Signing off…at least for a while

It would seem that my days in university are almost starting. Starting this Saturday I’ll begin the pursuit of a better life through university, and after that, I simply won’t have as much time to write for this site. With that in mind, I’ve decided to go on hiatus, effective immediately. I don’t intend to say when I’ll be back on Stef’s Cave, though I might drop a new post at any given moment.

University life is of course the main reason that I’m doing this, but that’s not the only reason I have. At some point, I began to feel that I couldn’t focus on writing the article, and this has led to articles that I had wanted to write becoming the victims of procrastination, and they would often be either benched or scrapped entirely, and I can’t help but think that it was a terrible way for me to work. This doesn’t mean that I intend to stop writing. Stefan Grasso’s Game Reviews and Movies for Earthlings will continue as normal, with Movies for Earthlings being on a short break, and the game review site publishing at the normal rate. However, I think that Stef’s Cave in particular would interfere with the kind of life I want to live in university by adding another writing commitment I would have to worry about, something that I would have to juggle with the other things in my life.

I’m aware that this might disappoint some of my committed readers, but I ultimately can’t see myself taking any other course of action. I would actually like to see this as an opportunity rather than something negative, as every good writer should go out into the world and experience it as it is, willing to be shaped by reality as much he or she is willing to shape it. Since this isn’t the first time I’ve posted notices like these, once again I must stress that I’m not quitting completely, but after this, I will not be writing anymore posts for a good long while. I simple don’t have the energy to keep doing it, and I predict that to keep trying would cause me some problems when I start getting into the really heavy coursework. I’ll still reply to comments that are posted on the site, but for an as yet undetermined amount of time, I’m basically signing off, but I may start writing on this site again before you know it.

What happens when musicians tilt at windmills


Last year, I wrote a post lambasting Jay-Z’s alternative to services like Spotify and iTunes. Tidal is basically Spotify if it were an exclusive club of all the worst personalities the music industry has to offer, and at twice the price of Spotify’s premium membership. After a tirade about the vanity, vacuity and arrogance of the music industry, I concluded that the Tidal venture would be failure, and it turns out I was right. Recently, it was reported that Tidal’s parent company, the Aspiro group, had lost $28 million within the past year, and despite being the exclusive digital home of the latest albums by its top musicians, Tidal is apparently having trouble making payments.

This basically confirms what I had thought a year ago, and I think it’s fairly obvious why. Jay-Z and the artists who promoted were fully aware that the game they way (namely the mainstream music industry) is now hopelessly irrelevant, given that you can download theirs or superior music for free on the internet clearly, and these self-proclaimed “artists” had contempt for the fact that ordinary people aren’t giving them money and funding their extravagant lifestyles. That contempt was completely obvious during their unveiling ceremony, which came across as a bunch of wealthy musicians asking for more money, whilst proclaiming that they were going to change the course of history in the process.

Naturally, the reaction on Twitter was vicious, and when the news broke that Tidal had lost millions of dollars over the last year, I think all of Tidal’s critics, myself included, feel some sort of sense of vindication. After all, why would anyone pay $20 a month for sterile, plastic pop music (which, in all fairness, you can just get for free) just to stroke the egos of its creators, when you can peruse the internet and treat yourself to a galaxy of better music from a variety of different genres, and from any point in music history. Also, if you like the music enough to pay for it, you can support the artists you like by buying their albums, and newer artists have found fans and income through sites like Bandcamp (which, sadly, doesn’t have the amount of exposure I feel it deserves). Therefore, I’m not surprised that Tidal has lost so much money in its futile quest for supremacy over Spotify.

