so, the main aim of what i've been doing since february is completing
what works out to be my fifth full length record, out of material that
was written over the course of 2001 but never completed to my liking due
to deficits in the technology that was available to me at the time. i
had suspected from the beginning that this would probably be a double
and have come to the conclusion this morning that it absolutely must be.
that
means i've expanded the scope a little to make the project more
encompassing. 85 minute doubles piss me off. if you're going to do a
double, fill up both discs! not with filler!
i kind of
wanted to do this anyways. the guitar project is now officially aborted,
and it really leaves the two remaining tracks as conceptually and
musically similar to the other ones. there's also the 9-minute vocal
epic, stress, which, while a little different, fits the overall theme of
the larger works. it would be incomplete of me to compile this material
without including it.
the first half of this is now
completed. this is final, in relation to the first disc. the cut-off
point is july, 2001 which is only coincidentally the halfway point;
what's more important is that it splits the year in half over the summer
(with school on either end) and separates a very solo period from a
more collaborative one.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
1) written late 2000 & early 2001. minor instrumentation changes to facilitate a small wind section were implemented in late april, 2014. live guitars were layered into the final version over may 2014. completed on june 6, 2014. sequenced on sept 9, 2014.
2) recorded in the first part of 2001. final editing on september 9, 2014.
4) written and recorded, 1999-2001. this file has not been altered from the original.
5) recorded in the first part of 2001. final editing on september 9, 2014.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
i don't know what's really going on here, but that freeze response from jay z is what happens when there is no chance for survival. that's some massive levels of intimidation coming from solange, right there.
..and kenya has an mra minister? i can't stop laughing...
and he smokes during press conferences? shit, i'm from just outside quebec, and they smoke in church but they don't smoke at press conferences....
ok, no, that's a pen. had me for a minute...
..and kenya has an mra minister? i can't stop laughing...
and he smokes during press conferences? shit, i'm from just outside quebec, and they smoke in church but they don't smoke at press conferences....
ok, no, that's a pen. had me for a minute...
at
00:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
deathtokoalas
it's a question of using proportional amounts of force. yeah, she was coming at him, but he's a running back and she's not. i doubt he meant to knock her out, but it's not the point. in a situation like that, the much stronger person needs to be aware of how much stronger he is and restrain the person that's coming at him until they calm down.
the nfl is sending a message, and it's a worthwhile message to send, but you can't help but feel a little bad for the guy. i don't know the context, but i don't get a one-sided pattern of domestic abuse out of the video. what i get is basically an accident of self-defense coming out of a dysfunctional relationship.
after doing a little googling, what i'm getting out of this fiasco is really just another example of out-of-control, sensationalist media.
and it didn't just ruin this guy's career - it fucked his wife's life up, too. the supposed victim, that is - who realizes it's the kind of accident that happens when adults play rough with each other.
Amaalina
But if you closely in the beginning he hit her in the face and that's when she charged or walked towards him to hit him. But honestly I don't feel bad, no matter what you don't hit a women. He obviously knows his strength compare to hers.He has the option to walk away and leave.
deathtokoalas
she hit him before they got on the elevator, but i don't think there's any insight to be gained from figuring out who hit who first. what i would conclude from watching the video is that they have somewhat of a physical relationship and push each other around a little when they argue. that is not the same thing as assault or abuse.
generally, women that are battered demonstrate a healthy level of fear towards their partners. that's the point of the violence - to control. there's no indication of that in the video. she was entirely confident that she could lunge at him without serious harm, and probably would have escaped serious harm were it not for the enclosed space, where he doesn't have the option to back off that he might have normally taken.
i'm not suggesting he didn't overreact, but this isn't what the media is presenting it as.
Twinnie
That is in no way self defense. One, he has a bunch of weight on her, he's an NFL star, and he's a grown man. If it were self defense the spitting would have been enough. He punched her twice. Not only that, she was not even physically bothering him once they stepped foot onto the elevator. Self defense is a bullshit excuse right now.
deathtokoalas
c'mon - she obviously lunged at him, and he knocked her when she was on the way there. what you're saying is true - i stated it myself - but i think the error in your reasoning is that it's logical. in a situation like that, humans don't have time to carefully weigh all of the options that are available to them and come to a rational conclusion. instead, they break down to instinct, which is "fight or flight" and react on an impulse as to which is better for survival. the thing is he's trapped in the corner of an elevator. she probably jumps him all the time, and he probably generally backs off or dodges her - he is, after all, a pretty good running back, so he's good at that. but, when flight isn't an option, all that's left is to fight and what takes over is that instinct and what drives the behaviour is the impulse.
now, he could have and should have tried to restrain her as his "fight" response. but, that he didn't react in the best way possible doesn't mean it's a "vicious attack".
AfriSynergyNews
It is not clear that he punched her in the face until she charged at him. He may have spat on her.
