Red Mosquito

IlluminEddie wrote:hy·poc·ri·sy
hiˈpäkrisēSubmit
noun
1.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

stip wrote:
you've made up your mind so we're not really debating anything at this point, but

Target: because getting a better deal from one corporation and trying to establish a precedent for other artists (as billboard pointed out) and working out an arrangement to try and protect independent stores, rather than just selling them to ALL the big corporation, is a betrayal of some principle

And, as a leftist, you can sleep at night? It's fucking Target. They left Sony to take a stand and went to... Target. To Target. lol


I once heard a story from Adam Duritz about Ed being a d&ck to him for using their song in a Coke commercial. I always think back about when I watched the PJ Target ads.

stip wrote:Ten Club: yeah, they need a lot of work. Hypocrisy though?

Yes, they sell dog collars and band trading cards. Anything to make a buck. Seriously.

Look, now they linked up with UPS to become more efficient... lol

stip wrote:Nader: i voted for Nader in 2000 and did not vote for him in 2004. Am I a hypocrite too?

Did you stand on a soapbox for an entire tour or three preaching about third parties and their importance, then bail on that thought completely?

stip wrote:Ticket Master: They did a boycott. No one joined in. Ticketmaster was not hurt by it. It made life more difficult for their fans. They lost. They stopped. Everyone's life got easier, including the fans

I know. I was at the San Fran show when he got sick. They made a big stink.. they did something about it for a bit, realized it was hard and then changed their mind.

stip wrote:MTV: What about it? Making videos? shit, that hypocrisy started in 1998 if that's your problem. But the no video stand was annoying if you liked videos (as a fan I was glad to see them stop, even though I had a certain silly admiration for their willingness to do it). it's also not hypocrisy. you seem to be conflating hypocrisy with changing your mind.

Actually this was also the year they ended the ticket master boycott. I didn't realize their hypocrisy peaked 15 years ago. Maybe that's why Yield is such an upbeat record.

If it was just Ticket master and MTV, I wouldn't call them hypocrites.

stip wrote:Dog Collars: then don't buy it. it's not like that dog collar was the only way you could hear cold concession. Some fans have disposable income and want to buy that shit. More power to them

I love this - "then don't buy it". Capitalism is only wrong if someone else's doing, right Ed? "If you hate something then don't you do it too" - is kinda lost here. It's a mystery to me "we have a greed, with which we have agreed. You think you want more than you need. Until you have a dog collar or PJ trading cards you won't be free".

stip wrote:G.R.E.E.D: I'm not sure what that stands for. Oh wait, it's greed! Money is nice. I'm not sure they ever said anything to the contrary. What matter is what you do with it, or what you would do to get it. Making dog collars available on your website does put them right next to the Koch brothers, I agree.

Yes, it's a lyric from a song called Green Disease. Nah, they never, ever preached about greed. Never. I mean "sorry is the fool who trades his sole for Pearl Jam dog collar.

Nah, not hypocritical.

stupidmop wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:It is relevant to problems in 2013, it might just not be relevant to IlluminEddie's favourite ones. You think these big world problems just get replaced for new ones with each president? This song is attacking age-old, archetypal issues. I've asked you twice but you haven't answered: you do realise how many wars are still being fought and not won, right? And the weaponry being used is vast; you're acting as if 'drones' are representative of 2013 war. It's a bit weird.

What did you ask? I do realize wars are being fought. Who's winning these "wars"? Who is fighting? What are they fighting for? Are they wars for oil? Are drones not more representative of current wars than past air-related elements?

The problem, as I see it, is drones are involved in a lot of debate here, despite their incredibly large military use in combat and surveillance. Why? Because they can be used on American citizens. In fact, one may have just flown by you. Make you feel safe?