Another big problem is the very intention of the Tidal service – to create a high-quality streaming service owned by musicians. Approximately three-quarters of Tidal’s revenue has gone to royalty payments for the artists on it. For them, it sounds great, but for me, it sounds like that’s the reason Tidal has been struggling to make payments, despite benefiting from high-profile releases from the artists backing it. I know it’s terrible that musicians don’t make enough money in the industry, but Tidal seems to me like the other extreme – paying artists through the nose at the expense of its profits, which everyone knows is a good way of making sure your business fails. Worse still, Tidal’s penchant for funnelling the bulk of its profits as royalties is actually hurting the very artists who have equity stakes in Tidal. Any self-respecting streaming service can’t expect to deliver music to its audience if it can’t sustain itself.

Indeed, Tidal has been a disaster, as I knew it would be. I also accurately predicted that Tidal’s higher prices would lead to more piracy, but in that respect any increased music piracy was actually due to the half-brained decision by certain artists to release their albums exclusively on Tidal. For example, Kanye West decided to release his latest album “The Life of Pablo” exclusively on Tidal, much to the chagrin of whatever fans he still has. In fact, within a few days of the album’s release, the album had been pirated around 500,000 times, prompting its release on competing platforms. I’m sure other artists who decided to drop their music exclusively on Tidal have had their music pirated more often as well (I remember at some point hearing that Taylor Swift decided to be a Tidal-exclusive artist).

Of course, it’s obvious what’s happening. Tidal tried and failed to make a dent in the habits of music listeners, and that’s because nobody wanted to buy into it in the first place. The biggest problem is that Jay-Z (and by extension every other mainstream musician involved) were basically acting like Don Quixote trying to fight the windmills, believing they were giants. For them, music piracy was a dragon to slay, and anyone who didn’t support them were part of the problem, and that’s precisely how the Tidal venture failed. It hasn’t destroyed the music industry as I thought it would, but the way things are going the music industry, at least in the way that we know it, may as well be a lumbering dinosaur.

The main thing that hasn’t changed is that downloading music off the Internet is still as common and normal as washing your hands. Tidal alone only has 4.2 million subscribers compared to Apple Music’s 17 million subscribers. Even Spotify, the largest music streaming service there is to offer, only has 30 million subscribers, which obviously means that the majority of people aren’t even paying for the music anymore. What I’m trying to say is that people like Jay-Z might as well accept it. The old business model of music is dead, and music fans already moved on years ago. At this point, the big musicians and record labels have two choices – they can either adapt to the times, or continue ignoring reality, thereby distancing itself further from music consumers, who will no doubt continue getting music for free, and ensuring that the music industry as we know it gets consigned to the dustbin of history.

The feminist war on Japanese pop culture


Ever since Gamergate, and perhaps before then, feminists, progressives and social justice warriors have been embarking on a vain and ultimately futile quest to stick their nose in all aspects of popular culture, wagging their fingers at people who just want to be entertained. Of course, when they realised that they couldn’t get gamers to bend the knee to the religion of social justice, they moved on to a new target – cute anime characters. This new zeal for finger-wagging comes fresh from The Mary Sue, an agenda-pushing feminist site that wags its finger at anything in geek culture they find “problematic”, who wrote an article called “Moé, Misogyny and Masculinity: Anime’s Cuteness Problem–and How to Fix It“.

The premise of the article is pure hogwash. It claims that moé characters, those little sister type characters in anime who are meant to be seen as adorable, are “problematic” and represent an “undercurrent of misogyny” (note: whenever someone says there’s an undercurrent of something, there’s a good chance that he or she can’t provide any evidence to back up their claim). The author, Amelia Cook, goes on a meandering sermon about how moé characters are bad because they’re “unrealistic” and “initialised”, before ultimately discrediting her own argument in the last paragraph, which effectively reads as her saying “moé should be fixed because I don’t like it”. Whether or not you don’t like something about anime (and there are things I find questionable), that’s no reason to demand that it should be changed according to your whims. In the same article she cites the My Little Pony fandom as an example of “grown men challenging perceptions of masculinity through cute pop culture”. In other words, otakus who like moé are evil perverts, but grown men watching a cartoon for six-year-old girls is a good thing? Only in feminism people. Personally I don’t know what part of the article is more contemptible, the fact that she can’t tell fantasy from reality, or the fact that she wants Westerners to “fix it”. Sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

