So why are you bothering to read it? There are many threads on this forum that I don't even click on, because the title in itself indicates that I won't like what's on there. There are other threads that start to take a direction I dislike, that have the same posters, posting the same old reworked comments, and I stop visiting those too. If you don't like it, don't read it. I think the majority of the people posting on this thread, do so because somewhere a long the way, James has said/tweeted something offensive, either about someone they are a fan of, or about something that they have strong views on. This is a debating/discussion/opinions forum and therefore it is inevitable that at some point in time, something will be said that you instinctively disagree with - but if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Your own righteous indignation on this point won't stop people posting how they feel, about a guy who actually displays all the behaviours that you are criticising people on here as having.
not that old chestnut:rolleyes:
like yourself probably, i find it an interesting subject and i don't avoid things because i don't like them. I wouldn't watch the news or know anything about much going on in the world if i did that.
like yourself probably, i find it an interesting subject and i don't avoid things because i don't like them. I wouldn't watch the news or know anything about much going on in the world if i did that.
Yes.......that old chestnut. It's fine to read because you find it an interesting subject - but it is only interesting because people have opposing views. Argue the point that James isn't homophobic if you wish, but don't knock posters because they hold an opposing view you to you, which is what you insinuate when you refer to "hypocrisy and dishonesty" on the thread. I believe that James is homophobic because the "f*cking queer" comment isn't the only one he has made. He explained it away as being part of a "diss rap" etc and if it was the only time he had used such language, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But he has used such language in less than a complimentary way against Matt Cardle and his manager several times in the last year. James made this bed and he can lie in it.
Louis Walsh is not a person in a high place, he's a pathetic weasel-man with all the musical judgement of a toad with tinnitus, who is all too eager to make public his views on young people far more vulnerable to criticism than he is (and i don't mean James Arthur here)
Thats a very strong opionion on louis walsh:eek:
I agree ..people who have the eyes and the ears of the media should not be eagar to air their views publicly on any person or any vulnerable group in society..not only young people:)
Why the witch hunt against the guy? So he has a spat against a few people & a couple of choice words are said & he's public enemy number one.It's showbiz & controversy keeps people talking & besides if he's ruffled Louis Walsh's feathers he's gone up in my esteem.
Why the witch hunt against the guy? So he has a spat against a few people & a couple of choice words are said & he's public enemy number one.It's showbiz & controversy keeps people talking & besides if he's ruffled Louis Walsh's feathers he's gone up in my esteem.
If he can't take it, he shouldn't give it out. It is his own behaviour that has brought him to this point, of currently being the media's whipping boy. And for the record, I doubt very much if this will affect his record sales either way. The majority of his fans will continue to support him regardless of his behaviour. The current state of album sales, indicates that few people are making casual/impulse buys, so those who aren't ardent fans, were not that likely to buy anyway, even if they have heard and quite liked his single on the radio. They will probably wait for "Now That's What I call Music 87" and get the track with a pile of others that they quite liked. I was never going to buy his album, so he has hardly lost my sale due to his behaviour - more due to the fact that I prefer singers who don't mumble their way through a song.
Im bewildered by the argument on here. The supporters of JA seem to have two lines -
1. he's still selling records so thats all that matters. Who cares if he's a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully - he's lining Syco's pockets/they're still spending money on him so no one should criticise him. - OR
2. I deeply admire him for being a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully because it shows he wasn't media trained. Plus he's still selling records so it shows it pays to be a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully. This is how all artists should be and no one should criticise him.
Is that it? Thats all anyones got to defend him?
Well, so is my PA, and having followed this drama in the last few weeks, in his own words, "it seems the world has more bullies than homophobes".
Thats ok then. If your PA's not bothered by it, its clearly not homophobia.
There are also those on here accusing other posters of bullying/ conducting witch hunts who very happily regularly criticise, sneer at or in some cases put the boot in to other artists for a lot less than this, so the moral high ground may be a bit shaky there
going to be really interesting , especially after Louis's comments, to see what sort of reaction he gets when hes on the results show this weekend
I think they'll big him up as if he's the second coming and behave as if he's already a superstar and the most successful winner ever, even more so when he performs. They have to.
