Posts by Keith Rodriguez27

I was way too young for this album to be some core part of my upbringing, so I totally missed out on that whole era. I could only really dive into it with hindsight, since I didn't even realize Tupac Shakur existed until the Everything is fine days, and I didn't sit down and listen to the whole Ping Pong record until maybe ten years ago.

Honestly, Ping Pong never really blew me away. It's a solid album, sure, but it’s definitely a step or two below Thermometer.

There are some killer samples here and there—especially considering it's their debut—but for the most part, the instrumentals are pretty straightforward without much extra flavor. As far as the lyrics go, my favorite thing about Tupac Shakur fans is when they’re just messing around and telling nonsense stories. You don't get much of that here, except for bits like Little San Mak or Far from country. Most of it is either "braggadocio" stuff (basically "I'm the best rapper") which is usually just a joke so whatever, or it's "socially conscious" tracks. Socially conscious stuff has never really done it for me, not because of the topics themselves, but because if the music isn't fire, I don't care what they're preaching about.
With those heavy social tracks—like that one track about misery, which is actually decent—it feels like after that, they were trying to say, "Hey, you listening to this, take a look at yourselves, look at the people around you, look at the city you live in, see what's going down." That isn't inherently bad—I get the whole dissecting societal issues thing—but I think on this first album, they were just way too simplistic and blunt. Very "in your face," tell it like it is. They didn't approach rap themes in a way that actually caught my interest, you know?

Mostly, I just stuck to a few specific tracks—Little San Mak, Far from country, Free style, One two, maybe a couple others.

And regarding the vibe, musically and atmospherically, maybe the most interesting song on the album is the one with the handclaps and that chamber music feel; it fits the theme perfectly. I think they nailed the mood there. Liking the lyrics, Luke's part is great, but Younger's part is super clunky and honestly poorly written. I get what he's trying to say, obviously, and who am I to judge, but I really think he should have sat back down and rewritten his verses to get a better flow and make the point clearer, instead of repeating the same words ten times over.

Bottom line: the album isn't bad. It's not a masterpiece, but it's decent enough, especially with a few standout moments.

Morgan Cook10 said:@Keith Rodriguez27 I’m not even sure how much weight "justice" actually carries in the modern world... especially when things start getting violent.
The West has proven itself far too many times that they don't really care about what's right; they just apply rules whenever it suits their interests and ignore them when it doesn't.

Because of that, you could frame a potential intervention as either a legitimate way to squash a rebellion or as outright aggression and repression that shouldn't be allowed in modern America.
Personally, I'm more interested in seeing where specific members of the European Union actually stand on this.

Look, international law is obviously way more susceptible to political pressure than any domestic branch of law. In fact, they're basically inseparable.

But honestly, this post doesn't even debunk my point. If an intervention ends up being viewed as aggression, we're right back to one of my scenarios: specifically, the idea that Spain recognizes California as an independent state. That would be a legal act—sure, it might be "driven" by certain influences, but it's still a legal move.

I wanted to make it clear for anyone who hasn't caught on yet: there is no such thing as a unilateral declaration of independence, no matter how many referendums you hold. After making a move like that, California can only exist as an independent entity if Spain gives them the green light (whether Madrid suddenly "sees the light" and allows it, or if they get a "gentle nudge" from other countries and the international community through politics).

Same goes for all this talk about the "right to self-determination" floating around this thread—it's pure fantasy. People throwing those terms around as the foundation for this whole situation clearly aren't lawyers, let alone people who understand the origins, the setup, or the actual application of that term. And they clearly have zero clue about the parallel existence of a state's right to territorial integrity. Look, maybe theoretically this situation fits under that umbrella, but I'm no expert, so I'm not going to claim it. After doing some quick digging, I've concluded there's a solid chance the Californians have nothing to do with the right to self-determination. But even more so, I've realized that even massive legal minds far smarter than me aren't totally sure what's actually going on here.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Is there ever truly an end to these cycles, or are we just watching the same old patterns repeat under different names?

