Music Kanye West Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

04:54:20 PM Mar 10th 2013
Jerkass has a Point? We should have listened to him about Taylor Swift.
08:07:48 AM Mar 11th 2013
"Should have listened to him"? He wasn't warning us about an alien invasion, he was embarrassing a teenage girl for no reason besides he's an arrogant, self-centered prick.
12:18:07 PM Mar 18th 2013
And look how she turned out: angsty country songs, a list of boyfriends as long as Canada, and a (ymmv) slut shamer.
12:56:27 PM Mar 18th 2013
So? The point remains: He didn't make a "point" about Taylor Swift. He just acted like an asshole. Saying we should have "listened to him" implies he was saying anything more substantive than, "HEY! I'M KANYE WEST! LOOK AT ME!" Which he wasn't.
02:48:06 PM Jul 13th 2010
edited by shinfernape
You can judge other people's opinion but you must let them express them. I thought i made this clear with the example of kenneth eng.

I said you are breaking the law by not allowing other people to express their sentiments. You have had the opportunity to gratuitously attack the Fan Dumb but you do not give them the opportunity to defend themselves.

Also the gladiators existed at a different time to us. But to their culture at least it wouldn't be considered wrong. That era however no longer exists and the morals have changed.

The freedom of speech extends to all people accept possibly those who use it for hate speech or holocaust denials.

I am free to call other people idiots by the standards that i judge people with. Really the whole point of it was despite what i may think about someone, they should be allowed to express themselves.

You said my explanation falls flat. Well that is a pretty unbacked statement so i think yours is actually in need of some explaining itself.

Your last statement is total ignorance to what i've been saying. What i've been saying is what kanye did was entertaining and that is something the Fan Dumb supports him over. I did not say what Kanye did wasn't rude to Taylor Swift. I just embrace that moment for the legacy of comedic stupidity.
01:19:51 PM Jul 13th 2010
edited by shinfernape
You used the example that some people think a given race should be exterminated. Well in fact they are allowed to express that sentiment even if i and others object like the racist ramblings of kenneth eng and kamau kanbon. Even then kanye was not spreading hate speech.

Really the freedome of speech is supposed to be universal. So are you trying to say that people can do what they will with human rights? Your still breaking a law, that doesn't make you right.

The galdiator example is flawed because it is illegal to kill people. Morals and the laws are still different things.

You see even idiots should be allowed to express what they want. Who are you to decide who is an idiot? That's pretty elitest behaviour which is why the freedom of speech extends to all people. That's why idiots like Sean Hannity and Bill 'O' Reilly can talk as well as some of their more challenged guests.

Really kanye did nothing illegal. So why should his freedom of speech be taken away? In that same note why deny others their right to expression if it isn't illegal.

I explained before that everything that kanye does in the media is meant as entertainment. The stage for his career is the media.

02:08:47 PM Jul 13th 2010
edited by MrDeath
I never said Kanye spread hate speech. I said that the opinion that, say, "Jews should all die" is wrong. What you're saying is their opinion is as valid as anyone else's, and we can't say they're wrong. According to my ethics classes, yes, you can make a value judgment of someone's opinion.

I'm not even sure what that second paragraph is trying to say. How am I breaking a law? All I've done is express my opinion which, according to you, I'm fully entitled to and nobody can ever say I'm wrong.

In the gladiator example, it wasn't illegal then. In fact, it was state sanctioned. By your own logic, it's another culture's morals, so it can't be wrong.

The Freedom of Speech isn't to protect people from "elitism", it is, as I said, to prevent the Government from stomping out people who wanted to speak against it. Study a little history, specifically the Constitution of the United States.

And, I might ask, who are you to call people idiots just because they have a different opinion from you, hm?

It may not have been illegal, but it was still wrong. People should be punished for doing wrong things, even if the law doesn't cover it. There's no law against, say, a child swearing at and disrespecting his father, but said child ought to be punished for it, don't you think?

Yes, you "explained." The problem is, your explanation falls flat because you're "explaining" something that frankly isn't true.

Anyway, I'm done with this. For real this time. You're starting to get boring, and I'm running out of ways to say the same thing over and over again without being overtly insulting.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you've "won" the argument, because that hasn't happened. All you've demonstrated, quite clearly, is that you believe it's okay for someone to ruin an innocent girl's once-in-a-lifetime achievement because a handful of people think it's funny.
12:14:25 PM Jul 13th 2010
edited by shinfernape
No because you are so full of self righteousness its unbelievable.

Yeah the kinda journalism that you speak of reminds me of something. Oh that's right fox news. Yep Bill 'O' Reilly and Sean Hannity who like to cut people off. Who are so arrogant that they believe that whatever they say or think is right to the point they can act with such impunity.

No i don't consider you a journalist as i wouldn't consider them news reporters. You see news has to be told in an unbiased way which you seem unable to comprehend.

