that's a good analysis on the eu in the latter part of the show, i just want to connect the dots a little.
it seems crazy to call the eu "socialist". but you have to understand that the audience doesn't understand what the word means. "socialist" = "bad guys". it's not a political or ideological debate, it's just a smear tactic. they might as well be calling them "poopyheads", it carries as much depth in the discourse. what the british right dislikes about the eu is the same thing that the american right dislikes about the un - it's seen as a threat to what they call "sovereignty", which is in fact their ability to remain rogue states.
you see the same thing in the u.s., where you have these establishment spokespeople like alex jones labeling everything they don't like as "socialism". there's no meaning to it. it's built on cold war propaganda, activating this latent distrust of the red menace and whatnot.
so, you're not going to get anywhere trying to make sense of it. it's absurd, but it doesn't matter. and, perhaps a moment's reflection on how unfortunate the situation is is worthwhile, given the resources that the anglosophere continues to control.
i think you need to separate two different kinds of "mean", here. i
hear what you're saying, but i think you're overgeneralizing.
i
post a lot of music criticism; some of it is downright ruthless,
because i have absurdly high standards. but, i'm criticizing an art
form. in turn, i get a lot of hateful reactions. something i'll run into
fairly regularly is that i'll post a page length critique of something,
and get fifty dumb one-liner responses telling me to impale myself on
something. you won't see many of them, because i have a zero tolerance
policy on it and delete them on contact, but it's a routine that i need
to delete twenty insults when i wake up every morning.
am
i being a hypocrite? no. because i'm criticizing a form, not insulting a
person. there's a tremendous difference. it doesn't often come off
obviously due to the way people express themselves. but, notwithstanding
the low level of discourse in the comments sections online, it remains
true that "your music is dumb" is not the same thing as "you're dumb".
here's
the thing: if you're going to put yourself out there (whether in the
form of creating something or reacting to it), you have to expect some
criticism. that criticism is fundamental to an open society and inherent
in the artform itself; the simple, blunt reality is that it doesn't
fucking matter if you like it or not, you've just gotta bloody deal with
it. but, it's reasonable to expect that that criticism is grounded in
something that's being presented for some sort of interaction and
consumption, rather than something irrelevant.
so, the
way i see it is that there's really not a need for people to be less
mean - you have no right to tell people not to react to something you
post. what there is is a need for people to be more relevant in their
reactions, and more focused in their criticisms. this ultimately reduces
to a failure of the public education system, which needs to be
addressed at it's systemic cause, not flailed against with internet
slacktivism.
social criticism is itself an artform,
when done at a high level of discourse and emotional investment. it can
take on the role of being an essayist, the role of performance art, the
role of the comedian, the role of the social activist or the role of a
punk or folk musician to name a few approaches. the comments section
opens up new opportunities to fill this role. and, yes, sometimes it can
be downright mean. brutally so. it can ruin people. but, this helps us
come face to face with our errors and move forwards. we don't correct
ourselves by getting together in these circle jerks and ignoring the
outside world. this is the error of modern activism, the dominant reason
it is so useless. we have to be constantly challenging our assumptions
and biases, and we have to remove ourselves from our mental shelters and
barriers in order to be constantly tearing down those preconceptions
and assumptions.
but, yeah - i could do with a few less responses along the lines of "u r gay, die homo".
so,
i think that if we follow too many rules we'll be putting ourselves on
the path to a stagnant society. it's one of the main criticisms that the
punk generation had of the hippie generation - that if we end up stuck
in this fake huxleyan dystopia, we'll just be floating towards our
demise. if you're going to throw a lot of hippie bullshit around, i'm
going to have little choice but to throw molotovs at you to wake you up a
little.
most of the time, when somebody insults you
it's because you deserve it. let's get that point down. getting offended
by an insult is consequently kind of the retarded way to react to it -
and i mean that literally. it's indicative of an inability to react; the
reaction of an unformed mind. it's stupidity. an insult is either an
entirely wrong observation and should be ignored, or it's something to
learn from. the mere concept of "being offended" is just being ignorant
to the concerns of others.
but, it's necessary for the
insult to be articulated well to get anything out of it. i can't learn
anything from "u the gay, die smell" - well, other than that i ought to
block that person. that's the crux, here. we don't need less mean. we
need less dumb.
1. overdiagnose autism.
