The absolute state of pitchfork

the absolute state of pitchfork

Other urls found in this thread:

pitchfork.com/thepitch/on-loving-taylor-swift-while-being-brown/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

> Taylor Swift: [exists]
> SJWs everywhere: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

i want to consume taytay herself

wew lad

lmao

>Take, for example, her obsession with eyes. Nearly every Taylor Swift album uses eyes as symbols of intimacy and beauty. Her debut single “Tim McGraw,” released in 2006 when Swift was 16, describes her own blue eyes as more beautiful than the stars of Georgia. “State of Grace,” a single off 2012’s Red, establishes a kinship between Swift and her partner based on their “twin fire signs/four blue eyes.” In 1989’s “I Know Places,” she can tell a lover’s eyes are green even in the dark. Reputation’s best single, “Gorgeous,” mentions “ocean blue eyes.” Swift has only swooned over brown eyes in her lyrics once, in Speak Now cut “Superman.” Consuming Swift’s music as a brown person, then, can mean implicitly accepting that your body is not worthy of poetry. It means projecting the specifics of your life onto a line about “mosaic broken hearts” and then being jolted to the realization that it’s not actually about your heart or your love or your eyes.
pitchfork.com/thepitch/on-loving-taylor-swift-while-being-brown/

I keep reading this over and over but I still have no fucking idea what it's trying to say

Brown people can't listen to Taylor Swift and white people can't listen to Beyonce.

Haha that inferiority complex

beyonce is white as fuck

Hahaha the absolute never-ending insecurity of POC's

If the artist isn't writing/singing about you, then you should not be listening to them. And they are Literally Hitler™ for not acknowledging you and your snowflake self.

>If an artist doesn't cater to your very specific physical characteristics you can't listen to them
>Written by those who give every Migos and Kanye album BNM and call them enlightened

...

Oh so people are still getting triggered by this piece of crap? Stop sharing the article if it makes you REEEEEEEEEE so much.

myancestor.jpeg
>making fun of something equals being le epicly triggered

Judging by how everybody's constantly going out of their way to misrepresent the content of the article and talk about how SJWs are getting massively triggered, yeah, I think y'all are triggered as fuck.

...

>y'all
there's a special place in hell for you

>triggered
No, sweetie... this piece of journalism is great for exposing (((liberal agendas))).
>Stop sharing the article
Shut It Down.jpg

>the absolute state of pitchfork
Pitchfork has always been like this what the fuck are you implying. After all these years there are people here who even consider their opinions?
Now stop making them more money

>everybody's constantly going out of their way to misrepresent the content of the article
How so?

But why? . . .

It's also great for exposing how easily people on the internet can get triggered by somebody's shitty opinion. If any of my friends acted this way towards a Fox News or Breitbart article I would laugh at them the same way I laugh at the people in this thread for getting so riled up.

reminder that the only reason people write this shit is because you all get mad at it

>It's also great for exposing how easily people on the internet can get triggered by somebody's shitty opinion
Could say the same about you right now, namefag.
>inb4 i'm not mad

But this is just funny and a little bit baffling to me. Why would I be mad about something like this?

it's called clickbait. It's entire purpose is to be so polarizing that people click and share it.

t. Pitchfork article author

Okay, it's pretty easy. Look at some posts in this thread.

The article never asserts that "brown people can't listen to Taylor Swift, and white people can't listen to Beyoncé"

She also doesn't assert that "If the artist isn't writing/singing about you, then you should not be listening to them."

It also doesn't assert this.

It's a worthless article, but not for any of these reasons.

Yeah, but what are you basing this on? I'm not exaggerating about HOW LOL CRINGE AWFUL an article is and I'm not just namecalling like a mad kid.

I've done neither of those things though, and I haven't clicked on a P4k article in months

Why are you whiteknighting this gay pitchfork article so hard lmao

>call article piece of crap
>have repeatedly said that the editors are hacks
>"u r P4k plant lol"

The absolute state of Sup Forums. This board seriously revolves around what some shitty review site is doing and it's embarrassing.