You are so full of yourself that you believe that you can stop people in their freedom of speech.

Unbelievably you mention how some opinions are right and wrong. Well no, opinions are subjective. Even then it doesn't give you the right to deny them their right to express themselves.

You still can't even comprehend that the entertainment industry works outside of your understanding of morals. They will push the boundaries despite your objections.

You still fail to argue the other points directly like Refuge in Audacity.

No kanye didn't interupt Taylor for the lulz either. He thought he was giving his support out to Beyonce.

The media industry is full of assholes you idiot. Like the above mentioned fox news presenters. But they still have nice comfy jobs in the industry because they bring the ratings.

Yes i have changed the subsequent points of my view, people do that. I do not recall saying Kanye was fully right in what he did. I have expressed that Taylor was a victim. My sentiments are that he has the right to be an idiot which is funny. I mean he is arguably the biggest loser out of all of this.

No you continually misunderstand the whole thing. Let me make this simple. Entertainment goes beyond morals. Kanye Entertained. It's that simple.

Really everything that kanye does isn't art but every time he appears in the media can be considered entertainment.

I have never said that everything in entertainment is meaningful or artisitic.

Really all you put was they thought it was funny, which is really pitiful when there is so much dedicated to berating them. That is some extreme bias and pretty unfair.

Freedom of speech does mean kanye and Fan Dumb get to say what they want. That's the whole point of it.

And no you're not the only person who feels the way you do. Hence Fan Dumb in the plural. Since when is it right to silence even a minority?

You're sense of moral standing is flawed when you cannot even allow other people the chance to speak. You go against the very core rights that human beings should have.

You have the gall to call MY arguments poor when you are willing to use lies such as Taylor crying. Doing nothing but throwing flawed examples. Being a damn hyppocrit in using morals and then denying people their rights to express themselves. Taking a skewed moralistic approach without acknowledging that the morals of others may be different. Having extreme bias against kanye in your writing despite being a "reporter".
12:46:00 PM Jul 13th 2010
edited by MrDeath
Ooh, I haven't made you -angry-, have I? You've resorted to name calling. I'm calling that a victory.

You don't consider me a journalist? In that case, you're denying objective truth. I write for a newspaper, writing news articles, and even went to school and got a degree in journalism, ergo, I am, by profession, definition, and education, a journalist. And I shall point out again, what I'm doing here isn't journalism, so doesn't reflect on my job performance.

You also fail because Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity? They're not reporters. They're commentators. And I love how you treat, "that's Fox News" as if it should be some grand denouncement of my very being. Very funny.

"Willing to use lies such as Taylor crying"? Hm...You'll note I haven't referred to her as crying since you pointed out she wasn't, and I even admitted that I was mistaken on that point. Yet you keep bringing it up, and seem to believe that my getting one minor detail incorrect invalidates my argument.

No, Freedom of Speech, as I said before, refers to preventing the goverment from stamping out people from speaking. It really, really doesn't mean "anyone says what they want." That's anarchy/chaos/lawlessness, etc.

Yes, some opinions can be wrong. To use Hyperbole once again, some people hold the opinion that people of a given race or ethnicity need to be exterminated. I think we can all agree that that's wrong, eh?

You know what other entertainment went "beyond morals"? Gladiator arenas. But I think you'd agree that killing people and feeding them to lions isn't a good thing, right? (this is hyperbole yet again) So, no, "it's entertainment" doesn't excuse everything.

Freedom comes with responsibility, else that freedom will be taken away. That's the basis of pretty much our entire system of justice. And that includes the Freedom of Speech. It's to protect people from the government, not a license for any idiot to say anything he wants. Or should people be allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater because they think it's funny?

And just as Kanye being an entertainer doesn't mean everything he does is entertainment, me being a reporter doesn't mean everything I write is reporting. Otherwise, well, I'd be in trouble for 'reporting' about robots killing each other, among other things.
10:24:02 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by shinfernape
Wow you keep ignoring the fact that you are denying people their right to express themselves.

I've called you a bad reporter for the reasons stated above and your attitude doesn't seem becoming of a reporter either.

So let me get this straight you are proud to be backwards. We'll at least we got that thing in agreement.

Really i think you'll find quality is subjective but also can be dettached from enjoyment. As i'm sure you've probably head the term So Bad, It's Good. Really the media has the basic goal of entertaining people and their enjoyment satisfies that need. As far as the media is concerned, entertainment is all the justification they need.

But really as i have said before, the media industry should push the boundaries.

You say that i argue my points badly but you seem to have ignored my past points like Refuge in Audacity.

So you see the fact that it is entertaining isn't my only point, but the only point you seem to be able to reply to it. Even then you don't even give a proper rebuttal for it.

Again i must reiterate that the entertainment industry is not bound my such morals or rather your sense of morals. There is no disputed fact that kanye's moment made waves and has a legacy. So indeed it did entertain millions of people. To entertain is the reason why celebrities exist in the first place.

