Charli XCX

[Valentino 885]

1. Nuclear Seasons

2. Set Me Free

3. Heatwave

4. Sucker

5. Superlove

6. You (ha ha ha)

7. Breaking Up

 

I only recently got into Charli so excuse the lack of songs.

[HEARTCORE 18,971]

1. Breaking Up

2. Sucker

3. You (Ha Ha Ha)

4. Allergic To Love

5. Money (That's What I Want)

6. Body of My Own

7. Need Ur Luv

8. Gold Coins

9. So Far Away

10. You're The One

 

 

 

i really do like True Romance, but I just find Sucker a lot more cohesive as an album & cleverer as an album

 

[heartbreakhigh 739]

i made these just because i was bored and thought i would share (listen with headphones!!!) the acoustic version of superlove plays in the left ear and the studio plays in the right 

 

https://soundcloud.com/virtuallie/superlove-split

 

i also made one of need ur luv with the live/studio versions but its not as good as the superlove one

 

https://soundcloud.com/virtuallie/need-ur-luv-split 

[comeintomybedroom 8,662]

Oh yeah did you guys notice she posted official SuperLove lyrics on Soundcloud?

 

 

YOU'RE WHISKEY WASTED AND BEAUTIFUL DANCING THROUGH THE FIRE
YOU'RE SUCH A VISION TO SEE
I USED TO THINK THAT THE POWER OF LOVE WAS JUST A SONG
BUT NOW IT'S GOT HOLD OF ME

S.O.S IS IT ME OR IS THIS DANGEROUS
KILL ME WITH YOUR TOUCH 
YOU'RE SMOKING THROUGH MY BLOOD
R.I.P SET ME FREE YEAH THIS IS DANGEROUS
I CAN'T GET ENOUGH

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE
YEAH MY HEART NEVER WANTS IT TO STOP
PLEASE SAVE ME
COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH
YOU'RE THE BULLET AND YOU'RE MAKING ME DROP
PLEASE SAVE ME
SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE
COZ MY BODY IS A GHOST FOR YOU
I'M WAITING
DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

FEELS LIKE I'M TRIPPING I'M FALLING HARD FROM THE HIGHEST HEIGHTS
WHEN I CRASH WHERE WILL YOU BE?
I THINK YOUR HAIR LOOKS MUCH BETTER PUSHED OVER TO ONE SIDE
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT ME?

S.O.S THIS IS REAL AND THIS IS DANGEROUS
YOUR MY FAVOURITE DRUG
I'LL SMOKE YOU IN THE CLUB
R.I.P WHAT A DREAM YOU'RE SO DAMN DANGEROUS
I CAN'T GET ENOUGH

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE
YEAH MY HEART NEVER WANTS IT TO STOP
PLEASE SAVE ME
COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH
YOU'RE THE BULLET AND YOU'RE MAKING ME DROP
PLEASE SAVE ME
SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE
COZ MY BODY IS A GHOST FOR YOU
I'M WAITING
DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE
COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH
SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE
I'M WAITING
DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

 

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE
YEAH MY HEART NEVER WANTS IT TO STOP
PLEASE SAVE ME
COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH
YOU'RE THE BULLET AND YOU'RE MAKING ME DROP
PLEASE SAVE ME
SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE
COZ MY BODY IS A GHOST FOR YOU
I'M WAITING
DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

 

 

Kinda dissappointed with

when i fall into your superlove vs wanna fall into your superlove // coz my body is a ghost for you vs kiss my body as it glows for you

 

Did all of the promo cds contain the shorter version of the song? I'm not v fond of the non intro.

[Sucker 7,916]

Oh yeah did you guys notice she posted official SuperLove lyrics on Soundcloud?

