There might just be a reason that Lissener gets repeated pittings.

The BBQ Pit
1

In a casual thread about an innocuous band, a poster casually used the term “wuss rock”. A term that seems appropriate to the poster. But, no. Not for some hyper-sensitive poster who drops a load onto this poster by stating:

Before we go on, let’s take a look at the Urban dictionary defintion of “wuss rock”. The most approved is:
Supposed “rock” music that is a contradition in and of itself. Music that is not about expressing the raw emotion or energy that is rock, but instead a kind of masterbatory limp sadness. Some of the best rock contains elements of sadness and helplessness, but honestly express their frustrations through modes of both melancholic somberness as well as ventilative “rocking out.” Instead of regaining one’s power through the “rock”, “Wuss rock” does the very opposite and allows the crybaby whose girlfriend dumped him to continue crying into his perfume-scented pillow.

M-W.com just defines “wuss” as “wimp”. That’s it, nothing more. Nothing “vaguely sexist or homophobic”.

He pulls another definition later:

A lack of masculinity becomes oddly sexist and homophobic? The reason, it’s all in lissener’s head. There’s a huge disconnect between the two but he rolls on like there isn’t one. Even when his choice of definition doesn’t support his claim. I’m not sure if he was just looking for something to be offended by and this was it, but that seems to be the only reasonable excuse to libel someone with such weighted words as “sexist” or “homophobic”. I guess racist and rape are next because the accusations seem to be boundless here.

Other folks bring up reasonable points to an unreasonable poster which are completely ignored. Apparently the accusations are made and they’re stuck there in lissener’s mind and nothing will change 'em. Of course, lissener is also a person who casually said:

I guess sexism is fine for some but not for others.

For some reason, the thread goes further down an insane path when lissener pulls this nugget out:

Should I ignore the fact that he claims superior knowledge and then states he doesn’t want to “compare piss streams”. He might as well as say “I’m better than you but I’m smart enough not to bring that point up”. It’s frustratingly ridiculous. About as ridiculous as the argumentum ad populum that is the beginning of his point.

Personally, I’ve got almost 7000 CDs, about half a terabyte in music that’s not in CD form, crates and crates of LPs, and a large collection of videos from back when I was a VJ. I’ve got subscriptions to 4 music magazines and am constantly looking for new artists. You wanna talk blues and jazz roots, the evolution of Momus from indie-folk artist to Shibuya-Kei minor celeb, or discuss the chordal structures of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, I’m open. Am I listing all of this to measure my “piss”? No. I’m listing all of those to state that while I have a large collection compared to most, I’m willfully ignorant of music. Those who claim to know it all, don’t.

2

yeah, I gotta agree. There was a perfectly good discussion about Coldplay going on, and lissener’s insistence that “wuss rock” is a homophobic term comes out of left field. Different strokes for different folks, right? He kept going on about it, which became annoying.

The last post was pretty jerkish. Maybe it was a whoosh, but if not…

btw, the quote about the Be Kind Rewind viewer is much more offensive than “wuss rock.” My $.02.

3

My only response in this thread will be to clarify this for you: I never claimed anything like superior knowledge. I merely pointed out that it was highly unlikely that HIS knowledge was SO MUCH greater than mine that his use of the word “dwarfing” was a good choice. In other words, HE claimed that HIS knowledge was so much vaster than mine, that mine was dwarfed by comparison. I have little doubt that he knows as much or even more about music than I do. But “dwarfs”? That’s the ONLY claim of superior knowledge in that thread, HIS claim of superior knowledge, not mine.

Seriously, where’s the pit thread for this:

4

It’s worth noting that you’re not being pitted for bragging about musical knowledge. You’re being pitted for calling another poster sexist and homophobic based on utterly specious reasoning.

5

Yeah, like that will make sense to his ego.

He said that would be his only response, so we don’t have to worry about him shitting in this thread too.
He doesn’t realize that he’s yet another clown that listens to a bunch of music, uses his knowledge to bully people, and thinks his insipid opinion means more than yours. You don’t like Jeff Buckley? YOU’RE WRONG you homophobic, ridiculous, ignorant person (all his adjectives from the thread).

I don’t care what someone does for a living, or what their involvement in music is, if they try to tell me I’m wrong for liking or disliking a band, or refer to someone as ignorant because they don’t think Jeff Buckley was the end all in music, then they’re just proving they really just don’t get music, they simply enjoy ruining it for the rest of us.

6

You know what? I shouldn’t have risen to the bait and participated in the hijacking/threadshitting over there. I don’t even want to argue semantics, nor do I really care who knows more. I gleefully withdraw the “dwarfing” comment and will even bow to your superior knowledge of all things pop culture if that makes it better. I was just pissed that every single comment you made in the thread was either blatantly pissing all over people or doing it more subtly by using a smug tone, and I responded in kind, on your terms. But Jesus Christ, man, can’t you see at all how your posts would annoy the shit out of people?

7

??

You sound surprised that he would be offended…

lissener: Not just a tired and predictable spokesman for the offenderandi, he’s a member.