True, he should have restrained her. Jay Z reacted in the best way with Beyonce's sister in the elevator. Ray reacted badly. If one or both of them were drunk, this can elevate latent behaviors.
deathtokoalas
i just watched that video and what jay z seems to demonstrate is the "freeze" response to fight-or-flight. beyonce's sister really scared the fuck out of him. ray wasn't nearly as frightened. also, it seems to have been the other people in the elevator that were responsible for restraining her, who weren't stuck in hormonal overdrive.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
meh. there's some logic to that, and it's applicable to most people you aren't building a family with, but relationships require a certain egalitarian basis to be effective. they can both - and no doubt did - realize the guy's superior strength. that doesn't mean she should be afraid of him, it means he's gotta be careful. on the other hand, she might be considerably more intelligent than him and they might both be aware of that. it doesn't mean she should talk down to him, it means she should be patient.
Isaiah From the Nati
If he a lot bigger DONT PICK THAT FIGHT. I'm 15 but u don't see me fighting big ass grown men then saying they should be punished cause I'm a minor
deathtokoalas
it's not a comparable situation though, isaiah. you're smart not to pick fights with bigger kids or adults, but in a relationship there's a basis of trust that has to transcend issues like physical strength. you'll understand that as you grow older.
Shaun17511
Jay Z was not "scared the f.." by Beyonce's sister and froze up, he was smart. Restraining someone often gets re-characterized as mutual combat, resulting in both parties getting arrested, or more often the case, just the guy. He was smart to simply take the blows, and let a third-party do the separating / restraining.
deathtokoalas
but, again, that is not how people react in situations of conflict. what happens is your autonomous nervous system kicks in, and you're driven by impulse to flee if you can, fight if you think you have a chance and freeze if there's no way out. there's a tremendous amount of ignorance about this in our legal culture that really needs to be aggressively addressed.
jstoner6
When it comes to self defense you don't have to restrain yourself. I guess these two should learn to keep their hands to themselves.
deathtokoalas
i think they'll be ok if they just stop fighting in enclosed spaces.
Nonya Buzines
When tobacco companies say, " Tobacco is bad for your health and can cause cancer", and you still smoke. The tobcacco company is no longer to blame! What people seem to forget is that a white cop hits a black lady and they promote the cop, but I get it cops don't break the law only people in the NFL and in MMA.
Timmy Pelotte
what does this have to do with race?
deathtokoalas
i think the media coverage has a pretty strong racial context underlying it, even if it's not explicitly stated. the headlines seem to be barely a step down from
Jay J
Correct. A lot of the media outrage is fake. TMZ is out to make a quick buck at anybody's expense. She MARRIED him. Obviously she has forgiven and moved on. If she married him afterwards and admitted to instigating and contributed to the fight, then people outside the relationship need to stay out.
deathtokoalas
i think there's a place for friends and family members to react to warning signals. and i'd take it as one, no doubt. but we don't have any valid prerogative to sit here from a distance and make judgements on other people's value systems.
Jmichael
In what way almost the same? As I see it, what you are doing is "fanning racial flame" without one iota of proof. That's not right unless you can back it up with something besides inflammatory remarks--just who said "primitive negro or even IMPLIED it--besides you just now?
deathtokoalas
well, this very video is full of racist comments, if you'd take the time to look.
the american media has found more sophisticated ways to be racist, which deal with certain code words and contexts. it's engineered to be difficult to deconstruct, but it's there when you really disassemble it.
Nonya Buzines
What happened to that white cop that groud-n-pounded that black lady? Did he get a promotion? Another medal from the mayor?
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
what i'm trying to get across is that, while it might be true that he didn't hit her hard and the rail technically knocked her out, he should have been more aware of the potential consequences. legally, the concept in tort law is called "duty of care". it means he has a responsibility to ensure that he carries out "reasonable foresight" in ensuring his actions don't cause harm. if it was a stranger, i'd agree he should be responsible for medical costs.
Wilphart
I don't think his intention was to knock her out. I think he underestimated his own strength. His couple of swats (I don't think they were closed-fisted) were too much for her face. He didn't keep at it, or even seem angry; I think he was surprised when her feet fell out from under her. He got counseling, she forgave him, and they got married. I don't think it implies he's a serial woman-beater or that it will happen again. It has nothing to do with football, but I understand their money comes from fans, who have now seen the video. The media makes money at his expense, too, and that's the price of being famous. I don't condone what he did, but I feel sorry for him and wish the media would leave him alone.
deathtokoalas
the energy rush triggered in the fight response from the sns as a result of being cornered could very well have contributed to a slap that was much harder than intended. that's a lot of factors that neither of them had any grasp of as things were happening.
it's a question of using proportional amounts of force. yeah, she was coming at him, but he's a running back and she's not. i doubt he meant to knock her out, but it's not the point. in a situation like that, the much stronger person needs to be aware of how much stronger he is and restrain the person that's coming at him until they calm down.
the nfl is sending a message, and it's a worthwhile message to send, but you can't help but feel a little bad for the guy. i don't know the context, but i don't get a one-sided pattern of domestic abuse out of the video. what i get is basically an accident of self-defense coming out of a dysfunctional relationship.
after doing a little googling, what i'm getting out of this fiasco is really just another example of out-of-control, sensationalist media.
and it didn't just ruin this guy's career - it fucked his wife's life up, too. the supposed victim, that is - who realizes it's the kind of accident that happens when adults play rough with each other.
