Announcement

Collapse

Logins with New Software

If you are having problems staying logged in since the Jan 15 change to the new version of vBulletin, please go to your browser's configuration area, and delete the cookies for this website, and reboot your browser.

-- Joe
See more
See less

Ozzy-Era Female Audience

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
    Well - me!!!
    Well, that's really cool...but sometimes the exception proves the rule. I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
      Well, that's really cool...but sometimes the exception proves the rule. I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.
      Or maybe it's your stereotypes that need to be studied. :-) Seriously, apart from a few very basic bodily/biological facts, differences between women and men are never a 100% thing. Rather, they work as tendencies and probabilities. There are psychological studies that show that differences in personal traits between individuals are always bigger than those between sexes as groups. Differences between the sexes are differences between the average woman and man, NOT between every single woman and every single man.

      More specifically for Sabbath, again, nobody has denied that the vast majority of fans in the 1970ies were men. What I do deny is the clichés that all women who like some male band's music do it simply because those men are 'alpha men' and/or because they want sex with those men and/or because the band plays some sweet mainstream music and/or between they (the female fans) are the girlfriend of somebody etc. To call it a cliché does NOT mean those things don't happen (of course they do), but that they are not the whole story. And don't forget that there are many rock fans out there who, for some reason or other, never or rarely attend concerts. Yes you didn't meet many women on those gigs back then, but does that prove women didn't like that music. I don't think so. Just to give an example, I know several women who really don't like to go to any big event at all where the majority of people can be expected to be drunk men. And that does not have to do anything with the musical taste of those women. Even today, it is not always funny for a woman to be on such an event, and I would guess it was probably a little worse in the 1970ies. I don't want to raise this as a big issue - it's just meant as an example showing that being attracted by a certain style of music or a specific band does not necessarily lead everybody to regularly attending concert shows. Myself I have only been to one Sabbath show in my life. I attended two Tiamat shows. Does that tell you much about my band preferences? I don't think so!!! I am a HUGE Sabbath fan and collector, and I am also a big fan of Leonard Cohen who I NEVER saw live. Actually Tiamat were special guest for Sabbath and played on the same small festival as Savatage, otherwise I would never have attended a Tiamat show (though I did like Wildhoney a little). Maybe while some of you were attending Sabbath's concert shows, some women were sitting at home listening to their Master of Reality LP. :-)

      You mentioned that being a loner predisposes one to be a Sabbath fan. Well, even though you may picture a man when you hear the word 'loner', there are female loners too!

      Also, while it is true that the Don Kirshner video may have been intentionally arranged in such a way as to make women in it appear more prominent. Anyway, that's much less likely with audience recordings and shots, and Jeff is right to point out there are some with women screaming all over the mic. And on the Cal Jam video, no matter for which band or with which boyfriend many of those women came to the festival, some of them are obviously enjoying Sabbath's show.

      Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
      Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

      The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.
      Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it. Are women never left-behind, downtrodden, depressed?
      Last edited by Sabbabbath; 01-29-2018, 10:37 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post

        Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it.
        It's precisely because I am a smart person that I feel comfortable in dealing with clichés. Clichés exist for a reason; they don't really spring forth from a vacuum.

        If I have a tool that works 99% of the time, that is and always will be a useful tool. We mustn't throw away such a useful tool simply because every once in a while it fails.

        As a society we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by assigning a negative connotation to stereotyping, or making blanket statements, or discussing "clichés". The truth is, to get anywhere near the "bottom" of things, we must speak in broad terms, profile and...perhaps most importantly...never fail to assign value to our own personal experiences for fear that they underscore the stereotype.

        Where truth can be found and truth can be illustrated with pattern recognition, we must do so.

        That you find what I wrote "Cliché" means you are almost certainly personally familiar with what I wrote. Not yourself, of course, but you've seen the pattern in others and you know it's out there and if pressed anyone reading this would concur that they've seen it too.

        In conclusion, smart people use useful tools to paint a clearer picture and further discussion.

        Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors reject such tools because, when used, they shine light on problems and issues they'd rather not confront because it undermines their "Everyone is a snowflake" narrative.

        In my humble opinion. YMMV.


        Of course women can be loners, downtrodden, etc and of course women can also be very *into* music in a proper manner. However, I've never really gotten to personally verify that in the real world.

