So all this time Jill Jones was the main one who sang the female intro to 1999. Jill stated numerous times she sung for other female vocalists and they got credit not her. I always thought it was Lisa as it was often credited and Jill added background toward the end of the song. Apparently Lisa did her version of the line but Jill's version was better. per Rolling Stone /thecurrent

"The title track was a synth-rock, end-of-the-world banger that featured Prince, Dickerson, and Jill Jones sharing lead vocals — “It’s interesting, in retrospect I sing the ‘Parties weren’t meant to last’ line,” Dickerson says, referring to how he quit the group after the 1999 tour — and it contained Prince’s mission statement for the record."

https://www.rollingstone....ew-915663/

Lisa Coleman: That was really the most methodical. Like I remember I got to rehearsal in the morning, and he was actually at my keyboards and had the drum machine going, and he was like playing the [Lisa sings opening synth line], and he said, "Come here." And then so like as each person arrived at rehearsal that day, the drum machine never stopped, you know, like it just kept going and going, and everyone would add in their part. That night, he had us come to his house. At first I sang that verse line by myself, but we added Jill because Jill just has – [Lisa laughs] I hate to say it, but she has a better voice than me.
[♪ The first line of "1999": "I was dreaming when I wrote this/ Forgive me if it goes astray" ♪]
Lisa Coleman: She just had like that fiery – it just was better for, like, the opening line of a song.

https://www.thecurrent.or...r-swensson

[Edited 12/7/19 19:43pm]

scififilmnerd said:

That's VERY interesting.

Any clues as to what the album was called before 1999 was added to it?

Surely the album wasn't called Turn It Up?!

[Edited 12/7/19 12:55pm]

.

That’s something I’ve been curious about. Unfortunately I’ve not been able to find an answer. 1999 was the last song to be recorded for the album so it’s highly likely that Prince had another working title in mind, given that it was such a late addition. Something I remember seeing somewhere is that WB advised Prince to add one more song to the album which summed up the record’s overall theme. Whether Prince wrote 1999 specifically as that stand out track, or whether it was just a song he really liked that he felt was a good fit is something we’ll probably never know. However, it does imply that Prince must have provided a preliminary version of the album in some form prior to 1999 being recorded. Whether it was a properly mastered test press or just some sort of home made compilation cassette is also a mystery, but he must have presented the record company with something.
.
It was by no means a rule, but certainly a trend for Prince to name an album after the first track on it (For You, Dirty Mind, Controversy, 1999, Christopher Tracy's Parade, Sign O’ The Times). We also know that it was common practice for Prince to structure an album around key songs and he usually swapped similar tracks in and out while maintaining the overall sequence.
.
This being the case there is a strong possibility that ‘Turn It Up’ was the album’s original opening number. Now we now know that ‘1999’ replaced ‘Turn It Up’ (at least according to Dr Funkenberry) so Prince may very well have had ‘Turn It Up’ as the albums working title. It’s an educated guess but by no means set in stone.
.
Having said all that, the track sequence for ‘1999’ appears to have evolved and mutated a lot even after it’s release (going by the butchered international releases), which puts some doubt over whether or not ‘Turn It Up’ was even the intended opener. Prince himself said that it was never his intention to produce a double album, but the project kept on growing in scale. As well as having it’s own lengthy recording session at Sunset Sound, Prince seems to have pinched a number of songs originally intended for The Time’s ‘What Time Is It?’, plus there were some last minute additions that he recorded at his home (which included ‘Little Red Corvette’).
.
Personally, I think ‘International Lover’ would have been a great title prior to ‘1999’.

RJOrion said:

half boy- half girl best of both worlds ... thats clearly describing a "shemale"... he even has a picture of Vagina in his book [Edited 12/7/19 7:48am]

Yup.

djThunderfunk said:

PurpleSullivan said:

Yeahhhh can we cool it with the violent transphobia? lol

"violent"?

There has been no "violence" in this thread.
It's all words, and words are not violent.

Whatever helps you sleep at night

scififilmnerd said:

RJOrion said:

Prince singing about Transgenders back in 1982...wow.

I don't think it's about a transgender. If you study the lyrics, Vagina sounds more like a Drag King - a woman who dresses like a man. And in this case the woman is a bisexual, kissing another woman at a gay bar and then doing it with Prince.

