Tristesse

Ugh. There is absolutly no impact here. 
It is intellectually untenable to prohibit poetry (and literature in general) from using certain words on the pretext that they designate, in their primary meaning, historical or current facts that would offend the persons concerned. I know that I am supposed to provide arguments here to support my point of view, but it is really difficult because I find it so absurd that such things have to be demonstrated.   The most dramatic thing is that here the word that offends you is "colonization", a word that is part of the history of all human populations without exception (because all of them have colonized or have been colonized), but especially because this word has long been used in a figurative sense. Its use is in no way linked to any crime whatsoever, nor is it a word that it would be unfortunate to use in relation to people who would suffer today from the evils that accompany a process of colonization - whether you like it or not. I would have understood the hesitation if she had made an express reference to crimes related to colonization, but here this is not the case at all.    There is in your arguments an unfortunate mixture of illiteracy and confusion in your political commitments. You have never been colonized in the slightest, and if you were, you would have much more reason to be offended than bad poetry, which has nothing to do with it.

I still do not believe those are connected but hey, we're free to see things the way we want

You did not understand my point at all, sadly. I may have not made it clear enough. 
My point was, and still is, that the use of the term "colonize" in a poem has absolutely nothing to do with any of these issues. Because a word has multiple significations. You are absolutely off-topic since the beginning and fighting an imaginary enemy.
 
It is NOT "referencing native american issues".
 
 
You clearly do not know how to read and to interpret things. It is bad. English may not be your first english (it is not mine either), but there is no excuse for trying to making me look like I actually support colonization. You do not have to do this if you do not agree with my point which has absolutly nothing to do with supporting/condemning/ackowledging colonization.

You did not understand my point at all, sadly. I may have not made it clear enough. 
My point was, and still is, that the use of the term "colonize" in a poem has absolutely nothing to do with any of these issues. Because a word has multiple significations. You are absolutely off-topic since the beginning and fighting an imaginary enemy.
 
It is NOT "referencing native american issues".
 
 
You clearly do not know how to read and to interpret things. It is bad. English may not be your first english (it is not mine either), but there is no excuse for trying to making me look like I actually support colonization. You do not have to do this if you do not agree with my point which has absolutly nothing to do with supporting/condemning/ackowledging colonization.

Ugh. There is absolutly no impact here. 
It is intellectually untenable to prohibit poetry (and literature in general) from using certain words on the pretext that they designate, in their primary meaning, historical or current facts that would offend the persons concerned. I know that I am supposed to provide arguments here to support my point of view, but it is really difficult because I find it so absurd that such things have to be demonstrated.   The most dramatic thing is that here the word that offends you is "colonization", a word that is part of the history of all human populations without exception (because all of them have colonized or have been colonized), but especially because this word has long been used in a figurative sense. Its use is in no way linked to any crime whatsoever, nor is it a word that it would be unfortunate to use in relation to people who would suffer today from the evils that accompany a process of colonization - whether you like it or not. I would have understood the hesitation if she had made an express reference to crimes related to colonization, but here this is not the case at all.    There is in your arguments an unfortunate mixture of illiteracy and confusion in your political commitments. You have never been colonized in the slightest, and if you were, you would have much more reason to be offended than bad poetry, which has nothing to do with it.

Ugh. There is absolutly no impact here. 
It is intellectually untenable to prohibit poetry (and literature in general) from using certain words on the pretext that they designate, in their primary meaning, historical or current facts that would offend the persons concerned. I know that I am supposed to provide arguments here to support my point of view, but it is really difficult because I find it so absurd that such things have to be demonstrated.   The most dramatic thing is that here the word that offends you is "colonization", a word that is part of the history of all human populations without exception (because all of them have colonized or have been colonized), but especially because this word has long been used in a figurative sense. Its use is in no way linked to any crime whatsoever, nor is it a word that it would be unfortunate to use in relation to people who would suffer today from the evils that accompany a process of colonization - whether you like it or not. I would have understood the hesitation if she had made an express reference to crimes related to colonization, but here this is not the case at all.    There is in your arguments an unfortunate mixture of illiteracy and confusion in your political commitments. You have never been colonized in the slightest, and if you were, you would have much more reason to be offended than bad poetry, which has nothing to do with it.

You did not understand my point at all, sadly. I may have not made it clear enough. 
My point was, and still is, that the use of the term "colonize" in a poem has absolutely nothing to do with any of these issues. Because a word has multiple significations. You are absolutely off-topic since the beginning and fighting an imaginary enemy.
 
It is NOT "referencing native american issues".
 
 
You clearly do not know how to read and to interpret things. It is bad. English may not be your first english (it is not mine either), but there is no excuse for trying to making me look like I actually support colonization. You do not have to do this if you do not agree with my point which has absolutly nothing to do with supporting/condemning/ackowledging colonization.

I want Bernie to win as much as anybody else, but electoral disinformation ain't cute. I want him to win fair and square. User has been warned for this post.

Ugh. There is absolutly no impact here. 
It is intellectually untenable to prohibit poetry (and literature in general) from using certain words on the pretext that they designate, in their primary meaning, historical or current facts that would offend the persons concerned. I know that I am supposed to provide arguments here to support my point of view, but it is really difficult because I find it so absurd that such things have to be demonstrated.   The most dramatic thing is that here the word that offends you is "colonization", a word that is part of the history of all human populations without exception (because all of them have colonized or have been colonized), but especially because this word has long been used in a figurative sense. Its use is in no way linked to any crime whatsoever, nor is it a word that it would be unfortunate to use in relation to people who would suffer today from the evils that accompany a process of colonization - whether you like it or not. I would have understood the hesitation if she had made an express reference to crimes related to colonization, but here this is not the case at all.    There is in your arguments an unfortunate mixture of illiteracy and confusion in your political commitments. You have never been colonized in the slightest, and if you were, you would have much more reason to be offended than bad poetry, which has nothing to do with it.

