.., I don't think she takes him seriously, I think she's just as sick of his posts as everyone else is. The reason I started looking at this website again is because I decided to write about it for a digital rhetoric class last semester (our assignment was to observe how the infrastructure of a digital space shaped how people communicate on it) and I made several notes about how this website seems like it wasn't made with months-long discussions in mind and how concerns about spam, false information, and lax moderation are common. I noted earlier that users like Jim C seem to care more about the act of canonization itself than the music the system of canonization is supposed to be based on, but additionally I think a significant portion of this website's userbase does not know how conversations on the internet work. In this instance, Jim C habitually disregards acts that build a following or experience a revival online, has developed a bizarre method of looking at Spotify statistics that seems largely informed by guesswork (eg, "people only listen to the Velvet Underground once" as if there's any data that can possibly prove that), prioritizes metrics like terrestrial radio airplay and the sale of physical records despite those factors no longer accounting for the ways most people listen to music, and treats music made by AI algorithms as inevitable despite the fact that it accounts for less than 1% of music streamed and the only similar claims are coming from individuals and companies with vested interests in generative AI. Despite attempting to have conversations over the internet, a concerning amount of users on here act as if there are no people online at all and thus feel entitled to shout into a void of their own making. The fact that this website doesn't have a function to block or report users makes this problem worse.
Lily C, you are completely justified in your statement, but be careful with the hypotheticals; someone recently told him "by your logic, the Velvet Underground wouldn't have been inducted" and he took that as an opportunity to complain about them for weeks. I'd hate to see him bombard this page with weird excuses to dislike New Order as a result. Funny how he seems to emphasize coming up with reasons to dismiss acts with women in them, huh.
He is obviously double standard when it comes to artists he doesn't like.
He seems to only like weaker classic rock acts with a few radio hits, and suddenly sales and streaming numbers become the only arguments that matter. But those same standards never apply to artists he dislikes, especially alternative, indie, or modern pop acts like Tame Impala or Twenty One Pilots. He just changes the criteria to fit his own worldview and to boost his favorites, like Kansas and Meat Loaf. A lot of his bullshit theories about how "modern music has declined" are just another example of his double standards
If Kansas or Meat Loaf ever gets inducted, there's no way he'll stick to his own standards. He won't say, "They can't put on a performance, so they shouldn't be inducted." at all. He'll immediately switch to saying they're "absolutely deserving." His standards only apply when he wants
Honestly, a lot of his music knowledge sounds like it was generated by ChatGPT and then rewritten in his own words.
He looks exactly like those older, traditional rock fans on Facebook, people who are full of racists and misogynists and are incredibly condescending.
The best way is to just ask AI to help you use some plug-ins of browser to delete his text (block him) on this website.
J.W. wrote: