I have a historical connection to SY that is probably too strong, but still I agreed with some of what k-punk wrote. On the other hand, I can't really take his posts seriously. I think they'd be worth arguing against if he'd (1) not been intentionally provocative or contrarian (I can read Zizek for that); (2) shown any interest in the music SY has produced over the last 25 years; and (3) not consistently engage in the same sort of curatorial exercises and canon-making that he dogs on SY for engaging in: Burial brilliant, the rest of dub-step bad; The Fall were brilliant through the first half of '82, etc.