        BTW: I also hate events where the main draw is a bunch of drunk guys. I've only ever seen Black Sabbath on Cross Purposes and Dehumanizer tours. I've never seen Ozzy in any capacity, and when I saw Dio it was a small venue on "Master of the Moon" tour.

        I hate concerts, really. I like a bootleg now and then, just to see how awful stuff is compared to the studio version.
        Last edited by William_the_Bloody; 01-29-2018, 10:51 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
          It's precisely because I am a smart person that I feel comfortable in dealing with clichés. Clichés exist for a reason; they don't really spring forth from a vacuum.

          If I have a tool that works 99% of the time, that is and always will be a useful tool. We mustn't throw away such a useful tool simply because every once in a while it fails.

          As a society we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by assigning a negative connotation to stereotyping, or making blanket statements, or discussing "clichés". The truth is, to get anywhere near the "bottom" of things, we must speak in broad terms, profile and...perhaps most importantly...never fail to assign value to our own personal experiences for fear that they underscore the stereotype.

          Where truth can be found and truth can be illustrated with pattern recognition, we must do so.

          That you find what I wrote "Cliché" means you are almost certainly personally familiar with what I wrote. Not yourself, of course, but you've seen the pattern in others and you know it's out there and if pressed anyone reading this would concur that they've seen it too.

          In conclusion, smart people use useful tools to paint a clearer picture and further discussion.

          Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors reject such tools because, when used, they shine light on problems and issues they'd rather not confront because it undermines their "Everyone is a snowflake" narrative.

          In my humble opinion. YMMV.

          It's not like I disagree with all of what you're saying here (though I would dispute most of those parts of your statement that seem to deal with your view on the societal situation in your country rather than the opinions voiced in this thread). I do agree there are intelligent and potentially productive ways of dealing with clichés. But when you wrote: "Show me a woman who listens to 'Megalomania' because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE", you clearly proved that you were believing it was a 100% thing, not just a pattern or tendency. Thus, you have yourself demonstrated that your way of using or following clichés can be very misleading. At such a point, you are at high risk of overlooking those facets of the person in front of you that don't fit your cliché, and also at high risk of 'seeing' things in her that are not there simply because those things fit your cliché. When that happens, then a potentially helpful notion of an overall pattern or tendency has turned into an indeed dangerous cliché that reduces an individual to its membership in a certain group and thus deprives it of any truly individual characteristics. I don't know who those "Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors" are that you are talking about (and I guess it wouldn't be a proper topic for this forum since politics is forbidden here), but as you hopefully noticed, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, no-one here has disputed the overall tendency that the vast majority of Sabbath fans are or were male. What Jeff (if I read him correctly) and I are opposing is the habit of exaggerating that tendency in such a way as to make it appear like a 100% thing.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
            Or maybe it's your stereotypes that need to be studied. :-) Seriously, apart from a few very basic bodily/biological facts, differences between women and men are never a 100% thing. Rather, they work as tendencies and probabilities. There are psychological studies that show that differences in personal traits between individuals are always bigger than those between sexes as groups. Differences between the sexes are differences between the average woman and man, NOT between every single woman and every single man.

            More specifically for Sabbath, again, nobody has denied that the vast majority of fans in the 1970ies were men. What I do deny is the clichés that all women who like some male band's music do it simply because those men are 'alpha men' and/or because they want sex with those men and/or because the band plays some sweet mainstream music and/or between they (the female fans) are the girlfriend of somebody etc. To call it a cliché does NOT mean those things don't happen (of course they do), but that they are not the whole story. And don't forget that there are many rock fans out there who, for some reason or other, never or rarely attend concerts. Yes you didn't meet many women on those gigs back then, but does that prove women didn't like that music. I don't think so. Just to give an example, I know several women who really don't like to go to any big event at all where the majority of people can be expected to be drunk men. And that does not have to do anything with the musical taste of those women. Even today, it is not always funny for a woman to be on such an event, and I would guess it was probably a little worse in the 1970ies. I don't want to raise this as a big issue - it's just meant as an example showing that being attracted by a certain style of music or a specific band does not necessarily lead everybody to regularly attending concert shows. Myself I have only been to one Sabbath show in my life. I attended two Tiamat shows. Does that tell you much about my band preferences? I don't think so!!! I am a HUGE Sabbath fan and collector, and I am also a big fan of Leonard Cohen who I NEVER saw live. Actually Tiamat were special guest for Sabbath and played on the same small festival as Savatage, otherwise I would never have attended a Tiamat show (though I did like Wildhoney a little). Maybe while some of you were attending Sabbath's concert shows, some women were sitting at home listening to their Master of Reality LP. :-)

            You mentioned that being a loner predisposes one to be a Sabbath fan. Well, even though you may picture a man when you hear the word 'loner', there are female loners too!