I doubt it, I'm English. My beef is that Eddie isn't attacking David Cameron and has said nothing about the gigantic fight to protect Disabled Rights in the UK at the moment. What are you gonna do? Right, you're going to reply "Well you're not American, Ed is." But that would prove my point; Ed isn't talking about the specific issues you care about. The reason you're pissed off about that doesn't matter, but you're not the only one who could be pissed off. My point about weaponry is merely that the type of bomb is irrelevant; the types of bomb represented in this video are instantly recognisable to a general public who will be attached to an entertaining punk song like MYM (did you miss my post about that?). That is part of what is implied by "archetypal" and "iconic". Images that can be described as archetypal and iconic are images that are instantly recognisable "stand-ins" for a range of political issues that can be represented by them. I'm pretty sure that Ed is aware of drones, and I'm also pretty sure that he's not very happy about them, or their utilisation by Obama. Unless he says that he's thrilled about it, I won't assume that he is. Why? Because everything he's said before leads me to believe that I know, at least to some extent, what Ed's values are about war and peace. And he's never stated the view that "Drones are awesome". But neither has he taken a vow to attack every president from this point on. Apart from anything else, he would bore the shit out of people if his music became exclusively about politics (or moreover, specific policies and politicians).

Drones are flying over you too. And guess what, they are US drones. In fact, the NSA story is UK-related too. My country is tapping your communications. So, let me restate my question - do you feel safe that another country is "protecting" you?

As for drones, I am quite sure Ed doesn't like them either. Yet, the silence on all of these issues from the guy who wrote Grievance is kinda odd. Oh yeh, he played a fundraiser for Obama. But, our world's problems can certainly be boiled down to three words: oil, army, guns. No doubt. That's not oversimplifying during a world-wide depression.

Anyway, you didn't answer any of my other questions, "bro".

Dudes not a politician. He doesn't have to write a song about every advance in the world of politics.

He hasn't written a song about abortion or homelessness in a while either, i suppose you think he's pro-life and spends his time mowing down homeless people for fun nowadays?

stupidmop wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:It is relevant to problems in 2013, it might just not be relevant to IlluminEddie's favourite ones. You think these big world problems just get replaced for new ones with each president? This song is attacking age-old, archetypal issues. I've asked you twice but you haven't answered: you do realise how many wars are still being fought and not won, right? And the weaponry being used is vast; you're acting as if 'drones' are representative of 2013 war. It's a bit weird.

What did you ask? I do realize wars are being fought. Who's winning these "wars"? Who is fighting? What are they fighting for? Are they wars for oil? Are drones not more representative of current wars than past air-related elements?

The problem, as I see it, is drones are involved in a lot of debate here, despite their incredibly large military use in combat and surveillance. Why? Because they can be used on American citizens. In fact, one may have just flown by you. Make you feel safe?

I doubt it, I'm English. My beef is that Eddie isn't attacking David Cameron and has said nothing about the gigantic fight to protect Disabled Rights in the UK at the moment. What are you gonna do? Right, you're going to reply "Well you're not American, Ed is." But that would prove my point; Ed isn't talking about the specific issues you care about. The reason you're pissed off about that doesn't matter, but you're not the only one who could be pissed off. My point about weaponry is merely that the type of bomb is irrelevant; the types of bomb represented in this video are instantly recognisable to a general public who will be attached to an entertaining punk song like MYM (did you miss my post about that?). That is part of what is implied by "archetypal" and "iconic". Images that can be described as archetypal and iconic are images that are instantly recognisable "stand-ins" for a range of political issues that can be represented by them. I'm pretty sure that Ed is aware of drones, and I'm also pretty sure that he's not very happy about them, or their utilisation by Obama. Unless he says that he's thrilled about it, I won't assume that he is. Why? Because everything he's said before leads me to believe that I know, at least to some extent, what Ed's values are about war and peace. And he's never stated the view that "Drones are awesome". But neither has he taken a vow to attack every president from this point on. Apart from anything else, he would bore the shit out of people if his music became exclusively about politics (or moreover, specific policies and politicians).

Drones are flying over you too. And guess what, they are US drones. In fact, the NSA story is UK-related too. My country is tapping your communications. So, let me restate my question - do you feel safe that another country is "protecting" you?