Even discussing it generates potential revenue for them. That's the purpose of clickbait.

>I'm not exaggerating about HOW LOL CRINGE AWFUL
Nah you're just exaggerating about HOW LOL TRIGGURED everyone in this thread is.
>and I'm not just namecalling like a mad kid.
Spouting the equivalent of "umad?" is pretty much the same thing.
Ok. Do you expect someone to never talk about Pitchfork again just because doing so might very indirectly benefit them? That's dumb

I'm telling you to ignore them because all of their content is bad. You're probably helping gain them ad revenue money by generating the controversy you are, which means that people are going to look up the article, share it, and get others involved. They're Buzzfeed tier journalism and need to be ignored.

Hell, look at the title the editors chose in the Twitter/Facebook spot. It's clickbaity and intentionally controversial. It guarantees that pretty much everybody mildly interested in this situation is going to click on it.

This. Hell, I'm probably not helping by bumping this thread. I'm just trying to illustrate that these threads don't need to exist and that attacking/mocking Pitchfork so vociferously is probably just going to help them in the long run.

>Nah you're just exaggerating about HOW LOL TRIGGURED everyone in this thread is.
Right. Because pointing out how only angry or irrational people misrepresent an article's content and help spread it in their efforts to dismantle it is bad. They aren't triggered at all. You're right.

>Spouting the equivalent of "umad?" is pretty much the same thing.
It really isn't when there's some substantial evidence in this very thread for how only an angry idiot would post the things being posted. Again: liberals who react to Breitbart articles in this way are ALSO being triggered, and are also idiots. I shouldn't have to breakout a horseshoe theory macro to illustrate how overreacting to a Pitchfork OR Breitbart article in this way is the action of an irrationally angry person.

I'm just saying that the only reason someone wrote this article is because controversy sells and discussing it and getting mad over it is what it was designed to do, so just ignoring clickbait altogether is the best option for this kind of stuff.

Has this agglomeration of terms any actual meaning or is it supposed to be modern art?

this is hilarious

>Because pointing out how only angry or irrational people misrepresent an article's content and help spread it in their efforts to dismantle it is bad.
I really doubt OP put that thought into his post. People just like to ridicule dumb articles. It shouldn't trouble you this much
>I shouldn't have to breakout a horseshoe theory macro to illustrate how overreacting to a Pitchfork OR Breitbart article in this way is the action of an irrationally angry person.
Are you just assuming anyone who laughs at this shitty article is a conservative?

>sweetie
I can't take anyone who uses this word in an argument seriously. It makes you sound like such a smug, passive-aggressive bitch.

...

>Crazium shitting up another thread
The Woman Respector has logged on

Nicholas, bud, I thought you'd left us. Glad to see you haven't lost your ability to wildly not talk about music on a music discussion board

>I'm not angry or an idiot, I'm just overreacting to something because I dislike it and misrepresenting it because I don't like the fact that it exists. These are the actions of a calm, rational, and level-headed person.

Okay. I never called out OP specifically and you're blatantly ignoring most of my posts. And I didn't assume that people who derided this article in any way were conservative. I'm talking about a very specific sort of reaction this is garnering by people who are only helping fan the flames by exaggerating and inaccurately spreading certain things about it. See I gotta go back to work, but please realise that I'm not shitting on people calling this article the crap it is. I'm criticising those who don't rationally respond to what's there and have to make shit up.

Why do they hate her? She's a she.

she's a snek

I'll never forgive them for this

She's in XCOM?!?

Yeah I mostly ignore entertainment news.

Because she's a Hibernian goddess

I genuinely don't give a shit what me discussing or not discussing this article means for Pitchfork.

You know why user

k

>attacking/mocking Pitchfork so vociferously is probably just going to help them in the long run.
Not that I'm a fan of constant P4k bashing threads (I actually have a life) but I fail to see how highlighting such an egregious example of why Pitchfork's brand of retarded leftism SHOULDN'T be taken seriously helps them in the long run as a credible music publication.

new lows every day. I should quit the internet.