 

 

YOU'RE WHISKEY WASTED AND BEAUTIFUL DANCING THROUGH THE FIRE

YOU'RE SUCH A VISION TO SEE

I USED TO THINK THAT THE POWER OF LOVE WAS JUST A SONG

BUT NOW IT'S GOT HOLD OF ME

S.O.S IS IT ME OR IS THIS DANGEROUS

KILL ME WITH YOUR TOUCH 

YOU'RE SMOKING THROUGH MY BLOOD

R.I.P SET ME FREE YEAH THIS IS DANGEROUS

I CAN'T GET ENOUGH

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE

YEAH MY HEART NEVER WANTS IT TO STOP

PLEASE SAVE ME

COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH

YOU'RE THE BULLET AND YOU'RE MAKING ME DROP

PLEASE SAVE ME

SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE

COZ MY BODY IS A GHOST FOR YOU

I'M WAITING

DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

FEELS LIKE I'M TRIPPING I'M FALLING HARD FROM THE HIGHEST HEIGHTS

WHEN I CRASH WHERE WILL YOU BE?

I THINK YOUR HAIR LOOKS MUCH BETTER PUSHED OVER TO ONE SIDE

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT ME?

S.O.S THIS IS REAL AND THIS IS DANGEROUS

YOUR MY FAVOURITE DRUG

I'LL SMOKE YOU IN THE CLUB

R.I.P WHAT A DREAM YOU'RE SO DAMN DANGEROUS

I CAN'T GET ENOUGH

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE

YEAH MY HEART NEVER WANTS IT TO STOP

PLEASE SAVE ME

COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH

YOU'RE THE BULLET AND YOU'RE MAKING ME DROP

PLEASE SAVE ME

SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE

COZ MY BODY IS A GHOST FOR YOU

I'M WAITING

DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE

COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH

SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE

I'M WAITING

DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

 

WHEN I FALL INTO YOUR SUPERLOVE

YEAH MY HEART NEVER WANTS IT TO STOP

PLEASE SAVE ME

COZ I NEVER SEEM TO GET ENOUGH

YOU'RE THE BULLET AND YOU'RE MAKING ME DROP

PLEASE SAVE ME

SO GIVE ME ALL OF YOUR SUPERLOVE

COZ MY BODY IS A GHOST FOR YOU

I'M WAITING

DIE HERE IN YOUR ARMS FALLING IN LOVE WITH YOU

 

 

Kinda dissappointed with

when i fall into your superlove vs wanna fall into your superlove // coz my body is a ghost for you vs kiss my body as it glows for you

 

Did all of the promo cds contain the shorter version of the song? I'm not v fond of the non intro.

 

I've never heard the non-intro version.. Could you post it, please?

[rways 405]

Need Ur Luv just keeps on growing on me, I mean it's just so PERFECT 

[iseeyouupsidedown 931]

Oh my god not it being "coz my body is a ghost for you" not "kiss my body as it glows for you"

 

That's such a life changer lol

[HEARTCORE 18,971]

i thought it was "cause my body is so close to you"

[evilentity 13,351]

Normally I leave the Charli thread to the XCX-philes (Charli's Angels is such a lame fanbase name), and I hate to resurrect an old argument, but I was too busy to respond properly earlier, and I just couldn't let this go unaddressed. I'm also posting this on my blog which is probably a more appropriate venue for further discussion since the issue at hand has little to do with the thread topic.
 

Racism is systematic oppression. White people are not oppressed. White people can be oppressed because of their gender, sexuality etc., but not their skin colour. Therefore, reverse racism or racism towards white people does not exist.

I'm sorry but if you think racism can happen to white people in a first world country then you're mistaken.

There's a HUGE difference between discrimination and oppresion, how ignorant can you be. Racism does not exist for white people.