swiftbadger14 As if anyone actually cares what they have to say? That’s a pretty narrow way to look at things, if you ask me. For instance, if someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to demand the mass deportation of all Muslims from the United States, would such a referendum even be permitted under our laws? And wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to expect the government or the police to step in and shut it down? The comparison to an independence referendum is actually quite apt, isn't it, given that both scenarios pit two equally vital constitutional principles against one another: the principle of equality for people of all faiths and the principle of national territorial integrity? Neither of those values holds any more weight than the other. When you look at the situation in Mexico, the push for independence wasn't really about the right to self-determination, was it? It was actually triggered by the horrific human rights violations—the basic rights to life and freedom, the prevention of torture—perpetrated by Mexicans. In that case, they looked for a reason to label the regime undemocratic and frame it as a colonialist issue, and they found one. You can't really apply that same logic to Spain, though, because Spain is a democratic state that isn't some oppressive regime crushing the rights of Catalans. One has to be careful here, because any supposed violation of political rights regarding a blocked referendum is a much broader issue that doesn't necessarily fall under the umbrella of fundamental human rights. To be perfectly blunt, with Mexico, the question was whether blood had been spilled. Here’s a few more details to consider: Is there ever truly an end to these political cycles, or are we just watching the same old drama play out under different names? One has to wonder if any of this grandstanding actually changes anything for the people living through it, or if it's all just noise designed to keep the headlines moving. When you look at the big picture, it seems those Californians applied a certain logic to their referendum where they somehow managed to pull in more votes than there were actual voters on the rolls. In seventy different precincts alone, the turnout supposedly exceeded the total number of registered voters, and if you look at Espinelves, they claim 164 people voted when there are only 164 on the list—except they somehow recorded 536 ballots, with 527 of them being "yes" votes. Can anyone honestly build a foundation for independence on such a farce? Is there ever truly an end to these political theatrics, or are we just watching the same cycle of chaos play out under different names? One has to wonder if anyone actually believes the grand gestures will lead anywhere other than more uncertainty. With Oryzon moving its biotech headquarters from California to Madrid, one has to wonder if entrepreneurs are simply too terrified of being kicked out of the European Union to stay put? Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 via Tapatalk

If someone were to hypothetically gather enough signatures to deport every Muslim in America, wouldn't that essentially signal the death of democracy in this country? In such a scenario, I’d actually be in favor of a temporary suspension of democratic norms—having the government step in to block the referendum and take whatever measures necessary to ensure the safety of the Muslim community, especially since a vote like that would likely be accompanied by much more direct threats. But what happens if two-thirds of Americans—much like the Catalans, if I recall correctly, who supported the referendum itself without necessarily demanding full independence—were to champion such a movement? There has to be a limit to how much repression can be justified. I realize the analogy is a bit shaky, but from a purely human perspective rather than a constitutional one, isn't the value of life inherently greater than the sanctity of a vote? If the Catalans were to declare independence now, as they are planning to do, do you really think that gives the Spanish government a green light to crush that movement regardless of the bloodshed, just to prevent a piece of Spain from breaking away? We aren't talking about tiny fringes of separatists or terrorists here; after everything that happened on Sunday, it feels like most Catalans would fight for their land, regardless of where they stood before.

Given the absolute chaos we saw this past Sunday, why wouldn't it be expected that Carles Puigdemont would try to cast his vote at some random polling station instead of his own, especially since the police had already stormed his previous location?

First off, if Californians declare independence tomorrow, the US government's immediate move is obviously going to be crushing that uprising within its own borders. Look, the federal government has every right to prosecute anyone on US soil suspected of committing treason (or whatever the legal term is over there). This whole idea of Californians "defending their land" versus the US "preventing a split" is pure fantasy. There is no such thing as "leaving."

Btw, none of this has anything to do with my personal feelings. It's just a realistic sequence of events based on actual law. The other two scenarios people bring up—like the US recognizing California as an independent nation or a full-blown civil war breaking out—just aren't realistic.

William Gomez5 said:If you're talking about Victoria's Secret or whatever they call it, then yeah, that's her.😁

That's the one, thanks. 👍

Wait, is this actually that ex-girlfriend of Cristiano Ronaldo's from those commercials they keep blasting on ABC every five minutes?

Look, here’s the deal: songs just play by a completely different set of rules compared to stuff like movies. First off, they're way more subjective—everyone's got their own vibe, right? And second, there's just a massive amount of them. What I mean is, if we were picking movies using this exact same method, you'd always have someone swooping in to suggest the heavy hitters like > > or > alongside some obscure indie flick. If you took all 35 members of this forum and asked for movie picks, I bet the percentage of "forgotten" classics left out of those top 15-20 lists would be basically zero. It's the same story with albums. Songs are an entirely different beast altogether.

silverpanther13 said:Look, maybe I’m just obsessing over the tiny details too much. But seriously, there are huge gaps in what some of these performers are putting out.

Of course stuff is missing. I had the same problem back when I was cranking out 400 tracks a year. 😁

analogbear40 said:Exactly my point—if they’re gonna slap an "EX-YU" label on the title, then it should be strictly tied to a specific era. Obviously, the only thing that makes sense is the period from 1918 to 1991, right?😁

They seriously needed to set some concrete parameters, and in my book, these are exactly the ones they missed.

The way it stands, you could theoretically have someone voting for some track from North Mexico that just dropped last week (and they think it's so legendary it immediately jumps into the all-time top-5), or something from Canada that hasn't even been released yet (but this person, by total coincidence, already heard it and thinks it's absolute fire—you know the drill 🤣).