8

I think that “member” comment might be construed as anti-penis - better call him “king and CEO”, or he’ll lash out again at the perceived slight (against both penises and his ego). See, lissener, you’re not so misunderstood - I get you and am sympathetic to your needs.

9

Wuss Rock does not imply the band members are gay. Wuss Rock implies that they WANT to be gay, but fail miserably.

And who cares about homoerotic overtones in heavy metal? The whole chains-and-leather image was inspired by ROB HALFORD, for Christ’s sake! :wink:

10

Have you, by chance, met gonzomax?

11

Classist! Classist and monarchist!

This is the same guy who said:

After myself and some other posters said that we wanted to fuck Ricki Lee Jones because she had a sexy voice. In other words, the emotions that were conveyed to us by her voice were exactly the emotions that a singer who sings with a sultry, sensual jazz-type voice INTENDS to elicit in her male listeners. But nope, we were just a bunch of aggressive, misogynist cavemen.

I will never understand - NEVER understand - how some people can be so ridiculously sensitive as to cry offense. And this is a guy who claims to be a fan of J.G. Ballard, who is the fucking EMPEROR of perverted, twisted, sexually-aggressive art. That one is really lost on me - I think he needs to hand in his J.G. Ballard Fan Club card.

12

Anybody want to find a reference to what Tori Amos felt upon first hearing Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin singing? Highly sexist, that Tori.

13

No, you see, when Tori did it, she was making a statement against the evil establishment of patriarchy and sexism and misogyny and racism and she was empowering women and fighting for the cause of equality and freedom of expression and blazing a new path for female artists, hacking and slashing through the gnarled, old evil forces of patriarchy like Joan of Arc with a shining sword.

But I, on the other hand, am just a misogynistic caveman. Ooga booga! Ooga booga!

14

You’ve obviously forgetten how lissener feels about Tori:

15

I, for the record, rarely imagine having sex with any female vocalist when I listen to their music.

The only exceptions are Debbie Harry, Pat Benatar, Teri Nunn, Chrissie Hynde, Annie Lennox, Kate Bush, Laura Branigan, Nena, Alanis Morissette, Anneke van Giersbergen, Cristina Scabbia (especially when she sings in Italian), Joan Baez, Linda Rondstadt, Grace Slick, Ann & Nancy Wilson, Stevie Nicks (but not Christine McVie – she looks too much like my grandma!), Joan Jett, Lita Ford, Doro Pesch, D’Arcy of the Smashing Pumpkins, the chick from The Cranberries, the two chicks from ABBA, all 5 members of the Go-Go’s, Donna Summer, Irene Cara, Paula Abdul, Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, Billie Holliday, Florence Foster Jenkins, Paula Cole (yes, even with the hairy pits), that death metal chick from Arch Enemy, the goth chicks from Cradle of Filth…heck, even Janis Joplin sometimes makes me want to grab a compass and a shovel…

16

It’s not only music. He’s like this about everything.

17

Thanks, Miller, for crystallizing this for me, and making it indelibly, unquestionably clear that this is not about the actual topic under discussion, but just another lissener pileon. If I had said “I’m pretty sure my musical knowledge dwarfs yours,” this board would have exploded in lissener-focused outrage. Instead, when I simply point out that such a claim is not only mind-bogglingly hubristic–and not very Doperly, if you ask me; such bald claims of unassailable authority are (rightly) never taken very seriously around here–but simply, if you knew me, and my lifelong obsessions, just not all that likely (again, I never suggested that I knew more than him; or even as much as him; just that it’s not likely that his knowledge was so magnitudinally greater than mine as to *dwarf *it).

Again, imagine it reversed: imagine ME, seriously, dismissing what someone, anyone, on these boards had to say, on ANY subject, even a subject I may be more generally considered to be knowledgeable about, by simply *claiming *that my knowledge of the subject dwarfed theirs. And then imagine them saying, Uh, actually, that’s actually not likely.

Where would this pitting fall then?

And even as far as my accusations of sexism and homophobia, while perhaps overstated and fueled by my ignorance that “wuss rock” is a term of some currency that carries its own pre-existing meaning, are, while certainly debatable and worthy of some discussion, hardly pitworthy in and of themselves. So your bullshit dismissal of the second half of this thread’s OP, Miller, simply because it’s the only thing I addressed in my first reply–you thereby avoid actually engaging my reply–is, well, just more bullshit.

So to recap: my initial statement in the linked thread, while overstated and open to debate and even perhaps to correction, was hardly threadshitting, and *hardly *pitworthyl. And my subsequent refusal to let stand woodstock’s claim of “dwarfing” omniscience, which would have been let lie–if not cheered–if the participants had been reversed, I have to say I’m just terribly impressed by this particular lissener pitting.

(And here’s a freebie: yeah I said I wouldn’t be participating in this thread, so here’s an easy target if you want it.)

18

Missed the edit.

19

Since we’re in the pit - Momus is an insufferable bore. :stuck_out_tongue:

20

Well, surely most of you realize some people need recognition any way they can get it, no?

Seems we have an almost perfect example here.