Has the vitriol subsided?

[Coldplay]

 

OP you could've gotten to the point in 1 paragraph, 2 at the most. It took me so many reads to even comprehend that and when I did, I realized it didn't have much meaning at all.

 

objective criticism

reviews by Pitchfork and NME

Hahahahaha!!

[Cobalt]

Holy shit you're actually going on about human rights and freedom of speech in relation to criticism of a band

 

You realise, yes, that you don't really have all this freedom of speech hoo-hah here? It's a privately-owned website. So bringing up that as a point means nothing to me.

 

Objective criticism, Pitchfork and NME? I second Dee, HAHAHA!

 

Also, again, just because someone is a fan does NOT mean they absolutely must post positive remarks or else. People are allowed to have their own opinions, whether negative or positive, and post them while still identifying themselves as a fan. In fact, it's better we get varying opinions for a healthier discussion culture rather than just 'hey i like this' 'lol i do too' 'lolz!!!' Honestly, what part of this is so hard for people to understand?

[Brent]

what the fuck is this

[Brent]

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?

 

You are a caricature of yourself.

 

Dance for me, monkey.

[The Mad Hatter]

what the fuck is this

 

the vitriol has not subsided :smug:

[Brent]

Everyone knows John Locke declared "life, liberty, and objective music reviews" as universal human rights.

[PILLAGER_OF_DARKNESS]

coldplay was way more metal back in the day. anyone who likes the new stuff is just conforming to the predictable, money making style of the modern era.

[Tnspieler1012]

coldplay was way more metal back in the day. anyone who likes the new stuff is just conforming to the predictable, money making style of the modern era.

 

Phil? Is that you? :wacko:

[PILLAGER_OF_DARKNESS]

No, i only go by the name 'Pillager of Darkness'

[Reilly]

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.

 

My god, now I'm understanding why you have such a hard time dealing with things, you're batshit crazy.

 

You'll take it to another level to get your point across?! By doing what, making a total joke out of yourself? I can imagine you're now thinking we're of a lower level of intelligence, and we can mock you all we like but nobodies standing up to your point, but there are plenty of people that can write exactly like you just have (Except well, coherent) but I think that should be more reserved for something that's actually important.

 

Cobalt made a very simple point about you contradicting yourself, and it involved the band you love a bit too much, and you've launched into a hilarious attack of BIG WERDZ so as I said, it's no wonder you had such a hard time dealing with the initial backlash from some posters on the new album.

 

The part of your post about dis-secting your interpretation of the word 'fansite' and everything that should mean and then finishing your point by criticising those who pick apart everything about Coldplay, that was hilarious.

 

And new sig guys.

[Prospector]

Well that was a long post to read. Gosh! Stop taking yourself so seriously....

[Reilly]

Well that was a long post to read. Gosh! Stop taking yourself so seriously....

 

Anything more then 2 sentences if long by your standards, I find it odd you write that to me after that incredible novel the Fix42YellowClocks, and I don't even know what the point of this was? Am I to expect more pointless shit in your new retarded personal vendetta against me?

 

The post was hardly that long, try and work on your attention span (Is this post also too long for you?).

[Prospector]

^ It was not TO YOU, it was to Fix42YellowClocks, I thought it was not necessary to quote because that was the only long post on this thread, it was obvious for me, sorry.

[Brent]

Well that was a long post to read. Gosh! Stop taking yourself so seriously....

 

He has the right to write long posts because we all have free speech HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING

[Brent]

^ It was not TO YOU, it was to Fix42YellowClocks, I thought it was not necessary to quote because that was the only long post on this thread, it was obvious for me, sorry.

 

Only Reilly can call someone retarded, mistakenly, and get that person to apologize to him.

[Coldplay]

Everyone knows John Locke declared "life, liberty, and objective music reviews" as universal human rights.

Had a test in history class today, this genuinely helped me remember who John Locke was. Thanks

[The Mad Hatter]

Had a test in history class today, this genuinely helped me remember who John Locke was. Thanks

 

everyone should remember john locke always

[Troxley]

Isn't John Locke the bald guy on LOST? :P :rolleyes3:

[Coldplay]

everyone should remember john locke always

hist0ry is 4 lozers

[The Mad Hatter]

hist0ry is 4 lozers

 

but philosophy is for winnerz

[Cobalt]

but philosophy is for winnerz

 

As clearly evidenced by our very own Fix42YellowClocks here.

[Fix42YellowClocks]

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.

 

Yes, you do make a good point. The question now is why would I want to? Disagreeing with popular consensus on negativity and having my own form of logic makes me a loon. Clearly a sign of a receptive place I would think. Everyone has a right to be outlandish and bitterly critical but when I offer some kind of objection, no. There's no place for that. So everyone can speak their mind, but not really

 

My god, now I'm understanding why you have such a hard time dealing with things, you're batshit crazy.

 

You'll take it to another level to get your point across?! By doing what, making a total joke out of yourself? I can imagine you're now thinking we're of a lower level of intelligence, and we can mock you all we like but nobodies standing up to your point, but there are plenty of people that can write exactly like you just have (Except well, coherent) but I think that should be more reserved for something that's actually important.