That itself is rather baffling because usually the social justice warriors are big fans of cultural relativism (the belief that one’s beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that person’s culture). They’re more than willing to turn a blind eye to the most viscerally unsavoury cultural practices that can be found in the Middle East, India and parts of Africa, but for some reason they’re offended by Japanese cartoon characters. In fact, the same author seems to have a particular beef with otaku culture, having written an article bashing fanservice over a month ago, declaring that is “normalises the objectification of women”. Nevermind the fact that fanservice featuring male anime characters exists as well. Would Amelia care to mention that? Oh wait, she won’t, or if she brings it up she’ll deny it, because the concept of men being objectified in the same way as women goes against her feminist dogma. I’m honestly sick to death of the whole “objectification” argument, mainly because its only an excuse that feminists and religious conservatives alike can lean on to demand the censorship of art and entertainment. Also, fanservice can be used for comedy. I’ve heard of plenty of anime series’ that do this. Maybe Amelia Cook should check them out.

Of course, the legions of anime fans on Twitter responded swiftly, with the hashtag #OperationMoe having been doing the rounds all week. However, it’s not just anime the SJW’s are after. The Mary Sue is the same sight that accused Final Fantasy XV of being sexist for having an all-male main cast, denouncing its fans as pigs. In fact, social justice warriors have developed a special kind of hatred for Japanese games. I’ve always noticed that Western critics tend to look down on Japanese games and anime with a certain kind of supremacist snobbery, and Japanese developers take notice of this, so they try as hard as they can to make sure their games can appeal to the Western market, and sadly, that leads them to the tragedy of self-censorship. Games like Tokyo Mirage Sessions, which would be completely innocuous over in Japan, often get brutally censored when being released in the West, and sometimes it’s completely pointless.

Of course, if we want to see Japanese works uncensored, we can peruse the internet in all its glory, but my problem is this: they shouldn’t have to censor themselves at all. I think certain Japanese developers are starting to take notice of the kind of pathetic PC culture we are engaged in. When asked by a fan about the bikini costumes in Tekken 7, Tekken producer Katsuhiro Harada replied: “ask your country’s SJW’s”, calling out the self-professed culture critics who are so fragile that they get offended by swimsuits.

There is another dimension to the SJWs’ new war on anime, one that makes the “progressive” label that they brandish so much seem bitterly ironic. I think that the Western critics who bash anime so much do this because they think lowly of Japanese culture, or at least their attitudes towards sex. What we have to remember is that Japanese culture is very different to ours. They’re attitude towards gender roles are distinctly more conservative than those in the West, and they perceive sexuality differently. Namely, the Japanese have historically had more permissive attitudes to sex and nudity, and in some ways they persist to this day. Of course, Western critics are entrenched in their own culture, and Japanese attitudes towards sex and/or erotic material is an affront to what feminism has taught them, hence they find it acceptable to avoid an opponent’s argument by mocking his/her anime avatar (if an avatar is present). The ethnocentric bias is present in today’s “culture critics”, which is ironic because they consider themselves diametrically opposed to racism (yet their repeated emphasis on race has all the hallmarks of a racist). If anything, the fact that they treat anime with particular disdain because of Japanese attitudes towards sex makes them the bigots.

To me, this is perhaps an example of the hypocrisy of progressives, as their belief in cultural relativism stops at the borders of Japan, a country that doesn’t seem to be having the same problem with social justice warriors that we’re having. Anime appears to be next front that social justice warriors are fighting, but it’s not a fight that they can nor should win. If I have any advice for Japanese game developers and anime producers who are thinking about the West’s social justice warriors, I think they should ignore them. The SJW’s will always look for new targets, and they will never be satisfied. As for the anime fans, I say keep fighting. The social justice advocates will try and subjugate everything in their midst until everything conforms to their ideological agenda. If you love anime, keep fighting the good fight against social justice warriors who want to police everything you love. The gamers will be at your side, having fought their own battle against agenda-pushing feminists in video games industry (as a side note, most of the games Anita Sarkeesian condemns as “sexist” happen to have been made in Japan). If there are any social justice warriors perusing my site, this message from Twitter is for them.