            Also, while it is true that the Don Kirshner video may have been intentionally arranged in such a way as to make women in it appear more prominent. Anyway, that's much less likely with audience recordings and shots, and Jeff is right to point out there are some with women screaming all over the mic. And on the Cal Jam video, no matter for which band or with which boyfriend many of those women came to the festival, some of them are obviously enjoying Sabbath's show.



            Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it. Are women never left-behind, downtrodden, depressed?
            Excellent comments Sabbabbath! And well stated. Respect. ...

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
              It's not like I disagree with all of what you're saying here (though I would dispute most of those parts of your statement that seem to deal with your view on the societal situation in your country rather than the opinions voiced in this thread). I do agree there are intelligent and potentially productive ways of dealing with clichés. But when you wrote: "Show me a woman who listens to 'Megalomania' because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE", you clearly proved that you were believing it was a 100% thing, not just a pattern or tendency. Thus, you have yourself demonstrated that your way of using or following clichés can be very misleading. At such a point, you are at high risk of overlooking those facets of the person in front of you that don't fit your cliché, and also at high risk of 'seeing' things in her that are not there simply because those things fit your cliché. When that happens, then a potentially helpful notion of an overall pattern or tendency has turned into an indeed dangerous cliché that reduces an individual to its membership in a certain group and thus deprives it of any truly individual characteristics. I don't know who those "Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors" are that you are talking about (and I guess it wouldn't be a proper topic for this forum since politics is forbidden here), but as you hopefully noticed, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, no-one here has disputed the overall tendency that the vast majority of Sabbath fans are or were male. What Jeff (if I read him correctly) and I are opposing is the habit of exaggerating that tendency in such a way as to make it appear like a 100% thing.
              *Nothing* is ever 100%, and I think that goes without having to say every time a person voices an opinion or observation. If you are the/an exception it is probably *you* who is worried you will be overlooked or marginalized. You are not overlooked or marginalized by my statements. I acknowledge your unique or ultra-rare set of traits to the best of my ability to do so in the capacity of an internet forum. If I do not stop and marvel, forgive me, it's not personal it's that I prefer to focus on the unbelievably massive tendency towards the other direction which does indicate a more measurable phenomenon. Or, in other words, we don't get very far in a discussion when we are compelled to break down the microscopic margin of error.

              It's merely a matter of momentum.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                *Nothing* is ever 100%, and I think that goes without having to say every time a person voices an opinion or observation. If you are the/an exception it is probably *you* who is worried you will be overlooked or marginalized. You are not overlooked or marginalized by my statements. I acknowledge your unique or ultra-rare set of traits to the best of my ability to do so in the capacity of an internet forum. If I do not stop and marvel, forgive me, it's not personal it's that I prefer to focus on the unbelievably massive tendency towards the other direction which does indicate a more measurable phenomenon. Or, in other words, we don't get very far in a discussion when we are compelled to break down the microscopic margin of error.

                It's merely a matter of momentum.
                ? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

                Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

                I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

                For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)
                Last edited by Sabbabbath; 01-30-2018, 04:12 AM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
                  ? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

                  Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

                  I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

                  For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)
                  Linda , I've come to enjoy how fired up you get on certain subjects .... but I have also recognized that you jump to conclusions and "stereotypes" very quickly yourself , maybe without even knowing it ,,,, see in America - lots of people say words based on upbringing and ideas in ones own head , "cliches" included , just to make a point , yet it has absolutely nothing to do with ones actions , nothing.