Apparently it's become fashionable to redefine "racism" narrowly such that only systemic racism is racism: that it must include some dynamic of power or oppression or it is not racism. I've seen this idea and various forms of it (its supposed corollaries that only white people can be racist and that POC cannot be) recurring on this forum leading to contentious arguments. This problem is not unique to our forum. I highly recommend reading this academic paper in Social Work magazine about conflicts over defining "racism", which lays out the histories of the original definition of the word and the revisionist one and conflicts over the definitions, examines the arguments on each side, and makes recommendations:
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf

In addition to the arguments against the revisionist definition explored in the article, I'd also like to offer my own. I find this notion problematic (and even pernicious) for reasons linguistic, logical, practical, and pedagogical:

• It is not intellectually rigorous. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that proponents of the redefinition do not apply it consistently or in an intellectually rigorous way. Even if one accepts the definition that racism is prejudice plus power (R=P+P), and exclusively that, it does not follow that POC cannot be racist or that only white people can be racist. White people may have substantially more power in most contexts, but it is simply untrue (and in fact infantilizing) to suggest that POC have no power or that there is no context in which POC have sufficient power to enforce whatever prejudices they might have. Considered in a vacuum, even the appeal to authority via invocation of victim status employed to enforce this definition ironically creates what proponents of this definition insist does not exist: a sphere in which the oppressed do have a kind of power over the privileged, the power to judge the ideas of the privileged based not on their merits or content, but the color of their skin or privileged status. Of course, this does not happen in a vacuum, and one could argue that this is a comparatively minor injustice and perhaps a justifiable counterbalance. But a principled argument for fairness or equality it is not. Two wrongs do not make a right.
  
  The R=P+P formulation also does not address racism between similarly situated groups. Racism can exist between two minority groups or between two privileged groups. An Asian-American calling an African-American ":)" is racist. An African-American calling an Asian-American a "chink" or a "gook" is racist. Similarly, the area I grew up in was heavily populated by Dutch Protestant and Polish Catholic immigrants, two white privileged groups. It was commonplace for each group to tell jokes about the other (often the same jokes with ethnicities reversed, usually about how dumb the other group was). Though relatively harmless, these jokes were properly considered racist and reflected real divisions and tensions. (When my grandfather kicked my aunt out of the house he was as upset that she was knocked up by and would have to shotgun marry a Polish Catholic as he was upset about the fact that she was knocked up.) More serious examples of racism between similarly situated groups exist or have existed around the world.
• It removes a perfectly good term from a useful context. People have used the word "racism" in the attitudinal sense since the word was coined decades ago and it rather neatly describes that, more specifically than "prejudice" and more succintly than "racial prejudice". There is nothing inherently problematic about using the word "racism" this way. Why should people who have used the word this way all their life suddenly have to stop using it that way?
• It distances the word from its etymological roots. Etymologically, "racism" clearly falls into a category of -ism words (like nationalism, tribalism, regionalism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, etc.) coined to describe prejudicial ideologies that discriminate on the basis of their root word. While many of these words can also refer to systems than enforce these ideologies, they all are used to describe the attitudes and beliefs underpinning them. Narrowly redefining any of these terms (similar efforts are underway with "sexism") to only mean the systems or power structures that enforce these ideologies distances them from their etymological roots.
• It's unnecessary to describe the phenomena it seeks to describe. The English language is a rich language. It's not as if it is so impoverished that revisionist proponents must "steal" a word in order to have a term to describe systemic racism or racial oppression or racist power structures. See? I just used three different phrases that describe this concept quite adequately.
• It's unnecessary to highlight systemic racism by whites against POC or to distinguish it from non-systemic racism against whites by blacks. Redefinition of words is not required to make people understand that systemic racism by whites against POC exists and is a much bigger deal than racist attitudes by POC against whites and take it seriously. Some people may be privileged or lack experiential knowledge of systemic racism, but that doesn't mean they're dense.
• It smacks of downplaying or excusing racism against other people by POC. Racism, like torture, is a taboo word. Redefining racism in this way is literally lifting a taboo on POC's own racial prejudices.
• It creates a semantic argument where no argument exists about the underlying phenomena. No reasonable person on either side of this issue disagrees that all people are capable of racial prejudice and that it is really bad, and that there is systemic racism that primarily affects POC and is far, far worse. We all agree. Yet here we are having an argument about it nonetheless.
• It creates a situation in which one side dismisses the other if it does not accept its definitions. This does nothing to promote dialogue, understanding, or good will. I couldn't care less if someone else employs the word "racism" exclusively in the systemic sense in their own writing or speech. But don't start an argument with someone if they use the word in the more general attitudinal sense or insist that they are using it wrong and that they must only use it in the systemic sense. If it causes you that much of a problem, just mentally replace "racism" with "racial prejudice" in what they're saying and carry on. At a very minimum, those who wield this narrow definition of racism should at least be intellectually honest about it and acknowledge the fact that their definition is a revisionist one and act with humility towards those who do not accept their redefinition rather than seeking to bully or shame them into accepting it or labeling them or dismissing them if they do not.
• It alienates many people from a position of support. That isn't to say we shouldn't tell hard truths to people because they might not want to hear it. But this isn't about truth, it's about semantics. We can describe the truth of race relations without this redefinition, a redefinition that obscures truth, in my view. Insisting that people must dogmatically accept your vocabulary isn't going to make people very receptive to your message. Telling white people that racism should be redefined such that only white people can be racist and that non-white people can't be is going to turn many of them off. As Chris Rock said in a recent interview, racial progress is "not black progress. That's white progress." "White people were crazy. Now they're not as crazy." If you want white people to understand how they're still "crazy" or the system is still "crazy", alienating them unnecessarily is not helpful.
• It is propagandistic dogma. We should be very skeptical of any de facto attempt to define-- and especially to redefine-- an action X such that it is only X if committed by Y people (e.g. terrorism and Muslims) or that it is not X if committed by Z people (e.g. torture and Americans). Orwell warned of the dangers of revisionism in 1984 and the abuse of language for political purposes in his essay "Politics and the English Language. In Animal Farm he illustrated the tendency of movements to corrupt and begin to emulate that which they were originally opposed to and to justify "[t]hings... which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties". Movements, even those generally on the right side of an issue, have a tendency towards the masturbatory, to become insular, to crawl so far up their own asshole with their own jargon and dogma that they become unable to communicate with those outside their in-group-- to express their ideas in a way that others can understand or to listen to criticism from others.