I know there is never going to be a consensuses as far ‘Vagina’ is concerned, but here are my two cents.

If ‘ Vagina’ was written within the last five years I’d be inclined to believe that it was a song about transgender woman. As a matter of fact I’d find it hard to believe it wasn’t. However, it seems that the plight and visibility of transgender individuals is something that’s only been in the public consciousness in more recent years.

Caitlyn Jenner, The Danish Girl, Transgender issues being adopted by gay rights groups, the T in LGBT, Pride marches, stores and restaurants introducing new wash-room policies (gender neutral bathrooms etc.), legislation with regards to pronoun use etc. etc. This is the modern world.

However we’re talking about the early 80s which were very different times (at least from the perspective of someone living in England. I can’t speak for people living in the USA, but I cant imagine that the situation was radically different). Homosexuality was still something of a taboo subject, cross dressing as a lifestyle choice was a taboo subject. However conditions like gender dysphoria were never really heard of. I’m not saying that trans people didn’t exist, I’m just saying they were barely ever seen in public life.

Knowing Prince and his use of characters like Camille and Gemini, when I hear him use terms like ‘half-boy, half-girl’ I take that to mean something more figurative than literal. Like he’s referring to Vagina’s character or state of mind, rather than their physical being.

Throughout the song Prince consistently referring to her as ‘she’ and ‘her’. He never uses anything more ambiguous like ‘they’ or ‘them’. He also claims ‘her hair was shorter than mine’, which is kind of odd if he was referring to a trans woman. Trans women commonly over emphasise feminine traits such as long hair, make up, long nails etc. Short hair on a female conjurors up other images. Tomboys, masculine women, punks and in some cases lesbians.

From Prince’s back catalogue I think it’s safe to say that Prince had (what I believe the young people today call) a “heteronormative” outlook on relationships...

“The only thing that matters baby, is the love between a boy and girl” - Crystal Ball

...couple that with his occasional fascination with lesbians…

“Bambi, it’s better with a man” - Bambi

… and it seems to me that ‘Vagina’ is a bisexual woman.

I interpret that Vagina’s ‘half boy’ is the side of her that’s attracted to women and her ‘half girl’ is the part of her that’s attracted to men.

But this is just my interpretation.

Hamad said:

^^^Love it!!!

PurpleSullivan said:

djThunderfunk said:

"violent"?

There has been no "violence" in this thread.
It's all words, and words are not violent.

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "violence" requires force. It is impossible for typed words to be violent.

Any violence you feel while reading text in this thread is in your imagination.

[Edited 12/8/19 7:12am]

I got this CD set for $44 shipped. It's so damn good I feel guilty for only paying $44. I mean, seriously. Technically it can't be called perfect (redundancy of Disc 2, missing a couple legendary tracks) but what's here is just phenomenal.

People, BUY THE PHYSICAL...it's going to be out-of-print before you know it.

VaultCurator said:

Throughout the song Prince consistently referring to her as ‘she’ and ‘her’. He never uses anything more ambiguous like ‘they’ or ‘them’. He also claims ‘her hair was shorter than mine’, which is kind of odd if he was referring to a trans woman. Trans women commonly over emphasise feminine traits such as long hair, make up, long nails etc. Short hair on a female conjurors up other images. Tomboys, masculine women, punks and in some cases lesbians.

And from the drawing in the new Prince book, Vagina does indeed look like "just a woman with short hair."

VaultCurator said:

Personally, I think ‘International Lover’ would have been a great title prior to ‘1999’.

Definitely.

Anyone else notice that the 1999 vault tracks are moderately louder than the PR ones? Haven't tested if the whole box set is louder than PR Expanded or the previously released 1999 tracks, but I threw on Love And Sex after Purple Music for fun and L&S was noticeably quieter. Idk if it's at fault of the mixing of PR Expanded (seen a lot of people complain about various sonic issues dealing with the remasters, mixing, audio glitches, and the overall quality of the release) or if the 1999 set is actually just really loud. Dunno how many people have already done it, but mixing up the vault tracks to create custom "albums" is kinda wonky with the volume inconsistencies without taking tracks into DAWs and editing them. Maybe it's just not meant to be done like that lol

iibloxorz said:

Hamad said:

