Doctor J Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 Just now, tegs07 said: Has there ever been a time when people don’t offend people? Small tweak 🙂 1
Beer of the Bass Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 I just view it as Clayton having been a bit of a gobsh!te, and if you're going to respond to that at all, you clap back in kind as Shah did rather than writing a thesis. All business as usual in the pop world. 3
Kev Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 1 hour ago, lemmywinks said: Click on clickbait, get offended at clickbait, write on a forum about clickbait. Guess there has to be something in the lull between Poppygeddon and the "they're offended by christmas" fury. As said above, this is manufactured outrage. True, but manufactured or not, plenty of people in this thread have been taken in by it... 2
TimR Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 I think Guy Pratt summed it up quite well: "If you don't like bass players with strong political views, you picked the wrong band. If you think I'm bad, you should see the other fella." 1
chris_b Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 6 hours ago, SteveXFR said: Maybe basses are female. . . . That was exactly the design brief for the Jazz bass.
2elliot Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 In the words of the great philosopher David St. Hubbins... "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever"
Baloney Balderdash Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 (edited) On 07/12/2021 at 13:51, tegs07 said: Has there ever been a time when rock stars don’t offend people? Even Coldplay offend me with their overwhelming wholesome blandness. Even more bizarre is when people look to them for spiritual or moral awareness or care what they think. He’s a bass player not the Dalai Lama. Hasn't Boner anointed himself as the deputy of Dalai Lama? In that perspective I think it seems fair. Edited December 8, 2021 by Baloney Balderdash
SteveXFR Posted December 7, 2021 Posted December 7, 2021 1 hour ago, 2elliot said: In the words of the great philosopher David St. Hubbins... "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" It's also a fine line between stupid and dead. You don't know when you are either of them but everyone around you does. 2
2elliot Posted December 8, 2021 Posted December 8, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, SteveXFR said: It's also a fine line between stupid and dead. You don't know when you are either of them but everyone around you does. Spoken like a true Health and Safety Manager... Edited December 8, 2021 by 2elliot 1
gareth Posted December 8, 2021 Posted December 8, 2021 On 07/12/2021 at 07:46, leroydiamond said: This guy has an interesting take on the notion of being offensive. Gotta love JP 1
cheddatom Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 12 hours ago, gareth said: Gotta love JP He's right that no-one has the right to not be offended. I don't understand why he has to be such a smug hateful c*&% about it though No-one in this thread, nor the bassist quoted in the OP have suggested that Adam Clayton shouldn't have the right to say what he did. In fact, other than the bassist quoted (for obvious clickbait) no-one seems to be actually offended by what he said. There are some (including me) who think times have changed, and the language he used is now outdated. That doesn't mean we're up in arms outraged, or that we think you should have your freedom of speech curtailed. The only outraged people I see in this thread have imagined an attack on their freedom of speech There are quite a few reasons why we're progressing away from describing small/lightweight/delicate things as "girly" and the opposite "manly". If you don't know the reasons you could take the time to read up. If you've read up and think it's ridiculous, that's fine, keep on the way you were. You have the freedom to do that, and others have the freedom to be offended. 6
lemmywinks Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 Are people still following that absolute chud Jordan Peterson? Thought the king of the incels got found out years ago. 2 2
lemmywinks Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, cheddatom said: He's right that no-one has the right to not be offended. I don't understand why he has to be such a smug hateful c*&% about it though No-one in this thread, nor the bassist quoted in the OP have suggested that Adam Clayton shouldn't have the right to say what he did. In fact, other than the bassist quoted (for obvious clickbait) no-one seems to be actually offended by what he said. There are some (including me) who think times have changed, and the language he used is now outdated. That doesn't mean we're up in arms outraged, or that we think you should have your freedom of speech curtailed. The only outraged people I see in this thread have imagined an attack on their freedom of speech There are quite a few reasons why we're progressing away from describing small/lightweight/delicate things as "girly" and the opposite "manly". If you don't know the reasons you could take the time to read up. If you've read up and think it's ridiculous, that's fine, keep on the way you were. You have the freedom to do that, and others have the freedom to be offended. All of this is absolutely spot on. 1
cheddatom Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, lemmywinks said: Are people still following that absolute chud Jordan Peterson? Thought the king of the incels got found out years ago. I thought he was still out in the cold on Benzos but a quick google seems he's back at it 1
