| |
|
I was simply pointing out that your position was incoherent, Dudders. You may find an interest in reading posts other than your own "smug". That's your option.
Ultimately, you have said that you like some consumer products (Coke) but not others (Girls Aloud). So, your objection to them is not in fact that they are corporate, as being corporate is not, as it turns out, either an adequate decriptor or, if we assume you mean by it "a consumer product", which may be as close as we're going to get, a bad thing. It is that you do not like them. You do not mind that the Coca-Cola company does bad things, because you like their product. As such, the negative societal effects of patronising Starbucks, MacDonalds and Girls Aloud are not the issue - the issue is that you do not like their product, and it is from this that your disapproval comes. I believe I identified this correctly on the previous page, and I'm very glad that you've caught up. Well done!
(Incidentally, I think you may mean "opus" rather than "onus")
On dadrock - I think that some time before you shat yourself explosively over the thread, Flyboy himself said:
And as Jack points out, you keep repeatedly insisting that criticising a band like Girls Aloud doesn't automatically make you a boring old Q reader - fair enough
It seems that you have brilliantly refuted a proposition - that the only reason not to be a fan of Girls Aloud was if you were a boring old dadrocker - that nobody was advancing. What was being said was that it was unfair to accuse somebody of accusing you of being a dadrocker while simultaneously employing the arguments of dadrock. See Jack the Bodiless:
And I really don't mind or care that you don't like Girls Aloud. Asserting that it's common sense that eny fule nos that GA are wanky balls for kids, that manufactured pop is The Devil and that adults should be ashamed that they like it : that's the argument I was objecting to. Like it or not, that is the dadrocker argument, and it isn't part of a debate, it's a reactionary and often wilfully ignorant and unexamined position. Usually taken by Tories (ducks for cover).
Different and rather more complex proposition. And we have wasted half a page because you cannot be bothered to read what other people have written rather than what you would like them to have said in order to let you have a fight with them at your preferred level.
We've been through this. |
|
|