Amaalina
But if you closely in the beginning he hit her in the face and that's when she charged or walked towards him to hit him. But honestly I don't feel bad, no matter what you don't hit a women. He obviously knows his strength compare to hers.He has the option to walk away and leave.
deathtokoalas
she hit him before they got on the elevator, but i don't think there's any insight to be gained from figuring out who hit who first. what i would conclude from watching the video is that they have somewhat of a physical relationship and push each other around a little when they argue. that is not the same thing as assault or abuse.
generally, women that are battered demonstrate a healthy level of fear towards their partners. that's the point of the violence - to control. there's no indication of that in the video. she was entirely confident that she could lunge at him without serious harm, and probably would have escaped serious harm were it not for the enclosed space, where he doesn't have the option to back off that he might have normally taken.
i'm not suggesting he didn't overreact, but this isn't what the media is presenting it as.
Twinnie
That is in no way self defense. One, he has a bunch of weight on her, he's an NFL star, and he's a grown man. If it were self defense the spitting would have been enough. He punched her twice. Not only that, she was not even physically bothering him once they stepped foot onto the elevator. Self defense is a bullshit excuse right now.
deathtokoalas
c'mon - she obviously lunged at him, and he knocked her when she was on the way there. what you're saying is true - i stated it myself - but i think the error in your reasoning is that it's logical. in a situation like that, humans don't have time to carefully weigh all of the options that are available to them and come to a rational conclusion. instead, they break down to instinct, which is "fight or flight" and react on an impulse as to which is better for survival. the thing is he's trapped in the corner of an elevator. she probably jumps him all the time, and he probably generally backs off or dodges her - he is, after all, a pretty good running back, so he's good at that. but, when flight isn't an option, all that's left is to fight and what takes over is that instinct and what drives the behaviour is the impulse.
now, he could have and should have tried to restrain her as his "fight" response. but, that he didn't react in the best way possible doesn't mean it's a "vicious attack".
AfriSynergyNews
It is not clear that he punched her in the face until she charged at him. He may have spat on her.
True, he should have restrained her. Jay Z reacted in the best way with Beyonce's sister in the elevator. Ray reacted badly. If one or both of them were drunk, this can elevate latent behaviors.
deathtokoalas
i just watched that video and what jay z seems to demonstrate is the "freeze" response to fight-or-flight. beyonce's sister really scared the fuck out of him. ray wasn't nearly as frightened. also, it seems to have been the other people in the elevator that were responsible for restraining her, who weren't stuck in hormonal overdrive.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
meh. there's some logic to that, and it's applicable to most people you aren't building a family with, but relationships require a certain egalitarian basis to be effective. they can both - and no doubt did - realize the guy's superior strength. that doesn't mean she should be afraid of him, it means he's gotta be careful. on the other hand, she might be considerably more intelligent than him and they might both be aware of that. it doesn't mean she should talk down to him, it means she should be patient.
Isaiah From the Nati
If he a lot bigger DONT PICK THAT FIGHT. I'm 15 but u don't see me fighting big ass grown men then saying they should be punished cause I'm a minor
deathtokoalas
it's not a comparable situation though, isaiah. you're smart not to pick fights with bigger kids or adults, but in a relationship there's a basis of trust that has to transcend issues like physical strength. you'll understand that as you grow older.
Shaun17511
Jay Z was not "scared the f.." by Beyonce's sister and froze up, he was smart. Restraining someone often gets re-characterized as mutual combat, resulting in both parties getting arrested, or more often the case, just the guy. He was smart to simply take the blows, and let a third-party do the separating / restraining.
deathtokoalas
but, again, that is not how people react in situations of conflict. what happens is your autonomous nervous system kicks in, and you're driven by impulse to flee if you can, fight if you think you have a chance and freeze if there's no way out. there's a tremendous amount of ignorance about this in our legal culture that really needs to be aggressively addressed.
jstoner6
When it comes to self defense you don't have to restrain yourself. I guess these two should learn to keep their hands to themselves.
deathtokoalas
i think they'll be ok if they just stop fighting in enclosed spaces.
Nonya Buzines
When tobacco companies say, " Tobacco is bad for your health and can cause cancer", and you still smoke. The tobcacco company is no longer to blame! What people seem to forget is that a white cop hits a black lady and they promote the cop, but I get it cops don't break the law only people in the NFL and in MMA.
Timmy Pelotte
what does this have to do with race?
deathtokoalas
i think the media coverage has a pretty strong racial context underlying it, even if it's not explicitly stated. the headlines seem to be barely a step down from
PRIMITIVE NEGRO SAVAGELY CANNIBALIZES WIFE
are your white daughters safe?