Let's not pretend that media didn't use the moment to their advantage. Such news, tv etc commonly practice senationalism and kanye is as sensational as they come. They use it because it works. The people keep paying and supporting because they are entertained.

The media industry and people can always risk offending someone but such is the price for entertainment.

Once again you say what kanye did was wrong which is kinda obvious. But that is no explanation as to why the Fan Dumb likes and supports kanye. Nor is it an excuse to stop other people who disagree with you even if it goes against the freedom of speech.

Your opinions are irrelevant to allowing other to express and explain themselves.

Still the Fan Dumb deserves the chance to explain and speak for themselves rather than you acting selfishly.

11:10:54 AM Jul 13th 2010
Please. If I listed every point of mine I made that you didn't answer, then we'd be here quite awhile yet. Especially considering the fact you've changed your argument a couple times by now. It's evolved from "Kanye was right to do it because it was funny," which you stated as your actual opinion (Quoth you, "Well quite frankly it has entertained people all over the world and DOES deserve to exist."), to "Okay, some people think it was wrong was wrong, but it caused so much good and he apologized so it's okay," to "It was wrong, but it's okay for people to say it wasn't."

In essense, you're now campaigning for peoples' right to approve of something that we agree is bad. You're condoning and endorsing contradiction.

You also clearly know absolutely nothing about reporters aside from perhaps Clark Kent (that would be Superman's secret identity. Since you don't pick up on subtlety, I feel it's my duty to point these things out.) Most of us have at the very least an edge of cynicism from dealing with idiots of one stripe or another day in and day out, and/or from seeing the very worst that humanity has to offer. Ergo, I feel some obligation to try and preserve a sense of right where I can.

You keep referring to it as "the entertainment industry," which doesn't apply here. Kanye wasn't trying to make a point beyond, "Taylor Swift shouldn't have won," he wasn't doing it to be funny or make a joke. At some point, being an asshole doesn't qualify as entertainment in and of itself, and therefore, yes, it is beholden to decency and morals.

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all opinions deserve equal time. This is a simple fact of life: Some people are right, and some are wrong. If you cannot accept that, that's your problem.

Now, here's the important part. This is the heart of it, so read it carefully.

He hurt someone. This is a bad thing. Saying it is a good thing is wrong.

That right there is the crux of the matter. You cannot tell me that it's right to call something that is clearly and obviously bad something good. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and hurting an innocent person who did nothing to deserve it is wrong, it doesn't matter how many memes came out of it.

That's the point above all else: What he did was bad, and condoning it is bad as well.

You're ascribing to it qualities that it does not have in an effort to classify it as "art" which it isn't. It was one asshole being an asshole. Just because Kanye West is a rapper doesn't mean everything he does is to be considered art.

Shall I put his shit, his literal, actual fecal matter, on display in a museum because, hey, he's an entertainer, and therefore whatever comes out of him is artistic and meaningful? Because that's what you're logic is saying.

Every apple may be a fruit, but not every fruit is an apple.

Yes, celebrities exist to entertain, but that doesn't mean that everything they do counts as entertainment.

Again I must point out: "Freedom of expression" doesn't mean "any jackass does and says whatever he wants," and that includes the Fan Dumb. Their position is on the main page, as I've pointed out before. That's all there needs to be. No Justifying Edit needed, as "it was funny" is all the explanation they really have, and it's on there.

They can put their justifications and such anywhere else on the internet that they like. I am merely excising the occasional single sentence on one page of a wiki, in an effort to preserve the majority of the wiki's users' consensus (I'm not the only person who feels this way, after all), and in an effort to preserve some sense of moral standing; again, the rule of the wiki isn't "anything goes" and that applies to morality as well.

I will not accept that humiliating an innocent person on national TV is justifiable for the meager "good" you have ascribed to it after the fact.

And yet again you start a new topic, wasting space on the page. And your grammar is atrocious. Are you in such a hurry to scrawl out your badly formed arguments that you can't take the time to hit "reply" instead of "add a new topic" or that you can't proofread? Who is taking this personally, hm?
01:49:28 PM Jul 12th 2010
edited by shinfernape
There is no dispute over whether it may considered wrong but i have mentioned befroe that entertainment goes beyond that and pushes boundaries.

What kanye did was perfectly legal and broke no laws despite being considered wrong. But Britney's kids still fall under the protection of say social serevices. There are LAWS in that case. Britney is free to get drunk and knocked up by whoever she wants.

Again your still so dang limited to understand that entertainment isn't so limited by your concepts of right and wrong.

Allowing the Fan Dumb to state it's funny is one thing but you've not actually allowed people to defend the moment at all? You seem to take the gratuitous opportunity to insult kanye whenever possible.

Your concepts of courtesy and decency aren't universal are they? It could be assumed that in some countires they would voice no objection over what would have happened.