                  If you want to assume something about William based on his words alone , you will never get anywhere .... a true assumption about William is that he is a God fearing man that does not lack common sense , and enjoys a little back and forth on a Black Sabbath forum ,, everything else is an old wives tale

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
                    ? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

                    Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

                    I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

                    For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)
                    I feel as if we've gone off-the-rails (on a crazy train?) here. We seem to no longer be talking about proper, female Black Sabbath fans, should there, in fact, be more than one.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                      I feel as if we've gone off-the-rails (on a crazy train?) here. We seem to no longer be talking about proper, female Black Sabbath fans, should there, in fact, be more than one.
                      Wow. Not a very honourable way to declare defeat when your previous arguments have been butchered so thoroughly...
                      95% of everything i say is pure bullshit just for the fun of it. The other 95% is damn serious!
                      Til árs ok friðar ok forn siðr

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Billy Underdog View Post
                        Wow. Not a very honourable way to declare defeat when your previous arguments have been butchered so thoroughly...
                        In short: I don't know what happened here. There seems to be a call for political correctness to the detriment of general, long-since-acknowledged and accepted as common knowledge truth. I'm always going to favor what is generally true versus what is the rare exception.

                        IRL: When I meet a female (ahem) "Fan" of Black Sabbath, I will always offer them the opportunity to disprove the narrative.

                        I ask "What's your favorite song?"
                        "What's your favorite album?"


                        With these two questions, I feel I can properly ascertain whether or not the female in question is a proper fan. We could argue about the definition of "Proper Fan" but suffice it to say, on my part, I do not limit the answers to things that I prefer. I try to look at a jewel from all possible facets and their angles.

                        But if you come at me with "Sweet Leaf" and I happen to know or am pretty certain marijuana is a major thing in your life, I'm going to assume that you like "Sweet Leaf" because it underscores that aspect of yourself. It tells me that if you put the lyrics to "Sweet Leaf" on top of "Cherry Pie" that you would probably like "Cherry Pie" as much as you like "Sweet Leaf" and therein lies a problem.

                        If you come at me with "Changes" I am going to assume that the soft, ballady tripe appeals not to a sense of fandom but to (what are commonly regarded as) female tendencies. Since "Changes" is not a good representation of what Black Sabbath typically does or is about.

                        If you come at me with "Paranoid" I am going to assume that is because you heard it on the radio, you don't own any albums, don't know the names of the bandmembers besides *maybe* Ozzy.....

                        Etc.

                        It's possible that the difference in music between men and women is so vast (typically) that the very definition of "fandom" can't even be agreed on.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                          In short: I don't know what happened here. There seems to be a call for political correctness to the detriment of general, long-since-acknowledged and accepted as common knowledge truth. I'm always going to favor what is generally true versus what is the rare exception.

                          IRL: When I meet a female (ahem) "Fan" of Black Sabbath, I will always offer them the opportunity to disprove the narrative.

                          I ask "What's your favorite song?"
                          "What's your favorite album?"


                          With these two questions, I feel I can properly ascertain whether or not the female in question is a proper fan. We could argue about the definition of "Proper Fan" but suffice it to say, on my part, I do not limit the answers to things that I prefer. I try to look at a jewel from all possible facets and their angles.

                          But if you come at me with "Sweet Leaf" and I happen to know or am pretty certain marijuana is a major thing in your life, I'm going to assume that you like "Sweet Leaf" because it underscores that aspect of yourself. It tells me that if you put the lyrics to "Sweet Leaf" on top of "Cherry Pie" that you would probably like "Cherry Pie" as much as you like "Sweet Leaf" and therein lies a problem.

                          If you come at me with "Changes" I am going to assume that the soft, ballady tripe appeals not to a sense of fandom but to (what are commonly regarded as) female tendencies. Since "Changes" is not a good representation of what Black Sabbath typically does or is about.

                          If you come at me with "Paranoid" I am going to assume that is because you heard it on the radio, you don't own any albums, don't know the names of the bandmembers besides *maybe* Ozzy.....

                          Etc.

                          It's possible that the difference in music between men and women is so vast (typically) that the very definition of "fandom" can't even be agreed on.
                          Alot of assuming and generalization there, Willie. One thing is that if you base if someone is a "fan" or not on such simple questions, you're totally missing the whole point.
                          The other is that that whole post doesn't change the fact that you simply tried to steer away from the conversation with Sabbabbath when you were out of arguments. Is it really that scary for you that there exist female Sabbath fans?
                          Simply laughable...
                          95% of everything i say is pure bullshit just for the fun of it. The other 95% is damn serious!
                          Til árs ok friðar ok forn siðr

                          Comment


                          • Billy , I would have to believe this falls under your 95% is "bullsh*t" for the fun of it statement .... because anyone with the slightest bit of common sense can entirely understand exactly what William is saying , said , and implied ,,, he probably also has a job , and does not have time to respond to such "insanity" in the form of a book (no offense) from out in left field to counter balance a very simple viewpoint.