An open letter to Gary Johnson

gary johnson

Dear Gary,

I may be a British national, but I have a profound love and appreciation for America, and partly because of that I have a noticeably keen interest in American politics. I’ve been observing the US election cycle for the past 15 months now, and at this point, I think it’s fairly obvious that your country is experiencing the most turbulent time in its history in many years, particularly as the two-party system is unravelling before our eyes.

Of course I’m concerned and frustrated by the fact that many Americans are condemned to choose between two candidates who I’m not convinced are fit for the job. On the left corner, we see Hillary Clinton, an incredibly corrupt, self-centred politician who will most likely continue the cultural and economic degradation we have seen under the Obama administration, and worse, will probably start an unnecessary war if it served her interests. On the right corner, we see Donald Trump, who I personally think isn’t nearly as bad as Hillary Clinton (and I can tell that a lot of what the media says about Trump isn’t true), and even though he might give the political establishment a good kick in the ass, I think his lack of political experience is a big concern. I could be wrong, and maybe Trump will turn out to be a good president, but he’s not the kind of candidate I would choose immediately.

In the middle, on the other hand, is you, the Libertarian nominee who is working tirelessly to throw a spanner in the works, and you are certainly making an impression on people who are tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils, as seems to be the case in pretty much every US election cycle. I’m aware that there are other third-party candidates out there, but they are both completely useless. The Greens’ Jill Stein is basically a shrill environmentalist with a race-baiting, anti-Semitic VP, and an all talk and no substance attitude that I find is actually worse than Donald Trump (in fact, I think of her as a far-left Trump). The far-right Constitution Party, meanwhile, has Darrell Castle, a deeply conservative candidate with zero credibility in a party with zero credibility. That in mind, you, Gary, are the last sane man in this entire election cycle, and I think you’re well aware of that.

You’re also the only candidate who I could trust to do the job well. Your credentials are more impressive than the others, being a two-term governor of New Mexico (a state that I’m sure you can easily win in November), and you’re also the only candidate out there who’s offering real, practical solutions to the problems facing America today. Trump has some solutions but I doubt that many of them will much good if at all, and all Hillary can do is call her opponents racist or sexist, as if that actually discourages people anymore. I also prefer you because, if elected president, you will perhaps make the biggest difference out of all them – namely the discrediting of the two-party system which has served to make presidential politics such a tribal affair in the first place.

For these reasons and more, you are perhaps the first presidential candidate I can actually believe in, and that is why I have some concerns with how you’re conducting yourself. I don’t have a problem with your campaign ads. If anything, I think they need to reach a wider audience (I don’t really know if they air on cable TV in your country so its hard for me to discern their reach). The problem, as I see it, is that you’re focused on appealing to the left. Given the awfulness of Hillary Clinton, and the failure of Bernie Sanders, that wouldn’t seem like a bad strategy, but I worry that you aren’t exactly trying to appeal to conservatives who might not like Trump but would vote for him just because of party loyalty.