I’m not sure which set is louder honestly, but the remastering sure sound superior sonically with the new set. I had to test to the theory by listening to “Automatic”, “DMSR” & “Free” (in order) since those songs were the most horribly mixed ones in the initial release (especially “Automatic”). It was such a great surprise hearing the instruments in pristine condition as opposed to them being muffled like I was used to. I hear a few complaints about it not being that much different than the original album, I’m confused about that, I don’t use any fancy HQ headphones etc it sounded like they greatly redeemed themselves just fine with my beat up headphones/sound system

Makes sense, I have yet to listen to the remaster (not as interested in it as the vault tracks) to compare it with my copy of OG 1999

[Edited 12/8/19 15:01pm]

djThunderfunk said:

PurpleSullivan said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "violence" requires force. It is impossible for typed words to be violent.

Any violence you feel while reading text in this thread is in your imagination.

vi·o·lence

/ˈvī(ə)ləns/

noun

noun: violence

1. behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

   • strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.
   • Law

     the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
     
     
     
     
     
     

[Edited 12/8/19 7:12am]

[Edited 12/8/19 22:10pm]

djThunderfunk said:

PurpleSullivan said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "violence" requires force. It is impossible for typed words to be violent.

THis is silly. "Violent" just means somehing that violates, and words can of course do that. If "typed words" violate one's sense of safety, one's privacy, one's propriety, etc. then it can be said that those words are violent.

Merriem-Webster's second definition of "violence' is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage." We all know words can have those attributes. The "phyiscal force" thing is a canard.

and that's that on that

dplatt said:

djThunderfunk said:

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "violence" requires force. It is impossible for typed words to be violent.

Any violence you feel while reading text in this thread is in your imagination.

vi·o·lence

/ˈvī(ə)ləns/

noun

noun: violence

1. behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

   • strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.
   • Law

     the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
     
     
     
     
     
     

[Edited 12/8/19 7:12am]

Word do indeed have meaning. Mulitple meanings, in fact. Violent is a perfectly valid adjective to use in this situation:

Violent, from Merriam-Webster:

4a: notably forceful, furious, or vehement: as in a violent argument; a violent denunciation

b: extreme or intense: as in violent pain; violent colors

[Edited 12/8/19 22:10pm]

Ah, but you would have to ASSUME the words you are reading were typed with fury or vehemence.
That's a neat trick.

And if you do feel violence when reading the words typed in this thread, you should stay home, lock your doors, turn off all your devices and cut yourself off from the world, because you're too soft.

My viny set came in today and it is truly gorgeous. A wonderful package, even at its premium pricing. I am still very much enjoying the music ever since the leak some weeks ago, so I feel this material will probably stick with me longer than Originals did (though I wasn't even done with Originals by the time 1999 SDE stole my attention).

.

The 20% off coupon for the merch site was nice because they restocked the PP books and I was devastated thinking I had missed my chance to pick them up. I really just want the guitar one and the coupon basically makes it so I pay much less in shipping which is nice.

.

I expected a bit more precise notes from Duane. He didn't really need to tell me that such and such a song had drums, bass, guitar, keyboards. I can plainly hear that. Now, pairing up the neat info of HOW many tracks with WHICH keyboards and guitars he was using would be cool (but I guess it was the Madcat for all his guitar use back then).

.

I am in agreement with his notes that Vagina was unlikely to actually be intended for V6, that Bold Generation likely was recorded DURING The Time sessions but not necessarily intended FOR them (they have no piano-driven songs anyway), that Money Don't Grow On Trees as it exists on the set was by then no longer a V6 song.

.

What still sticks out to me is that the majority of this stuff sounds nothing like anything on the record, really. I mean maybe a few do - Possessed, Turn It Up, Feel U Up, Irresistible Bitch, and Purple Music. But really the vast majority of these songs feel like a direct sequel to Controversy which is actually quite surprising...

.

In other eras, I feel like you could see him telegraphing the next record in some songs which you realize in hindsight. (It telegraphs Lovesexy, Paisley Park telegraphs Parade, etc.) With this, the difference between Controversy and 1999 is so unbelievably stark, but here we have 2 albums worth of material that forms the bridge much better. Love getting this added insight. The transition from the Controversy sound to 1999/PR sound was actually much more gradual than I thought.

.

I am still weirded out that they didn't include the full 1999 with latin segment.

dustoff said:

djThunderfunk said:

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "violence" requires force. It is impossible for typed words to be violent.

THis is silly. "Violent" just means somehing that violates, and words can of course do that. If "typed words" violate one's sense of safety, one's privacy, one's propriety, etc. then it can be said that those words are violent.

Merriem-Webster's second definition of "violence' is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage." We all know words can have those attributes. The "phyiscal force" thing is a canard.

No, the canard is that feeling violence from reading text is something that we should sympathize with and protect people from.

Like I said before, if you can't handle typed words, you can't handle the world. Or the internet.

Nobody typed anything in this thread that is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage", and it's asinine to claim otherwise.

[Edited 12/9/19 5:52am]

djThunderfunk said:

dustoff said:

THis is silly. "Violent" just means somehing that violates, and words can of course do that. If "typed words" violate one's sense of safety, one's privacy, one's propriety, etc. then it can be said that those words are violent.

Merriem-Webster's second definition of "violence' is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage." We all know words can have those attributes. The "phyiscal force" thing is a canard.

No, the canard is that feeling violence from reading text is something that we should sympathize with and protect people from.

Like I said before, if you can't handle typed words, you can't handle the world. Or the internet.

Nobody typed anything in this thread that is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage", and it's asinine to claim otherwise.

[Edited 12/9/19 5:52am]

OK, I'll bite:

Typed text is no different than speech. Hate speech is hate speech, and it has real-world effects. You may not feel them -- that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Likewise, the internet is no different than any other public space. If someone with a megaphone is trolling everyone in a public park, they can expect to be called out.

As for whether anyone was damaged by another's comments here, or found someone else's words "extremely powerful," (and regardless of whether such a response might be considered "asiinine") I can't imagine we'd know without IMing everyone on the org. In any case, I never made that claim -- though aggression does seem to be the norm around here sometimes.

Personally -- not to overstate my case here, but -- I find that people who rely on a zero-sum, bad faith definition of "free speech" to cover for or defend jerkish behavior are doing a disservice to the very notion of freedom. It's a Trumpian act. It usually goes hand in hand with the old "I'm not being cruel, I'm just being honest / telling the truth" routine.

Like someone else said, if it helps you sleep at night.

dustoff said:

djThunderfunk said:

No, the canard is that feeling violence from reading text is something that we should sympathize with and protect people from.

Like I said before, if you can't handle typed words, you can't handle the world. Or the internet.

Nobody typed anything in this thread that is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage", and it's asinine to claim otherwise.

[Edited 12/9/19 5:52am]

OK, I'll bite:

Typed text is no different than speech. Hate speech is hate speech, and it has real-world effects. You may not feel them -- that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Likewise, the internet is no different than any other public space. If someone with a megaphone is trolling everyone in a public park, they can expect to be called out.

As for whether anyone was damaged by another's comments here, or found someone else's words "extremely powerful," (and regardless of whether such a response might be considered "asiinine") I can't imagine we'd know without IMing everyone on the org. In any case, I never made that claim -- though aggression does seem to be the norm around here sometimes.

Personally -- not to overstate my case here, but -- I find that people who rely on a zero-sum, bad faith definition of "free speech" to cover for or defend jerkish behavior are doing a disservice to the very notion of freedom. It's a Trumpian act. It usually goes hand in hand with the old "I'm not being cruel, I'm just being honest / telling the truth" routine.

Like someone else said, if it helps you sleep at night.

Ah, but typed text is VERY different than speech. With speech you have body language, tone and volume of voice, eye contact and other social cues that indicate the speaker intentions and feelings. Text has none of that. One can only assume motivation or intent.

There has been no violence in the words typed in this thread. Some may have read violence into the text, and if that's the case, I repeat my advice to avoid the world, especially the internet.

Such people should not be coddled and the rest of us should not restrict debate for fear that opinions may hurt someones feelings.

How is that a "trumpian" perspective?

djThunderfunk said:

dustoff said:

OK, I'll bite:

Typed text is no different than speech. Hate speech is hate speech, and it has real-world effects. You may not feel them -- that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Likewise, the internet is no different than any other public space. If someone with a megaphone is trolling everyone in a public park, they can expect to be called out.