Actually the Louis Walsh comments are very pertinent. When it comes to the business side of things, he doesnt fart unless Cowell tells him to, that's why hes been a judge for 10 years.
I said a while back, when arthur sent the tweet to the rapper naming both cowell and walsh and that cowell was sending people to deal with the rapper he was done. You cannot drag cowell's name into some petty childish spat like that, especially insinuating he's going to send some heavies round to your opponent (the man makes more from his image than he does from arthur), and think it will end well.
The oldest trick in the book, artist releases album, needs publcity so ruffles a few feathers, Joe Public up in arms at shock horror & artist becomes talk of the town, PC brigade urge people not to buy his album & the one's with a rebellious nature buy it, job done,Great publicity & it has'nt cost a penny, well done James Arthur.
Im bewildered by the argument on here. The supporters of JA seem to have two lines -
1. he's still selling records so thats all that matters. Who cares if he's a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully - he's lining Syco's pockets/they're still spending money on him so no one should criticise him. - OR
2. I deeply admire him for being a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully because it shows he wasn't media trained. Plus he's still selling records so it shows it pays to be a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully. This is how all artists should be and no one should criticise him.
Is that it? Thats all anyones got to defend him?
Thats ok then. If your PA's not bothered by it, its clearly not homophobia.
There are also those on here accusing other posters of bullying/ conducting witch hunts who very happily regularly criticise, sneer at or in some cases put the boot in to other artists for a lot less than this, so the moral high ground may be a bit shaky there
I think they'll big him up as if he's the second coming and behave as if he's already a superstar and the most successful winner ever, even more so when he performs. They have to.
Good post or they will either send him to The Priory or make sure he has an overseas promotion. The Priory will give him the sympathy vote with regards saving face. Whatever they do, I will be tuned into Strictly Come Dancing, I love the feelgood factor that goes with the show.
The oldest trick in the book, artist releases album, needs publcity so ruffles a few feathers, Joe Public up in arms at shock horror & artist becomes talk of the town, PC brigade urge people not to buy his album & the one's with a rebellious nature buy it, job done,Great publicity & it has'nt cost a penny, well done James Arthur.
If 'ones of a rebellious nature' buy an album by an XF winner, they need a crash course in rebellion.
Im bewildered by the argument on here. The supporters of JA seem to have two lines -
1. he's still selling records so thats all that matters. Who cares if he's a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully - he's lining Syco's pockets/they're still spending money on him so no one should criticise him. - OR
2. I deeply admire him for being a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully because it shows he wasn't media trained. Plus he's still selling records so it shows it pays to be a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully. This is how all artists should be and no one should criticise him.
Is that it? Thats all anyones got to defend him?
.
What else do you imagine people might defend him with?
If you are looking to win a fight, then the anti-James have it, by far superior in number and passion (you don't need to use such hyperbole, really you don't).
If you are looking to change the minds of James supporters, you will never, ever do it. You will have to concede that people have differing opinions.
Some people do not believe he is homophobic, despite his words - you will not change that by going on and on about what a ' wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully' he is.
What else do you imagine people might defend him with?
If you are looking to win a fight, then the anti-James have it, by far superior in number and passion (you don't need to use such hyperbole, really you don't).
If you are looking to change the minds of James supporters, you will never, ever do it. You will have to concede that people have differing opinions.
Some people do not believe he is homophobic, despite his words - you will not change that by going on and on about what a ' wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully' he is.
And some people don't care.
Good luck with your mission though!
Im sorry but I think that is a truly bizarre post on a discussion forum.
First of all I'd imagine his fans, who're telling off posters for disliking him, might defend him with something other than the two stances Ive quoted, perhaps by explaining why they don't believe he's homophobic 'despite his words'. If they have a defence I'd be fascinated to hear it, but just in case you didnt get this - that is not an order to produce it. If it indeed exists.