My first problem is that you’re operating under the mainstream media narrative that Donald Trump is a brazen racist, which is something that can easily be disproven by the fact that he has had support from various members of the black community. You’ve also flip-flopped a few times, not nearly as much as the mainstream candidates, but enough to be concerned. You’ve come out in defence of Hillary Clinton, and then opposed her again. You’ve advocated for a “climate tax” and for mandatory vaccination, and then retracted it later. Worst of all however, is your latest faux-pas. In an interview with Guy Benson of, you got worked up over the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant”, claiming that it is “incendiary to the Hispanic population”, and you gave no reason why other than “it just is”. You sounded very much like a politically correct agitator wagging your finger at somebody for saying the wrong thing, and I worry that you don’t realise that this is part of the problem we’re having. Part of the reason why Trump gained so much momentum is because he didn’t give a damn about who he offended, and the establishment media’s response has exposed the biases of the cultural overclass. That you probably aren’t aware of this is worrying. If you can’t get the conservative vote, then you have no hope of defeating Donald Trump, who will most likely win the election because no self-respecting voter would think to trust someone as corrupt as Hillary, and getting the conservative vote will be nearly impossible if you keep ignoring the issues that have been handed over to Trump because the political establishment doesn’t give a damn about them.

I’m aware that you aren’t exactly the most popular among libertarians (in fact, you’re more progressive positions have made you rather divisive even for pro-Libertarian outlets), but you’re the best candidate we’ve got, and even then you’ve got to start upping your game. I still believe that America is greatest country in the world, and I believe that you, Gary, are the only candidate capable of making sure it remains that way for generations to come, but you can’t do it by appealing to the left alone. You need to convince the people most likely to vote for Trump that you are even better. Of course, I’m aware that your best chance can only come if you manage to get into the debates, and at the moment it looks doubtful, but I think you could do so much better. America needs you right now more than ever, and I think you can do so much more than appealing to left-wing sensibilities.

Good luck in the election Gary, you’re going to need it.


Stefan Grasso

The fall of YouTube

youtube fail

YouTube has long been considered a platform where you can express any idea you wanted, but lately this is changing, as YouTube is rolling out a new policy which gives them the power to demonetize for violating vague new guidelines on what isn’t “advertiser friendly”. For those who aren’t aware, monetizing videos allows YouTubers to collect ad revenue from their videos, and by demonitizing videos that violate the new guidelines, they are effectively punishing YouTubers with controverisal opinions (more on that in a bit). These new rules are starting to affect some of YouTube’s biggest names, including Phillip DeFranco and MrRepzion, both of whom are famous for calling out SJW’s on their nonsense.

The new monetization guidelines, which are geared towards sanitising the kind of content that YouTubers can monetize, display an extremely backwards definition of what could be considered “inappropriate for advertising”, and it generally seems as if YouTube has gotten about as paranoid as the next Mary Whitehouse, but the last bulletin point is the big problem here, as Phillip DeFranco highlighted in a post on his Twitter profile.

youtube guidelines

Yes, YouTube’s new monetization guidelines are deliberately targeting the company’s ideological enemies, and if you think this isn’t a big deal, then consider this. There are people out there who make a living putting out content on YouTube, and some of them dedicate their career to providing an alternative to the mainstream media narrative, giving airtime to ideas and perspectives that would not be given a chance on the mainstream media. By targeting the means by which they can keep themselves financially afloat, YouTube is attempting to silence their right to free speech by disincentivizing the creation of content which expresses controversial opinions. Call it whatever you like, but it is tantamount to the heinous crime of censorship.

Responding to the inevitable outcry from users, YouTube defended its stance by insisting that such a policy has already been in place for three years, but has merely “improved” them. At this point, their definition of “improved” must be completely different to the normal one, because I wouldn’t call tightening the restrictions an improvement. All this will do is drive content creators out of YouTube, and onto smaller sites.

The most common argument in defence of YouTube’s new rules is the tired old line “they’re a private company, they can do what they want”. That’s fine and dandy, but I don’t remember any of the leftists saying that about Chick-fil-A when its COO criticised gay marriage (I didn’t agree with him, but he has his rights as do the rest of us). Leftists only defend private companies when it suits them. In this case, YouTube is discouraging people from spreading ideas that leftists don’t like, and the mainstream media isn’t complaining. Whatever your views on private companies are, the whole “private companies can do what they want” argument is only true up to a certain point, and even if you sincerely believe in the rights of private companies, you can’t say that if you’re also against the right of a Christian bakery to not make gay wedding cakes.