As for whether anyone was damaged by another's comments here, or found someone else's words "extremely powerful," (and regardless of whether such a response might be considered "asiinine") I can't imagine we'd know without IMing everyone on the org. In any case, I never made that claim -- though aggression does seem to be the norm around here sometimes.

Personally -- not to overstate my case here, but -- I find that people who rely on a zero-sum, bad faith definition of "free speech" to cover for or defend jerkish behavior are doing a disservice to the very notion of freedom. It's a Trumpian act. It usually goes hand in hand with the old "I'm not being cruel, I'm just being honest / telling the truth" routine.

Like someone else said, if it helps you sleep at night.

Ah, but typed text is VERY different than speech. With speech you have body language, tone and volume of voice, eye contact and other social cues that indicate the speaker intentions and feelings. Text has none of that. One can only assume motivation or intent.

There has been no violence in the words typed in this thread. Some may have read violence into the text, and if that's the case, I repeat my advice to avoid the world, especially the internet.

Such people should not be coddled and the rest of us should not restrict debate for fear that opinions may hurt someones feelings.

How is that a "trumpian" perspective?

Respectfully -- and with apologies to the rest of the org, for derailing this thread into another go-nowhere rhetorical argument -- we disagree on the difference between written text and speech.

Your insistance that others "can't handle" the internet, or that they need to "be coddled" lest their "feelings" get hurt is insulting. In my experience, those who are often on the receiving end of others' oh-so-defensable "free speech" salvos -- women, gays, minorities -- are pretty tough. They can handle a lot. Oddly, it's the angry guys -- the "free speechers," and I'm not making any assumptions here, Thunder -- who seem to get their feelings hurt, a lot. Sometimes they deal with their anger, sometimes they don't.

As for the Trumpian thing, sometimes they end up being president.

Anyway, hopefully the mods will leave this up. If not I understand -- hey, I am likely VIOLATING the rules here, and understand that speech -- even typed! -- is conditioned upon context.

PS, that whole "what's next to be censored" thread is a giant circle-jerk. Talk about playing the victims.

[Edited 12/9/19 7:25am]

dustoff said:

djThunderfunk said:

Ah, but typed text is VERY different than speech. With speech you have body language, tone and volume of voice, eye contact and other social cues that indicate the speaker intentions and feelings. Text has none of that. One can only assume motivation or intent.

There has been no violence in the words typed in this thread. Some may have read violence into the text, and if that's the case, I repeat my advice to avoid the world, especially the internet.

Such people should not be coddled and the rest of us should not restrict debate for fear that opinions may hurt someones feelings.

How is that a "trumpian" perspective?

Respectfully -- and with apologies to the rest of the org, for derailing this thread into another go-nowhere rhetorical argument -- we disagree on the difference between written text and speech.

Your insistance that others "can't handle" the internet, or that they need to "be coddled" lest their "feelings" get hurt is insulting. In my experience, those who are often on the receiving end of others' oh-so-defensable "free speech" salvos -- women, gays, minorities -- are pretty tough. They can handle a lot. Oddly, it's the angry guys -- the "free speechers," and I'm not making any assumptions here, Thunder -- who seem to get their feelings hurt, a lot. Sometimes they deal with their anger, sometimes they don't.

As for the Trumpian thing, sometimes they end up being president.

Anyway, hopefully the mods will leave this up. If not I understand -- hey, I am likely VIOLATING the rules here, and understand that speech -- even typed! -- is conditioned upon context.

PS, that whole "what's next to be censored" thread is a giant circle-jerk. Talk about playing the victims.

[Edited 12/9/19 7:25am]

Anybody can be offended by anything. Tipper Gore was offended by Darling Nikki of all things.

If you accept that something should be censored because it offends somebody, it is only a matter of time before you offend someone and will find yourself censored.

And you can freely assume I'm a "free speecher". I was taught Voltaire in middle school civics class and understand that ALL speech, especially speech that offends, should be protected. This is especially the case in regards to art.

Many Prince songs are offensive to someone, somewhere. Those people shouldn't listen to them. The ones that try to prevent others from listening to them are facists.

What the hell is going on here? Prince fans arguing FOR censoring his lyrics?!? GTFOOHWTBS!!