Whatever i or you decide what is right or wrong the media will push the boundaries and you are still incapable of understanding this.

Actually taylor was not crying on stage she was staying silent so where are you getting your facts?

Frankly you can't even take to say that the moment deserves to exist for the GOOD that it caused, let alone the entertainment.

Using the joker as an example futhers your own ignorance as what the joker does is against the law and above all lethal.

Actually Rule of Funny relates to Jerkass which i'm sure you'd agree to call kanye.

You STILL seek to limit the expressive freedomes of other people over this. For that you are worse than kanye. At least he apologised.
03:05:06 PM Jul 12th 2010
"Entertainment" is meant to push boundaries, yes. But that doesn't mean it excuses acting like an asshole. He wasn't being a cunning satirist, or making a point with his display. He was insulting someone who did not deserve it, and ruining a once-in-a-lifetime event.

It having broken no laws still doesn't mean he was justified in doing it.

I know entertainment isn't limited to right and wrong, but that's generally in relation to fictional characters. Not real people being humiliated on what should be a good night.

I won't allow someone to defend it on the page because I believe it is indefensible. Defending it implies that Kanye is right for what he did, and he most assuredly is not. I take the opportunity to insult Kanye because he deserves to be insulted. He was, as demonstrated in that and other moments, a self-centered asshole. If you humiliate someone on national TV like that, yes, you deserve to be called an asshole.

If I may get a little Rules Lawyer-y for a moment, it still shouldn't be on the page. It's an "Actually," and a Justifying Edit, and both of those are frowned upon. In striving for neutrality, clearly the Wiki must certainly list that some people find it funny, but cannot in good conscience endorse the stance, as it will only lead to the dredded Natter and edit wars.

Yes, I like to think that people the world over would be courtious and decent toward one another. Just because other cultures might condone being an asshole doesn't mean I have to accept it.

The media will push boundaries, yes, but to a point and purpose. This, I must point out again, wasn't some daring satirist bringing a harsh truth to light. That is why media pushes boundaries: To make serious points, to bring things to light, and to make people reflect on themselves. Not just for the lulz.

I admit, I was not watching at the time. But every description I've seen of the event had her crying, if not onstage, then once she was off stage.

You're right, I don't believe the moment "deserves" to exist, because I am a sentimentalist, and utterly ruining a once-in-a-lifetime event for a young girl outweighs any 'good' you could ascribe to it unless it made some tangible difference in the world beyond said girl getting sympathy. She didn't need sympathy in the first place. The only "good" you can ascribe to it is that she looked good after it. She already looked good, which is why she was accepting an award based on popular vote. Good job Kanye, you succeeded in making water slightly more wet!

Using The Joker is an example of hyperbole, or overexaggeration, to make a point. It's a common tool of debaters the world over, whether they be masters or not. I'm sorry, I figured you'd have been able to understand such subtleties, but alas, I was mistaken and overestimated you.

Rule of Funny is about fiction, and justifying things happening in story for the sake of a joke. It is not a justification for being an asshole to a real person in real life. The definition is, "Any violation of continuity, personality, or even physics is permissible if the result gets enough of a laugh." Note how it doesn't say, "You can get away with being a dick in real life if it's funny."

Worse than Kanye? Oh, thou hast wounded me to mine heart, good sir.

No, wait...Since you seem to regard him as an unsung hero, delivering witty "ENTERTAINMENT" and making a Heroic Sacrifice by generating a Meme, then you must hold him in pretty high esteem. Therefore, if I'm worse than him, I may still be many times better than your average mortal. I take it back. Thank you for that sterling compliment.

Don't talk to me about ignorance when you're trying to argue contradictory points.

Also, you don't need to make a new topic. It's getting redundant.
12:54:24 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by shinfernape
No the Joker was an out of context example like most of your examples.

You are still playing your little vanguard mode even when you admit that other people may find no problem with this you would DENY them their chance to speak.

Whilst you may call it natter it would be at the very least an argument point that the Fan Dumb deserves to their defense. So really it is actually quite necessary.

Actually the media will push boundaries for the lulz sometimes like freddie got fingered etc but it can still raise serious points. Not everyone treated that moment as a joke and because of it kanye had to basicly apologise and near break down.

I did not consider kanye's moment to be witty or what not but almost superhuman. It's like i said he has the cult of personality. Kanye exists as a larger than life character who gets attention. I mean kanye seemingly appeared out of nowhere to take the michrophone of her without effort and then make his pronouncement. Then he just walked right off.

As i said before people love to hate kanye and possibly you would be included.

The thing about controversy is that despite the moral objections it still gets attention. It inspires people to have opinions which they share with other people and further the entertainment.

This is why stuff like CELEBRITY magazines exist.

I love that you think if i find you worse than kanye that's a compliment. No i hold you in worse regard for denying people their freedome of expression(a human right).

