it's better to burn out than fade away

kurt cobain in his suicide note wrote, “it’s better to burn out than to fade away.” and the more i think about it, the more it strikes me. would you rather slowly lose your light? like you’re the night sky slowly losing its darkness as the morning comes around for the sun to steal away all of your brightness or would you rather be a wild fire taking over the forest and slowly being put out?
—  to burn or fade away
Why People Really Blame Courtney

The most obvious reason why Courtney Love has been vilified in the media and targeted by conspiracy theorists is simple: she serves as the scapegoat for still-grieving fans. Suicide is a form of abandonment. It stirs up intense feelings of anger and despair. The emotional turmoil that occurs after one’s idol dies has to go somewhere, but the blame can’t be placed on the idol himself- he must remain on his pedestal, his legacy must be protected. When Kurt died, people chose to focus on his already-controversial counterpart. Why? Convenience, partly. He was gone and there she was. Reading his suicide note. Weeping under seven layers of his clothing.
However, the demonization of Courtney had been going on long before her husband’s death. In fact, it began the second they went public with their relationship. We’ve all heard this tale before: the evil slut seduces and kills the fragile hero. Her love is false; her intentions are greedy and malicious. Sound familiar? That’s because it’s not fucking new. It’s misogyny at its finest. Blaming Courtney for Kurt’s death (either literally or in the sense that she somehow drove him to it) is the misogynists’ final, desperate attempt to stamp her out.
It’s no secret that strong, outspoken women are not generally well-received in modern society. The latent sexism in our culture drives many to try to tear these women down and dismiss them as human beings. People were bashing Courtney long before Kurt took his life- they just had a lot less material to go on. Before Kurt died, they mainly resorted to feeble insults and flimsy accusations. “She’s a groupie who got lucky.” “She only wants him for his money.” “She’s a whore.” “She’s not even pretty.” These attempts proved fruitless when Kurt and Courtney began joking about them publicly and their relationship remained intact.
Before Kurt died, any attack on Courtney’s character could also easily be applied to him: her drug use, her questionable parenting, etc. But when Kurt DID die- they finally had something to grasp at. They finally had a reason to hate her. They finally had an excuse to cast her away from society, to dismiss her and everything she stood for entirely. It didn’t matter how shaky the theory itself was; they clung to it, and they still do. Decades later.
I was a Nirvana fan long before I’d even heard of Courtney or her band. I’ve seen every documentary. I’ve studied the note. I’ve listened to the voicemail. I’ve read all of the horseshit on Tom Grant’s website. These theories do not stem from fact. They are rooted in misguided hero-worship and blatant sexism. Move on.

Today marks 21 years since the world lost Kurt, yet his legacy still resonates through old minds and young minds to this day. So whether it be listening to Nirvana, watching their MTV unplugged, or just reblogging numerous photos of him, we all know that Kurt Cobain will never be forgotten, and its our job to never let people forget. 

‘Its better to burn out than to fade away’

RIP Kurt Donald Cobain 

So I'm reading a review of a Bible translation.

As I often do on Friday nights.


Nipples glistening with olive oil.

Just kidding. I’m fully clothed and my nipples are dry and clean.

But I’m reading this review of the JB Phillips translation of the New Testament. Now, this is one of my favorite modern translations, which is actually why I started reading the review in the first place. Virtually all modern Bible translations suck massive donkey cock, but not this one.

The reviewer was up in arms about a particular passage in John where Jesus addresses a woman as “Woman.” Phillips renders it as “Ma'am”. The reviewer was bitching about Phillips changing the words of the Bible, changing it’s meaning! He mocked what he considered Mr. Phillips’ sense of propriety and politeness. Never mind that all fundy translations of the Bible insert the word “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 when the Greek word for homosexual WAS NOT USED.

It makes it easier to be a bigoted assmunch if you change the words of the Bible to fit your bigoted assmunch views, you see.

Yep, Phillips did change the word to “Ma'am” where in the Greek Jesus used “Woman.” But addressing a woman as Woman is not as crude, impolite, or sexist as it sounds in English. It was actually a formal and polite way of speaking, like saying M'Lady or….Ma'am.

So that’s what I’m doing. On Friday night. While drinking tea.

I’m a wild man, baby.
DC vs. Marvel: The Verdict on Each Cinematic Universe's First 3 Films
Was 'The Incredible Hulk' really better than 'Batman v. Superman'?

This article bills itself as a film-by-film comparison but it falls into the “M.arvel is better because it’s M.arvel” trap that more and more commentators have been falling into since the release of Suicide Squad. For the first 2 out of 3 films, the DCEU movie brought in more at the worldwide box office than its M.CU counterpart (the third DCEU movie being Suicide Squad, so we don’t know yet how much it will ultimately bring in). And yet the article’s writer, Aaron Couch, proceeds to claim that The Incredible H.ulk was somehow a better film than Batman v Superman despite bringing in a fraction of the money precisely because it was forgettable. It basically casts Hul.k as a low-profile embarrassment while BvS was a high-profile embarrassment. Couch writes,

“Is it better to burn out or fade away? It’s all a matter of perspective. Though BvS earned more than $600 million more than The Incredible Hulk, it also caused undeniable damage the DCEU brand. The Incredible Hulk was shrugged off as “acceptable” and then not thought of again, while the sins of BvS will not quickly be forgotten by fans.”

In what is either a moment of clarity struggling to break through all this ridiculous noise, or a spell in which this article’s lack of self-awareness reaches a peak, Couch unknowingly highlights his own double standard: the idea that M,arvel messups are forgivable whereas those of DC are not.

Perhaps even more absurd is his verdict on Iron Man 2 vs. Suicide Squad, which reads,

“Advantage Iron Man 2. While complaints with Iron Man 2 could be glossed over thanks to goodwill generated by the original Iron Man, as well as the promise of The Avengers, Suicide Squad does not have that luxury as it’s the third in a string of divisive and dismissed films for the DCEU.”

His declarations of who the “winner” is have very little to do with the quality or commercial success of the individual films, and more to do with a tendency on his part and that of a lot of other reviewers to give sub-par M.CU movies a free pass because they happen to be in the same cinematic universe as The A.vengers. Some could argue that in the M.CU, the whole has proven greater than the sum of its parts. But to say this requires an honest assessment of the parts themselves, which this article doesn’t really give. With the exception of the first I.ron Man movie, Couch doesn’t seem to genuinely believe any of the M.CU movies he writes about were good films, only that they’re better by virtue of being in the M.arvel Cinematic Universe. And if you’re resorting to such broad strokes about a certain universe being better without being able to pinpoint a whole lot of what makes it better, well, why does your argument warrant anyone’s time or attention?