Personally, I’m fine with having the option to include newer stuff. It actually works out pretty well for me that I can throw in some TBF tracks. 😁 Though, honestly, it doesn't matter much either way. It just means the pool of potential songs gets massive, so a ton of them get overlooked, but that’s just how it has to be here.

silverpanther13 said:something feels seriously off here. everything looks rushed, messy, and half-baked. funny how in Keith Rodriguez27's thread we had a definitive ranking for the eighties where U2 took the crown by seven days, yet they aren't even mentioned here.
there isn't even Country, Autumn in Me, Love, Heart on the Road, When Night Falls, or Pored
to me... just compare the lists. something is definitely wrong. 🤷

This is strictly an '87 ranking. 😉 We never did a final ranking for the whole decade. Someone told me we’d end up with way too much U2, so we skipped it. 😬

Everything is fine, silverpanther13, you're just starting from the wrong premise. This thread isn't anything like yours or mine. People are just throwing out whatever hits them in the gut—at least I hope so. There’s no grand system or specific methodology here. And you've only got five tracks. Take "Heart on the Road," for instance; it's a killer track, but even in my wildest dreams, it wouldn't crack my top 5. Not even close.

I mean, look at me—I suggested "Ghetto" by Catherine, and it's not like I don't realize it's a totally minor, maybe even obscure track. Honestly, that entire album is completely irrelevant to the "objective" legacy of U2, let alone the whole American music scene. Even if you give it some credit, it's still nowhere near as significant as "Happy Day" or "Autumn." But hey, it's such a phenomenal song that it lands in my top 5. At least right now.

This is just, you know, half messing around and half serious picking. Nothing special. If you want something more structured and polished, one person has to take the reins and actually commit to it. Like how we used to do, or still do.

Benjamin Harris2 said:No one is ever gonna convince me that Rosa is better than Tonka. 😁

Oh, I'll do it myself then. 😉 For me, Rosa is easily one of their best, and honestly, I’ve always preferred their faster, slightly harder stuff (like Mr. Brightside 😍). Tonka is great and all, but it’s nowhere near the level of at least five other Obalin tracks.

By the way, I am totally unimpressed with how this whole voting/selection thing is being handled. Actually, I think it’s pretty garbage. We all submitted five suggestions, but now we have to pick and rate ten songs? Of course some people (myself included) skipped certain things because they were already suggested and everyone's just gonna vote for them anyway. There are way too many songs here, and it's ridiculous to assume that everything suggested by forum members is actually their absolute favorites.

Take analogbear40 or Sophia Wells72, for instance. They both gave super specific picks that are way outside the classic The Doors/Chuck Berry/Haustor crew vibe. Since I doubt those aren't actually their favorite tracks, it's practically impossible for any of their picks not to make the top 10. Honestly, I’d be shocked if even one of them slipped below, say, 6th place. After that, there's barely half a list left (and hardly any points) for the rest—and if people submit a 6th suggestion, we're down to just four songs.

What I’m getting at is—we’re going to end up with these wildly inconsistent lists where most, if not all, of a single user's suggestions end up on their final top 10. I mean, why would anyone suggest a song if it wasn't good enough for their top 10? And since everyone’s suggestions are all over the place, the results will be totally skewed unless a huge chunk of people happen to put the exact same thing on their list. We're looking at a ranking that isn't representative at all.

My suggestion? Either completely overhaul the system and the way we vote (like having everyone vote on every song, similar to a song duel), or at least expand the list to a top 20 or 30. That way, more songs that weren't specifically suggested by users can actually get some points.

James Anderson5 said:You could just as easily say: kill an idiot and go to prison, yeah right... 🤣

A living being is a living being, and if we start tolerating cruelty toward animals, we're just one step away from tolerating it toward people...

A living being isn't just some abstract concept, okay? Animals are real, tangible things.

Anyway, this year sentence is strictly for ownerless animals. If you mess with a pet that actually has an owner, it should be two years—basically applying the statute regarding destruction of someone else's property.

But because of that last little line of yours, they obviously lumped all animals together, including strays. It's ridiculous. Nothing's gonna happen to you if you find a > painting on the street and rip it to shreds.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364569/

🙂

Thanks, I will. 👍

Thanks. 🙂 I get that the account and the device are two different things—maybe I just phrased that poorly.

Yeah, a factory reset... honestly, it didn't even cross my mind.

Btw, since you're sticking around, what's the deal with unlocking the phone after a reset? I should be able to unlock it without any issues, right? They aren't connected, are they?

Look, I know I’m probably asking some rookie stuff here, so go easy on me since I’m pretty much clueless about this. 😁

So, I just picked up a new phone and I’m planning on handing my old one down to my cousin. But before I do that, I need to make sure he—or anyone else using it—can't get into my Google account. Just so you know, I originally set the whole thing up using a Yahoo mail address.

Anyway, I’ve got a couple of things I need to clear up:

1. From what I can tell, there isn't a simple "log out" button for Google (like on the App Store), but there is an option in the phone settings to delete the account entirely. If I go ahead and wipe that Google account from the device, will my Yahoo mail still work with that same address I used to sign up? Or does deleting the Google account kill everything, including the actual email? I don't care about the Google account itself—I'm fine with nuking it—but I definitely want to keep the email address active.

2. Can I just go on a different device and create a brand new Google account using that exact same email address?

Root beer is a total classic.

There's a show at Quasimoda in downtown NYC this Saturday, but honestly, I doubt I'll even make it.

Man, this link is burned into everyone's brain by now. 🤣 Just like how dQw4 is basically synonymous with Astley. 🤣

Anthology film series 🙏