any spanish speakers want to help me with this? i don’t know what to do.
i’m not going to talk too much about this album as most everything has been said by more popular blogs. but i just want to respond to some stuff.
first is what pitchfork said in their review criticizing lana for being dark and singing how she still wants to die despite all the success and popularity that she has bought herself.
Our heroine has all the love, diamonds, and Diet Mountain Dew she could ask for, yet still sings, “I wish I was dead,” sounding utterly incapable of joy. To paraphrase Liz Phair, if you get everything you wish for and you’re still unhappy, then you know that the problem is you.
i just don’t really get why they are criticizing such a human reaction to literally everything. it’s impossible to ever truly be happy and content. or at least that’s how it’s always been for me. in the moment, perhaps it’s possible. but just because lana is now on top of the charts and in the spotlight doesn’t mean she now has a perfect life and nothing else to work out in her life. just look at all the other celebs and people who ‘have it all’ but still aren’t happy.
secondly, just want to say that this album has been trashed by most media outlets that i follow at least, but loved (or at least liked) by a lot of individual human beings i know. these people aren’t so offended by somebody who had the means to get her talent noticed and furthered professionally that they automatically dismiss her music. say what you want about the lips, name change, poor snl performance, etc… what you hear on the album is all lana and lana has talent tbh. you can read more about her personal evolution and form your own opinion at spin.
the lyrics are dark and quirky. the voice is beautiful. the melodies are what you’d expect after all the singles–not that ‘catchy’ but they have a lure that keeps you going back for more. all in all,
5/5 farks
i’ve grown far too cynical.
about most everything.
i’m too judgmental of those whom i share things in common with.
and very far tolerant of those whom i lack any similarities with.
there seems to be little-to-no balance between the two.
i’m pretty tolerant of people with other faiths, politics, cultures, backgrounds, majors, interests, opinions, etc.
i find it interesting to see how other people live and think.
and i try to show genuine respect and curiosity at the very least.
i haven’t always been that way but i am comfortable saying i am that guy in the present time at which this post is being published.
but i am still a man of my own convictions, personal beliefs, opinions, etc that i take seriously.
i’m baffled why my most unfavorable opinions of other people tend to be towards those whom i share the most in common with.
i guess it’s because i feel unworthy to criticize and cast judgment towards those that i look at as an outsider.
and quick to engage and challenge those that i ‘get’.
i don’t know if it’s bad or not. just something i have noticed lately.
sup yall. nm here just doing some realistic racing on the computer. nascar all the way. would show you my face but i’m too embarrassed of my helmet hair.
:-P
gotta wear it in case my chair breaks.
(Source: fyeahcarriebrownstein, via thisaintnomixtape)
i wish i could do college all over again
"DO NOT EMAIL PEOPLE PRESSURING THEM TO RESPOND TO YOUR EMAILS
When interacting with someone, or thinking about interacting with someone, assume that your existence does not benefit them, that they don’t want to interact with you, that interacting with you is not one of their evolutionary or existential needs. Doing this will cause you to be more considerate, more inclined to improve yourself so that you may become more desirable and have a larger chance of being reciprocated, and less likely to resent the other person when they don’t reciprocate your affection or communications in an equal or—in especially belligerent cases—greater manner.
Be aware that if someone has not responded to your email or Facebook message they either don’t want to or simply haven’t done it yet, naturally and without ill-will, due to the nature of time and space, that one unit of matter cannot occupy more than one space at one time and that time is unidirectional, which results in “having priorities”—an unavoidable method of existence for non-schizophrenic humans that, in its more deliberate forms, is inherently considerate, in part because it decreases the chances of misleading people. Be aware that someone may not respond to your email even if you are amazingly considerate to them (via never pressuring them to respond to you, continuing to support their endeavors in a non-pressuring manner by participating non-pressuringly in their projects, never expressing or implying they’re causing you to feel sad or lonely or abandoned or unimportant) for 15 years after sending your email. If this happens do not feel negatively toward the other person; try to focus on liking someone for reasons that aren’t “because they like me” or “because they’re giving me attention.”
Accepting non-reciprocation quietly, without suddenly and nonsequiturly “hating” the person, is not only considerate but also productive, in that it’s probably the most effective, if not the only, way to “convince” the other person—some day, maybe, in some form—to sincerely reciprocate. If you feel jealous of who or what has been prioritized over you, or if you begin to feel resentment toward the person who isn’t reciprocating your affections, then you’re operating on the assumption that you own someone or that you’re defaultedly owed things and are being “cheated” out of those things—that the other person, or the universe, is “wronging” you. Behaving in this manner is illogical (in part because if people owned what they desired you would need to continually relent your desires to be someone else’s possession) and will cause people to dislike you and want to disassociate from you, increasing the amount of emails you send that receive no response.
"Tao Lin, How To Be Considerate On The Internet on Thought Catalog (via thoughtcatalog)
