And to think...

... I actually used to LIKE Lily Allen (well, as a person I’ve never been sure, but this recent saga will certainly affect my appreciation of her music).

So basically, some members of the FAC took a specific interest in how file sharers ought to be tackled. I’m fairly sure opinions on file sharing would have differed amongst the members, but they had one specific goal in mind: do not punish file sharers by suspending their Internet connections. To do so might turn them against the music industry. Seems fair enough to me.

So then, Ms Allen, in a rage of self-obsession, takes it upon herself to shout back at these folk, saying that piracy is not acceptable and people who file share should be punished. This is done somewhat haphazardly and crudely (she makes the unforgiveable mistake of confusing ‘stealing’ with ‘copyright infringement’), with only responses from the odd artist actually making any sense at all (and most of these were, like the FAC, not supporting file sharing but confessing that suspending Internet accounts is not the best form of punishment).

I’ll have to recall this to the best of my memory since she has now taken the blog down, but her argument centred around new artists that couldn’t be signed because people were ‘stealing’ their work, and moreover, the good kids at the record companies were losing jobs ‘because’ of Internet piracy. As others have pointed out, you can’t blame file sharing for a decline in music sales, because you can’t be sure that a downloaded file is the equivalent to one sale. And we are, moreover, in a recession that probably accounts for more money losses than file sharing does. Finally… is it just me that supposes one might be embarking on a career in music, not a business? Naturally, one needs to keep their head above water, but their priority ought to be getting their music heard.

That’s all I’m going to say about my view on file sharing. I don’t think any one person really knows exactly how it affects artists; record companies are clearly too obsessed with the money aspect and are spreading far too much propaganda to be trusted (‘stealing…’). What I do know is that Lily Allen is a moron. She eventually shut the blog down due to ‘abuse,’ which I detected no hint of. Quite the opposite, there were some very coherent comments on there… they just happened to argue against her. She didn’t bother to respond, then closed it down when she realised her game was up. Unbelievable. But it gets worse.

This woman then went and tried to convince people that her brief stint in blogging against file sharing had made a difference, and how she was now ‘passing the baton’ on to other artists. I feel sorry for whoever receives that mess of an argument to try and smooth out. As if that wasn’t bad enough, she said she wasn’t going to go to the FAC meeting because she didn’t want to detract from the issues at hand… what? That doesn’t make an ounce of sense. Why didn’t she just admit that she’d made a fool of herself in arguing some severely uninformed opinions against something that didn’t oppose her views in the first place?

Oh wait, she did go in the end. Radiohead guitarist deemed her ‘extremely brave.’ Please don’t feed the idiots.

Kokairu doesn't get it, but didn't need to go to a completely different website to tell you that

So I joined Twitter a few days ago, and I’m almost ashamed to admit to it. Just the word makes me cringe for some reason. Given how elitist its users seemed to be, I was expecting something a little more sophisticated. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate and admire its usability, but having added some friends and some celebrities (the latter was what attracted it to me in the first place), I think the reason it seems to have such an elitist status is because it deludes its users into thinking they actually have anything important and/or interesting to say. Not a massive fan of Jono Ross, but added him, thinking there might be the odd funny thing to read here and there. Here are his latest updates:

"Morning all. Remarkably beautiful day down south. I wake to birdsong and the sound of myself sneezing ! Have a lovely day if you can."

"Morning ! beautiful day though I've finally succumbed to hay fever. My sympaties to fellow sufferers ! Pass the zirtek."

"Morning everyone. Am of to school with the kids then home for Japanese lesson. Have been lazy and not studied. Ah well, too sunny for stress."

I mean, who the fuck cares? This stuff’s too mundane even for Heat magazine. And I wonder if anyone DOES care about what other people write on this pointless site; are its users on there simply to write about themselves, before indulging in a certain fondness for the scent of their own gas expulsions?