As for drones, I am quite sure Ed doesn't like them either. Yet, the silence on all of these issues from the guy who wrote Grievance is kinda odd. Oh yeh, he played a fundraiser for Obama. But, our world's problems can certainly be boiled down to three words: oil, army, guns. No doubt. That's not oversimplifying during a world-wide depression.

Anyway, you didn't answer any of my other questions, "bro".

Dudes not a politician. He doesn't have to write a song about every advance in the world of politics.

He hasn't written a song about abortion or homelessness in a while either, i suppose you think he's pro-life and spends his time mowing down homeless people for fun nowadays?

stip wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:It is relevant to problems in 2013, it might just not be relevant to IlluminEddie's favourite ones. You think these big world problems just get replaced for new ones with each president? This song is attacking age-old, archetypal issues. I've asked you twice but you haven't answered: you do realise how many wars are still being fought and not won, right? And the weaponry being used is vast; you're acting as if 'drones' are representative of 2013 war. It's a bit weird.

What did you ask? I do realize wars are being fought. Who's winning these "wars"? Who is fighting? What are they fighting for? Are they wars for oil? Are drones not more representative of current wars than past air-related elements?

The problem, as I see it, is drones are involved in a lot of debate here, despite their incredibly large military use in combat and surveillance. Why? Because they can be used on American citizens. In fact, one may have just flown by you. Make you feel safe?

I doubt it, I'm English. My beef is that Eddie isn't attacking David Cameron and has said nothing about the gigantic fight to protect Disabled Rights in the UK at the moment. What are you gonna do? Right, you're going to reply "Well you're not American, Ed is." But that would prove my point; Ed isn't talking about the specific issues you care about. The reason you're pissed off about that doesn't matter, but you're not the only one who could be pissed off. My point about weaponry is merely that the type of bomb is irrelevant; the types of bomb represented in this video are instantly recognisable to a general public who will be attached to an entertaining punk song like MYM (did you miss my post about that?). That is part of what is implied by "archetypal" and "iconic". Images that can be described as archetypal and iconic are images that are instantly recognisable "stand-ins" for a range of political issues that can be represented by them. I'm pretty sure that Ed is aware of drones, and I'm also pretty sure that he's not very happy about them, or their utilisation by Obama. Unless he says that he's thrilled about it, I won't assume that he is. Why? Because everything he's said before leads me to believe that I know, at least to some extent, what Ed's values are about war and peace. And he's never stated the view that "Drones are awesome". But neither has he taken a vow to attack every president from this point on. Apart from anything else, he would bore the shit out of people if his music became exclusively about politics (or moreover, specific policies and politicians).

Drones are flying over you too. And guess what, they are US drones. In fact, the NSA story is UK-related too. My country is tapping your communications. So, let me restate my question - do you feel safe that another country is "protecting" you?

As for drones, I am quite sure Ed doesn't like them either. Yet, the silence on all of these issues from the guy who wrote Grievance is kinda odd. Oh yeh, he played a fundraiser for Obama. But, our world's problems can certainly be boiled down to three words: oil, army, guns. No doubt. That's not oversimplifying during a world-wide depression.

Anyway, you didn't answer any of my other questions, "bro".

Dudes not a politician. He doesn't have to write a song about every advance in the world of politics.

He hasn't written a song about abortion or homelessness in a while either, i suppose you think he's pro-life and spends his time mowing down homeless people for fun nowadays?

I do think that, actually

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

IlluminEddie wrote:hy·poc·ri·sy
hiˈpäkrisēSubmit
noun
1.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

stip wrote:
you've made up your mind so we're not really debating anything at this point, but

Target: because getting a better deal from one corporation and trying to establish a precedent for other artists (as billboard pointed out) and working out an arrangement to try and protect independent stores, rather than just selling them to ALL the big corporation, is a betrayal of some principle

And, as a leftist, you can sleep at night? It's fucking Target. They left Sony to take a stand and went to... Target. To Target. lol


I once heard a story from Adam Duritz about Ed being a d&ck to him for using their song in a Coke commercial. I always think back about when I watched the PJ Target ads.

stip wrote:Ten Club: yeah, they need a lot of work. Hypocrisy though?