Okay well kanye's act may cross into the Refuge in Audacity part if were talking about trope defense. Even then i think it can be explained in words why people may find support for that moment.

Your still against the moment existing and still ignore the good it calls. You talk about Taylor in an exaggerated and untrue way in that she was crying. I think i am just exploring the nature of kanye's cult of personality whereas you are just overdramaticizing Taylor's problems. I mean who are you to spread these lies that she was crying on stage?

With all the insults you make to kanye at every opportunity i think you are looking at it way too personally.

The simple fact is that you have had your say and now it let others defend their opinion. At the moment you are impeding on the freedome of expression. I thought you said that your a journalist by trade so why are you limiting the freedomes of expression for other people? What kind of journalist writes takes such a personal view and can't even get the facts straight? What kind of journalist needs to have the notion of entertainment explained to them?
06:09:14 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by MrDeath
Ah, I see sarcasm is also among the subtleties that you cannot pick up.

Arguments don't go on the pages anyway.

Freddy Got Fingered was a terrible movie, and also should never have happened.

He was "almost superhuman"? No, I'm pretty sure you don't need superpowers to pull a microphone out of a girl's hand and insult her. He didn't "seemingly appear out of nowhere", he was deliberately not shown by the cameras because he was not supposed to be part of it. He's not Batman.

Again, you treat this as some sketch. It wasn't. It was Kanye being an asshole and ruining someone's day. There's value in controversial entertainment, but that's entertainment that has value or makes a point. All Kanye did was turn Asshole up to 11 and ruin someone's evening.

And "CELEBRITY" magazines are the bottom of the barrel of news. It's pure Bile Fascination, and not necessarily a good thing in itself.

Again, sarcasm. You can't even understand that, apparently.

Refuge in Audacity, again, is generally referred to fiction, and is not an acceptable excuse if, again, you humiliate someone on the biggest night of their life in front of friends and family. I've said that at least a half dozen times by now. Do you not understand the words themselves? They're fairly small words, but then you've utterly missed the concepts of hyperbole and sarcasm, so I'm willing to believe your vocabulary may just be that stinted.

The "good it calls". Again, there was no tangible "good" from the event. You're trying to make it seem like some noble occurrence, when it was just an asshole being an asshole.

Ah, semantics, the last refuge of the desperate and petty. So, I said she was crying, based on reports that I've seen, when apparently she wasn't, therefore my whole argument is wrong? Hehehe. That is hilarious.

You're not "exploring the nature of Kanye's cult of personality," you're defending a man who pulled a dick move.

Personally? Eh. I call an asshole an asshole.

Again, freedom of expression (and it's freedom, not freedome. If you're going to misguidedly crusade for it, spell it correctly) does not mean "any asshole does whatever he wants." Do not try to tell me I'm doing my job wrong; a steady paycheck and quite a few complimentary letters say differently.

I certainly don't need to have the notion of entertainment explained to me. For example, arguing with a man who can't understand the concepts of sarcasm and hyperbole, and who seems to have a grossly malformed concept of right and wrong, has gotten me entertainment for two solid days now.

And since I'm also an entertainer (ran a webcomic that got some attention here and there, plus I'm a wonderful storyteller), that means any insults I throw Kanye's way are perfectly okay, because I think it's funny! Aha, undone by your own logic once again!

"Entertainment" doesn't mean "anything goes." That is the bottom line. Kanye was an asshole (possibly still is, though I haven't seen him do anything lately), so I will call him an asshole, and I will maintain that it was the wrong thing to do, and shouldn't have happened.

Now, have a wonderful day :D
06:42:48 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by shinfernape
Subtley, no they were just bad examples period. How does kanye west compare to the joker?

I am in doubts if you are a good journalist when you claim that Taylor Swift was crying on national TV (where is your so called proof for that?). Or someone who doesn't understand that freedom of speech means allowing others to have their say. Somone who puts in there own gratuitous insults and takes the issue way too personal. So yeah i do question your competance.

Also Refuge in Audacity can apply to real life as well as you could have clearly seen from the large list of real life examples.

Why is it you have difficulty understanding the concept of a cult of personality?

It can be viewed on the VMA awards that kanye appears in like a split second with almost no hinderance. Like i said, almost superhuman. You say he wasn't supposed to be there well that was the whole point.

Again you take things onto your own personal opinion by saying stuff like freddie got fingered should have never happened. Well guess what people are free to make the films they like. Even ebert regards that thios film was "a milestone". Plus it has a large cult following and over time the reception to that film as changed. So once again all you prove is that you are rather backwards in how you regard the media and entertainment.

Your only excuse for denying people their right to express themselves is that you think they are wrong. NO, freedom of speech is a right to people that exists irrespective of what you or others think.

I am not defending kanye in saying what he did was right. But i am explaining why the Fan Dumb supports this. Again this is about the Fandumb and not your endless quest to bash kanye.