Do I have a mission, any more than you have a mission to defend James Arthur and imply people who view him as unpleasant and homophobic mustn't say so too often?
Im sure no one here has ANY illusions that diehard JA fans are going to change their minds because of what they say here and in my opinion its utterly weird to suggest it. Is that why you post - to effect Road to Damascus conversions? Id have thought most people write here to express an opinion or argue a point. I thought that is why we're all here... on a discussion forum.
As for 'conceding people have legitimately differing opinions', thats a bit of a pot and kettle situation isn't it, since you are criticising me for not agreeing with you and posting about it?
I really like the title of this thread still...dramatic
Well, Emperor Nero apparently played his fiddle as Rome burned around him back in ancient times... I wonder if James's eventual downfall will be as dramatic. :D
Well, Emperor Nero apparently played his fiddle as Rome burned around him back in ancient times... I wonder if James's eventual downfall will be as dramatic. :D
Seeing as he's pretty much imploding, I think it could be. I can't wait for his next update. It's like following a gripping TV show.
Well, Emperor Nero apparently played his fiddle as Rome burned around him back in ancient times... I wonder if James's eventual downfall will be as dramatic. :D
Im sorry but I think that is a truly bizarre post on a discussion forum.
First of all I'd imagine his fans, who're telling off posters for disliking him, might defend him with something other than the two stances Ive quoted, perhaps by explaining why they don't believe he's homophobic 'despite his words'. If they have a defence I'd be fascinated to hear it, but just in case you didnt get this - that is not an order to produce it. If it indeed exists.
Do I have a mission, any more than you have a mission to defend James Arthur and imply people who view him as unpleasant and homophobic mustn't say so too often?
Im sure no one here has ANY illusions that diehard JA fans are going to change their minds because of what they say here and in my opinion its utterly weird to suggest it. Is that why you post - to effect Road to Damascus conversions? Id have thought most people write here to express an opinion or argue a point. I thought that is why we're all here... on a discussion forum.
As for 'conceding people have legitimately differing opinions', thats a bit of a pot and kettle situation isn't it, since you are criticising me for not agreeing with you and posting about it?
Well you jumped to a few conclusions there! I've bolded the main howlers.
I was serious when I asked you to imagine a defence for homophobic comments - do you believe there is one? I suggested 'don't care' or 'don't believe' but you are asking for more - why? Why do you not accept these as the only reasons?
And there has been an explanation upthread for 'why they don't believe he's homophobic 'despite his words''
Well you jumped to a few conclusions there! I've bolded the main howlers.
I was serious when I asked you to imagine a defence for homophobic comments - do you believe there is one? I suggested 'don't care' or 'don't believe' but you are asking for more - why? Why do you not accept these as the only reasons?
And there has been an explanation upthread for 'why they don't believe he's homophobic 'despite his words''
Frankly Im losing track of your argument because its not the most coherent Ive encountered.
In my opinion 'don't care' begs its own defence - or admission.'I just don't give a sh*t he's a homophobe'. Haven't seen that one yet on this thread but maybe I missed it. (Since Im not the only one posting on it though that may have escaped your attention)
'Don't believe' likewise - and a reasonable one in the face of the evidence not just 'he has a gay friend' or 'rappers sometimes say queer'.
More to the point, just as a matter of interest, why should I accept what you tell me to? I see from a previous post you don't care what he says as long as he's controversial. I see I touched a raw nerve.
