Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[Douchepool]

Yes, it was a very bad choice of words. I can't do a damn thing about and it isn't worth getting in an uproar about.

I am not defending what he said, but people do use terms inappropriately. It happens all of the time. Watch the news sometime, somebody always has "foot in mouth disease". At this point, I really don't give two shits about what they say to or about each other. They never get as mad at each other as we do about them.

I sometimes wonder if the band members say "stupid" sh*t just so the forums will light up with their own ravenous idiocy.

[CenturyDeprived]

Yes, it was a very bad choice of words. I can't do a damn thing about and it isn't worth getting in an uproar about.

I am not defending what he said, but people do use terms inappropriately. It happens all of the time. Watch the news sometime, somebody always has "foot in mouth disease". At this point, I really don't give two shits about what they say to or about each other. They never get as mad at each other as we do about them.

Ok, understood. Do you think it's pretty absurd that there are a couple of people on this board who think it's perfectly acceptable for Mike to have used that language, that allows for uncertainty about human exploitation being considered going too far (or not)?  Doesn't this pretty much prove that those couple of people can't seem to ever criticize anything that Mike does? It's ridiculous.

[Douchepool]

Absurd for people to have an opinion? No. Absurd opinions? That's subjective as hell. Some people refuse to be browbeaten by the angry mob. Some think that's absurd and that those people should just accept the fact that they're "wrong" and move on with life. Some disagree. It's called life. Not everyone will think like you or come to the same conclusions. It certainly ain't happening here, so I hope people have no delusions about real life.

[John Manning]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

That would probably be taking things too far.

[Douchepool]

That would probably be taking things too far.

Yeah, probably.

[CenturyDeprived]

Absurd for people to have an opinion? No. Absurd opinions? That's subjective as hell. Some people refuse to be browbeaten by the angry mob. Some think that's absurd and that those people should just accept the fact that they're "wrong" and move on with life. Some disagree. It's called life. Not everyone will think like you or come to the same conclusions. It certainly ain't happening here, so I hope people have no delusions about real life.

Do Holocaust deniers just have their own "opinions" too? No problemo about that train of thought either?

THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE, AND HUMAN EXPLOITATION IS WHERE WE NEED TO NOT LET "SLIDE" WITH A "PROBABLY".

I'm glad you agree it was a poor choice of words, and it's just baffling that anyone could try to twist the words to be ok.

To say there wasn't an ill intention over the words? Ok, I could possibly get behind that, even though I am not sure.

But to say the words are ok, no problem, and then attempt to cut off the conversation is simply the next level. 

[Douchepool]

Do Holocaust deniers just have their own "opinions" too? No problemo about that train of thought either?

I'm glad you agree it was a poor choice of words, and it's just baffling that anyone could try to twist an excuse out of it. To say there wasn't an ill intention over the words? Ok, I could possibly get behind that, even though I am not sure. But to say the words are ok, no problem is simply the next level.

Yes, Holocaust deniers do have their own opinions. No one's more or less entitled to an opinion just because one agrees or disagrees with them. I don't think Michael's use of "probably" puts him in the same league as Holocaust deniers, though...although implied apples to oranges comparisons to Adolf Hitler, while rare, are documented in the case of Michael.

[Mike's Beard]

OK when people have to drag the Holocaust out to try prove a point they are probably going too far.

[Douchepool]

OK when people have to drag the Holocaust out to try prove a point they are probably going too far.

Probably most definitely.

[CenturyDeprived]

Do Holocaust deniers just have their own "opinions" too? No problemo about that train of thought either?

I'm glad you agree it was a poor choice of words, and it's just baffling that anyone could try to twist an excuse out of it. To say there wasn't an ill intention over the words? Ok, I could possibly get behind that, even though I am not sure. But to say the words are ok, no problem is simply the next level.

Yes, Holocaust deniers do have their own opinions. No one's more or less entitled to an opinion just because one agrees or disagrees with them. I don't think Michael's use of "probably" puts him in the same league as Holocaust deniers, though...although implied apples to oranges comparisons to Adolf Hitler, while rare, are documented in the case of Michael.

I do not in any way, shape or form compare Mike's words to Hitler's. AT ALL. I'd put some of Landy's actions closer to that league of awful despicable behavior. Can you imagine Landy as a dictator in a pre-internet small country? I think that ultimately the term "probably" was just a very, very stupid thing to say, without Mike having thought about the implications of what a word like that leaves the door open for in terms of interpretation.