I shall summarise this bullshit in an equation:

Twitter: T

Facebook status updates: F

Social pressures not to update your status TOO often (you’ve got a life, innit): S

Acceptability to update your status as much as you like (because you’re updating your status ‘on the go’ … you’re a REALLY busy and important individual, after all, who is blessing other users with a cheap and cheerful update on your deceptively meaningful lifestyle while you have 5 measly seconds to spare): A

Viruses, hackers, bots, idiots etc, which will become more predominant on T in good time, as its popularity grows, as seen on MySpace and Facebook before it: V

T=F - S - V + A

Music Snobbery

Isn't it weird that people always claim that a mainstream version of something a little less well known simply murders the original? How very odd that a later version with much more funding is always classed as a brutal slaughtering. Do they do it on purpose?

I am talking about music, films, and other such media that attempt to remake or cover the original. I appreciate that it's always important to hold the original with some regard, but why on earth do people have this overwhelming need to slip into the conversation that they saw/heard the original before the arrival of the revised edition?

"The Japanese one was better."
"It's not as good as the book is" (Don't get me started on this one)
"They MURDERED that song."

Notice how, when someone covers an already famous song, people are less inclined to express sentences of this nature? Furthermore, it seems to work the other way round; "Yes, X is a great song, but I've heard this acoustic version by a band you've never heard of and it's SO much better." What do you want, a frigging medal?

I found the American version of "The Ring" scarier, and I think Leona's version of "Run" is better than Snow Patrol's. What are you going to do about it?

More Bullshit: "What's the Point in Animal X?"

Take this scenario. You and your friends are having a picnic in the summer. Suddenly a wasp is buzzing around and lands on one of your shitty plastic glasses. Everyone over-reacts, and chances are that some idiot mutters, "Why do we have wasps? They serve no purpose."

Where do I start?

Firstly, the speaker is implying that every other creature in the world plays some sort of distinct role. I am never sure whether they mean that this is for the sake of human beings or for the interests of the earth itself. Either way, unless you're a religious person of sorts, this is an entirely illogical statement. According to the theory of evolution, or more specifically that of natural selection, heritable traits that are useful for survival become more common in a given population. In other words, any species that has survived has done so based solely on its own interests.

Secondly, it's this egotistical nature in human beings that I cannot stand. The world does not revolve around us. According to the timeline covering the whole of Time Itself, we would take up less than a millimetre. And even if this was the case, I doubt that Time Itself would give a shit that it has unleashed a species that occasionally gives people a little "ouchy."

THIRDLY, there are massive worldwide fucking charities dedicated to saving animals that serve little purpose beyond the fact that they look very nice... (cough, pandas, cough). There is nothing beyond this factor that separates animals of this sort from the little beasts... worms... wasps... slugs... flies... etc. I find myself with huge amounts of empathy for bigger and "cuter" animals, but is it just me that notices how absurd it is to reserve our respect only for the superficially nice species?

Fourthly, I'd like to conclude by saying that wasps serve, a million fucking times over, the purpose of humans. Oh wait, that would put the figure into negative numbers.

Don't Blame the Parents

It seems as though people are keen to blame absolutely anything they can on one's upbringing, especially when looking at antisocial behaviour issues. Whilst this seems like a logical conclusion to make, might I add that most of the people I associate with do not have children. I used (and am still tempted) to spout such easy-to-say-when-you-haven't-been-through-it shit, but I stop myself because being a parent is probably very much different to not being one. So when people say "oh just discipline them, it's not hard!" they have absolutely no leg to stand on - how do they know whether or not it's hard?

The problem with this type of discussion is that it will often lead to a general debate about upbringing, at which point everyone seems to argue a certain point: "I was brought up dat way n I'm fine lol!!11" Far be it from me to tell them that they're spoilt and self-centred, don't behave well at school, and don't have a very good relationship with their parents. How can you really look at yourself objectively like that? Not to mention that statistical evidence might say something entirely different, but as long as you "turned out OK" that's all that matters, right?

So in sum, maybe parents can have a little conversation about upbringing, or perhaps those that have investigated the research and are doing it within a professional setting. Other than that, watching Supernanny and snubbing the featured parents' techniques does not make you an expert.

"Here's an idea. Let's give the girl with low self-esteem a makeover."

