Lets be honest about it here
WWRY is hardly educational - not only is it unsuitable for children, it's also not really that appropriate for the thinking adult!
ANAGRAMER
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Sebastian
Standing ovation!!!
GratefulFan
Soundfreak wrote:
I don't think he offended that teacher - he simply r e a c t e d after "WWRY" was offended by her.
=========================================
He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect.
I don't think he offended that teacher - he simply r e a c t e d after "WWRY" was offended by her.
=========================================
He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect.
john bodega
Nothing new here. It's the same as his ridiculous reaction to the Q.I episode that apparently mocked Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims. I kept an open mind on that one, too. I figured 'maybe they went too far, maybe Brian got it right this time'. I watched the video, waiting for them to do impersonations of people frying in atomic horror, but it never happened. They were (as always) mostly articulate, slightly laddish, and informative in the sense that not everyone knows about that guy who got bombed in both cities.
A huge fucking overreaction - not just on Brian's part, but pretty much anyone who complained about it. It's not like they did slanty-eyes and wailed "Oh no, me no rikey rikey big bomb brow up my fried rice!".
A huge fucking overreaction - not just on Brian's part, but pretty much anyone who complained about it. It's not like they did slanty-eyes and wailed "Oh no, me no rikey rikey big bomb brow up my fried rice!".
lifetimefanofqueen
ANAGRAMER wrote: Lets be honest about it here
WWRY is hardly educational - not only is it unsuitable for children, it's also not really that appropriate for the thinking adult!
===========================
if it wasnt for WWRY i would never have become so obsessed with Queen and would be lost completly, and to be honest i think its awesome! and is kinda educational, its like real life, rockers VS stupid little pop pricks, it educates that the rocker side is the side to be on because a guitar is heavier than lipstick when it comes to battle.
WWRY is hardly educational - not only is it unsuitable for children, it's also not really that appropriate for the thinking adult!
===========================
if it wasnt for WWRY i would never have become so obsessed with Queen and would be lost completly, and to be honest i think its awesome! and is kinda educational, its like real life, rockers VS stupid little pop pricks, it educates that the rocker side is the side to be on because a guitar is heavier than lipstick when it comes to battle.
Soundfreak
Grateful Fan wrote: He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars....
BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars....
BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician.
lifetimefanofqueen
Soundfreak wrote: Grateful Fan wrote: He does an awful lot of r e a c t i n g that involves insulting, belittling and diminishing others. Taken as a whole, I don't really think it's defensible, and I don't think it deserves respect.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars....
BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician.
=======================
he's human? so he's not a mighty God?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars....
BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician.
=======================
he's human? so he's not a mighty God?
GratefulFan
Soundfreak wrote:
I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars....
BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician.
====================================
If you did read his blog you might have a greater appreciation for the fact that while he's posting as a rock star, he's also posting as a doctor and a scientist who seeks to leverage his rock star fame and his credentials to influence opinion and shape public policy. With a clear inter-relationship with his other public initiatives, the Soapbox is about as far from a 'private' endeavour as it can be. On this then he earns the same scrutiny as other talking heads and political pundits, not other blistering guitarists.
I don't doubt for a second that it's all grounded in the sincere passion of a (narrowly) sensitive man who wants to use his fame to accomplish something meaningful, but the irony of defending him as 'human' when he repeatedly strips that very thing - humanity - from his many targets, is rich. A passionate war of ideas I could respect, but he's at war with the notion that anybody other than him and people that agree with him even have even the most basic intellectual, experiential or moral right to have a position at all. It's glaringly, shockingly bad. It really is.
I think that many people simply expect too much of a rock musician. In the end he is as "human" as we all are, he isn't better nor worse. But cause of his fame everything gets multiplied and especially fans are unhappy when the rockstar does not act exactly the way they want. That's why fans prefer dead rock stars....
BTW I never read Brian May's soapbox, it's too private and it's just a one way street. No interaction and so it's not very interesting for me. I have an own life. But I don't mind him doing that at all. He wants to express himself - that's why he became a musician.
====================================
If you did read his blog you might have a greater appreciation for the fact that while he's posting as a rock star, he's also posting as a doctor and a scientist who seeks to leverage his rock star fame and his credentials to influence opinion and shape public policy. With a clear inter-relationship with his other public initiatives, the Soapbox is about as far from a 'private' endeavour as it can be. On this then he earns the same scrutiny as other talking heads and political pundits, not other blistering guitarists.
I don't doubt for a second that it's all grounded in the sincere passion of a (narrowly) sensitive man who wants to use his fame to accomplish something meaningful, but the irony of defending him as 'human' when he repeatedly strips that very thing - humanity - from his many targets, is rich. A passionate war of ideas I could respect, but he's at war with the notion that anybody other than him and people that agree with him even have even the most basic intellectual, experiential or moral right to have a position at all. It's glaringly, shockingly bad. It really is.
Big Fat Fanny
>>> Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you are no longer allowed to have an opinion?
>>>Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you're allowed to offend whoever you want to?
Whoever you are, whenever you express an opinion, you're going to offend somebody. Wouldn't worry about it.
>>>Is there a rule that once you own a certain amount of money you're allowed to offend whoever you want to?
