjective (not objective) understanding of a topic, i.e. one positively slanted in the subject described. An overwhelming population of negativity does not qualify the idea of a fansite and people have a right to know what they're being involved in without being misled by monikers. If they want an objective criticism site they will read reviews by Pitchfork and NME, not join a community called coldplaying which implies an inherent bias they connect with favoring the band in choosing to invest viable time.

 

You're simplifying the argument to a superficial rights one, I'm questioning the structure of what a fansite should be and how, by claiming that misnomer, you could be wasting people's time who are mislead by the supposed intent of the site material. In this scenario, one cannot find a haven to provide positively biased ideals on a topic, then you are providing an environment for an objective, not subjective understanding (which is the opposite of what a fansite intrinsically implies). To say that everyone should have to listen to objective remarks is absurd, especiallyif someone should seek a place that will nurture their biases, not criticize every facet of every detail. If they can't share their slanted positive ideals in a fansite, where can they possibly go?

You need to understand that this is the lounge section of the board, the part where we talk about stuff other than coldplay. If all you want to read about is coldplay then there's the rest of the forum for that and you can quite easily avoid reading negativity by avoiding such threads.

[Tnspieler1012]

When one's freedom of expression seeks to prohibit others', it is immoral and not justified. As a caveat to that, there is an exception. If someone seeks to abuse free speech by curtailing the rights of others without moral justification, you have the right of restricting them in return. Coldplay is harming no one, they are not abusing others' rights and are not denying anyone free speech, so the people who are saying they shouldn't put out music have no valid justification to inhibit them, regardless of their criticisms.

 

However, we have a right as moral agents to sequester those who look to abuse their freedoms to quiet Coldplay's expression. The right to expression is not unquantifiable or limitless. If people seek to quiet others on no moral basis, as some members here have, we have a moral obligation to check their abuses of speech freedoms to uphold the sanctity of expression for all. We are not violating their rights because they are using speech immorally and beyond its reasonable and practical bounds.

 

To argue that members here have a right to free speech to stop Coldplay from expressing free speech is completely irrational and contradictory. To not allow any exceptions in this libertarian idealism will prove the downfall of free speech as a whole, as any can restrict others on no reasonable basis whatsoever in a lawless system of chaos. By allowing people the ability to restrict freedoms against another who is usurping and denying others' freedoms by quelling without justifiable cause, that is the only way we can ensure free speech is preserved.

 

This is not a simplistic problem and cannot be understood or argued as such. There are complexities.

 

 

 

Not that negative opinions shouldn't be allowed. That the proliferation of a large majority of negative opinions should be juxtaposed with the so-called idea of a fansite. If there is an overwhelming population arduously and incessantly providing negative and vitriolic remarks, how does that quantify as the definition as a fansite? Individuals should not be mislead in what they are dedicating irredeemable time to be apart of. This is not a question of the right to express opinion; if you're a fan of something and the topics you read are overwhelming negative, does this not contradict the idea of what it means to be a fan (someone constantly assailed by a subjective bias in favor of something, against would be quite the opposite)? It shouldn't be called a fansite but an objective criticism site. Fansite implies appeal to pathos and a particular subjective (not objective) understanding of a topic, i.e. one positively slanted in the subject described. An overwhelming population of negativity does not qualify the idea of a fansite and people have a right to know what they're being involved in without being misled by monikers. If they want an objective criticism site they will read reviews by Pitchfork and NME, not join a community called coldplaying which implies an inherent bias they connect with favoring the band in choosing to invest viable time.

 

You're simplifying the argument to a superficial rights one, I'm questioning the structure of what a fansite should be and how, by claiming that misnomer, you could be wasting people's time who are mislead by the supposed intent of the site material. In this scenario, one cannot find a haven to provide positively biased ideals on a topic, then you are providing an environment for an objective, not subjective understanding (which is the opposite of what a fansite intrinsically implies). To say that everyone should have to listen to objective remarks is absurd, especiallyif someone should seek a place that will nurture their biases, not criticize every facet of every detail. If they can't share their slanted positive ideals in a fansite, where can they possibly go?

 

I lol'd. Was most of that copied and pasted from your last philosophy paper?

 

I heavily disagree on numerous points and find your entire speech laughably misguided...but it's bedtime. If reilly is still awake, he might have a nice concise reply.

 

If you really really really want an explanation, I'll give you a point by point in the morning. In the meantime, you made me think of this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLplQWB2S_8]Monty Python - Court Scene - YouTube[/ame]

[Violet]

When one's freedom of expression seeks to prohibit others', it is immoral and not justified. As a caveat to that, there is an exception. If someone seeks to abuse free speech by curtailing the rights of others without moral justification, you have the right of restricting them in return. Coldplay is harming no one, they are not abusing others' rights and are not denying anyone free speech, so the people who are saying they shouldn't put out music have no valid justification to inhibit them, regardless of their criticisms.

 

However, we have a right as moral agents to sequester those who look to abuse their freedoms to quiet Coldplay's expression. The right to expression is not unquantifiable or limitless. If people seek to quiet others on no moral basis, as some members here have, we have a moral obligation to check their abuses of speech freedoms to uphold the sanctity of expression for all. We are not violating their rights because they are using speech immorally and beyond its reasonable and practical bounds.

 

To argue that members here have a right to free speech to stop Coldplay from expressing free speech is completely irrational and contradictory. To not allow any exceptions in this libertarian idealism will prove the downfall of free speech as a whole, as any can restrict others on no reasonable basis whatsoever in a lawless system of chaos. By allowing people the ability to restrict freedoms against another who is usurping and denying others' freedoms by quelling without justifiable cause, that is the only way we can ensure free speech is preserved.

 

This is not a simplistic problem and cannot be understood or argued as such. There are complexities.

 

Not that negative opinions shouldn't be allowed. That the proliferation of a large majority of negative opinions should be juxtaposed with the so-called idea of a fansite. If there is an overwhelming population arduously and incessantly providing negative and vitriolic remarks, how does that quantify as the definition as a fansite? Individuals should not be mislead in what they are dedicating irredeemable time to be apart of. This is not a question of the right to express opinion; if you're a fan of something and the topics you read are overwhelming negative, does this not contradict the idea of what it means to be a fan (someone constantly assailed by a subjective bias in favor of something, against would be quite the opposite)? It shouldn't be called a fansite but an objective criticism site. Fansite implies appeal to pathos and a particular subjective (not objective) understanding of a topic, i.e. one positively slanted in the subject described. An overwhelming population of negativity does not qualify the idea of a fansite and people have a right to know what they're being involved in without being misled by monikers. If they want an objective criticism site they will read reviews by Pitchfork and NME, not join a community called coldplaying which implies an inherent bias they connect with favoring the band in choosing to invest viable time.

 

You're simplifying the argument to a superficial rights one, I'm questioning the structure of what a fansite should be and how, by claiming that misnomer, you could be wasting people's time who are mislead by the supposed intent of the site material. In this scenario, one cannot find a haven to provide positively biased ideals on a topic, then you are providing an environment for an objective, not subjective understanding (which is the opposite of what a fansite intrinsically implies). To say that everyone should have to listen to objective remarks is absurd, especiallyif someone should seek a place that will nurture their biases, not criticize every facet of every detail. If they can't share their slanted positive ideals in a fansite, where can they possibly go?

 

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever read.