>I'm talking about a very specific sort of reaction this is garnering by people who are only helping fan the flames
Giant fires can only happen when small fires aren't being allowed to run their courses. Everything about this article is awful. Let Pitchfork enjoy their entirely appropriate roasting.

For the crime of being white and not actively apologizing for and undermining all the time.

>write shitty article like this
>SJW's click on it/ share it with yaaaas and loads of buzzwords
>people on Sup Forums click on it, share it and mock it
>get twice the revenue

works every time desu

You really should, indeed.

You mean 'SJW' politics is just a finely tuned revenue farm?

Yeah, I know.

As is "reactionary" politics.

pretty much

but the fact people here are mocking it as well gets them twice the clicks, which is why they do it. remember that shitty 'indie music is too white' article? it got thousands of views simply because people mocked and criticised it so hard.

politics in general is one big spook

Fuck you crazium you cuck bitch

I'm confused - why are you people so up in arms about Pitchfork becoming successful as a music-oriented equivalent of the Onion? I'd be willing to pay them money outright to see that actually happen.

you americans I swear to god

Reactionary politics... somewhat. A lot of the media infrastructure is for sure.

But a lot of the politics and movements I would say is rather is like the a side effect or adverse reaction of leftism-promoted imbalance in a society (yes, I know the irony in saying this). Leftism promotes this false mythology that there is some inherent injustice to a system, and that fixing the system's structure is enough to fix everything, so they push all these unreasonable measures that exacerbate and drum up antagonism. 'Reactionaries' actually are for usually just the most part basically those otherwise moderates who see a necessary need to tip things back towards the center.

I have a general confidence this happens pretty naturally and predictably, this evening out, at least if you're in a relatively prosperous nation. Occasionally leftist or right wing madness threatens with some tipping point environmentally or culturally, in which case I'm fine with whatever reasonable, moral means of any political stripe setting it straight. Nothing is politically taboo to me, it's all just leverage.

>leftism-promoted
liberals aren't left wing

>Only 105 retweets
>Only 208 likes.

No one fucking cares.
Go back to Sup Forums faggot

You're right.

It's too high.

Having a political ideology or 'side' is completely wrongheaded and corrupting, yes.

It's better to have transcendent moral values based beyond politics and then let that guide your decisions issue by issue, without any recourse as to what some 'leftist' or 'conservative' take might be. Utterly irrelevant.

>No one fucking cares.
It only seems that way because there's no dislike button...

If somebody types a long thought out word salad response they’re more likely to be mad than the guy shitposting with buzzwords.
Also fuck crazium reviews music like Robert christgau

>Swift. This most interesting surname is of Anglo-Saxon origin.

Because dishonesty is a bad thing? Highlighting bad journalism isn't the problem here, user. Like, the inflammatory response has absolutely helped Pitchfork. Just like it's helped Buzzfeed. You don't have to be credible to make money. Plenty of publications have established that.

I'd rather be consumed by thicc Taylor tbqh

the left are such useful idiots

all that article will ever do is put white people one step further right

and all we have to do to keep funding this advanced form of propoganda is just keep clicking their links

>the inflammatory response has absolutely helped Pitchfork.
Helped Pitchfork reveal itself as being nothing more than an Onion ripoff (see ). Likewise Buzzfeed.

>You don't have to be credible to make money.
I have absolutely no problem with the Onion or any other inherently non-credible journalistic sources like Pitchfork surviving as a form of idle entertainment.

This. As a white man reading that article i really have nothing to lose by supporting it and everything to gain. All it will ever do is radicalise other white people and programme more minoritys in to becoming sjws which in turn will radicalise more white people. All we have to do to ensure this cycle continues is literally click a link and if were feeling really naughty post a screen cap some where. The left is doing all the work for us