Whoever you are, whenever you express an opinion, you're going to offend somebody. Wouldn't worry about it.
thomasquinn 32989
GratefulFan wrote: Yes, Brian was on about it on his site, being his all-too-usual illogical, thin skinned and rather mean Soapbox self:
[Referring to article in The Sun 3 February 2011, "We Will Block You"]It's a little far-fetched of this lady to imagine that all that money can be refunded on just one person's (rather misguided) opinion !People's jobs and careers depend on productions like these. I imagine she would have to go about proving that our show was able to damage children. It's nonsense, really, of course. The average South Park episode contains a hundred times more 'unsuitable' material than a family musical ever could. Perhaps this lady needs to ask herself if she wants her TV license refunded ! I think she's embarrassing herself. It's a pity she can't find something worth-while protesting against ... like animal cruelty. Or cruelty to children. Bri
My thoughts are that the kids would have been fine, of course, seeing WWRY, except for any potential damage done by being exposed to an arguably bad musical. But Brian May honest to goodness seems to have a near complete inability to put himself in almost anybody else's shoes. Teachers have a tremendous amount of responsibility, and have to satisfy their administrators, school boards, and stickiest of all, parents who are often hyperinvolved and obnoxious. She clearly wanted to do something fun and educational for the kids, or she wouldn't have arranged the field trip. Although I might not agree with her judgement, I can have full empathy for the environment in which her decision was made. And I certainly wouldn't be slagging the poor woman off on my website. For god sake.
=====
Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism.
[Referring to article in The Sun 3 February 2011, "We Will Block You"]It's a little far-fetched of this lady to imagine that all that money can be refunded on just one person's (rather misguided) opinion !People's jobs and careers depend on productions like these. I imagine she would have to go about proving that our show was able to damage children. It's nonsense, really, of course. The average South Park episode contains a hundred times more 'unsuitable' material than a family musical ever could. Perhaps this lady needs to ask herself if she wants her TV license refunded ! I think she's embarrassing herself. It's a pity she can't find something worth-while protesting against ... like animal cruelty. Or cruelty to children. Bri
My thoughts are that the kids would have been fine, of course, seeing WWRY, except for any potential damage done by being exposed to an arguably bad musical. But Brian May honest to goodness seems to have a near complete inability to put himself in almost anybody else's shoes. Teachers have a tremendous amount of responsibility, and have to satisfy their administrators, school boards, and stickiest of all, parents who are often hyperinvolved and obnoxious. She clearly wanted to do something fun and educational for the kids, or she wouldn't have arranged the field trip. Although I might not agree with her judgement, I can have full empathy for the environment in which her decision was made. And I certainly wouldn't be slagging the poor woman off on my website. For god sake.
=====
Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism.
Holly2003
ThomasQuinn wrote:
Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Err... no. Grateful Fan can speak for herself, more eloquently than I can too, but she clearly stated she doesn't agree with the teacher's p.o.v. and her remarks are directed more at Brian's soapbox comments, which reflect a total lack of empathy on Brian's part, and also his increasingly mean spirit. There are many websites one can visit to get an intelligent and holistic view of various political and social issues. The best ones inspire me to think again about some things I had taken for granted. They remind me that life is very complicated and there are few simple answers. Brian's website isn't one of those. He has no sense of proportion and he demonises and demeans those who disagree with him. He's also been exposed as a hypocrite on a number of occasions. Lastly, and unforgiveably, it's boring as fuck.
Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Err... no. Grateful Fan can speak for herself, more eloquently than I can too, but she clearly stated she doesn't agree with the teacher's p.o.v. and her remarks are directed more at Brian's soapbox comments, which reflect a total lack of empathy on Brian's part, and also his increasingly mean spirit. There are many websites one can visit to get an intelligent and holistic view of various political and social issues. The best ones inspire me to think again about some things I had taken for granted. They remind me that life is very complicated and there are few simple answers. Brian's website isn't one of those. He has no sense of proportion and he demonises and demeans those who disagree with him. He's also been exposed as a hypocrite on a number of occasions. Lastly, and unforgiveably, it's boring as fuck.
thomasquinn 32989
So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who thinks that this teacher made a stupid decision (regardless of whether this was done under pressure from whomever - it wouldn't change the character of the act itself in the least), lacks empathy. That is rather lacking in nuance, which is rather ironic, seeing how you are accusing Brian of a lack in nuance.
Holly2003
ThomasQuinn wrote: So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who thinks that this teacher made a stupid decision (regardless of whether this was done under pressure from whomever - it wouldn't change the character of the act itself in the least), lacks empathy. That is rather lacking in nuance, which is rather ironic, seeing how you are accusing Brian of a lack in nuance.
No, I'm saying Brian often lacks a sense of balance and proportion. I'm not sure why you want to make this into some sort of wider issue.
No, I'm saying Brian often lacks a sense of balance and proportion. I'm not sure why you want to make this into some sort of wider issue.
Sebastian
Believe it or not, I actually agree with Holly. That teacher made a judgement call, one with which many people may agree or disagree but, at the end of the day, those kids who want to see the musical can do it in their own time. The teacher, on the other hand, was openly offended and humiliated by a multi-millionaire world-famous rock star just for making a decision that's part of her job. Way out of proportion.
GratefulFan
ThomasQuinn wrote:
Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism.
==========================
1) What Holly said.
2) If the finer points of the argument leave you unmoved, it could be because you're somewhat fond of engaging in a very similar brand of fervid poo flinging yourself.
Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism.
==========================
1) What Holly said.
2) If the finer points of the argument leave you unmoved, it could be because you're somewhat fond of engaging in a very similar brand of fervid poo flinging yourself.