3 ms·

> It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s

by least 3y ago

> It’s totally the opposite. John absolutely did care what the others thought, that’s exactly why he brought her there. He knew it would bother them, and that’s exactly what he intended and cared to do. He wasn’t unconcerned whether they would feel one way or another. He was entirely aware he was pushing boundaries, and he was doing it to see where he stood with the other band members, and how bad they wanted/needed him. Once again, I think your perspective reflects a lack of emotional development w/r/t how you imagine Yoko and John i.e. that they are simply just self-obsessed and oblivious to anything besides their own desires. It’s clearly the opposite, John knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it and the risks it brought. I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. > think that your bandmate’s partner owes you more than she owes your bandmate and that to do otherwise would just reflect not caring or being “dense”. I’d like to think you’d be a better partner to a potential better half of yours, but hey, clearly you don’t care! I hope they don’t either! I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art.

freejazz 3y ago
>I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. >I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. >Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art. She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.
- least 3y ago
  > I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. It's almost as if people are capable of doing things under one pretense while their aim is another. The NY Times' article's author certainly seems to think that Yoko had ulterior motives, not that it matters, since the discussion stems from you being unable to understand why people would be annoyed with Yoko, despite the fact that they were. > But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. I'm not really inserting any hypothetical. She was in the studio. She annoyed the other Beatles, as confirmed by one of the other Beatles. > She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here. She injected herself in things outside of John and the Beatles. I'm sure you know this because you seem to be a fan of hers... but also because of this, you probably think she wasn't. You seem to be incredulous that anyone could be annoyed with her, which is your own personal failing. The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    You completely misrepresent things. I totally understand why someone would be annoyed by Yoko’s presence, that doesn’t justify them making it an issue with her. I'm annoyed that my boss had someone share an office with me, but I blame my boss not that individual. Are you 5 years old or something? I already explained this to you when I said if my bandmate’s gf showed up, I would not sit there seething at her, nor would I blame her. Are you saying there is something wrong with that response? It seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Yet you are insisting I should be seething and angry at her, while also insisting you are emotionally well balanced to make these kind of judgments? Clearly you aren’t. You are angry, resentful, and spiteful. Clearly. The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else, while ignoring the most obvious primary motivation, and one that would take place over everything else you suggest. It's just baffling that you can be this emotionally stunted to be like "why didn't she just instead ignore her lover, husband, future father of her children, in order to appease people that did not otherwise express anything to her?" Do you really make decisions like that in real life? So now you are talking about things besides get back? And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread. And who cares what the article stated about her motivation? There is so much media about this, plenty of it contradicts you. Also, so does common sense. What did she achieve by inserting herself in there? No one even really knew or cared (save for some extreme fans) until the get back release came out last year... get a grip. And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments. At least have some self respect and bow out or just agree to disagree, rather than flat-out lying about what we’ve debated in order to get a slam-dunk last word. >”The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.” The reality is that I’ve only ever argued whether or not it was justified, not whether or not someone was annoyed. Whether or not they were annoyed isn’t really up for a debate, now is it? If you are going to respond again, at least do it in good faith.

by least 3y ago

freejazz 3y ago

>I find it remarkable that you wrote all this out and didn't once think that this is remarkably selfish, self serving, and narcissistic. Most people would condemn this type of behavior, but you're trying to elevate it into something greater than what it is. Stop proselytizing. I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. >I think that there's a time and place for things. If you're in a space to write music with your band then you defer to what is good for the band. If I'm visiting their home, that's a completely different story and I defer to what they want, because that's their space. But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. >Yoko has done this a lot throughout her career. She's injected herself in places that she clearly wasn't welcome and made it about her. Perhaps she is making an artistic statement but it hardly matters, because in doing so she's disrupting everyone else who in some cases often are trying to make their own art. She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here.

least 3y ago
> I don't think so at all, because it's not in service of the self, it's service of their partner. Maybe you are projecting. It's almost as if people are capable of doing things under one pretense while their aim is another. The NY Times' article's author certainly seems to think that Yoko had ulterior motives, not that it matters, since the discussion stems from you being unable to understand why people would be annoyed with Yoko, despite the fact that they were. > But a band member invited her in. You keep inserting your own version of a hypothetical that totally runs against what actually happened. I'm not really inserting any hypothetical. She was in the studio. She annoyed the other Beatles, as confirmed by one of the other Beatles. > She didn't inject herself. John literally told her he needed her there, I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand about this. Seems like you don't even understand the concept of an invitation, which makes total sense to me given your behavior here. She injected herself in things outside of John and the Beatles. I'm sure you know this because you seem to be a fan of hers... but also because of this, you probably think she wasn't. You seem to be incredulous that anyone could be annoyed with her, which is your own personal failing. The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.
- freejazz 3y ago
  You completely misrepresent things. I totally understand why someone would be annoyed by Yoko’s presence, that doesn’t justify them making it an issue with her. I'm annoyed that my boss had someone share an office with me, but I blame my boss not that individual. Are you 5 years old or something? I already explained this to you when I said if my bandmate’s gf showed up, I would not sit there seething at her, nor would I blame her. Are you saying there is something wrong with that response? It seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Yet you are insisting I should be seething and angry at her, while also insisting you are emotionally well balanced to make these kind of judgments? Clearly you aren’t. You are angry, resentful, and spiteful. Clearly. The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else, while ignoring the most obvious primary motivation, and one that would take place over everything else you suggest. It's just baffling that you can be this emotionally stunted to be like "why didn't she just instead ignore her lover, husband, future father of her children, in order to appease people that did not otherwise express anything to her?" Do you really make decisions like that in real life? So now you are talking about things besides get back? And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread. And who cares what the article stated about her motivation? There is so much media about this, plenty of it contradicts you. Also, so does common sense. What did she achieve by inserting herself in there? No one even really knew or cared (save for some extreme fans) until the get back release came out last year... get a grip. And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments. At least have some self respect and bow out or just agree to disagree, rather than flat-out lying about what we’ve debated in order to get a slam-dunk last word. >”The reality is people were, regardless of whether or not it was justified in your head.” The reality is that I’ve only ever argued whether or not it was justified, not whether or not someone was annoyed. Whether or not they were annoyed isn’t really up for a debate, now is it? If you are going to respond again, at least do it in good faith.