because you used what you're quoting to claim that Zappa doesn't mean 'slut' in a negative way. What I'm saying is that one can enjoy having lots of sex, and even not be opposed in theory to women doing so, but still shame those women for it by calling them sluts in a derogatory way

The paragraph about the double standard was talking about one of the Mothers. Who, we don't know. The next paragraph says that Zappa "didn't see her point of view," and she specifically gives the example of the woman protestor. If that example isn't relevant to evidencing what she interpreted as the different point of view, the example shouldn't be there. If it's relevant, I'm explaining what could easily be the source of an incorrect interpretation on her part. If there's more to it than that, more than just a claim that could be about an interpretation that Zappa wouldn't at all agree with, then she should have provided a bit more info.

Sure, so in your view how would we know whether it's using the term in a derogatory way?

This is roughly what I believe he did and what Butcher's account seems to confirm.

It's my impression that as women became a commodity, he lost some respect for them. I think he could offend them and they would still have sex with him. I believe he thought that giving up your pride, your sex, your whatever, to a rock star or even just the band bassist-was kind of debasing yourself.

I'm fairly certain he did not allow Gail to engage in the sort of promiscuity that he himself enjoyed.

I think you're rather projecting.

See Guybrush's last post

As I said, he seemed to be projecting.

So we can know by assuming that he has views that he never expressed and then reading our own views into it?

He's not projecting lol
It's actually possible to read the intention or judgement or thoughts etc. behind what people say, like you're trying to do when you assume Guybrush is projecting

I'm not literally reading his intention, etc. The reason I said that is that what he's saying isn't actually in what we're talking about. So it must be coming from somewhere. I'm simply assuming that that would be his view.

How do you believe that we can literally read mental content such as intentions, thoughts, meanings, etc. into expressions correlated with the same? Can you explain the epistemic process there?

Damn the sophist is still blabbering?

Your hero's a ****bag, get over it.

Context, non-verbal communication, and lots of other things. I'd never thought the forum's resident Autism Girl would ever get to explain these things to someone

What albums were the ones you've heard?
He has a couple distinctive phases, very different from each other

I'd like to point out that this is the "Frank Zappa Appreciation Thread"

But seeing the amount of disdain that man gets here, maybe we should also have a "Frank Zappa is a Douchebag Thread", and this discussion could continue there?

Thread Nazis can gtfo.

Then we'd have to split the douchebag thread into Zappa is a douche because of x and Zappa is a douche because of y, forever fracturing the conversation to the point of each member getting their own Zappa thread. His relationship with Wild Man Fischer seemed pretty mockingly exploitative of his mental illness, which is a bigger issue than his sexism imo.

I'd rather talk about the music too so I'll just remind everyone of how underrated Läther is. I'd still call myself a fan despite my criticisms.

I just mean that if I was to come to MB and wanted to talk about how great Zappa's music is, then I wouldn't be too thrilled about entering the "Zappa Appreciation Thread" and seeing a long quarrel about whether Zappa was a sexist or not.

Good. Keep out Zappa fans.

Frank Zappa Deprecation Thread. :D

I'd like a thread of "Zappa Fans Who Disagree With Terrapin's Take On Meaning" please. Because I'm not remotely buying into this idea:-

"Five disgusting cockroaches" Does this term depend on what an individual has in mind? How can it mean anything except a precise number of insects that the speaker dislikes? If an individual has "three nice ponies" in mind, that's a misinterpretation; it's not, imo, an equally valid, subjective way to think about the term "five disgusting cockroaches".
(Examples of "five" not meaning 5 and "disgusting" used in a way that is not negatively judgemental would be appreciated, plus, for good measure, a subjective meaning for cockroach that is significantly different from what I'll find if I google "cockroach".)
__________________________________________________ _

I'm guilty of contributing to this underratement. I never listen to Läther, and I can't remember why.

Zappa intended it to be a ultra lengthy release but the studio made him spread it out across several albums (Zappa in New York, Studio Tan, Sleep Dirt, Orchestral Favorites, and various bonus tracks). Some tracks are early variations from how they were originally released iirc. I'm partial to it because I think it flows really well and encompasses a lot of different sides of Zappa.