No throwing insults at kanye is fine because even south park did it. So no it's not undoing my logic it's just proving how bad your examples are.

You say entertainment doesn't mean anything goes and yet it is about pushing boundaries as i said. With the freddie got fingered comment you have only proved how backwards and limited you really are.

I mean even Taylor accepted his apology and has even been involved in parodies over the event.

People were talking about kanye. Making a meme of kanye. Remixing his comments into a dang song. His entertainment that night has furthered down the line and continued to entertain.

Entertainment strives to provide a legacy and kanye did achieve such a legacy with his moment of stupidty.

08:53:59 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by MrDeath
Your points lack any sort of real thought, and you don't seem to understand the concept of decency, or comparison, or...well, I could be here a while listing the sorts of things you have utterly failed to understand. You reiterate the same tired, worthless points over and over again.

As to my 'competence' as a reporter, well, I'm not reporting right now. This is my free time, and not my job. So please, don't tell me that I'm a bad reporter if you've never seen me reporting.

If by "backwards" you mean I have standards of quality, then yes, I'm quite "backwards" and proud to be so. Perhaps Freddy Got Fingered is a milestone. So was any number of horrible things that shouldn't have happened.

Your only defense is "It was ENTERTAINMENT" which isn't a defense, as I've explained before, even if it is capitalized. Hell, you don't even seem to understand my points, you're arguing against them so badly. Just because something did happen doesn't mean it should have happened.

I'll say it just one more time:

Kanye made Taylor sad :( (or ;.; for preference  +) when she was getting an award for something, when she should have been happy :) (or ^.^ again, for preference). Making someone sad when they should be happy is a bad thing, and Kanye was a naughty, naughty boy when he did it. Doing bad things to nice people is something that people shouldn't do. And if someone condones someone doing a bad thing, that's bad too.

Hopefully you'll be able to understand the point now.
03:16:32 PM Jul 11th 2010
edited by shinfernape
You said the example of someone being kicked in the nuts well that seems like deliberate harm.

Plus Taylor had some good dispensation in the fact thqat she gained popularity for it.

Kanye has expressed that he never meant to do that in the first place. The fact it was Taylor was coincidental because in kanye's eye beyonce deserved to win amongst all the other selectees. Kanye made no personal insult like "yo mama" it was simply that Taylor was unfortunate.

Your still ignoring the fact thay can be quite comedy controversial. Comedians and shows like family guy, south park overstep the line all the time because comedy needs to push boundaries.

The fact that it is a meme extends itself not as a harmful mockery of Taylor Swift but of kanye's arrogance. People are laughing AT him. Infact the meme has evolved to act without the inclusion of Taylor Swift to the point of Kanye just interrupting things.

You say that people are disgusted well duh. But that doesn't stop people using it as a meme and in parodies. That moment seems to have an enduring legacy in terms of usage.

I have argued in this discussion that the moment is validated in its existence by the fact that people were entertained. Now if you were to take enetertainment in a broad sense than it exists as far more than just comedy.

Entertainment seeks to grab the attention and interests of people. Well kanye sure did that and thus it was entertaining. This extends to entertaining the people who were haters as it grabbed their attention.

See people LOVE to hate Kanye west.
08:21:52 PM Jul 11th 2010
Yes, my example was of deliberate harm. So is what Kanye did to Swift. If he "never meant to do that in the first place" he wouldn't have been on the frigging stage doing it, now would he? Nobody put a gun to his head. And there's really no way to say that, "Hey, you shouldn't have won this award," isn't meant to be hurtful.

Yes, it's a personal insult to interrupt someone's acceptance speech to tell them they shouldn't have won.

He's not a comedian. He's a musician with far too big an ego, and an asshole. Stop making it out like he did it with the purpose of being funny. He told no jokes, he made no ironic comments, he just hijacked someone's award speech to tell them they shouldn't have won, and left said person crying and humiliated. This is the hallmark of someone doing something bad.

I mean, really, this is kindergarten stuff here: If the person you 'prank' on is left crying and humiliated in front of everyone they know that means you did a bad thing.

Again: Just because people laugh at it doesn't mean it "should" have happened. Just because it can be parodied in no way at all means that it in itself was a good thing.

As I said before, people make jokes about terrorists and terror attacks. Sure, the Shoe Bomber is the butt of jokes (mainly because he failed), but does that mean he should have been trying to blow up a plane? By your own logic, if it makes someone, somewhere laugh, then it has to be a good and just thing.

Just because something ends up being entertaining doesn't mean it's a good thing in and of itself. What you're doing is excusing someone for something they shouldn't have done; hell, you said it yourself: He apologized. You do know what an apology means, right? It means the person is saying, "I shouldn't have done that." Even he can apparently see it was the wrong thing to do, why can't you?