Yes.......that old chestnut. It's fine to read because you find it an interesting subject - but it is only interesting because people have opposing views. Argue the point that James isn't homophobic if you wish, but don't knock posters because they hold an opposing view you to you, which is what you insinuate when you refer to "hypocrisy and dishonesty" on the thread. I believe that James is homophobic because the "f*cking queer" comment isn't the only one he has made. He explained it away as being part of a "diss rap" etc and if it was the only time he had used such language, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But he has used such language in less than a complimentary way against Matt Cardle and his manager several times in the last year. James made this bed and he can lie in it.
no that's not the insinuation. What i was getting at was the motives for posting a lot of this opprobrium. Would i be wrong if i suggested your own has more to do with him insulting the boy Cardle than the nature of the insult? and that's the reason for your pleasure in his downfall. If i'm wrong then i'm wrong:)
that's what i meant by the dishonesty bit
with the hypocrisy bit i was referring to the way people pile in against someone and diligently search the interweb for articles to back-up the point, yet complain when the same diligence is shown against an artist they like.
hope that explains it better.
Finally, on the homophobic point. If he says he isn't homophobic nobody believes him, but if he uses homophobic language in the context of some spat with some rapper (who uses the same language) for which he apologises then he's to be forever condemned as a homophobe. My isssue with this sort of thing is that those outraged aren't as outraged as they'd have us believe, and far from being the moral guardians of the country are creating a culture equally damaging and narrow-minded in its way. It's not long ago when there were calls for the word '****' to be censored from Fairytale of New York', and while i accept this is to stretch a point from this thread it's part of the same mindset that can't see or chooses not to see context.
Comments
not that old chestnut:rolleyes:
like yourself probably, i find it an interesting subject and i don't avoid things because i don't like them. I wouldn't watch the news or know anything about much going on in the world if i did that.
Yes.......that old chestnut. It's fine to read because you find it an interesting subject - but it is only interesting because people have opposing views. Argue the point that James isn't homophobic if you wish, but don't knock posters because they hold an opposing view you to you, which is what you insinuate when you refer to "hypocrisy and dishonesty" on the thread. I believe that James is homophobic because the "f*cking queer" comment isn't the only one he has made. He explained it away as being part of a "diss rap" etc and if it was the only time he had used such language, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But he has used such language in less than a complimentary way against Matt Cardle and his manager several times in the last year. James made this bed and he can lie in it.
I agree ..people who have the eyes and the ears of the media should not be eagar to air their views publicly on any person or any vulnerable group in society..not only young people:)
If he can't take it, he shouldn't give it out. It is his own behaviour that has brought him to this point, of currently being the media's whipping boy. And for the record, I doubt very much if this will affect his record sales either way. The majority of his fans will continue to support him regardless of his behaviour. The current state of album sales, indicates that few people are making casual/impulse buys, so those who aren't ardent fans, were not that likely to buy anyway, even if they have heard and quite liked his single on the radio. They will probably wait for "Now That's What I call Music 87" and get the track with a pile of others that they quite liked. I was never going to buy his album, so he has hardly lost my sale due to his behaviour - more due to the fact that I prefer singers who don't mumble their way through a song.
He's a tos**r.
1. he's still selling records so thats all that matters. Who cares if he's a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully - he's lining Syco's pockets/they're still spending money on him so no one should criticise him. - OR
2. I deeply admire him for being a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully because it shows he wasn't media trained. Plus he's still selling records so it shows it pays to be a wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully. This is how all artists should be and no one should criticise him.
Is that it? Thats all anyones got to defend him?
Thats ok then. If your PA's not bothered by it, its clearly not homophobia.
There are also those on here accusing other posters of bullying/ conducting witch hunts who very happily regularly criticise, sneer at or in some cases put the boot in to other artists for a lot less than this, so the moral high ground may be a bit shaky there
I think they'll big him up as if he's the second coming and behave as if he's already a superstar and the most successful winner ever, even more so when he performs. They have to.
Sad thing is the reputation he is creating isn't a very good one!. Is any of it true though thats the thing?
If we believe the media hes been sleeping with practically everyone, although the attraction i am not so sure but anyhow?
I said a while back, when arthur sent the tweet to the rapper naming both cowell and walsh and that cowell was sending people to deal with the rapper he was done. You cannot drag cowell's name into some petty childish spat like that, especially insinuating he's going to send some heavies round to your opponent (the man makes more from his image than he does from arthur), and think it will end well.