Jay J
Correct. A lot of the media outrage is fake. TMZ is out to make a quick buck at anybody's expense. She MARRIED him. Obviously she has forgiven and moved on. If she married him afterwards and admitted to instigating and contributed to the fight, then people outside the relationship need to stay out.
deathtokoalas
i think there's a place for friends and family members to react to warning signals. and i'd take it as one, no doubt. but we don't have any valid prerogative to sit here from a distance and make judgements on other people's value systems.
Jmichael
In what way almost the same? As I see it, what you are doing is "fanning racial flame" without one iota of proof. That's not right unless you can back it up with something besides inflammatory remarks--just who said "primitive negro or even IMPLIED it--besides you just now?
deathtokoalas
well, this very video is full of racist comments, if you'd take the time to look.
the american media has found more sophisticated ways to be racist, which deal with certain code words and contexts. it's engineered to be difficult to deconstruct, but it's there when you really disassemble it.
Nonya Buzines
What happened to that white cop that groud-n-pounded that black lady? Did he get a promotion? Another medal from the mayor?
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
what i'm trying to get across is that, while it might be true that he didn't hit her hard and the rail technically knocked her out, he should have been more aware of the potential consequences. legally, the concept in tort law is called "duty of care". it means he has a responsibility to ensure that he carries out "reasonable foresight" in ensuring his actions don't cause harm. if it was a stranger, i'd agree he should be responsible for medical costs.
Wilphart
I don't think his intention was to knock her out. I think he underestimated his own strength. His couple of swats (I don't think they were closed-fisted) were too much for her face. He didn't keep at it, or even seem angry; I think he was surprised when her feet fell out from under her. He got counseling, she forgave him, and they got married. I don't think it implies he's a serial woman-beater or that it will happen again. It has nothing to do with football, but I understand their money comes from fans, who have now seen the video. The media makes money at his expense, too, and that's the price of being famous. I don't condone what he did, but I feel sorry for him and wish the media would leave him alone.
deathtokoalas
the energy rush triggered in the fight response from the sns as a result of being cornered could very well have contributed to a slap that was much harder than intended. that's a lot of factors that neither of them had any grasp of as things were happening.
at
00:12
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, September 8, 2014
the thing about kids that do pranks like this is that they want to get punished. it's a status issue. the more you punish them, the bigger their trophy and the more they can brag about it. getting retributive is something that's going to make you feel better about yourself, not something that's going to address the issue or otherwise correct their behaviour.
the ideal "punishment" would be for them to sit in the auditorium as student after student walks up to the microphone and verbally berates them for it, followed by loud audience applause. this would get the point across that the behaviour isn't "cool" and isn't going to help them make friends or get laid. so, ideally, this parade would include their friends, family members, people they have a crush on, etc.
....and, yes, they should get community service, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMsU-coB2Q
the ideal "punishment" would be for them to sit in the auditorium as student after student walks up to the microphone and verbally berates them for it, followed by loud audience applause. this would get the point across that the behaviour isn't "cool" and isn't going to help them make friends or get laid. so, ideally, this parade would include their friends, family members, people they have a crush on, etc.
....and, yes, they should get community service, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMsU-coB2Q
at
23:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it took me a while to figure out why the fuck none of the redditors had the block option up, then i realized it was more general and thought it was because i'm posting from a page.
it turns out that it doesn't work if you launch from youtube. the url is different. it might be because i'm a page.
solution is to copy the reddit user's id to a tab navigated to from directly inside google+.
i just blocked at least 100 of 'em. i hope it helps...
it turns out that it doesn't work if you launch from youtube. the url is different. it might be because i'm a page.
solution is to copy the reddit user's id to a tab navigated to from directly inside google+.
i just blocked at least 100 of 'em. i hope it helps...
at
23:06
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Hjalmar Nyman
Anyone else get here from reddit
deathtokoalas
hi. can you and all your reddit friends reply on my profile somewhere so i can block you? thanks.
Anyone else get here from reddit
deathtokoalas
hi. can you and all your reddit friends reply on my profile somewhere so i can block you? thanks.
at
09:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
publishing give ‘em hell, harry / strung out (inri051)
i'm jumping ahead just a wee bit, so i can get a better handle on the shape of things to come. this was an idea i was working out in the fall of 2001. inri032...
--
credits:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/give-em-hell-harry-strung-out
1) this one was built up out of the sequencer/sampler in cool edit, which allows a user to create a melodic passage out of harsh noise. if the sample is particularly harsh (as this is) the sequencing can get a little messy, which is a bonus.....
the spoken word part at the end is some free trade protester on cbc. created in the fall of 2001
2) so, the pun here is that it's a lot of guitars going off out of tune, representing how the government is stringing us to dry by taking away our rights in the (not so) chaotic aftermath of 9/11. one of the samples is william de la hunt; i did not record who the other person is. created in the fall of 2001
--
i don't
have an exact date for these files, so i'm picking november 11th. as
others were, i was concerned about the president abolishing the magna
carta after 9/11 and congress doing little more than helping him do it.