                            My goodness.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BACK TO EDEN View Post
                              Billy , I would have to believe this falls under your 95% is "bullsh*t" for the fun of it statement .... because anyone with the slightest bit of common sense can entirely understand exactly what William is saying , said , and implied ,,, he probably also has a job , and does not have time to respond to such "insanity" in the form of a book (no offense) from out in left field to counter balance a very simple viewpoint.

                              My goodness.
                              Man, what hatred must be festering inside you when you just keep turning up everywhere, jumping in with your cheap low blows. You're an evil man, John.
                              95% of everything i say is pure bullshit just for the fun of it. The other 95% is damn serious!
                              Til árs ok friðar ok forn siðr

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Billy Underdog View Post
                                Wow. Not a very honourable way to declare defeat when your previous arguments have been butchered so thoroughly...
                                Originally posted by Billy Underdog View Post
                                One thing is that if you base if someone is a "fan" or not on such simple questions, you're totally missing the whole point. The other is that that whole post doesn't change the fact that you simply tried to steer away from the conversation with Sabbabbath when you were out of arguments. Is it really that scary for you that there exist female Sabbath fans?
                                You name it. :-)

                                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                                In short: I don't know what happened here. There seems to be a call for political correctness to the detriment of general, long-since-acknowledged and accepted as common knowledge truth.
                                I'll tell you what's happening: Not sure whether you're doing it intentionally or not, but you keep switching the subjects every time your argument is not working out. I simply asked you for logic, now you are starting about "political correctness". That's funny, because the sources of my rebuttals didn't exactly include the Manifesto of the Communist Party, but instead consisted in (1st) a perfectly normal and conservative etymological dictionary (rather unsuspicious of leftist political activism I would say) and (2nd) your own posts. How about admitting when you're wrong, or admitting and asking back when you don't understand what I am saying, or trying to answer my claims if you think they are wrong? Would any of that be an unmanly thing to do?

                                A little earlier here, you brought up "social justice warriors" who allegedly are the forces responsible for the bad reputation of sterotypes or clichés. When you were confronted with positive evidence showing that those two things have had their bad reputation for at at least one century, and thus both words were by definition negatively evaluating terms from the very beginning of their use in human rather than printing affairs, you simply ignored it (and changed the subject).

                                Also a little earlier, you asked to present you "ONE" woman who was a real Sabbath fan, and you pretty obviously insinuated that would count as a rebuttal of your theory. Quickly presented with a female Sabbath fan, you were equally quick to dismiss her (me) as that exception that proves the rule, and even suggested that she must be a very strange human being, precisely because she doesn't fit your "truth".

                                Along the way, I suggested you might simply use better-fitting words like "tendency" or "pattern" rather than "cliché" or "stereotype" because the lexical meanings of "cliché" or "stereotype" simply don't match what you are (according to your own posts) trying to say. Again, no reply. Instead this announcement:

                                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                                I'm always going to favor what is generally true versus what is the rare exception.
                                Yes, obviously you are, even if several of your points about those "general truths" have already been refuted. Rather than re-thinking your claims, you're now playing the 'I am the innocent victim of a mass of evil social justice political correctness warriors" card. Very brave of you, I am sure it is difficult to speak out in face of my stupendous power. :-)

                                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                                When I meet a female (ahem) "Fan" of Black Sabbath, I will always offer them the opportunity to disprove the narrative.
                                Oh, now that's really, really generous of you, William! I cannot imagine that any real female Black Sabbath fan in the world will ever have anything better to do than answering your questions, because they all have the same one great goal: to be graciously acknowledged by you as a real (though female!) Sabbath fan. (You're really lucky that I apparently have got nothing else to do these days - possibly your only chance ever to talk to a real female Sabbath fan.)

