SCP by Series
Feed
Stories
Discovery
Random
It's not a good song.
Merry Christmas.
Thanks/this was your fault to Placeholder McD for writing Temporary Secretary, and for taking a look at this and saying, against all reason, that it was good.
I hope Paul McCartney is happy when he discovers Paul McCartney is a rhythmomancer
and not a juromancer
I— I— I think he might be saying “true romancer…”
unless this is a bit
Imagine writing an entire article dedicated to bash on this one song. I'm just surprised it wasn't Mariah Carey. +1
Much in the spirit of 2011-EX, this is a good concept for a -J.
All that and you still understate how terrible the song truly is.
I believe in the power of words, but some things really are beyond description.
Alright, I've waited like two days, let's bump and get that goddamn comment to show up
Unoriginal and insipid scip.
-1
lol
— Roundabout.
PlaguePJP,
Roundabouts, if you are frustrated by a comment, please endeavor to not post responses that appear to be goading the poster to further vehemence. Best thing to do is to not give said vehemence additional attention, and if necessary, notify a staff member to address the matter.
DrKaldahl, as staff has received complaints about your unconstructive comments and lack of basic civility towards other authors and community members, and you have previously received an official warning for this same behavior, your site membership is now revoked. Please be mindful of the SCP wiki's Criticism Policy should you be inclined to re-apply for site membership.
god i fucking hate that song so much it burns, it physically burns, harry
In all seriousness, holy shit. This is obscenely good and high effort for such a silly premise. I burst out loud like three times reading this, and not a lot of articles manage to do that, y'know? The dialogue, the idea, the implications… it's just. fucking perfect, man. I wouldn't change a single thing about it.
This is frustratingly good.
edit: holy fucking shit did you actually use a deepfried image of the goddamned beatles as a memetic kill agent that just made me burst out for the fourth time god damn you
Edit 2: Actually, rereading it, I do have one small nitpick — I'd remove the crosslink to 2011-EX in the "its original creator" part in the description, because it feels like it slightly ruins the surprise, but then again it's such a small nitpick that, y'know.
The part about me driving into a ditch is only somewhat exaggerated. That's how I feel about "Wonderful Christmastime."
Thank you for enjoying my shitpost and saying such lovely things about my insane rant. One of these days I'll get into the real shitpost spirit and do one that didn't take effort. Maybe. Probably.
Not.
This is a joke article. It is OBVIOUSLY a joke article. "Wonderful Christmas Time" does not make people act like that. This far crosses the line of comical absurdity that should be acceptable on the mainlist.
since when did you suddenly become the sole authority of what can or can't be on the mainlist? There are literally hundreds of comically absurd articles on the mainlist.
Maybe instead of wasting time with arbitrary definitions of what "should" or "shouldn't be" on the mainlist, you should just read the article and vote based on its own merits and not comparative to other articles.
EDIT: Might as well post my thoughts on the article here as well. Harry, this is quite fun. Not as substantial as I might've hoped initially but I enjoyed the twist at the very end. What a sequel lol
Clearly, Koth is using his standard of what is acceptable for a comic/absurd/humorous article on the mainlist and applying that standard to this article, determining it crosses that line. He's not "wasting [his] time". He clearly read the article and voted for it on its own merits, one of those merits being whether or not it crosses the line of seeming like something that should be on the mainlist versus the -J list. This is a metric that is valid to vote on, and it seems patently ridiculous to blast someone for no good reason because they are voting based on their standards. He's not positing himself as the "sole authority", he's clearly posting based on his own opinion and perspective. No one should have to start out every single critique they write with "In my sole opinion, subjectively speaking and not on behalf of the entirety of the userbase,". If anything, you are coming across as more hardline and positing yourself as more of the arbiter of what is and isn't allowed than Koth is. Please do not go at someone's throat for posting their own opinion when they're clearly not posting in bad faith.
That'd be fine, except that's not what's happening. When you make sweeping generalizations of what should and shouldn't be allowed or acceptable on the mainlist, you're practically inviting the accusation. Saying you don't think that this belongs on the mainlist is an opinion. It's fine, it's acceptable. Saying that something "crosses the line of what's acceptable"? It poses that there is some objective line of acceptability and that the article violates it. It's a hostile opening, why would anyone listen? That's not a judgement call, that's an understanding of how a lot of people respond to aggressive critique. Everyone has a duty to listen to crit, but there's also a silent duty oft-ignored for commenters to put a little care into phrasing. We can all do better.
You are aware that this is a story set in a fictional universe right
Yes, but the assumption is typically that anything not explicitly stated to be different from reality is the same. Is this article operating under the premise that “Wonderful Christmas Time” has not in fact ever existed as a perfectly normal if somewhat mediocre song, but that any human who’s ever heard it would flip out in the same way that your characters did? Though that might make suspension of disbelief a little easier, it’s still too silly for my liking and has certain in-universe plausibility issues. Though the work is fictional, I simply can’t see this situation arising outside of a universe (such as a -J article) where the normal way that things work, either in the real world or a fictional world similar to it, is secondary to comedic potential. Thus, I feel that it works better as a joke article.
It was explicitly stated that McCartney is, in fact, capable of creating cognitohazardous audio. You can do the "this should be a -J" thing, that's fine (although it doesn't interest me and I won't discuss it) but the explanation is very, very clear.
The problem isn’t that McCartney is later explained to be creating genuine hazards, it’s that 96% of people do not in fact respond to this very real song in that way. Although you do later explain that the song really is a hazard, this article is still implicitly existing in an alternate universe where a song that’s a popular single here causes riots there. It’s such an extreme and weirdly specific departure from reality that it feels more like a joke about the song being bad than a consistent story set in a believable world.
EDIT: part of the reason this is a problem is that the song apparently existed for 6 years before the foundation noticed it, despite the apparent power of its effect.
Alright, I think we've established that this is your specific threshold for suspension of disbelief and not something I haven't covered, so I can't really speak to it further. And won't. So if you want the last word, I guess you can get it.
I thought this was taking the joke a bit too far just to continue the McCartney series, but then I listened to Wonderful Christmastime again and I suddenly want to go and kidnap and interview Paul for this weird af piece of music +1
Did not realize people hated this song so much. Maybe I’m just crazy for liking it.
It's a good song. It's perhaps one of the most harmless Christmas songs in existence. And hey, while we're at it, Temporary Secretary is not even bad. It sounds like a fucking Devo song. It's just a funny meme for people to dunk on the songs. Which is fair, if you find these memes funny.
