tetris11

Sometimes it does. Problem is, no one wants to buy lemonade.

Some put great care into them, others just stick a bunch of related songs onto an album and hope for the best. Pink Floyd's Animals is a terrible album full of tonally conflicting themes, but Sheep is one of my favourite Floyd songs of all time. You can pick a berry from a bush without having to scratch yourself on the brambles.

So what determines the level of artistry where we can forgive an atrocity?

If they have inspired derivative works, that are pro-humanist. Picasso was a horrible person, but his depiction of the Guernica definitely stirred a few minds to the atrocities happening at the time.

So put Hitler’s paintings on permanent exhibition in a Berlin art museum?

If they're genuinely good, and contribute to world of Art as whole, why not? It's not like people don't listen to Wagner. My guess is that his works are lackluster and have made very little impact in the art world.

All I can say is that it’s pretty much the first thing I think of when I hear his voice no matter how much I used to love his music.

I guess you and I are wired different then. I've never paid much attention to the artist when I was developing my music tastes. It was always "I like this song" instead of "I like this whole album".

Pretty unusual for a musician, wouldn’t you say? Most musicians (and comedians like Cosby) make their music personal.

I'm unsure what the accusation is here.

If Trump says that rape is wrong, it’s very different from E. Jean Carroll saying rape is wrong. Because he’s a rapist and she’s a rape victim.

Show me the works of Trump that I can bend my knee and call him a master in a craft. Point to his degrees in sociology and political science that I can listen to his expert views on societal matters.

As someone who has been betrayed by people who love me, I've come to the realisation that it's hard to boil down one horrific aspect of someone's character as their whole.

Everyone, even those who have slaughtered children, has some tiny aspect of themself that is good -- and as a good relativist, I define good as someone contributing some aspect of themself to something that is greater than themselves.

When I listen to Michael Jackson's Earth Song, I don't picture him fiddling with kids, I hear the sentiment of his words in that moment contributing to the green movement in which he inspired a new generation of activists (some exaggeration here, but you get what I mean).

Michael Jackson doesn't mention himself in his songs, he talks about other things and weaves stories that resonate with me on some level. In those moments, it doesn't matter who wrote those sentiments, I'm just happy that someone did and that they exist.

If you've never paid a dime and have no friends to recommend music to, then you're not supporting the artist. Just enjoy the art.

Remember not to indicate if you're over the age of 65, on a tractor, or driving a beamer

I was a mix of Kenny and Scott Malkinson

Those are usually the Jedi who were raised in exile

POOOOOORK IT'S THE MEAT OF KINGS

the question is what do they do with these stories

Jedi: We teach restraint to powerful individuals to keep the universe in harmony. This means defending the weak, and often preserving the status quo.

Sith: We teach powerful individuals to fuck shit up, including each other, just because they can. This means culling the weak, and shaking up the status quo.

StarWars Leftists: Jedi are protecting the peace, the council is righteous!
StarWars Libs: Sith are changing the status quo! They're anti corruption!
StarWars Centrists: These two are virtually the same!

guys, it's raisin' the etcher