                                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                                I ask "What's your favorite song?"
                                "What's your favorite album?"
                                With these two questions, I feel I can properly ascertain whether or not the female in question is a proper fan. We could argue about the definition of "Proper Fan" but suffice it to say, on my part, I do not limit the answers to things that I prefer. I try to look at a jewel from all possible facets and their angles.
                                But if you come at me with "Sweet Leaf" and I happen to know or am pretty certain marijuana is a major thing in your life, I'm going to assume that you like "Sweet Leaf" because it underscores that aspect of yourself. It tells me that if you put the lyrics to "Sweet Leaf" on top of "Cherry Pie" that you would probably like "Cherry Pie" as much as you like "Sweet Leaf" and therein lies a problem.
                                If you come at me with "Changes" I am going to assume that the soft, ballady tripe appeals not to a sense of fandom but to (what are commonly regarded as) female tendencies. Since "Changes" is not a good representation of what Black Sabbath typically does or is about.
                                If you come at me with "Paranoid" I am going to assume that is because you heard it on the radio, you don't own any albums, don't know the names of the bandmembers besides *maybe* Ozzy.....
                                Etc.
                                NOW this is starting to get pretty amusing. You really have the gift or being able to read a woman's mind, William, don't you? I am sure any real fan will be extremely impressed by those congenial questions.

                                And I see you have already prepared a whole lot of "arguments" for your inquisitional questioning of the alleged "female Sabbath ahem fan", arguments designed to "confirm" your "general truth" even if confronted with possible counterevidence. You should become a scientist and write an article entitled "How to protect the validity of my assumptions even in case that reality is very reluctant to conform to them". It is a very compelling methodology you're revealing here to us. Now that I am reading your great questionnaire, it is all the more surprising that you had nothing prepared that would save your claims from my rebuttals above.

                                I am sure that even if the female (ahem) fan in question simply laughed about your questions and asked you if you would like to listen to any of her 2.06 terabytes of Sabbath audio recordings, or watch any of the 1.90 terabytes of Sabbath footage she owns, you would quickly be able to point out that her very way of asking the question somehow shows that she cannot be a real Sabbath fan, wouldn't you? Or even better: maybe simply stop questioning her Sabbath fandom and instead start focusing on her sex: if she is a real Sabbath fan, she cannot be a real woman - so she has to be a man. (I cannot wait to hear the questions you would ask to prove that theory.)

                                But what if SHE suddenly asked YOU something, namely how many different audio recordings and films of Sabbath's Nov. 13, 1992 concert show in Oakland are circulating in trading circles? Well, I guss you would probably just change the subject to something else (e.g. to the heavy burdens of political correctness), right? (Or you take a note now, and you will be able to answer that question in the future: AFAIK it's 6 audios and 2 videos - yep, at least 6 tapers and 2 filmers at the same show, pretty amazing, isn't it?)

                                Anyway, you know what? I think the (very surprising) fact that there is no waiting line of at least 50 supposed "female Sabbath ahem fans" in front of your house, anxiously waiting for their turn to answer your very subtle questionnaire, irrefutably shows there are no real female Sabbath fans in the world. Nowhere. Ever. The truth has won, once again.

                                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                                It's possible that the difference in music between men and women is so vast (typically) that the very definition of "fandom" can't even be agreed on.
                                Yes, but don't worry: the way you are describing your conversation (read: interrogation) with the supposed female Sabbath fan, you will probably never find out anything about her conception of fandom anyway, because she will be busy all the time giving the 'right' answers to your questions, and you will be so busy waiting for her to say the 'wrong' thing that you will hardly be 'listening' to her in any deeper sense of the word.

                                If I may draw a conclusion from my own experiences (as you seemed to encourage in one of your posts above, though I am now suspecting you were exclusively talking about YOUR own experiences, or rather what your pre-formed assumptions make of them): Perhaps you should alternatively consider the possibility that the difference between you and a few other male Sabbath fans on the one hand and some (or many or all?) "female Sabbath ahem fans" on the other hand is so vast that you and those other few men are simply incapable of ever having a serious conversation or discussion with any of those women. The experiences on which this hypothesis is based are my interactions with hundreds of other male Sabbath (ahem?) fans during 12 years of extensive free bootleg trading, downloading and sharing. It may come as a surprise to you that about 99% of those hundreds of men never seemed to be irritated at all by the fact that I am a woman; and you are the very first one ever who considered creating a questionnaire to reveal her non-fandom. Thus, you seem really, really different from the typical male Sabbath fan. So please allow me to borrow your own words to conclude (and don't worry, I will not bore you with further lengthy posts in this thread):
                                Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
                                I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.
                                Last edited by Sabbabbath; 01-30-2018, 05:59 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X