Finally, some responses to specific comments:
 

"Prejudice" is a better word than "racism" to use in this context because it is more widely recognized. I.e. also in academic circles But intellectual elitists and their wannabes do not get to dictate what is the common understanding of words. As anyone who has studied language will acknowledge, meaning is fluid. When I notice I have more privilege in a given area, I try to give the other person room to lead the way in deciding how to frame the conversation. But dictating terms is not helpful. It is monologue, the opposite of dialogue.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of this except the first sentence. "Racism" is the best word to use because avoiding a commonly understood definition of racism is to cede the argument to the revisionists which is pernicious for the reasons I outlined above.
 

Prejudice is the word I was looking for, I'll go back and edit my posts to be more politically correct then.

No, don't be bullied into this revisionism. Racism is precisely the word you're looking for. Systemic racism or racial oppression or some such phrase are the words revisionists should be looking for rather than seeking to redefine a word and impose acceptance of that redefinition upon others.
 

I was literally screaming and about to have an aneurism trying to explain racism to my white family who thinks racism just means hating someone because of their skin color.

Perhaps this is because racism can just mean hating someone because of their skin color yet you insisted they accept an extremely problematic and unnecessary redefinition of the word to exclusively mean systemic racism. Big surprise this turned into a shouting match.
 

And I don't think you're stupid, but since you are white you cannot justify what you believe to be racist, it's up to the oppressed group to decide what is racist.