Ugh. There is absolutly no impact here. 
It is intellectually untenable to prohibit poetry (and literature in general) from using certain words on the pretext that they designate, in their primary meaning, historical or current facts that would offend the persons concerned. I know that I am supposed to provide arguments here to support my point of view, but it is really difficult because I find it so absurd that such things have to be demonstrated.   The most dramatic thing is that here the word that offends you is "colonization", a word that is part of the history of all human populations without exception (because all of them have colonized or have been colonized), but especially because this word has long been used in a figurative sense. Its use is in no way linked to any crime whatsoever, nor is it a word that it would be unfortunate to use in relation to people who would suffer today from the evils that accompany a process of colonization - whether you like it or not. I would have understood the hesitation if she had made an express reference to crimes related to colonization, but here this is not the case at all.    There is in your arguments an unfortunate mixture of illiteracy and confusion in your political commitments. You have never been colonized in the slightest, and if you were, you would have much more reason to be offended than bad poetry, which has nothing to do with it.

It has been absolutely hilarious to read this thread in the past 2 days. These people triggered over poetic word usage is the best.

Jesus Christ, why all this over-analysing after some poetry she posted? Some of you are nurturing hate towards her like it feeds you.
I wouldn't be on a fan forum just to judge every move an artist makes.
Her intention is not to insult native americans, calling her racist is too much.
I can't take this anymore.

Do you even know what poetry is... 

I'm not a poet or anything, but I don't want to give up the ability to use words flexibly (e.g. "leak holocaust" does that sound familiar to anyone?). That's just what words do. I think what she's trying to do in her post is talk about how depression "invades" her well being and what her counters for that are; hence, the first thing I did with my exploratory post about it was bring up Marina's thank you from L + F (as Marina talked about her depression a lot between Froot and L+F). So she's expressing a "life hack" for depression, not a politically, historically, and/or ethnically correct point, so I'm cutting her some slack. But I do appreciate the explanations for why the word triggers people as I'm insensitive (too), but now I'm a little more sensitive. However, I don't think she wants to compare her suffering to the general suffering humanity inflicts upon itself, and therefore I don't interpret her words, or her, as doing that. Also I don't think it's a response about her current boyfriend (not that I'd mind). It seems more about her relationship with fame in general.

reset ? lol 
It's nothing original

reset ? lol 
It's nothing original

She looks like herself in 2006

I have no idea why I think she looks hot asf

I remember thinking How To Disappear had been ruined when I first heard the album version but love love love love it now. 

Don't know where else to post this, but this is the Young Like Me cd artwork featuring the official tracklist.
 
 

Even the world's best doctor cannot cure a flu lol

Uuuh, what an amazing album, though. The production is of great refinement. I can't believe my fave just paved the way for a new decade of music just like she did almost 10 years ago. I'm a privileged white male by the way

I find it very strange that she hasn't said anything yet idk, i believe her but it kinda makes me think that maybe there's something else going on. Although lately she seemed excited, i remember that video she posted when norman came out in which she said she wanted to keep doing things, idk like she is even recording the new album, and btw this last week she's been posting things on ig and it seemed that she was fine so it's weird, she is usually very nice with us but this is so unprofessional tbh 

Our tastes still differ, obviously.
I think it's a mistake to call a production "subpar" as if it were something objectively quantifiable on a certain scale. It's an art that we're talking about here: there is no such thing as a perfect production in the absolute, it wouldn't make sense in that it's not an end in itself.
 
This kind of argument reminds me of those made in the 19th century by the defenders of the academic style against the nascent impressionist movement: visible brushstrokes, garish colours... Nothing to do with the impeccable precision of classical paintings.
 
Because in the end, whether in painting or music, it is not the so-called perfection of the production that counts, but the emotions transmitted. A more messy medium, which looks less worked but in fact is just as much or even more worked, can bring a lot of depth to a music.
That's precisely what I like about NFR. That impeccable minimalism, the balance between silence and instruments that yet gives a warm and rich sound. The relative imperfection you criticize in the album, to me, it creates more closeness between the listener and the music, as if I was in the studio with them. It brings me closer to the emotions.
 
In short, what an incredible album.

Our tastes still differ, obviously.
I think it's a mistake to call a production "subpar" as if it were something objectively quantifiable on a certain scale. It's an art that we're talking about here: there is no such thing as a perfect production in the absolute, it wouldn't make sense in that it's not an end in itself.
 
This kind of argument reminds me of those made in the 19th century by the defenders of the academic style against the nascent impressionist movement: visible brushstrokes, garish colours... Nothing to do with the impeccable precision of classical paintings.
 
Because in the end, whether in painting or music, it is not the so-called perfection of the production that counts, but the emotions transmitted. A more messy medium, which looks less worked but in fact is just as much or even more worked, can bring a lot of depth to a music.
That's precisely what I like about NFR. That impeccable minimalism, the balance between silence and instruments that yet gives a warm and rich sound. The relative imperfection you criticize in the album, to me, it creates more closeness between the listener and the music, as if I was in the studio with them. It brings me closer to the emotions.
 
In short, what an incredible album.