Unpopular opinions.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

6 minutes ago, velo army said:

, Glastonbury and pop music should be for the youngsters and should be broadly inaccessible to the middle aged. 

Go and have a lie down.

 

Anyway, sticking with the music theme the Manic Street Preachers and their song writing.  I like them a lot and the statements they generally make but by f**k their shoehorning of sentences into melodies is atrocious for the most part. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 hour ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

I disagree with this one in a big way.

However I do have my own Scotland related one. Robert Burns should not be hailed as a national hero. By all accounts he was a fairly unsavoury guy from his attitude towards women and his initial taking of a job in the slave trade, and just because he wrote a few poems doesn’t change that.

Edit: Yes I’m fully aware of the irony of my username. I’ve had it since I joined at 15 I don’t care enough to pay for premium to change it.

what's so good about kilts tho? a kiddy on national dress based very loosely on history

[Derry Alli]

Sobriety isn't worth it.

[velo army]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

Sobriety isn't worth it.

I heard a guy make a joke that he had recently been given a year to live, so would be doing it sober to make the time go slower.

 

[Thorongil]

55 minutes ago, velo army said:

Judging the attitudes of folk 200 odd years ago by the morals of today is daft and is often the cutting off of your nose to spite your face.

We celebrate and have a national holiday for a fucking poet. Not a soldier, or man of violence, but a poet. he's not held up as a national hero for being a flawless human being, but as a great poet. It's one of the wee things that make me proud to be scottish tbh (and I'm no tartan gonk....although I'll vote yes and I wear a kilt to scotland games...so maybe a bit). 

As a classical music fan and a fan of impressionist art, I'd suggest separating the man from the art. I don't even think Burns was that bad. He fucked about for sure, but he was a seducer by the sounds of it, not a predator. The slavery boat thing was because he was dirt poor. We might think (with the prism of retrospect) that we would definitely not work on a slave ship, but if poverty is a good balm for cognitive dissonance.

I can't believe that decrying McCartney headlining Glastonbury is a controversial take. He was a great songwriter but f**k me, Glastonbury and pop music should be for the youngsters and should be broadly inaccessible to the middle aged. I know nothing about the current scene, but surely they could get somebody with charisma, presence and high octane music to be the one act a'body is looking forward to. 

Well said. This modern day puritanism on sexual matters is a bit creepy IMO. Burns was a bad guy because he shagged about back in the day? Deary me. 

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, whether you are male or female, whether now or hundreds of years ago.

[Thorongil]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

kilts are shite

I personally agree for the most part. I wear them to weddings, and only if I am in the actual wedding party. When I see people wearing them at black tie dinners and the like I just think “attention seeker”.

[The Moonster]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

Sobriety isn't worth it.

Keep at it, brother. You're doing one of the most difficult things a human can do and it will absolutely be worth it. 

[Honest_Man#1]

23 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Well said. This modern day puritanism on sexual matters is a bit creepy IMO. Burns was a bad guy because he shagged about back in the day? Deary me. 

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, whether you are male or female, whether now or hundreds of years ago.

It’s clearly not about having multiple sexual partners which is clearly fine, but you know that and want to debate in bad faith like usual. 

[101]

1 hour ago, velo army said:

Glastonbury and pop music should be for the youngsters and should be broadly inaccessible to the middle aged

Have you seen the price to get in...

[velo army]

17 minutes ago, 101 said:

Have you seen the price to get in...

Aye, gentrification of popular culture is another not so PTTGOMN.

[Thorongil]

54 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

It’s clearly not about having multiple sexual partners which is clearly fine, but you know that and want to debate in bad faith like usual. 

Ok, promising good faith. What did you mean?

[Honest_Man#1]

7 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Ok, promising good faith. What did you mean?

His views of women, in terms of objectification and their position in the world, we’re incredibly questionable, and the often reported leaving of his sexual partners in the lurch once pregnant with his children (there are admittedly mixed reports on this, so hard to say for sure). I don’t think these are traits to be admired or hero-worshipped.

Regardless of how poor he was, and the whole ‘it was the times he lived in!’ argument, the main issue I have is hailing someone who was signed up to be a key cog in the slave trade as a national hero. It doesn’t sit well with me.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, velo army said:

 

I can't believe that decrying McCartney headlining Glastonbury is a controversial take. He was a great songwriter but f**k me, Glastonbury and pop music should be for the youngsters and should be broadly inaccessible to the middle aged. I know nothing about the current scene, but surely they could get somebody with charisma, presence and high octane music to be the one act a'body is looking forward to. 

One of my favourite memories of Glastonbury '92 was a proper old guy (70s/ 80s) coming round the tents with an ice cream tray full of perforated printed card shouting "you're never too old to take acid. " 

Plenty other stages for folk that didn't want to watch McCartney. 

(I bought two and developed the ability to detect electromagnetic fields in the air. I used this ability to navigate and got lost for hours.) 

[velo army]

1 hour ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

His views of women, in terms of objectification and their position in the world, we’re incredibly questionable, and the often reported leaving of his sexual partners in the lurch once pregnant with his children (there are admittedly mixed reports on this, so hard to say for sure). I don’t think these are traits to be admired or hero-worshipped.

Regardless of how poor he was, and the whole ‘it was the times he lived in!’ argument, the main issue I have is hailing someone who was signed up to be a key cog in the slave trade as a national hero. It doesn’t sit well with me.

He never went through with it though, and became more strident in his abolitionism. Slave's Lament was probably pretty controversial at the time given that the popular view was to view slaves as little more than cattle. Do you think he should be condemned for having considered it through poverty and desperation at the time even although he never did it? I've been to loads of Burns events in my time and I haven't seen too many folk being overly hagiographical about him. 

Burns is seen as a national hero because he wrote great poetry and used his poetry to point out religious and moral hypocrisy at the time. He's elevated because he was of these parts and wrote in scots. 

Also, you can't dismiss arguments just because they don't suit. He lived in times where the equality of the sexes we have today would have been like a fever dream back then. He may have been ahead of his time actually if we look back without the prurience of today's lens. And to the poverty thing. Only somebody truly desperate and on their uppers will know what it means to have to take a job or starve. Survival tends to trump morals. Also, and this is crucial, he didn't bloody do it. He spent approximately zero time on a slave ship. It's well documented how tortured he was about having to do it, but once he had a promise of income which meant he wasn't going to go to penury, he stayed where he was.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by velo army

[Honest_Man#1]

20 minutes ago, velo army said:

He never went through with it though, and became more strident in his abolitionism. Slave's Lament was probably pretty controversial at the time given that the popular view was to view slaves as little more than cattle. Do you think he should be condemned for having considered it through poverty and desperation at the time even although he never did it? I've been to loads of Burns events in my time and I haven't seen too many folk being overly hagiographical about him. 

Burns is seen as a national hero because he wrote great poetry and used his poetry to point out religious and moral hypocrisy at the time. He's elevated because he was of these parts and wrote in scots. 

Also, you can't dismiss arguments just because they don't suit. He lived in times where the equality of the sexes we have today would have been like a fever dream back then. He may have been ahead of his time actually if we look back without the prurience of today's lens. And to the poverty thing. Only somebody truly desperate and on their uppers will know what it means to have to take a job or starve. Survival tends to trump morals. Also, and this is crucial, he didn't bloody do it. He spent approximately zero time on a slave ship. It's well documented how tortured he was about having to do it, but once he had a promise of income which meant he wasn't going to go to penury, he stayed where he was.

 

 

To be clear, I’m not saying he should be demonised and consigned to history books as a scumbag with no redeeming features. I’m just not comfortable with people being happy to conveniently ignore about all of someone’s negative aspects, because they like the positive aspects of them. You are, and that’s your right, as is mine to feel the negatives should not be brushed aside.

[velo army]

5 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

To be clear, I’m not saying he should be demonised and consigned to history books as a scumbag with no redeeming features. I’m just not comfortable with people being happy to conveniently ignore about all of someone’s negative aspects, because they like the positive aspects of them. You are, and that’s your right, as is mine to feel the negatives should not be brushed aside.

I agree, and I don't particularly think it's healthy to have heroes without the reminder that they, too, were human beings with flaws. The thing is, and I'm not saying you're doing this, I guess I'm projecting a lot of other conversations and writing I've seen onto your posts, but what I've seen a lot is actually a magnification of these flaws that are then used as evidence to discount the greatness the person in question brought to the world. As I said, Burns is revered as a poet. I haven't seen much of people elevating him as a man whose life is an example we all follow. He is revered because he was a poet who wrote about things which touched people of all classes. Shakespeare was the same. 

My main disagreement with you here is that the "negatives" you point out are evidence against an argument nobody is making. 

I'll also own that I get pissed off at what I see is prurient censoriousness which I feel has a cynical and mean spirited undercurrent, which says that past artists have to be viewed through current identity-political glasses and that we should all be aware of Mozart's sexism, Beethoven's racism or Shostakovich's homophobia and we should always be reminded of it when we talk about how great their music is. 

I appreciate this may not have been what you're going for, and I definitely projected that meaning onto your post.

[Thorongil]

3 hours ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

His views of women, in terms of objectification and their position in the world, we’re incredibly questionable, and the often reported leaving of his sexual partners in the lurch once pregnant with his children (there are admittedly mixed reports on this, so hard to say for sure). I don’t think these are traits to be admired or hero-worshipped.

Regardless of how poor he was, and the whole ‘it was the times he lived in!’ argument, the main issue I have is hailing someone who was signed up to be a key cog in the slave trade as a national hero. It doesn’t sit well with me.

Fair enough. Personally I simply detest his poetry. Jeremy Paxman was correct in his assessment. 

[HK Hibee]

6 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

kilts are shite

Wearing a kilt to a Scotland football or rugby match should be banned. 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

6 hours ago, Thorongil said:

I personally agree for the most part. I wear them to weddings, and only if I am in the actual wedding party. When I see people wearing them at black tie dinners and the like I just think “attention seeker”.

aye same, i wore one to my sisters wedding on her request, same outfit as the groom, groomsmen and my dad.  Apart from being the bride's brother, I had absolutely f**k all to do at this wedding, was just any other guest. As a sound c**t, I was able to just go along with it to keep others happy but i'd never have bothered otherwise as I can't stand wearing the stupid things!  BIB A mate of mine was determined to wear his to a birthday party we'd been invited to, it was in Ireland with mostly Irish people. I told him that the idea was pretty wanky since it wasn't his party and he shouldn't try to make things all about him, I think he thought it would increase his chances of getting his Nat king ( In all fairness, that's not wrong) but thankfully he reconsidered 

[Honest_Man#1]

2 hours ago, Thorongil said:

Fair enough. Personally I simply detest his poetry. Jeremy Paxman was correct in his assessment. 

Admittedly I’m not a huge fan of the poetry either which maybe influences my viewpoint.

On the kilt debate, I wear mine at pretty much any big function like weddings etc. I think they look good and better than a standard suit and tie for an occasion tbh.