Good post or they will either send him to The Priory or make sure he has an overseas promotion. The Priory will give him the sympathy vote with regards saving face. Whatever they do, I will be tuned into Strictly Come Dancing, I love the feelgood factor that goes with the show.
If 'ones of a rebellious nature' buy an album by an XF winner, they need a crash course in rebellion.
What else do you imagine people might defend him with?
If you are looking to win a fight, then the anti-James have it, by far superior in number and passion (you don't need to use such hyperbole, really you don't).
If you are looking to change the minds of James supporters, you will never, ever do it. You will have to concede that people have differing opinions.
Some people do not believe he is homophobic, despite his words - you will not change that by going on and on about what a ' wildly aggressive homophobic misogynist bully' he is.
And some people don't care.
Good luck with your mission though!
Im sorry but I think that is a truly bizarre post on a discussion forum.
First of all I'd imagine his fans, who're telling off posters for disliking him, might defend him with something other than the two stances Ive quoted, perhaps by explaining why they don't believe he's homophobic 'despite his words'. If they have a defence I'd be fascinated to hear it, but just in case you didnt get this - that is not an order to produce it. If it indeed exists.
Do I have a mission, any more than you have a mission to defend James Arthur and imply people who view him as unpleasant and homophobic mustn't say so too often?
Im sure no one here has ANY illusions that diehard JA fans are going to change their minds because of what they say here and in my opinion its utterly weird to suggest it. Is that why you post - to effect Road to Damascus conversions? Id have thought most people write here to express an opinion or argue a point. I thought that is why we're all here... on a discussion forum.
As for 'conceding people have legitimately differing opinions', thats a bit of a pot and kettle situation isn't it, since you are criticising me for not agreeing with you and posting about it?
Well, Emperor Nero apparently played his fiddle as Rome burned around him back in ancient times... I wonder if James's eventual downfall will be as dramatic.
Seeing as he's pretty much imploding, I think it could be.
He'll be eating Pizza.
Well you jumped to a few conclusions there! I've bolded the main howlers.
I was serious when I asked you to imagine a defence for homophobic comments - do you believe there is one? I suggested 'don't care' or 'don't believe' but you are asking for more - why? Why do you not accept these as the only reasons?
And there has been an explanation upthread for 'why they don't believe he's homophobic 'despite his words''
That just made me laugh out loud at my desk. Thanks.
Frankly Im losing track of your argument because its not the most coherent Ive encountered.
In my opinion 'don't care' begs its own defence - or admission.'I just don't give a sh*t he's a homophobe'. Haven't seen that one yet on this thread but maybe I missed it. (Since Im not the only one posting on it though that may have escaped your attention)
'Don't believe' likewise - and a reasonable one in the face of the evidence not just 'he has a gay friend' or 'rappers sometimes say queer'.
More to the point, just as a matter of interest, why should I accept what you tell me to? I see from a previous post you don't care what he says as long as he's controversial. I see I touched a raw nerve.
no that's not the insinuation. What i was getting at was the motives for posting a lot of this opprobrium. Would i be wrong if i suggested your own has more to do with him insulting the boy Cardle than the nature of the insult? and that's the reason for your pleasure in his downfall. If i'm wrong then i'm wrong:)
that's what i meant by the dishonesty bit
with the hypocrisy bit i was referring to the way people pile in against someone and diligently search the interweb for articles to back-up the point, yet complain when the same diligence is shown against an artist they like.
hope that explains it better.
Finally, on the homophobic point. If he says he isn't homophobic nobody believes him, but if he uses homophobic language in the context of some spat with some rapper (who uses the same language) for which he apologises then he's to be forever condemned as a homophobe. My isssue with this sort of thing is that those outraged aren't as outraged as they'd have us believe, and far from being the moral guardians of the country are creating a culture equally damaging and narrow-minded in its way. It's not long ago when there were calls for the word '****' to be censored from Fairytale of New York', and while i accept this is to stretch a point from this thread it's part of the same mindset that can't see or chooses not to see context.
and i'll leave it there.