however, this was meant to be a more encompassing project that combined
harsh noise with political sampling that was pushing an anarchist
agenda. the name of the project (ftaa) was chosen as a pun - it could
either be the free trade agreement of the americas or about fueling true
anarchy in the americas. i ended up dropping the sampling aspect and
just focusing on the noise for the project's completion (which is the
ftaa release in mid 2004: jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
), so i'm going to upload these two pilot tracks (with the sampling in
tact) as an introductory single and place them in this more topical
chronological space.
in hindsight, i think there's something profound about juxtaposing the fair trade movement with the 9/11 attacks as, looking back, it really sucked the life out of the movement.
created in the fall of 2001. resequenced and rereleased on sept 7, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
in hindsight, i think there's something profound about juxtaposing the fair trade movement with the 9/11 attacks as, looking back, it really sucked the life out of the movement.
created in the fall of 2001. resequenced and rereleased on sept 7, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - noise generators, cool edit, sequencers, guitars
(electric, nylon, acoustic), mandolin, effects & processing,
digital wave editing, sampling, production
released november 11, 2001
released november 11, 2001
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/give-em-hell-harry-strung-out
1) this one was built up out of the sequencer/sampler in cool edit, which allows a user to create a melodic passage out of harsh noise. if the sample is particularly harsh (as this is) the sequencing can get a little messy, which is a bonus.....
the spoken word part at the end is some free trade protester on cbc. created in the fall of 2001
2) so, the pun here is that it's a lot of guitars going off out of tune, representing how the government is stringing us to dry by taking away our rights in the (not so) chaotic aftermath of 9/11. one of the samples is william de la hunt; i did not record who the other person is. created in the fall of 2001
at
08:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
re-uploading most of thru (inri070)
1) written late 2000 & early 2001. initial instrumentation and render completed mar 7, 2014. minor instrumentation changes to facilitate a small wind section were implemented in late april, 2014. final render completed on april 27, 2014.
2) written early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. final render completed on july 4, 2014.
3) written early 2001. this render is actually from may 13, 2001.
4) written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001; the render is from june 18, 2001.
5) written late 2001. this render is actually from sept 22, 2001; it was very mildly edited for continuity on october 1, 2014. note that it was put through some reverb at that time.
at
08:00
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
deathtokoalas
i see john's still pissing people off...
lennon's treatment of women is complex and paradoxical. was he a piece of shit for the way he treated the women in his life? unquestionably. is this song a statement of solidarity? equally unquestionably.
there's a glaring contradiction underlying it, but it shouldn't negate the value of the song. lennon blamed his upbringing, the drugs, the money - a lot of things. he claimed he changed. i'm not sure the evidence indicates he ever did.
but he seems to have tried to.
consider this: perhaps john lennon was mirroring a more general social evolution, and perhaps he had some effect on it's unraveling.
but, he's dead now. and it's certainly possible to separate the art from the person that created it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k
fwiw, it's still true. and you should still be angry about it and want to do something about it.
John Stark
I certainly do think he tried in his latter years to become a better person, it is a shame we never got to see the man he could have become. This song in itself doesn't cancel out his failings to raise his first children in the way he should have. It does however show that he listened to Yoko as if she was his equal and was happy to proclaim her message to the world.
Daniel Howell
maybe there is something im not privy to here...how was he shitty to women? Really, Im coming with respect here, I just dont know what it is you are referring to. Because he divorced his first wife ?
deathtokoalas
john lennon's abusive relationships with both of the women that he married are well documented.
it's not that yoko worked her way into the sessions. it's that john wouldn't let her out of his sight.
---
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
how many of the white boys in the audience are going to listen to angela davis say the same thing? it's one thing to say "don't speak for me when i'm standing beside you". it's another to say "don't stand up for me to people that otherwise wouldn't listen to me as a direct result of their existing prejudices".
there was a context to this idea and it had to do with agency. the argument is valid in that context. but you're misapplying it by taking it out of context. it was meant to give a direct voice to the oppressed, not to exacerbate and further racial segregation.
i see john's still pissing people off...
lennon's treatment of women is complex and paradoxical. was he a piece of shit for the way he treated the women in his life? unquestionably. is this song a statement of solidarity? equally unquestionably.
there's a glaring contradiction underlying it, but it shouldn't negate the value of the song. lennon blamed his upbringing, the drugs, the money - a lot of things. he claimed he changed. i'm not sure the evidence indicates he ever did.
but he seems to have tried to.
consider this: perhaps john lennon was mirroring a more general social evolution, and perhaps he had some effect on it's unraveling.
but, he's dead now. and it's certainly possible to separate the art from the person that created it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asf4InKVo8k
fwiw, it's still true. and you should still be angry about it and want to do something about it.
John Stark
I certainly do think he tried in his latter years to become a better person, it is a shame we never got to see the man he could have become. This song in itself doesn't cancel out his failings to raise his first children in the way he should have. It does however show that he listened to Yoko as if she was his equal and was happy to proclaim her message to the world.
Daniel Howell
maybe there is something im not privy to here...how was he shitty to women? Really, Im coming with respect here, I just dont know what it is you are referring to. Because he divorced his first wife ?
deathtokoalas
john lennon's abusive relationships with both of the women that he married are well documented.
it's not that yoko worked her way into the sessions. it's that john wouldn't let her out of his sight.