What if, as is the case, many oppressed people agree with many white people on one definition, and many other oppressed people and many other white people agree on another? As an oppressed person, you're entitled to define your experience of systemic racism and are able to do so in a way a privileged person cannot. But you're not entitled to your own facts. Or in this case, your own definitions. Oppressed people obviously have a better experiential understanding of racism. But they do not have a monopoly on understanding any issue ethically, philosophically, or conceptually, which is precisely what defining words or categorizing behavior is concerned with. I don't think even someone's status as an oppressed person should allow them to dictate terms of a debate or put their idea or actions beyond questioning. Frankly, we should be very wary of attempts to do that in any context.

Also, to posit that only victims of racism can define racism is a classic case of circular reasoning and a Catch-22: We can't define racism without defining who is and isn't a victim or racism, but how can we define who is or is not a victim of racism without first defining what is and is not racism?
 

@@iseeyouupsidedown you're white so I didn't even read your opinion :~)

This is actually a textbook example of racism (or racial prejudice for those that insist upon the revisionist definition): That someone's ideas can be dismissed regardless of their merits on account of the color of their skin.

[HEARTCORE 18,971]

I'm still holding out for So Over You and the full version of Rollercoaster

 

EDIT: Someone made an extended version of Rollercoaster

[drewby 9,249]

I'm still holding out for So Over You and the full version of Rollercoaster

 

EDIT: Someone made an extended version of Rollercoaster

 

only 19 days max until we have So Over You

[iseeyouupsidedown 931]

@@evilentity I don't have time to read that now but I look forward to it. However they were arguing that it's ONLY racism when you hate them, and somehow my grandfather who says the N word practically daily doesn't think he's racist.

 

Every square is a rectangle, not every rectangle is a square.

[comeintomybedroom 8,662]

Omg you guys! Don't start! Nobody wants to watch the Whites discuss what they believe is racist and whatnot! Or whatever White, straight, 30-something year old evilentity is yapping about up there!

[drewby 9,249]

Omg you guys! Don't start! Nobody wants to watch the Whites discuss what they believe is racist and whatnot! Or whatever White, straight, 30-something year old evilentity is yapping about up there!

 

I hope this entire post is sarcastic 

anyway. Let's not have a discussion about this particular thing anymore

[Hundred Dollar Bill 21,809]

[comeintomybedroom 8,662]

do these two know each other?

 

 

 #tbt me and @yunglean2001 getting apple juice like thugs

 

[HEARTCORE 18,971]

Do we know which tracks are SUCKER outtakes and which ones are TR outtakes? I'm just trying to update my iTunes and I hate having loads of songs as "Unreleased".

[comeintomybedroom 8,662]

Do we know which tracks are SUCKER outtakes and which ones are TR outtakes? I'm just trying to update my iTunes and I hate having loads of songs as "Unreleased".

We don't have any Sucker outtakes. As for True Romance, I guess everything we have, after 14, was gonna be on her debut album at one point. There are a lot of songs that we haven't even heard. TR has been in the works since at least 08. I just have all of the 'loose' tracks organized by year in one album.

[HEARTCORE 18,971]

We don't have any Sucker outtakes. As for True Romance, I guess everything we have, after 14, was gonna be on her debut album at one point. There are a lot of songs that we haven't even heard. TR has been in the works since at least 08. I just have all of the 'loose' tracks organized by year in one album.

 

Thanks! Regarding TR, I mean songs that we definitely intended for the album as it stands now, but just missed the final cut. So in Lana's case, for example, this would be You Can Be The Boss & Kinda Outta Luck.

[comeintomybedroom 8,662]

Thanks! Regarding TR, I mean songs that we definitely intended for the album as it stands now, but just missed the final cut. So in Lana's case, for example, this would be You Can Be The Boss & Kinda Outta Luck.

Well I think Interior and Heartbreak High are the only songs that make sense as outtakes. We know of Mess, Midnight, and I think there's an album title song but we'll never get those. I don't think anyone knows for sure what the 3 more recent leaks, I Don't Know Your Name etc., were for. I think somebody said they were going to be given away.