Of course, all of this misses the bigger picture – YouTube is circling the drain. It used to be a pretty open platform where you could say whatever you wanted, but then they became popular, and entrenched in popular culture. Ever since they were owned by Google the site has been going downhill, until now we’re at the point where they now censor anything critical of Hillary Clinton, and strike down anything that offends enough ultra-sensitive SJW’s. What will inevitably happen is that YouTube’s latest changes will force its best and brightest users out, until all political and cultural discussion on YouTube, or at least the bulk of it, is dominated by delusional, virtue-seeking ideologues with the mental capacity of 15-year-olds.

If its any consolation, I’m sure that there’s some kind of silver lining. There are ways of getting around YouTube’s censorship policies (I’ve heard that not putting tags on your videos helps), which is some hope because YouTube has censored before, and people have found ways around it. More importantly, I think it is only a matter of time before YouTube’s censorship policy gets used on the SJW’s, which brings me to one final point. The people who campaign for censorship always assume two things: they assume that they get to decide who are what is censored, and they assume that the policy of censorship that they advocate won’t be used on them.

What’s going on in YouTube is important because it signals just how little free speech is being valued in today’s society, and we will all pay the price if we don’t speak up for those who are being discouraged from speaking their mind, because unless we are all free, none of us are. I’d like to conclude by paraphrasing a very famous speech by Martin Niemöller. First they came for the Christians, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a Christian. Then they came for the Republicans, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a Republican. Then they came for the nationalists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a nationalist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

The future of Crash

crash bandicoot

I’d like to take a break from my usual choice of topics to write a post about something of sentimental value to me as a gamer. I admit this will be a shorter post than usual, but I think this needs to be written. This year marks the 20th anniversary of Crash Bandicoot, the celebrated former mascot for Sony, and naturally, this brings back memories of a simpler time, a time when I spent my days in front of a TV holding an ever-reliable Playstation controller.

Back in the early-mid 2000’s, I was more like a typical snacking schoolboy (not too chubby but you get the picture), sitting in the living room near a balcony, or in my room, sometimes during the evening. When the skies were dark was perhaps when playing the PS1 Crash games was most like a magical experience for some reason. I guess it all felt really, really good back then. Most often I was playing Crash 2, 3, or The Wrath of Cortex, but overtime I came to know all the classic games off the back of my head, and I wasn’t exactly alone. In my family, Crash Bandicoot was literally a household name. Those were great days, but they wouldn’t last long.

In the mid-2000’s the Crash Bandicoot franchise fell into the hands of a number of different companies, before eventually falling into the hands of Activision. In that time, the character wasn’t treated as well as he should be. Since the rights to Crash Bandicoot were owned by Universal, Naughty Dog, the original creators of the series, couldn’t develop any more Crash Bandicoot games within their own rights after 1999, and so after they moved on, Crash became seen as sort of a cash cow for anyone who got their hands on him. Starting from Crash Twinsanity he would be rebooted as a contemporary cartoon character, a direction that would only be apparent once he arrived on the Nintendo Wii in 2007. With Crash of the Titans (which wasn’t a bad game), the series became more like a kid’s cartoon with needless pop culture references. The DS version was even worse, with sitcom-style studio laughter and random fart jokes.

By this point, the producers saw the Crash Bandicoot, and indeed video games in general, as children’s entertainment and treated Crash accordingly, with disastrous results. The grandest disservice to the franchise came a year later, with the release of Mind Over Mutant, a tawdry sequel that injected the same kind of childish humour as Crash of the Titans, but with cheap social commentary, all bundled in with tedious gameplay and bad controls. Given the fact that no substantial Crash Bandicoot game has been released on a home or handheld console ever since, I was convinced that the Crash Bandicoot series was dead, and Activision were the ones who killed it.