---
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
how many of the white boys in the audience are going to listen to angela davis say the same thing? it's one thing to say "don't speak for me when i'm standing beside you". it's another to say "don't stand up for me to people that otherwise wouldn't listen to me as a direct result of their existing prejudices".
there was a context to this idea and it had to do with agency. the argument is valid in that context. but you're misapplying it by taking it out of context. it was meant to give a direct voice to the oppressed, not to exacerbate and further racial segregation.
at
01:44
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
hey, i've still got a PIII kicking in my living room hooked up to the tv as a youtube box (my main pc is in the recording studio and i'm typing this on a much newer laptop...), but i pulled it up to the board max on ram (1 gb). old ram like that nowadays is worth pennies. and honestly? if firefox wasn't such a pig with resources, and so many websites weren't so picky about browsers, it'd be entirely useable as a day-to-day machine.
and load time is roughly thirty seconds if i take the large external full of mp3s out, and a little more than a minute if i keep it in.
somebody's gotta port off like firefox 2.0, do what sites like youtube need done for access without the whistles and maintain it for old machines....
but, if anybody asks about those old asus boards? yeah, they last. and that quantum fireball 20 gb drive from about 2001 is still spinning...
and load time is roughly thirty seconds if i take the large external full of mp3s out, and a little more than a minute if i keep it in.
somebody's gotta port off like firefox 2.0, do what sites like youtube need done for access without the whistles and maintain it for old machines....
but, if anybody asks about those old asus boards? yeah, they last. and that quantum fireball 20 gb drive from about 2001 is still spinning...
at
01:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
deathtokoalas
but, you're interpreting the world through a moral/religious filter and demanding it behave the way you deduce it "should" rather than interpreting it through an empirical filter of evidence and reacting to it the way that it actually is. this is a fundamentalist type of thinking (which was labelled "ignorance" in the enlightenment, but has undergone a rehabilitation in reputation since the boomers decided to scrawl over everything in magic marker) that is not going to be successful in eliminating the causes of rape, it's just going to lead to yet another group of self-righteous religionists scratching their head in bafflement over why their axioms don't work. it really seemed like we were past this kind of thinking. it's going to be interesting to see what a future historian writes about the collapse of empiricism and rise of faith-based reasoning in america over the last quarter of the twentieth century. for now, the question is grappling with how we return to empirical reasoning. unfortunately, we may have to learn the hard way...
there's no independent thought in this video, it's just repeating the ideas of others as they have been presented with a collection of rolling eyes and snotty inflections because everybody knows that if you read something in a book at a university then it must be true, like, duh, right?
it's frustrating because it's not going to make women safer for them to walk around thinking they live in a utopia when the reality is that we're collapsing into the post-capitalist chaos of advanced neo-liberalism and self-defense is becoming more and more - rather than less and less - necessary.
there's a few things that all young women should have drilled into their head by the time they're ten.
1) there's no santa claus.
2) photoshop is ubiquitous and, no, nobody seriously looks like that.
3) babies come from sex. diseases do, too.
4) you cannot trust men not to rape you, no matter how well you think you know or trust them.
marx would have labeled this kind of thinking as "utopian socialism" and rejected it as delusional and consequently unable to meet the challenges that it intends to meet. he would have been right, too. whether his solutions were actually scientific or not is less clear, but he had the right idea in approaching social problems using the power of empiricism rather than the arbitrary, utopian dictates of moralism.
wollstonecraft's argument was always that women only seem less intelligent because they're kept in ignorance and that the solution is to educate them the way men are educated. it's such an obvious observation that it's hard to believe it took as long as it did to be taken seriously. it's a very sad - but entirely reversible - orwellian twist of history that feminism has now become the tool to keep women trapped within naive and ignorant utopian fantasy realities, where their little heads don't have to grapple with how awful men in the real world actually are.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
before the rise of the "new left" (which is right-wing liberalism masquerading as leftism), leftists would generally argue that "rights" are an imaginary concept that can only be enforced by an authoritarian state that will always prioritize the "rights" of the ruling classes. this goes back to marx' polemics against rousseau. the leftist approach is not to argue that we ought to have all these rights but to attack the social conditions that lead to the inequalities underlying the injustices.
you're technically correct when you state there's no contradiction between not assigning blame to the victim and suggesting precautions are necessary in a violent and unequal society. there's nothing inherent in the core ideas of feminism that equate the suggestion of precaution with victim blaming; in fact, if you follow the arguments of systemic patriarchy, the actual rational deduction is that it implies precautions are necessary. but this isn't what is being taught nowadays. it's a very common rhetorical approach (and logical fallacy fwiw, but i don't want to get into that) to hear young feminists make that connection (i have firsthand experience of it being taught) - and it's certainly made in the video.
when you hear somebody state "i ought to be able to wear what i want and feel safe", there's nothing really contentious about the statement. but there's a lot of things that ought to be true, but really only exist or ever will exist in our minds.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
the statistics are clear: most rapes are carried out by people the victim knows and trusts. sorry.