 

Cobalt made a very simple point about you contradicting yourself, and it involved the band you love a bit too much, and you've launched into a hilarious attack of BIG WERDZ so as I said, it's no wonder you had such a hard time dealing with the initial backlash from some posters on the new album.

 

The part of your post about dis-secting your interpretation of the word 'fansite' and everything that should mean and then finishing your point by criticising those who pick apart everything about Coldplay, that was hilarious.

 

And new sig guys.

 

Thank you. No, I don't. I meant new level as beyond superficial argument. It's always fun to assume things as if you have no fallibility. I'll try to simplify my language. Clearly I'm in the wrong for having payed attention in high school English class. I'll keep that in mind. Of course, everyone has a right to be negative without justification but can I try to use logic to prove a point people disagree with? Nope. I don't know what I was thinking trying to be an individual and not conforming with everyone else. Indeed, indeed. You treat my argument like it's so worthless, pitiful and funny. Clearly I'm the one saying others are below me... right. No hypocrisy here.

 

Hahahahaha!!

 

I did mean it to be a joke. However, they're still more objective than a Coldplay fansite, or at least should be...

 

Holy shit you're actually going on about human rights and freedom of speech in relation to criticism of a band

 

You realise, yes, that you don't really have all this freedom of speech hoo-hah here? It's a privately-owned website. So bringing up that as a point means nothing to me.

 

Objective criticism, Pitchfork and NME? I second Dee, HAHAHA!

 

Also, again, just because someone is a fan does NOT mean they absolutely must post positive remarks or else. People are allowed to have their own opinions, whether negative or positive, and post them while still identifying themselves as a fan. In fact, it's better we get varying opinions for a healthier discussion culture rather than just 'hey i like this' 'lol i do too' 'lolz!!!' Honestly, what part of this is so hard for people to understand?

 

[/i]

 

Private industry and organizations have no duty in protecting rights and freedoms, a good point. But that doesn't justify not doing so just because it "doesn't have to". If a person or group's morality refuses to act on the simple premise that 'it's not bound to', that's some kind of ethics. What can I say? Sue me for being an idealist. If the reference to Kant doesn't illuminate that, nothing will. I would like to thank for criticizing my argument, not attacking me on ad hominem fallacy. The comments suggest I can't expect such civility from everyone...

 

You are a caricature of yourself.

 

Dance for me, monkey.

 

Thank you for attacking me on a personal level. That's a really convincing and legitimate way to get your point across. Don't use logic, just spew insults. Cool. Make yourself feel better by putting down others. Always laudable.

 

the vitriol has not subsided :smug:

 

Precisely. People's intolerance of my opinion is irrational. We can justify people who attack Coldplay on no concrete grounds, but my right to opinion? haha! What a fool to think I should have a right to speak my mind. Somehow their opinions are tolerable and not mine. Much logic. I'm glad I can be in a community where respect for unorthodox ideas is nominal and I can't express an argument or opinion without being dehumanized and verbally abused. When I criticized others for being negative, I wasn't a jerk about it. I tried to explain it logically, not with insults and put downs. Even if you think I failed, I didn't go out of my way to disrespect or be rude to anyone. I wanted this to be logical, not personal. Vitriol remains.

[Troxley]

Woah...I didn't read all of that...but I have one thing to say concerning the critical views people have towards this album:

Come on baby, don't let it break your heart.

[Violet]

...Wait. So you won't be tolerant of other people's less-than-positive opinions of Coldplay (because, y'know, that's all they are, opinions), but you want us to tolerate your opinion that said people shouldn't have these opinions because it's restricting Coldplay's rights?

 

:wtf:

 

Sense: you are making none.

[Fix42YellowClocks]

...Wait. So you won't be tolerant of other people's less-than-positive opinions of Coldplay (because, y'know, that's all they are, opinions), but you want us to tolerate your opinion that said people shouldn't have these opinions because it's restricting Coldplay's rights?

 

:wtf:

 

Sense: you are making none.

 

They're not tolerating Coldplay's right to make whatever music they want. I'm referring specifically to the people who say they shouldn't make any more music/retire, not a blanket negativity that people are making it out to be. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't be making this argument in the first place.

You're saying I'm intolerant and saying nope, you have no right to say this. But they're being JUST AS intolerant and you do NOTHING ABOUT IT. Nothing. Why is it FINE for them to be intolerant of Coldplay but NOT for me to be intolerant of them. Double. Standard. Everyone thinks others being intolerant is fine, but for me to do so is wrong. Logic? None.

They're trying to restrict Coldplay's expression on no valid basis. Why should people be allowed to do that? I have a basis. That it's immoral to restrict others without reason. If everyone can just curb other's rights just because they feel like it, how can everyone's right to speak be preserved? It's tyrannical abuse.

 

 

IF HAVE NO VALID REASON= NO RIGHT TO RESTRICT (FANS TELLING COLDPLAY NOT TO MAKE MUSIC). IF HAVE VALID REASON = RIGHT TO RESTRICT (THEY ARE ABUSING THEIR FREEDOMS AND OTHERS' WITHOUT CAUSE, SHOULDN'T BE TOLERATED). It's not contradictory.