It's really not "dumb". It's people's emotions regarding what things disgust them and which don't. I detest having art tainted where it can affect my enjoyment of something. It doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes. I will probably go back to listening to The BBs without thinking about this at some point - I just randomly heard California Girls at a party last night and it brought a big smile to my face, but that doesn't mean I'm going necessarily to be very motivated to actively seek out put on a Mike Love lead on for possibly awhile.

It's dumb to me, it might not be to you. If you choose not to listen to a band because you disapprove of something they did, instead of judging their work on its merits, feel free to do so. I'll feel free to think it's dumb.

Again - it depends on how much the association disgusts you. If a band you very much liked went and performed for a terrorist organization like the ISIS or HAMAS version of Coachella, or something like that, I venture to guess you'd be hard pressed to find the same level of emotional enjoyment out of the music in quite the same way if you are sickened TO THE CORE by the association.  Especially, if say, your entire family was killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center.

Obviously I'm not in that particular situation, but I'm pretty sure your guess would be wrong. I find it very easy to overlook an artist's political views and focus on the actual music. There are many artists who have voiced political opinions that I most definitely didn't share, and/or said things that I consider outrageous, and/or performed in countries that were or are apartheidistic and violent, and whose music I still enjoy just as much.

That's an extreme example, but I'm just pointing out that certain things pull at peoples' emotions in very particular ways, and they aren't "wrong" or "dumb" to feel that way.  There's no reason to get insulting.  Honestly... would you tell a person to their face  - a person whose family died in that manner - that they were "dumb" for feeling that way about an artist who played a pro-terrorism event?

First of all, I think (I may be wrong) you're implying that my "dumb" comment applied to people who wouldn't listen to a band because they support someone who killed their relatives. Look at my previous replies and you will see that it isn't the case: I only said it was dumb to avoid listening to an artist just because of different political stances, and I'll stand by that statement. Regarding your question, I wouldn't call them dumb, but I would probably immediately stop talking to them about music, and if they were friends, I would stop seeing them altogether, because I would then know that their judgment on such a trivial thing as music can be overthrown by emotional considerations, and I can't imagine being friends with someone who I can't have a rational conversation with. Which I think also answers your question about empathy. I would definitely feel empathy towards those persons but I would also know they're not who I want to hang out with.

For example, I don't know how you could claim that it's not more understandable that a Jew whose entire immediate family was killed in the Holocaust would be more put off by Wagner, than say someone of an entirely different culture who has had no such personal awful (however indirect) connection. At its core, the principle of this makes sense, and while it may be unfortunate, it ain't "dumb".

When Wagner died, Hitler wasn't even born yet. Thus, this is -and I'm sure you will understand- a pretty dumb statement to make. On a more humorous note, I personally know a few jewish people who drive BMWs and it doesn't seem to bother them. For the reasons stated above, that's why they're my friends.

I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund.

I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.

What?

You weren't put off by that when you supported Hillary Clinton.

You're contradicting yourself, unless you are intentionally calling yourself dumb.

How so?

It's a shame if you think a vote or respecting the results of an election are the limit of social responsibility.

My point was that "I have a stronger sense of social responsibility" doesn't mean "I let my judgment be affected by emotions more than the average person". Just because a person chooses not to listen to some artists because they (supposedly) voted for another candidate and that displeases said person, it doesn't mean the latter is "socially responsible". It has literally nothing to do with that.

I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund.

I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.

And I don't think I'm very unusual in these choices. I don't buy Ted Nugent and I also tend to ignore his existence as much as possible - same for Chuck Norris. There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.

If they don't want to find out about an artist's work simply because they saw said artist on TV for five minutes during the inauguration of a president they didn't vote for and automatically concluded that the artist shared the exact same ideas, they are indeed dumb. Actually, it's dumb even if you don't think they share the exact same ideas - because the artist's political stance doesn't necessarily have an impact over the lyrics or the music. Which leads me to what I said previously: "to be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on."

Also, "social responsibility" has nothing to do with that, and it's a poor excuse for an excuse. "Social responsibility" does however have a lot to do with voting and respecting the results of an undisputed election.

(double post, deleted)

How about if it was the inauguration of a person who had sexually molested several close members of your family, and thus messed up their lives, but they were not able to have been prosecuted for it due to statute of limitations? Would the fact that it is personal change your way of thinking?  

I'm just throwing an extreme example out there to see if there's any possible way that you could be so repulsed by someone that you would finally be put off to their art, even if the art was great.  It is an honest question.   I tend to assume that everyone has a line they would draw at some point.

Again, I would definitely listen to the music if it is good. I would probably hate the elected person more than I've ever hated anybody, but the artist who would perform for said person would be a different person, and there wouldn't be anything personal between this artist and me. Actually I wouldn't even be interested in the artist as a person - I would be interested in the artist as, well, an artist. The music matters, the person doesn't. Let's go a bit further: I assume many people would draw a line there because it would be too much to withstand, but I would probably listen to the elected person/molester's own music if it was worthwhile, simply out of curiosity. After having illegally downloaded it, of course.

Would you listen to an artist who performed at the inauguration of David Duke?  Or Adolf Hitler? Just curious if those examples would make you change your opinion.

If the music's good, yes. Definitely.