lemmywinks Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, cheddatom said: I thought he was still out in the cold on Benzos but a quick google seems he's back at it Interesting that his name crops up in threads like this though as the base of a lot of his pseudo philosophies is rooted in his pre-existing religious misogyny. A lot of the time he dresses them up by shoehorning actual genuine philosophical works in there and tries to align them with his own babbling. I saw one debate where he tried to dress up his masculine=order=good / feminine=chaos=evil nonsense with an elongated ramble about quantum physics (which he clearly doesn't understand), people were buying it too. I guess as long as there are thickos there will be grifters there to take advantage of them. Edited December 9, 2021 by lemmywinks 3 1
Owen Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, lemmywinks said: Interesting that his name crops up in threads like this though as the base of a lot of his pseudo philosophies are rooted in his pre-esixting religious mysogyny. A lot of the times he dresses them up by shoehorning actual genuine philosophical works in there and trying to align them his own babbling. I saw one debate where he tried to dress up his masculine=order=good with feminine=chaos=evil nonsense with quantum physics, people were buying it too. I guess as long as there are thickos there will be grifters there to take advantage of them. mutter.........mutter....talks to himself.....mutter.....must not derail thread........mutter...I will get banned.......mutter Edited December 9, 2021 by owen 1
Grassie Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 AC is right though - we are the men of the band, especially if your band is full of men. I'm in three men bands, but we're all as menly as each other. We strike our strings and hit our skins with such menly force, sometimes other men are scared of our power. And occasionally the non-men who see us wield our menly instruments pass comments such as "why has your guitar only got 4 strings?", or "my other half plays guitar, his is blue". Grrrrrr...... 3
lemmywinks Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, owen said: mutter.........mutter....talks to himself.....mutter.....must not derail thread........mutter...I will get banned.......mutter Peterson is absolutely on topic given the thread is about misogyny, fake outrage tactics and the ensuing "hurr durr why is everybody a snowflake except me" attitudes that stem from that. In fact in recent years he's probably done more to stoke the flames than anybody. Edited December 9, 2021 by lemmywinks 2 1
Owen Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 12 minutes ago, lemmywinks said: Peterson is absolutely on topic given the thread is about mysogyny, fake outrage tactics and the ensuing "hurr durr why is everybody a snowflake except me" attitudes that stem from that. In fact in recent years he's probably done more to stoke the flames than anybody. I was just thinking about grifters........
TimR Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 1 hour ago, cheddatom said: There are quite a few reasons why we're progressing away from describing small/lightweight/delicate things as "girly" and the opposite "manly". If you don't know the reasons you could take the time to read up. If you've read up and think it's ridiculous, that's fine, keep on the way you were. You have the freedom to do that, and others have the freedom to be offended. You can try and change words but you'll never change innately programmed behaviours. Which is what JP keeps pointing out, but no one wants to hear. All you're doing is slapping a coat of paint on what has structurally been built over millions of years. 2 2 1
cheddatom Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 40 minutes ago, TimR said: You can try and change words but you'll never change innately programmed behaviours. Which is what JP keeps pointing out, but no one wants to hear. All you're doing is slapping a coat of paint on what has structurally been built over millions of years. Clearly there are a lot of people who want to hear what JP keeps pointing out, yourself included
lemmywinks Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 45 minutes ago, TimR said: You can try and change words but you'll never change innately programmed behaviours. Which is what JP keeps pointing out, but no one wants to hear. All you're doing is slapping a coat of paint on what has structurally been built over millions of years. Which inately programmed behaviours are you talking about, particularly ones that are millions of years old?
la bam Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 So, from one short clip / article ..... heres who I can see who has already benefitted (financially or otherwise), just from this thread (never mind the rest of the world).... The article writer The article website The advertisers on those sites The people who own the website The people who share that link on their website The advertisers on those websites Adam clayton U2 The offended person in the band The offended persons band The offended persons social media The offended persons website The offended persons youtube channel Jordan Peterson Channel 4 news YouTube ..... and it's all manufactured to do that. It isnt a real article. The social media team has got together to put an inflammatory story out there. And it's worked. People click. People then follow up by checking out social media and websites related to the article. The team collect their fee, the people in the article benefit and everyone else is left arguing or annoyed..... 5
stingrayPete1977 Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 I've never heard of her and on principal I don't click on any articles or Google the offended person at times like these for the reasons la bam lists. As you were. 3
TimR Posted December 9, 2021 Posted December 9, 2021 3 hours ago, lemmywinks said: Which inately programmed behaviours are you talking about, particularly ones that are millions of years old? The ones where men are on a normal distribution bigger, stronger and more prone to violence than women normally are. Look in the animal world and you'll see the same behaviours. You can pretend we are not animals. But all you're doing is pretending. 4
Recommended Posts