I miss them so badly

It's the 70s. No that doesn't make it okay, but there's also a certain context in which this is all happening which you seem to want to conveniently ignore. I have sincere doubt that Bowie ever forced himself on anyone. These chicks would literally throw themselves at rockstars and back in those days they really weren't discriminate with who they had sexual relations with most of the time.
Also that whole separating the art from the artist thing is a matter of principle (i.e. it's something you should do if you don't want to be considered a complete fool) Caravaggio killed a man. He's still a fantastic painter. Plato thought of women as less than children. He's still a literally unparalleled thinker in terms of importance to the western world.

have to ruin everything. no pure enjoyment. I don't care about bowies sexual history, especially as it pretains to a parody/tribute done by flight of the conchords

No, there is no context in which that is okay, you fucking moron.

imagine defending sexual coercement of minors :\

i love david bowie, he's been such an inspiration to me as a musician, but i'd never think to try to defend that shit lol

I'mma fuck your under aged sister but you like my kazoo toots so it's cool, right? Fuck you to death.

So, what should we do about it? Ignore his contributions to popular music? Use every available opportunity to make it absolutely clear to everybody that this pop star did a thing which many pop stars also did which was bad, even though he's dead and doesn't have a chance to defend his actions?

I think you can enjoy their music, but you should also talk about the fucked up things they did, and not pretend they didn't happen

>Plato thought of women as less than children. He's still a literally unparalleled thinker in terms of importance to the western world.
Evidence of his genius

>Ignore his contributions to popular music?
What contributions? David Bowie turned marketing into the essence of his art. All great phenomena of popular music, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles, had been, first and foremost, marketing phenomena (just like Coca Cola and Barbie before them); however, Bowie turned that into an art of its own. With Bowie the science of marketing becomes art; art and marketing become one. There were intellectuals who had proclaimed this theory in rebellious terms. Bowie was, in many ways, the heir, no matter how perverted, of Andy Warhol's pop art and of the underground culture of the 1960s. He adopted some of the most blaspheme issues and turned them upside down to make them precisely what they had been designed to fight: a commodity.

Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.

Bowie died of cancer in january 2016.

Yes. 100%
David Bowie isn't even that good.

But, since you're a god damn child, there's really no discussing it. What can I tell you?

>defend his action

"Oi, roight didn' fuck tos' kidz, no me guv'nah"

Stuff it, retard.

I guess I do agree with this, just not sure how you'd go about it properly. Makes me think of Disney's policy of censoring their old stuff that featured blatant racism/sexism, to the point of totally memory holing moments in classic films. If you preface it with a warning and maybe offer a censored alternative, who the fuck would complain about questionable content in a cartoon from 40's?

Ok, here we go:

But why is it relevant to this thread. I wouldn't consider it to be pertinent to the discussion here to blurt out "Bowie is a pedophile" in a thread about Flight of the Conchords, would you?
>Imagine defending sexual coercement of minors
A) You don't know the context under which any of this happened, you don't know who made advances, you don't know whether Bowie had knowledge that they were a minor, you're making many assumptions.
Along with your pal here, I'd like you to please find my defence of "coercing minors" within my earlier statements and where I said it was acceptable to do so. Protip: you can't.
This is a joke response, I'm not going to discuss the importance of Plato here, you can do that on your own time, also it's criminally unimportant to this discussion please go use that logic somewhere else.
Scaruffi copy-paste, again not important to this discussion but incorrect on a number of bases, firstly the fact that Scaruffi is basing his critical assessment on cultural contributions here, not musical ones, which if you read Scaruffi's reviews you'll realise he simply isn't fit to do because he can't help himself from being completely arbitrary at all times.
No argument to be seen here, try again.
see above

thanks for saving me from responding to , i didn't realize this was a meme. new to Yea Forums

And again the term pedophile here is being used extremely loosely. This assumes that Bowie was actively looking for children to sleep with, when we both likely know that wasn't the case, and don't have any evidence for.
If he was a pedophile, he would've been unable to break from this and ended up like another glam rock star (who actually is a pedophile) Gary Glitter.

Wahh, I must defend a dead pedophile to make myself feel better about my probably totally correct behavior.

Spend your time better, get therapy.

youtube.com/watch?v=xk1kwfK848Y

You're simply replying like this because you don't have a leg to stand on. Have you heard how pathetic you sound? Can't you turn that off? Are you a complete robot without reason? At least engage without throwing insults (you can do a bit of both if you'd like).