As I already stated, it took me a while (years) to arrive at my current position. I don't want FZ to have been sexist. However, I also don't want to be blind to it and either way I can't really unsee it.

I suggested you bring up some evidence to support your position. Seriously, I would like to be proven wrong. Having played with some of the guys isn't really much in the way of that.

Whereas I've provided sources for many of my claims, you seem to assume much about FZ's moral views and values. I think you're more guilty of projecting than I am.

What I've seen a few times now are attempts to veer the debate into philosophical discussion. I guess one of a couple of reasons you do this is because in a world where general attitudes towards sexism have changed, you have done some convoluted, philosophical mental gymnastics that allow your ideas about sexism to stay relatively unchanged. Those same or similar mental gymnastics can be used to defend FZ against attacks on his moral views. I could be wrong, but this is the impression I get.

Don't stunt your growth.

that's about Läther?


Also, I've just been quite surprised: I've always thought that the album cover was this one
https://i.postimg.cc/fTSgmxXy/0082430238932-600.jpg
(as featured on spotify)

And yet when I just googled the album, this is what came up
https://i.postimg.cc/G2Sqs2mv/Frank-Zappa-L-ther.jpg

Which one is the original one?

I don't think you should call a MB member from Poland a "Nazi." That is just as in bad taste as your nonhumorous "Zyklon B" post. But hey you know you can do what you want and say what you want cause nothing will happen to you, and your "Nazi" jokes will only get worse.

Yes indeed.

The Zappa heart mother cover is the original, the other is from a 2012 reissue.

Nah, I'm not that touchy. I thought of it like being called a "grammar nazi".
Still, thanks for standing up for me.

Btw I like the Keith Richards quote in your signature. Did he say it in some interview or is it one of those quotes that fly around the world without any source?

Shut up, bitch.

That's cool.

Probably the latter. I found it on a site for quotes.

:eek: Well kiss my dupa.

I see what you did there :beer:

So explain how you believe it works.

We can do a semantics (philosophy of meaning) thread if you like, and I'll explain how meaning does and doesn't work for you, where you can argue with me all you like, and in infinite patience I'll keep working on your understanding until you finally do understand or until you give up, but maybe there's a more appropriate subforum for it here? Do we have an off-topic subforum?

I've never bought that story, by the way.

I already explained the problems with your scant sources. I can explain it again, although you'll just repeat the above again, of course.

There are serious philosophical problems with the views fueling the belief that sexism, racism, etc. are rampant at present. I'm more than happy to get into as detailed of a discussion about that as you'd like to get into. (But again, we should probably do it in an off-topic subforum if we have one.)

Nice try

Odds on whether I expected you to actually provide an explanation of how you believe it works?

I can't guarantee that I'd want to partake in such a discussion (I'm here for enjoyment and am somewhat selective), but if you do create that thread in the current events, philosophy & religion forum, I'll at least take a look at it. I'm fairly sure it'll get at least a few pages worth of discussion (with or without my participation).

I don't need to. The only thing that's relevant is that it works, which you just demonstrated by understanding my sarcasm even though I didn't explicitly state it

Communication doesn't work via literally knowing someone's meaning, intent, etc.

You don't think that I'd have the views I do but not be able to account for how communication works, do you?

MB Forum Functions You Never Knew Existed

Let's try to keep these pages a bit cleaner, folks.

Communication can be used to sense someone's meaning or intent, like you sensed my sarcasm. I'm ignoring the 'literally' because that's just lame
I wouldn't be surprised, but I really don't care whether you do or not

Communicating with someone where you don't care what their views are. That's brilliant.

I don't think most people are interested in relitigating the past five years of the internet with yet another autistic kid.

Okay.

Sure. I'd be more likely to start it if I know someone is actually interested enough to participate though (without just being snarky--which isn't about you, just my general experience with such things).

You're ****'s gonna keep getting merged dude.