Yup, a lot. According to my sources there are even 3 million more 

I also think it's a shame that any Beach Boys music will go unheard because of the association with Trump.

I think it's a shame some people are dumb enough to avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views. To be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on.

It won't hurt their legacy at all. The way I see things, they'll be playing for America, not for a political party - that's a huge honor and I don't see why Mike should turn down the offer. People need to seriously lighten up.

Are women more prone to severe cases of email deletion?  

You've been listening to distortions. The deleted emails were identified by her attorneys as her personal emails. You can find online the process they followed to identify them. If you have a problem with it, let me know. If you have a problem in general with people deleting personal emails that were NOT subpoenaed, then you have to change a lot of privacy laws and we will most of us be eligible for prosecution.
How much of a big whoop was made about all the other people, prominent and identified, who didn't follow email protocols? What investigation was there after millions of emails in the Bush White House went missing? What about the fact that Bush White House emails were kept on a Republican National Committee server? What about Powell's email usage? Who ran the congressional and FBI investigations into that?
Seriously?

Of course, what the accused's attorneys are saying is always the absolute truth. I can't believe you're saying this with a straight face.

Also, I'm not finding anything about the details of the process followed to identify the emails, so please show me a link.

Until then, I'll keep saying that I do have a problem with people deleting emails that contain governmental information.

Are women more prone to severe cases of email deletion? 

I don't know where you're reading/seeing/hearing that Clinton supporters are claiming the results of the election are rigged. I'm sure there are crackpots making any and every accusation about anything and everything. But being unhappy with the result, or lamenting the electoral college vs. popular vote rules, is not the same as claiming the thing is rigged.

I said Hillary supporters were claiming the "system" (read: the electoral college, not "the results of the election") was rigged, so please don't change my words. If you're looking for a source, it's everywhere on Twitter. Check the trending hashtags. A few examples from within the last hour:

https://twitter.com/JeanSwenson2/status/796766491840565248
https://twitter.com/Boxerlovers1/status/796779414797385734
https://twitter.com/SpursDiva7/status/796783237225775104
https://twitter.com/pdxcab/status/796764438271434752

And now Hillary supporters are claiming the "system" is rigged because Trump won even though Hillary got more votes. The sweet, sweet irony of it all. Which, by the way, makes the analogy perfectly valid.

Also, in case you hadn't understood it, the picture shows that Trump was ridiculed for saying that he wouldn't immediately/necessarily accept the results, and now Hillary supporters are rioting and saying Trump isn't the new President to them. Again, delicious irony.

I will just leave this here.

the opponent's supporters are calling for her to be hung, shot by a firing squad, "lock her up", "Trump that bitch"

Funnily enough, Twitter is full of Hillary supporters calling for the assassination of the new President.

For what it's worth, the room looks different, and the drums aren't at the same place...

Has it been documented where those striped shirts ended up?

I remember reading somewhere that Al still has his.

Same here. I was really looking forward to reading the sessionography, in my mind it was to be an integral part of Made In California. And then I read it was delayed... And then everyone stopped talking about it so I just assumed we would never be able to see it, much like Beach Boys Central.

Good for them. At least they're not dropping it on civilians.

Brian's cover of Carl's Heaven. I don't think it has been released anywhere else, but I could be wrong.

For instance calling someone a d*ck implies something generally negative about men.

It only says something negative about the targeted "someone". It doesn't say or imply anything about other men. What makes you feel it does?

When someone gets called a dick, I don't feel offended as a man. Some guys are dicks and that's a perfectly fine thing to say.

What a stupid bitch. May she be locked in a room and forced to watch The Phantom Menace over and over again.

It's good to be aware that your hateful disdain extends to all women. Thanks for the heads up.

How does a comment about one woman extend to "all women?"

By using a term that degrades all women to insult her. But you knew that.

...Writing "what a stupid bitch" doesn't imply all women are "stupid bitches".

But some are. For instance, the ones who try reading between the lines and feel the need to write haughty and sarcastic replies.

"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement."

The nature of the subjects discussed in the board has led, and will inevitably still lead to arguments and people being upset. This doesn't automatically characterize trolling. Your definition doesn't, either, and leads to another problem - how to characterize with 100% certainty "inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic" and "deliberate intent of provoking". Mods would still have to judge a member's actions on a case-by-case basis. So, back to square one.

And that's fine by me. Let the mods decide what's appropriate and what isn't. I see some people criticizing them but, as a moderator of a large messageboard myself, I can say they're doing a mighty fine job.

True. Us mere members shouldn't have the right to share our opinions!

That and more vocal elements on both sides of said debate could turn this thread nasty in a heartbeat.

Yes, because rights for people are totally something that's debatable.

Let's debate your rights and see how you feel.

The mere fact that legal rights evolve over time underlines their debatable nature. I don't see why such rights (including mine) shouldn't be debatable.

But the "general discussion" section is no place for such a debate, so I'll stop there.

===

Wasn't Dennis rumored to have gay sex fantasies? If I remember correctly, the Gaines book talks about the subject (even going as far as to say that it was a rape fantasy). Not really an opinion on LGBT rights from Dennis, but it's somewhat related.

To quote Dylan after THAT speech....

"At least he didn't mention me."

 

Wasn't it Elton John?

EDIT 8:42 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSAQX2uuUY