Yes, they sell dog collars and band trading cards. Anything to make a buck. Seriously.

Look, now they linked up with UPS to become more efficient... lol

stip wrote:Nader: i voted for Nader in 2000 and did not vote for him in 2004. Am I a hypocrite too?

Did you stand on a soapbox for an entire tour or three preaching about third parties and their importance, then bail on that thought completely?

stip wrote:Ticket Master: They did a boycott. No one joined in. Ticketmaster was not hurt by it. It made life more difficult for their fans. They lost. They stopped. Everyone's life got easier, including the fans

I know. I was at the San Fran show when he got sick. They made a big stink.. they did something about it for a bit, realized it was hard and then changed their mind.

stip wrote:MTV: What about it? Making videos? shit, that hypocrisy started in 1998 if that's your problem. But the no video stand was annoying if you liked videos (as a fan I was glad to see them stop, even though I had a certain silly admiration for their willingness to do it). it's also not hypocrisy. you seem to be conflating hypocrisy with changing your mind.

Actually this was also the year they ended the ticket master boycott. I didn't realize their hypocrisy peaked 15 years ago. Maybe that's why Yield is such an upbeat record.

If it was just Ticket master and MTV, I wouldn't call them hypocrites.

stip wrote:Dog Collars: then don't buy it. it's not like that dog collar was the only way you could hear cold concession. Some fans have disposable income and want to buy that shit. More power to them

I love this - "then don't buy it". Capitalism is only wrong if someone else's doing, right Ed? "If you hate something then don't you do it too" - is kinda lost here. It's a mystery to me "we have a greed, with which we have agreed. You think you want more than you need. Until you have a dog collar or PJ trading cards you won't be free".

stip wrote:G.R.E.E.D: I'm not sure what that stands for. Oh wait, it's greed! Money is nice. I'm not sure they ever said anything to the contrary. What matter is what you do with it, or what you would do to get it. Making dog collars available on your website does put them right next to the Koch brothers, I agree.

Yes, it's a lyric from a song called Green Disease. Nah, they never, ever preached about greed. Never. I mean "sorry is the fool who trades his sole for Pearl Jam dog collar.

Nah, not hypocritical.

harmless wrote:Can someone ban this guy?

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:Can someone ban this guy?

Why for disagreeing with you? Seriously.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

I asked harmless a few about "war", who we are fighting and whatnot.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

I asked harmless a few about "war", who we are fighting and whatnot.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

I asked harmless a few about "war", who we are fighting and whatnot.

Well nobody, obviously. It's all finished. Nobody's fighting anyone. It's all over! We won! Everyone can go home! Seriously dude, you're becoming far more than annoying now.

stupidmop wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

I asked harmless a few about "war", who we are fighting and whatnot.

Well i'm not harmless so i'm gonna tap out.

You didn't answer my questions either though btw, is eddie a pro-life hobo killer?

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

I asked harmless a few about "war", who we are fighting and whatnot.

Well i'm not harmless so i'm gonna tap out.

You didn't answer my questions either though btw, is eddie a pro-life hobo killer?

I would think he's more pro-life now that he's had kids and probably went through an ultrasound with his wife in the process. I think it would be interesting for him to write a pro-choice song now. I would think that would support his past indignation.

I don't know of anyone at all who is pro-homelessness. So, I'd assume he's not. Sorry - can't help with that one.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

stupidmop wrote:You didn't ask me any

I asked harmless a few about "war", who we are fighting and whatnot.

Well nobody, obviously. It's all finished. Nobody's fighting anyone. It's all over! We won! Everyone can go home! Seriously dude, you're becoming far more than annoying now.