Why did Activision do this? I was perfectly happy with the way Crash Bandicoot was going before Radical Entertainment took over. The original games were classics, and in my view, the main problem was that Sony and Naughty Dog didn’t have the rights to the character. Were they able to keep the rights, I’m sure we would have seen more fine Crash Bandicoot games. I’ve written before about the kind of Crash Bandicoot game that I would like to have seen get made, and with Sony to release remastered versions of the original classic games, I have some hope that perhaps we will one day see the return of Crash Bandicoot. I’ve been waiting for the better part of a decade now, but at least there’s some hope for the future of the series. Only time will tell when there might be a new Crash Bandicoot game for all the old fans, but first the rights to the series have to be returned to the series creators, because as we have seen, anyone other than Sony or Naughty Dog will only degrade the series further.

Have Green Day lost the plot?

green day

Despite the fact that Green Day is one of the bands that I detest the most, I was hoping that there was no way Green Day could possibly annoy me much further, but a recent article from NME has shown otherwise. Apparently the members of the band, and this is especially true of frontman Billie Joe Armstrong, are worried about video games becoming increasingly violent (and for some reason they’re worried about mixed martial arts being shown on TV), and they’re concerned that violent video games might take a mental toll on their children.

Ladies and gentlemen, Green Day have officially drunk the Kool-Aid and have become the kind of moral guardians that their target audience has always hated. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard the whole “violent video games will corrupt our children’s minds” malarkey, and at this point they sound like Wayne LaPierre, the former head of the NRA who likened violent video games with “the sickest form of pornography”.

They claim that video games are becoming so violent that they will scar children, which was the standard authoritarian conservative line just a decade ago. Of course, they’re ignoring the statistics that would tell them that video crime has actually decreased as the sale of violent video games have gone up. There is also no evidence to suggest that video games cause psychological harm to children, so how Green Day can come to the conclusion that violent video games are bad for children, with no proof at all by the way, is just baffling.

At this point, it’s fair to assume that Green Day can no longer be considered the edgy anti-establishment “punk” band that they profess themselves to be. Then again, I never considered them to be cool at all, not even when I was a kid. In fact, I would argue that they were never as edgy or anti-establishment as people might they were, being that they’re a pop-punk band. I’ve written about my opinion of the band before, and how they’re basically a “corporate punk” band (think corporate rock bands with a punk image and you should get the picture), but I didn’t think they would start becoming old men yelling at clouds, as bassist Mike Dirnt seems to be indicating.

Known for their political posturing, Green Day are about as left-wing as it gets (their album American Idiot reads like typical whining, leftist America-bashing nonsense), but their kind of politics isn’t exactly edgy. Even when George W. Bush was president the media and pop culture have always had a left-wing bias, and in that climate, Green Day became media darlings for telling their audience exactly what they want to hear. The problem, however, is that they’re morphing into moral guardians and SJW’s in order to appeal to the next generation, but instead they sound like the boring progressive establishment. You have their frontman Billie Joe Armstrong yelling on about how Donald Trump is “worse than Hitler” just because he doesn’t like him (which is what everyone else in the media wants you to believe), and now he comes across as a progressive preacher whose politics may as well have come straight from Buzzfeed.

Sadly, Green Day are a good example of a band that had long past the point where they were relevant, and are now hopelessly trying to stay relevant, even if that meaning appealing to the social justice crowd. The problem is that most young people like video games, and I’m willing to bet that a big chunk of Green Day’s fans are also gamers, and you won’t exactly win over young people by acting like Jack Thompson. Also, I’m sure most people are tired of hearing leftists like Billie Joe Armstrong jabber on about how America is awful, and I’m sure its even more insulting to hear it coming from a manchild who pretends to be a punk just to appeal to young people. That’s all I really have to say on this. Then again, they didn’t exactly say much, but it speaks volumes about the band’s attitude (or lack thereof), and of how desperate they are for attention. At this point, they’re basically just shouting into the air, as I might as well be trying to read into this.