[Edited 12/9/19 7:36am]

djThunderfunk said:

What the hell is going on here? Prince fans arguing FOR censoring his lyrics?!? GTFOOHWTBS!!

The thing is, no one is being censored here, least of all Prince. Whoever owns these tracks -- and I guess this has morphed into a discussion about tracks -- has absolutely zero moral obligation to release them, or anything. Whatever they decide to release, no state or commercial apparatus is preventing them from doing so. The tracks in question -- I look forward to the decade when we can stop arguing about this -- were unreleased, and remain so. What you are referring to as "censorship" is what is known in the real world as "discretion," in multiple senses of that word. As I've said before, I don't really care if the tracks are released or not; I can "handle" them. But I do find the batshit reaction to their absence on this release largely supsect.

dustoff said:

djThunderfunk said:

What the hell is going on here? Prince fans arguing FOR censoring his lyrics?!? GTFOOHWTBS!!

The thing is, no one is being censored here, least of all Prince. Whoever owns these tracks -- and I guess this has morphed into a discussion about tracks -- has absolutely zero moral obligation to release them, or anything. Whatever they decide to release, no state or commercial apparatus is preventing them from doing so. The tracks in question -- I look forward to the decade when we can stop arguing about this -- were unreleased, and remain so. What you are referring to as "censorship" is what is known in the real world as "discretion," in multiple senses of that word. As I've said before, I don't really care if the tracks are released or not; I can "handle" them. But I do find the batshit reaction to their absence on this release largely supsect.

Yes, but arguments ARE being made in favor of censorship. It should be expected that such arguments will be met with arguments against. No?

This world can indeed be a dangerous place. Those that are harmed by sounds made by words, or the symbols that represent them in print, need to toughen up if they hope to survive.

Those that strive to soften the world to protect the feelings of others do so in futility as there will always be more words that are deemed harmful. No one should be prevented from expressing themself because some other cannot handle it.

[Edited 12/9/19 8:36am]

djThunderfunk said:

dustoff said:

The thing is, no one is being censored here, least of all Prince. Whoever owns these tracks -- and I guess this has morphed into a discussion about tracks -- has absolutely zero moral obligation to release them, or anything. Whatever they decide to release, no state or commercial apparatus is preventing them from doing so. The tracks in question -- I look forward to the decade when we can stop arguing about this -- were unreleased, and remain so. What you are referring to as "censorship" is what is known in the real world as "discretion," in multiple senses of that word. As I've said before, I don't really care if the tracks are released or not; I can "handle" them. But I do find the batshit reaction to their absence on this release largely supsect.

Yes, but arguments ARE being made in favor of censorship. It should be expected that such arguments will be met with arguments against. No?

If there are credible arguments being made for outright censorship -- I haven't seen one, or at least one that justifies the magnitude of the crocodile tears on display in the org during the past few weeks -- then I'd probably agree with you. I mean, I'd prefer that stuff wasn't "bleeped" out, but mainly on aeesthetic grounds, and if it happened I'd be bummed, but I wouldn't consider it the most pressing indicator of fascism these days. Maybe instead we can address Trump's concern that he -- of all people -- is being "censored" on Twitter, that seems like more of a real emergency.

dustoff said:

djThunderfunk said:

Yes, but arguments ARE being made in favor of censorship. It should be expected that such arguments will be met with arguments against. No?

If there are credible arguments being made for outright censorship -- I haven't seen one, or at least one that justifies the magnitude of the crocodile tears on display in the org during the past few weeks -- then I'd probably agree with you. I mean, I'd prefer that stuff wasn't "bleeped" out, but mainly on aeesthetic grounds, and if it happened I'd be bummed, but I wouldn't consider it the most pressing indicator of fascism these days. Maybe instead we can address Trump's concern that he -- of all people -- is being "censored" on Twitter, that seems like more of a real emergency.

That's what? Twice that you've brought up the trumpclown? Are your opinions on this subject somehow affected by current politics? Mine aren't. I have the same opinion regardless of the political affiliations or motivations of those that favor censorship. I don't care if arguments for censorship are motivated by conservative or liberal reasons, I'm consistently against it.

It seems that some may adjust their opinion for polictical reasons. I can't respect that.
And there's already a place on the org for orange-man-bad rants, it's called P&R.