That's right, it's not just an element of American high school films; it happens in real life, too. And it completely baffles me.

What possesses people to think that it will be a good idea to imply to someone "Hey, you've got shit dress sense and look like a dog, so we're going to try and counter-act those factors"? That's right, it's a shit idea, and it always seems to be targeted towards those that are unsure of themselves in the first place. Let me tell you people some home truths: some basic cosmetic modification is not going to offset years of low self-esteem. Actually, your authoritarian approach to the superficial matter will most likely suck whatever's left of it completely dry.

I hate women.

It's WALLY, not WALDO

OK, the retarded translation of "Philosopher" to "Sorcerer" for the US release of the first Harry Potter book is pretty old news now, but I decided to play on an old joke that my sister and I came up with around the time of the first film's release.

Anyway, apparently they changed the title because "a child would not want to read a book that sounded as though it was associated with philosophy." Well, that's understandable. Actually, come to think of it, a lot of aspects of the book titles might be unappealing to morons. This is what they should've done:











The "issue" still grinds my gears because it's used in the media much more often than it should be. It doesn't even make sense. A sorcerer is not the same thing as a philosopher. There is no legendary "Sorcerer's Stone" supposedly capable of turning inexpensive metals into gold. And don't get me started on "The Golden Compass." Gargh. It's not even a fucking compass, it just looks a bit like one.

Yeah I know these Photoshops are shit but I'm sure it doesn't alter the point of the joke.

Bullshit #2: "I just don't really have the time..."

There are two particular contexts in which this line tends to occur that I’m going to rant about. Firstly, I find that this utterance is often said quite defensively, in response to some implicit recommendation, e.g. “You should try this game, it’s ace.” Alternatively, it might be stated in response to the conversation partner’s describing recent events in their life (so, would presumably be followed by “... to do that sort of thing.”).

The Verdict (in both cases): BULLSHIT.

Let’s start with Number One. People always seem to respond with such offense following some recommendation or other. I’m taking a stab in the dark here, but presumably individuals seeking out joyous past times for themselves is often seen as some sort of achievement – if they take up said past time from somebody else’s recommendation, this achievement is lost. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you how ludicrous this assumption is, but I cannot help but think that it’s true. Obviously, recommendations must be taken up from time-to-time, or the term “word of mouth” would not exist. All the same, the immediate response is to spout complete and utter cow dung; namely, “I don’t really have the time.” Now let’s stop and examine this one for a second. Yes, we all lead very busy lives, I’m sure. But say I were to recommend a book, or a game, or a certain film currently being aired at the cinema, in receiving said response one is implying that whatever I’ve suggested requires some long-term commitment whereby they would have to make time in their “busy” schedule. What’s more likely? They genuinely have no time at all throughout the rest of their lives to read a book, they can’t be bothered, or Johnny Recommendation is damaging their ego? Probably the latter, or in some cases, the second option.

Number Two occurs under different circumstances, but the underlying mechanism, I feel, is the same. Let’s look at an example:

A: “Yeah, it was a right laugh. Everyone was so drunk, and we stayed in the club till 4 am. I ended up pulling Jim, and everyone thought it was so funny. And yeah, on the way back we stopped at the chippy... there were so many of us that it took an hour for them to serve our food, so we had a massive food fight while we were waiting. Then eventually at 7 am... it took a while to walk back as Sarah kept sitting on the floor and refusing to walk 'cos her feet hurt, and I was still pulling Jim... We all finally got back to Jane’s house, and Spuggy put on Top Gun while we all got stoned!”
B: “Cool. Did you have a hangover?”
A: “Thing is, I was still drunk when we got in, and most of us were still awake until about 3 pm, so it sort of wore off after a few cups of coffee. Harriett was really ill though, she was throwing up for like an hour straight!”
B: “Yeah. I just don’t have the time to get drunk anymore.”

Much as A’s boastful antics clearly deserve a punch in the face here, nevertheless it sounded like a most joyous occasion. Presumably because A is boasting so much, B gets ever less impressed and ever more defensive – B hasn’t had a good night out for a while, so decides to turn to the bullshit instead.

