Kinda like what Spencer said ("These 'defend the indefensible' threads are a bit presumptious in a 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of way. "), these threads are starting to tell more about the posters than the musicians in question.. and it often doesn't tell that much, even then. Kinda like bad ILM threads.. :-o
Ok, seriously, my main problem with these threads is that they just invite contrarianism. The family of "Say something nice about ______" threads are, at least, a little more honest about that. I think the best defenses of the indefensible come up the most often in threads where they don't "belong", or where they are the least expected.
And now this is where you refute me.
― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 11 July 2003 01:54 (twenty-two years ago)
― scott seward, Friday, 11 July 2003 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)
― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 11 July 2003 02:04 (twenty-two years ago)
― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Friday, 11 July 2003 02:05 (twenty-two years ago)
"Governor Barbour defended the indefensible this morning and in doing so portrayed a Republican mindset that is not only out of touch with this century, but the last one as well,” DNC national press secretary Hari Sevugan said in a written statement. “To say that the systematic condemnation of millions to bondage and generation upon generation to servitude is ‘not significant,’ or that the tearing apart of families and the selling of human beings as cattle ‘doesn't amount to diddly’ is outrageous for any public official to say, let alone a man Republicans have placed in a position of leadership.”
DNC readin' ILX!
― trained to identify threads and then kill or destroy them (kingkongvsgodzilla), Monday, 12 April 2010 10:46 (fifteen years ago)
Did ILE ever do Defend the Indefensible: Fetishizing the Confederacy?
― President Keyes, Monday, 12 April 2010 11:45 (fifteen years ago)