That was Taylor Swift's moment, and nobody else's. She won her first big award, and was on national TV in front of all her fans, her friends, and her family. It was not anyone's place to do what Kanye did, it doesn't matter whether it became a meme or not, or whether people laughed at Kanye for it. Ripping the microphone out of someone's hand to tell them they shouldn't have won their first ever major award is a bad thing.

Anyway, I'm done arguing about this. You clearly will not listen to reason and just don't understand that some things just aren't right. Completely ruining someone's once-in-a-lifetime achievement being one of them. I don't know how else I can say it, and I'm done repeating myself.

As I said, I put a note in the Fan Dumb entry that some people thought it was funny; that's all there needs to be. I have no problem acknowledging that some found it funny. I object to it being stated as fact on the site that this excuses Kanye for being an asshole.
01:57:02 AM Jul 12th 2010
edited by shinfernape
No your the one not listening to reason by denying other people their say.

Do you understand the freedome of speech?

Whatever you feel is irrelevant to allowing other people to express themselves.

Anyways kanye is in the broad sense an entertainer. He entertains his audience by dancing as well. His stupidity acts to entertain as well such as his drunken ramblings.

I mean there's stuff like the cult of personality. Really if there is something kanye has it is definetly character or charisma compared to the mellow taylor swift.

The shoe example is really bad because as i said that kanye's proffesion is an entertainer. Almost in the sense that Britney Spear's drunken stunts add to entertain in magazines etc.

Again i am defending the right for that moment to have existed. You can't say that all bad things never deserve to exist because changes for the GOOD happen afterwards.

Still nothing gives you the right to stop other people expressing themselves ESPECIALLY if they are being insulted simply because you object.
06:37:33 AM Jul 12th 2010
I've wasted enough time on this, so I'll be brief: You're wrong.

I am a journalist by trade, and yes, I do understand what Freedom of Speech is. You, clearly, don't. The first amendment does not say any jackass can do whatever he wants because he's free. It says the government can't stop people from peaceably gathering, can't stop people from getting their religion on, and can't infringe on the rights of people to distribute information and speech. I'm not the government, and Kanye West didn't have any 'message' to put out.

We talked about this in my ethics class re: holocaust deniers. The lesson was you do not let those people talk in your paper, because they're wrong. Yes, I'm afraid there is such a thing as right and wrong, even if *GASP* it's entertaining.

It doesn't matter if he's an entertainer. That doesn't give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Speaking of Britney, is it okay that her children have to live a life in the spotlight, with a drunken mother, and suffer through years of therapy, because it's entertaining?

Not everything that's entertaining is a good thing. That alone doesn't excuse anything.

I'm done with this. Go argue with a wall. I've wasted enough time arguing with you.
12:43:27 PM Jul 12th 2010
edited by shinfernape
Well the britney example is flawed because it is something that social services and not the media shpuld be looking into.

Whilst holocaust deniers are wrong it is because you are opposing something that is actually factual and not such matter of subjective. Even then around the world there are still holocaust deniers.

On something that is SUBJECTIVE like what this is it should be allowed for free speech so no you are wrong. Actually freedome of speech is supposed to be as free as possible.

You still don't understand that whilst what kanye did was considered wrong it was ENTERTAINING. You must remove this moral vanguard mode you have because clearly entertainment seeks to be as free ass possible. Which means it will try to free itself from the restraints of what is considered right and wrong. It is always pushing boundaries.

What you are still doing here is infringing on people's right to express themselves. Frankly that's a whole lot worse than what kanye did. At least kanye doesn't seek to limit people's freedome.
12:57:55 PM Jul 12th 2010
edited by MrDeath
Well the britney example is flawed because it is something that social services and not the media shpuld be looking into. Ah, but "it was ENTERTAINING" to some people, so therefore it's perfectly alright, isn't it? I thought that was the bottom line. It clearly did some good: created jobs for people taking pictures, filled up magazines, and no doubt sold plenty of ads on the TV and internet. And some people found it funny. By your own logic, Britney Spears is really a noble hero for giving so much to the world by getting knocked up by Kevin Federline and drunkenly endangering her children! She's an entertainer, so it's all okay!

I'm limiting peoples' freedom? Seriously? You're blowing my actions ridiculously out of proportion in order to demonize me, you know. You're just looking foolish at this point. And besides, as I've pointed out before, I added something in the Fan Dumb section that states that some people found it funny. They're being acknowledged already.

And once more, I must explain "free" doesn't mean "any jackass does whatever he wants." That's more like anarchy (not the political sense of the world, albeit), or perhaps lawlessness. There are things like courtesy and decency to consider, both things that Kanye clearly did not, and which you seem fit to throw under the bus if it's "ENTERTAINING." The Joker would approve.

"It was ENTERTAINING" doesn't mean it was at all right, or that it should have happened. It is not an excuse for being an asshole and humiliating someone who clearly did not deserve it. Rule of Funny applies to fiction rather than real life, and doesn't apply in this case. Once again (man, do I repeat myself a lot to you or what? How many times till it gets through?): If you leave someone crying and humiliated on national TV in front of all their friends, family, and fans, you have done a bad thing and should not have done it in the first place.