2. ?????
3. profit.
at least they're getting some answers in for 2.
reality: if this works, your kids were never autistic. they were just neglected.
seven kids is a big class size...
Johnny
Middle Eastern women are beautiful. I sincerely hope that ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban don't decide to behead this one for committing the sinful act of smiling..........
Ariq
I agree with you, but just to help you not get any hate from others in the future, call them Arabs, Arabic is language :)
Johnny
If I'm not messing something up, it's probably because I'm sleeping. Actually, now that you pointed it out, I think it's supposed to be "Arabian". Anyway, thanks for the free education my good sir....
SM-721
She is Iranian, Iranians are not arabs.
Johnny
SWEET MOLASSESS IN THE MORNING!!! You're right! OK, third times the charm. I'll go with "Middle Eastern" and hope for the best.......
SM-72
It's fine man. Middle eastern is okay. Iranian is better though. I hope I encouraged you to learn a little more about Iran (hell, start with wikipedia)
QueenSabaa
As an Iranian, ISIS has nothing to do with Iran, I am a Muslim Iranian girl who practices Islam. we do not support ISIS. Also we can smile and laugh in Iran!!, come on now, that is ignorant to say...
deathtokoalas
the iranian plateau is in a strategic fork between europe and asia, and has consequently experienced large amounts of migration, and, unfortunately, several rounds of genocide. the dominant cultural group in iran is a complex melting pot, and a good case study in separating the various aspects of a cultural group.
the earliest inhabitants would have been darker-skinned and probably migrated westwards from india. they have some descendants in persia. the keyword is balochistan. however, this substratum of iran is very deep and it's legacy today is largely subconscious.
next, there would have been a large migration into iran by people that would have looked like modern day russians. they have left their language to the region, as well as some religious customs; the jewish stories that claim abraham came from persia may have been meant to demonstrate that the monotheistic and dualistic aspects of the religion were persian in origin.
persia quickly became the dominant empire in the region, before embarking in a thousand year war with europe - first greece, then rome. rome and persia would periodically devastate each other, call a truce and then repeat. during one particularly devastating break in the fighting, arabs rose up to take advantage of the situation and conquered all of persia and most of rome at the same time. this is technically the end of the persian empire. for the next five hundred years, iran is inhabited by a primarily european people with shi'ite muslim customs.
then, the mongols appeared. what we now call iran dealt with the worst of their destruction. millions and millions of iranians were slaughtered, and replaced with advancing turkish peoples. the devastation was so severe that iran is understood as having gone through centuries of pure anarchy. and, the truth is that the continuing backwardsness in the afghan highlands is the consequence of the region never fully recovering.
around the year 1500, a new iran arises out of the destruction of the old one. the ethnogenesis mixes turkish genetics and arabic religion with the persian language and a complex cultural tradition drawing from every direction.
so, no - iranians are not arabs. they are generally very light-skinned, and have a similar ethnic background (iranian-turkish) to the great part of the russian federation.
saltyninja
Iran may have nothing to do with ISIS but your social and religious laws are still medieval. It's crazy. Here from Wikipedia: "Bad hijab" - exposure of any part of the body other than hands and face - is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment. [11][12] In April 2007, the Tehran police, (which is under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's supervision), began the most fierce crackdown on what is known as "bad hijab" in more than a decade. In the capital Tehran thousands of Iranian women were cautioned over their poor Islamic dress and several hundred arrested.[13]"
QueenSabaa
Maybe years ago but NOW there are no lash punishments if your hair is showing, you clearly don't know about Iran. I am a proud Muslim woman. Religion is a choice as mentioned in the Quran and so I don't agree with any "religious" government law but then again it is not like women get killed/lashed for showing hair...
deathtokoalas
i do believe that the laws in iran are rather harsh, if somewhat laxly enforced.
Can Yildirim
I live in middle east and you girl, are lying. it has gotten milder in capitals but harsher in general.