justforcomment1
We fight for how we want the world to be, to show it what it can be if we all work together. It's not a matter of ignoring what the reality of the situation is in the moment but wishing, striving and working towards it being other than it is. It's not an act of deluding ourselves, but one of hope. It's called progress and it applies whether you're talking about it from a scientific, economical or sociological standpoint. What it seems like you're advocating is stagnation because we should accept that the reality of it is immutable, point blank and period. As history has proven time and time again, that just isn't the case.
deathtokoalas
what you're doing is describing every failed utopian movement that has ever existed and learning absolutely nothing from the mistakes of the past. the world is not there for you to create anew, it's there for you to adjust and adapt to. this is the great insight of nineteenth century science, an insight that america has only ever fought against and that it's inability to accept will be it's ultimate demise.
hope is another word for delusion. it's not possible to build a workable, fair society on such nonsense - it's the tried and tested algorithm to push off advances to some future time, be it the next generation or some kind of afterlife, and spin around in perpetual circles. change must occur through analyzing data and adjusting strategies to react to that data, not by placing hope in the faith of social progress.
stagnation is what happens when you don't adjust to evidence - when you place your plans for the future in ideas like hope.
Shanockdotcom
Had I more than one like to give, I would give it.
deathtokoalas
i can agree that strategies are required to address rape. in order to develop those strategies, we need to understand it better. it's something that seems to come out of a combination of biological impulses and hierarchical social organization. from that basic understanding, what we need to do is abolish the hierarchical organization of society and develop pharmaceutical approaches that minimize those biological impulses. while we're studying this, it's important that we teach our young women how to minimize the risks involved - not to play into the lies that uphold the liberal state and expect that a hierarchical patriarchy designed to negate female rights and reduce them to vessels is somehow going to uphold them, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
i don't want to blame anybody for being the victim of somebody else's criminality, but if there's a point of failure here in getting the messaging across it isn't in what people are wearing or where they're going or in how much they're drinking - it's in falling for the lies of liberalism, and being tricked into thinking we live in a free society. any slave will tell you they ought to be free. but, there has to be a shift in the economic basis of society to allow for that. and, in the meantime, a slave needs to be careful if it wants to avoid being beaten - or take the beating as an act of defiance.
Mark
She's discussing and promoting a change in approach. Which is evidence based beacuse we can see rape statistics change in places with different policies and cultures around rape. It's reasonable to discuss ideals, it's not religious, if she was saying that the world was safe for women that would be religious. I do agree that there will always be rape, just like there will always be murder and violence but we can greatly reduce rape statistics and make the world safer without having women sacrifice their freedom in order to do so. This is what is: I'm a man and I could be raped but it's unlikely enough that I can go around not worrying about it which gives me more freedom than women and that is an unethical imbalance. If we only talk about what is we can't make progress. Women should be taught self defence, and they should be made aware that the world is dangerous and that the greatest danger that women face is violent men but men should also be taught to control themselves, and to recognize when they are thinking like a rapist. All people should learn to protect one another and society/the state should take a greater role in providing protection and should stop promoting a culture that nudges men toward rape and that then blames women for it. We also must offer comfort and empathy to people who are victims rather than blame, if someone were to rob me tonight people would ve sympathetic and offer support but if my fiancé was raped tonight there would be people who blamed her in order to protect the establishment and that is sick and could be fixed.
deathtokoalas
there was actually a report released yesterday or the day before that indicated rape statistics in the united states are increasing. there's no doubt a partly cultural basis to this and it does need to be addressed, but an evidence-based response to that report would be that women need to take greater precautions for defense - even as various cultural concerns are addressed. what pisses me off isn't the suggestion of approaches - i advocate those - it's this idea of teaching teenagers that they don't need to protect themselves because they're protected by their rights, when the evidence suggests the exact opposite - that the system continually ignores and tramples all over their rights, and will continue to do so so long as it exists in the socio-economic context that it exists within.
this is why it's very difficult to talk about the state taking action, law enforcement responding or even the courts adjusting. we live in a patriarchal society that is designed to enforce male dominance. the role of the courts is not to abolish that existing order, but to maintain it. the role of the police is to enforce it. the role of the state is to exploit it.
...and, if you're going to challenge that order, it's going to beat you up.
like it or not, this neo-liberal fabric of society places that responsibility on the individual to avoid harm. that doesn't place blame in the victim, but it does mean it's absolutely necessary that young women understand the way that society is ordered - which is not an order of egalitarianism and social unity but an order of violent, competitive individualism and exploitation.
we don't live in a society where anybody can claim it's somebody else's responsibility to ensure their well-being, safety or responsibility. we live in a society where the individual must adapt or die. it's been designed that way very carefully.
i don't like that. i think we should fight to change it. but it's of fundamental importance that people understand it.
you can't change behaviour within the system, which produces the behaviour in the first place. you show up on the state's door and say "umm, guys, you're turning all our boys into violent, misogynist pieces of shit" and the state's response is "well, yeah. asia's pretty big, and we need some soldiers to conquer it.". you go to the state and say "gee, you're taking away reproductive rights. da fuck?", and the response is going to be "you're not making enough slaves for us, so we don't want you aborting anymore.".
all of this produces a context where being a woman is dangerous. denying that doesn't make people safer, it just creates a mindset that puts sheltered young women at risk - until they're forced to deal with reality in ugly, disturbing ways.