It’s this overly competitive nature in human conversation that I cannot physically stand. It’s never enough to accept that someone else had fun where you didn’t, and the favourite weapon of choice is a big dollop of BS.

Bullshit #1: "They don't make them like this anymore..."

Taken literally, this statement isn’t particularly bullshit – it merely states the obvious. Of course “they” don’t make them like this anymore; “they” are completely different individuals setting out to correspond to a new generation of audiences, incorporating new trends and keeping up to new standards. However, it doesn’t take much analysis to come to the conclusion that the actual intention behind this remark refers to observation that said media, usually a television show targeted for children, was a true masterpiece of its day and that modern viewing quite simply does not keep up to this standard.

The Verdict: BULLSHIT.

I believe that people often utter this statement in order to exert authority over younger generations, thinking that in doing so they sound wise beyond their years. But the truth is, as I’ve already briefly explained, that children’s television shows are bound to change with the times. I’m going to take a popular example from today: “LazyTown.” For those of you that don’t know, this is an Icelandic programme that debuted in 2006, featuring a young female central character urging others to be active in their daily lives. Naturally, there was, and always will be, a place for health promotion in the media; however, obesity levels being what they are in Western culture, needless to say there has never been a more crucial time to encourage young people to exercise.

Don’t like LazyTown? Too loud, too simple, too annoying? Well, assuming that you’re an adult, you’re not the show’s target audience; i.e. you’re not supposed to like it. Now, I’ve had idiots respond to this point by stating something along the lines of “Oh, but I still love watching (insert popular cartoon from 20 years ago here).” That’s nostalgia, you morons. For those of us lucky enough to have enjoyed our childhoods, everyone enjoys placing themselves as much as possible into the shoes of our former selves as we run into the living room after school, clutching a Wispa bar or something, switching on the 14 inch screen telly and sitting on that old green sofa, blissfully ignorant that anything bad ever happened in the world. Re-watching particular TV shows on YouTube and bantering with your friends of a similar age regarding such programmes can take you several steps closer to that past time.

To verify my point further, it’s unlikely that you saw every single children’s programme in history. I’m not sure if you would uphold a great deal of regard for some of those shows if you saw them now, whereas you might have done once upon a time. I for one missed out on a few of the cult favourites; “Thundercats” and “He-Man” to name a couple. I have since watched said cartoons and... Well, they were pretty shit really, weren’t they?

Perhaps I’m generalising a bit here. Maybe one is referring to the timeless appeal of such programmes, or their being loved by children and adults alike, or the fact that the animation of today’s cartoons (Pokémon) is of much lower quality (as measured by, for example, the number of frames used per second) than that of earlier cartoons (Merry Melodies, Happy Harmonies, Silly Symphonies). However, if they ran a new, five-minute cartoon that matched the humour and animation style of Tom and Jerry, would you still watch it? Or would the lack of that nostalgic, crackly soundtrack put you off?

The Definition of Over The Top

If you're a Facebook user, you have probably noticed the sheer number of groups that have been created protesting the site's new design. Now, you may love or loathe this new look, but I really can't condone the ridiculous amount of drama involved in the "issue."

Take this example. Now, I really don't object to a good boycott every now and then, but the way its creator writes, you'd think they were aspiring to be the next Martin Luther King or William Wallace, "If Facebook's amount of users drops dramatically maybe we'll have a chance..." YES GUYS! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE! I HAVE A DREAM! THEY WILL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM! Hang on, let's look at the full picture for a second. It all boils down to your favourite website changing its layout. For a start, this is entirely out of proportion. A big fat "get over it" is due. Secondly, if one really is that bothered by its new look (they could never, ever, physically get used to it) then no one's making them use the network in the first place. One could, in theory, just delete his or her account. But that's not going to happen, is it? Because we're all Facebook's bitches.

Thirdly, if these people dedicated just half their energy towards something much more crucial, such as boycotting Coca Cola or Primark, maybe they'd achieve something much more worthwhile. And that doesn't include creating yet another protest group on Facebook or a useless online petition (because we all know they never bloody achieve anything).