I do, however, think that in a back-and-forth discussion, that a line has to be drawn where it should be considered an absurdist, fringe viewpoint, that such a word, when put under scrutiny, should be considered acceptable. It just flat out is not acceptable. I brought up Holocaust denial because when intelligent people dissect the terminology at length (as we've done on this board, but to give Mike credit I'm sure he didn't think about it at length before saying it) and THEN after lots of discussion, to STILL come to the conclusion that the word is acceptable... well, this is a viewpoint that should be banished to the outer reaches of absurdist thought, on part with Holocaust denial, and it's a shameful opinion (and I truly mean that) for posters like Cam to have claiming it is ok for the term to be used.

Human exploitation is repugnant, and when the word is put up to the microscope and thought about (as I greatly doubt it was done, when it was probably originally said in an off-the-cuff moment)... it fails the sniff test, and should be universally be branded as a poor choice of words.

[Douchepool]

I wasn't saying you compared Michael to Hitler, by the way.

The better way to banish the idea of Holocaust denial to the dustbin of history would be to give it zero reaction. There's a reason Holocaust denial is not taken seriously by 99% of humanity. People refuse to give it a forum or attention. While I don't think guys like Cam should be banned for their comments in this thread (I might be alone there, but we'll see) if they're the absurd comments people make them out to be then they should be ignored.

[CenturyDeprived]

OK when people have to drag the Holocaust out to try prove a point they are probably going too far.

Human exploitation and the attempt to not completely say it's utterly wrong, in any form that it takes (including the form of EEL's actions), is what's wrong. Imagine Landy's exploitation of people like Brian on a large scale?  

[Douchepool]

Agreed, but comparing Brian's treatment under Landy to the Holocaust is a rather lengthy stretch...and arguably as absurd as defense of Michael's use of "probably."

[CenturyDeprived]

Agreed, but comparing Brian's treatment under Landy to the Holocaust is a rather lengthy stretch...and arguably as absurd as defense of Michael's use of "probably."

If Brian (heaven forbid) had died from too much prescription drugs under Landy's care, and then EEL + crew made off with his fortune and were living comfortably, basking away for decades on an island in some far away country without any legal ramifications, maybe it wouldn't seem quite as much of a stretch.

I am not so much comparing those two case studies as much as stating that they are both unfortunate instances of human exploitation, which while absolutely wildly different, the endgame (and almost endgame) horrors of both should both be spoken of in absolutes.  Landy saving Brian's life? Maybe. Landy then eventually going too far? No flippin' question about it. Attempting to find a way to twist the words to be acceptable and commendable (above and beyond any discussion of their motivations or intention)? There are no words for how absurd that is. Watch how the defenders remain quiet because they know they are wrong and are too chickensh*t to admit it.  

[Douchepool]

If Brian (heaven forbid) had died from too much prescription drugs under Landy's care, and then EEL + crew made off with his fortune and were living comfortably, basking away for decades on an island in some far away country without any legal ramifications, maybe it wouldn't seem quite as much of a stretch.

I am not so much comparing those two case studies as much as stating that they are both unfortunate instances of human exploitation, which while absolutely wildly different, the endgame (and almost endgame) horrors of both should both be spoken of in absolutes.  Landy saving Brian's life? Maybe. Landy then eventually going too far? No flippin' question about it. Attempting to find a way to twist the words to be acceptable and commendable (above and beyond any discussion of their motivations or intention)? There are no words for how absurd that is. Watch how the defenders remain quiet because they know they are wrong and are too chickensh*t to admit it.  

Alrighty...this thread has taken probably the fuckest of left turns I've ever seen on this forum. Time for me to meditate.

[Autotune]

Yes, it was a very bad choice of words. I can't do a damn thing about and it isn't worth getting in an uproar about.

I am not defending what he said, but people do use terms inappropriately. It happens all of the time. Watch the news sometime, somebody always has "foot in mouth disease". At this point, I really don't give two shits about what they say to or about each other. They never get as mad at each other as we do about them.

Ok, understood. Do you think it's pretty absurd that there are a couple of people on this board who think it's perfectly acceptable for Mike to have used that language, that allows for uncertainty about human exploitation being considered going too far (or not)?  Doesn't this pretty much prove that those couple of people can't seem to ever criticize anything that Mike does? It's ridiculous.

Century, I think drbeachboy is telling you it's time to let go off this topic. You stated your opinion and debated valiantly and constantly. Many times. We know what you think. You know what others think. Ideas have been submitted, debated, supported and fought. There is a fine line between interest in giving one's opinion and being obsessed about it. The latter takes its tall on everybody who enters here, must be signaled out, and must stop.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

As someone of Dutch/Jewish ancestry (on my mom's side) seeing the Holocaust brought up in comparison to this is highly offensive to me.

Autotune is right in this case...we've all said our piece here, nobody's mind is getting changed.

I'm putting this to rest.