They cant cuz she propably isnt living in iran. and dont believe these lyin comments situation is still somewhat the same. These women has stockholm. Their parents and social environment did that to them..
deathtokoalas
throughout most of the area, the state is generally more violent than the people. so, you have these two things working against each other.
it's like marijuana in the west. there are laws against it, but they generally aren't enforced, and pretty much everybody thinks the laws should be abolished. but, if the state doesn't like your politics or your skin colour or something else then it will enforce the laws as a way to "get you" for that something else. they even use similar language in the united states, where the federal laws have become stricter under obama even as the prohibition is being locally abolished. i'm a canadian on the border. as i was getting my visa information together last year, i learned that marijuana use (even medical use) was in a list of "immoral behaviour" that could lead to being permanently banned from the country for life. that's the language. "immoral". and, there are border guards, with guns, upholding this "morality". but, how many americans would look at the situation and react with anything but embarrassment? so, how can it really be enforced?
so, yes - the laws are terrible. but they don't really reflect the culture (except on the arabian peninsula) and are consequently not really enforced unless the aim is to punish something else.
regarding women's headdresses, i believe it's largely a generational concern that has no future but abolition. there was an absurd, conservative reaction against a type of forced liberalization. once that reaction dies off, the country should re-open from the ground up. the lesson is that you can't force people to "modernize", you have to let them make their own choices.
Pirouz Kas +QueenSabaa Hi, I am Atheist. It is hypocrisy, that you built up an Islamic Republic by massacring apostates. I feel so sorry for the HUMANS, who have suffered or fled from their home country.
Can you Islamic Republic supporters tell me, why it is worth it??
deathtokoalas
i'm not a supporter of the islamic revolution, or much into foucault, but i need to caution against wiki as a source for politicized information of this nature. it's open nature and quasi-authoritarian tone makes it an ideal tool for state propaganda.
Pirouz Kas
You do not need sources for that. If you live in the west, just go and search for any Iranian. 99% high educated, 90% not religious.
deathtokoalas
all states have unjust laws, and the culture in iran is of course very different, religious or not. a lot of the issue is consequently dependent on the actual brutality of the state. and there's propaganda coming from every direction.
i don't wish to discourage the discussion. i'd just caution against sourcing from wikipedia on politicized issues.
i've never been much of a beck fan. i mean, it's hard to be a fan of high quality pop music and be unaware of his existence, but he's always struck me as more than a little bit boring. you have to respect the production work. but, when you strip it back, there's never really been very compelling songs under the gloss. he's never had anything worthwhile to say in his vocals, either, so you can't retreat to the poet defense like you can with dylan or whomever else. so, i'm not approaching listening to a beck disc with any kind of attachment. if anything, i would have relatively low expectations based on his previous output being very, very overrated.
to be blunt, i'm astounded by this. i'd have never guessed it was beck. where's the snazzy drum beats that i can write off as hipster goofiness? the ironic cool that i can look down on as trying too hard to appear to not be trying? this is just generic, boring white revivalism through the tiring veneer of the pretend 60s, as they've been sold back to us through the commercialist gloss of 90s revisionism. the grammies aren't exactly known for being current, but this is dramatically out of date. why not just drop the bullshit and give the grammy to the velvet fucking underground?
however, i think it's more than just another head scratching decision. it's reflective of something that's been happening in settler culture for several years, now. it's not white culture, exactly. i have white skin, but i can't relate to this. i'm of mixed background, but (excluding some aboriginal ancestry) have no ancestors on this continent before the year 1900 and none of them ever owned any property. they came over as labourers in the industrial period, not as colonizers. i'm an urbanite to the core, my ancestors have been urban as far as i can trace them, and i'm consequently only able to understand urban culture. so, i identify mostly with urban european art music and the north american forms that have developed out of it. while i feel no inherent connection to either of them, i understand jazz as an urban art form far better than i understand country music; as a rural form, it is entirely alien to me. so, it's an important distinction.
but, this choice is a cultural decision. it's the result of some kind of rural revival in the remnants of what could be called settler culture. it's the result of this increasing ethnogenesis of white, settler-derived america around 60s "liberalism", and the artforms that are seen as reflective of it. rock is dead, but this kind of folk carries on and will likely carry on for some time. in a cultural sense, this is american classical music - or on the cusp of becoming it.
the grammy was given to beck, but it was really given to bob dylan and lou reed and the music of the era, in general. beck is quite honestly being recognized for his whiteness, and his contributions in furthering what is perceived as a dying culture. the decision was made by people in the twilight of their lives, grasping to their own existence. it was meant to further the legacy of their generation and their culture, not to award a current album for it's excellence or importance.
kanye consequently has a valid point, even if the soundclips aren't able to articulate his position very strongly.