Really, why is that so difficult to understand? I'm saying it in the simplest terms I can. You yourself said he apologized, which means Kanye realized that he shouldn't have done that. That's what "I'm sorry" means. He's acknowledged that it was the wrong thing to do, why can't you?
07:14:13 AM Jul 10th 2010
edited by shinfernape
This stupidity of Mr Death not allowing the "Fandumb" their explanation as to why they support kanye. They should have the right to make why they support kanye clear. As much as Mr Death would dissaprove the group will still exist because honestly the sitaution was funny. The world needs jerks like kanye to make life interesting.
11:28:56 AM Jul 11th 2010
The explanation is on there. If you want, add, "or because they thought it was funny" after "they agreed with what he said".

What I was deleting was Justifying Edits by the fandom stating as fact that it was excusable because it was funny. Acknowledge the Fan Dumb is out there, sure, but having a post that amounts to, "But it was okay because it was funny" isn't good for the page.
11:55:00 AM Jul 11th 2010
edited by shinfernape
But that is the opinion of that fanbase, and they deserve to express that opinion despite your objections. By saying it is wrong is like saying that it should never have happened. Well quite frankly it has entertained people all over the world and DOES deserve to exist.

So really it can be justified for its existence and the fact that it happened because of the joy it spread.

Plus Kanye was drunk and apologised.
11:58:23 AM Jul 11th 2010
edited by MrDeath
I am saying it should never have happened. He was being a class A dick, and utterly ruined a young girl's once-in-a-lifetime moment. It is wrong to be a dick and humiliate someone like that, I don't care how funny the Fan Dumb thinks it is. Being a stupid asshole shouldn't be excused or encouraged, I don't care if he was drunk.

Just because one possible reaction was "Ha ha, he's stupid" doesn't mean Taylor Swift deserved to have her moment ruined by that jackass.
01:17:52 PM Jul 11th 2010
You seem to be caught up once again in your little vanguard mode. You have had the chance to express yourself and say what kanye did was wrong but that doesn't give you the right to SILENCE people despite your objections. People should be allowed to express their selves in justification and not just take things lying down.

I still maintain that the moment deserves to have happened. Why? Well look at the outcome. Kanye has been humbled. Taylor has come out smelling sweeter than roses. So you can see issues were solved and things were achieved by it.

But above all people are entertained. So much so that it is now a MEME.

You know comedians risk stepping over people's toes all the time but such is the price of comedy. Frankly you can't please everyone but the moment was undoubtibly funny.

So you can see that in the realm of comedy, they value the entertainment of the many over the objections of a few. Which is kinda why Rule of Funny exists.
02:45:59 PM Jul 11th 2010
edited by MrDeath
"It's now a MEME" isn't a defense. It does not in any way mean that it's something that "deserves" to have happened, or is in any way a good thing. I've seen memes that more or less revolve around blatant sexism, racism, and the goddamn 9/11 attacks. Does that mean it's okay to be sexist, racist, or that 3000 people died in a terror attack because some people on the internet think it's funny?

Obviously what Kanye did wasn't nearly to that scale, but just because it became an internet meme after the fact does not mean it was okay for him to do it.

On a smaller scale, ever watch America's Funniest Home Videos? The biggest laughs are people getting hit in the nuts. Now, would you think it was "okay" for someone to kick you in the jewels just because they think it's funny?

And no, this wasn't some harmless comedy sketch that just went too far. It was a jackass stepping way out of line, and ruining a once-in-a-lifetime event for someone. It doesn't matter if it's a meme, or if some people think it was funny.

It was a dick move, made by an asshole, and the fact some people can laugh at it doesn't mean it "should" have happened. What should have happened was she should've been able to accept her award and thank her friends/family/parents/whathaveyou and not have to worry about some drunken asshole ruining it.

I put in the page that some people find it funny, which is enough. As I said before, my objection was the article stating as fact that his idiotic actions were excused and okay because some people find it funny. They aren't. That's why the entry is under FanDumb.

Also, I think your figures are a bit crossed. I'd say more people were disgusted by Kanye's actions than found them funny, so if you go by the many vs. few argument, even less reason for it to be "okay".
07:11:38 AM Oct 4th 2010
what about the people who are willing to defend kanye about the incident because of the insane witch hunt and blacklisting he received afterward? he was banned from the bet awards AND the grammy's that year (where he won an award with rihanna and jay-z for "run this town"). fuck, chris brown wasn't even banned from the bet awards until jay-z, and therefore all of def jam and roc-a-fella, threatened not to come. i know kanye was a dick in that scenario, but was he really worse than the dude who beat the crap out of his girlfriend?
Collapse/Expand Topics