Mark
Oh I see what you mean. I agree with you but I think you can make a difference (although not a very big one) within the current system and that we should do that while we work to usurp the establishment. Is oppression here to stay as long as the current system exists? Yes but the oppression is in many ways growing more comfortable with time which is thanks to the hardwork of good people. Starvation is the lowest it's ever been, equality amoungst groups that aren't economic is the best it's ever been, and education and information are more accessible than ever. But you're right that sometimes these movements under the establishment can make people blind to real danger. The revolution isn't tomorrow but what can happen in the mean time is work to relive the oppressed but that has to be done responsibly. It is my opinion that revolutionaries should build alternative communities and then use them to help others thus showing and promoting a practical and alternative model, testing and exploring their hypotheses, developing a basis for revolution and providing intimedate help to those in need. I think this is also the path to a revolution that doesn't involve doing violence or forcing our ideas on others.
deathtokoalas
but just to address the religious aspect a last time: the root of her argument (it's all about choice) is not coming from any kind of social science, but from a basis in christian morality. all that stuff about choice is really just straight out of sunday school. we live in a system with all kinds of imbalances and injustices, then create rules to keep those imbalances in place. in most cases, crime is a result of those imbalances, not a choice to turn away from god.
it's important that we get back to understanding that if we want to actually address some of these issues, rather than just continue to stomp them out through police state tactics.
Mark
yes very true. Rapists come from their experiences they don't just out if no where decide to rape someone. In fact I'm sure that many probably don't understand what they have done. That said rapists and abusers are the ine group of people that I hate, I don't want to hate them, and I can see I'm not being reasonable, but when three of the four women I love have been victims of rape and all the women I love have been badly abused by men in some way I can't help but have an emotional response and it's hard not to blame their choice to do what they did rather than the forces that lead them there. That said liberal feminists do oppose many of the direct forces that create rapists which is useful. Victim blaming is one of those forces. However they are only symptomatic of deeper sociatal issues. Justice is a false idol but it's one that's very easy to embrace when you are as upset as I am about this issue.
deathtokoalas
i think the changes you're describing are the result of technology increasing distribution. i identify as a social anarchist, but i largely hold to marx' idea about revolution being in the mode of production. that is, i don't think there's really a way to change the existing order within the realities of existing productive capabilities. if you look at all of the places that have tried, they end up with the same thing - because it follows as a corollary of the productive order. there's little tweaks that can be made - should workers own their own factories? - but in the end, there's not a way to avoid that division of labour and the class divisions that come out of it.
i think the only thing that's going to really get us out of this is automation. we're getting to a point where we may be able to finally abolish the slave/worker class and take communal ownership of production, at which point the shape of society will irreversibly alter. it's not just the slave class that evaporates with automation, it's the managerial and financial sectors that oversee them that get abolished as well.
but, so long as we have the order we have, and so long as it continues to be enforced by the state to maintain it's own hegemony, there is not a way out of this besides taking matters into your own hands.
i don't know if i'd go so far as to deny an understanding. i'm not really comfortable with the normal feminist idea of rape as power. it's an idea that was kind of pulled out of thin air and then backed up with deductive philosophy - there's no science underlying it. the science seems to indicate that it's true in some cases, but really only extreme ones - serial rapists, serial killers...the really disturbed scenarios.
the science underlying date rape (the most common form of rape) is pretty conclusive that it's driven by sexual impulse, not desire for power or control. but there may be a hierarchical underpinning to the idea of date raping women, specifically.
we can be certain at this point that there's a biological basis for rape. we're not clear exactly how strong it is yet. i'm not one for using genetics to explain behaviour, but i'm a strong advocate of the idea of using hormones to explain behaviour, which are controlled by genes. so, that's an indirect genetic thing.
again, you've gotta go back to this kind of christian (or even randian) kind of thinking that explains all criminality in terms of bad choices, and reject it as unscientific. humans are driven by all kinds of impulses. we're not at the point where we can prove it yet, but the science is leaning towards the idea of certain genetic predispositions placing some men in heightened hormonal and cognitive states that they really can't control any more than a dog or a gorilla can. yes, that directly contradicts the idea of humans as rational beings - but it's an idea that's so obsolete now that it shouldn't even raise an articulated opposition.
there's a solution to this in hormone blocking. if the genetics can be identified, it could even be diagnosed before it causes problems.
but we have to start thinking about the problem in the right way before we can get to these solutions. and, in the mean time, we need to understand the depth of it (i mean, we're talking about 20% of women - indicating nearly as many men are rapists) and take steps to keep us out of harm.
the way i'd hypothesize the hormones working (and i'm basing it on studies i've read, but it's my idea) can be explained a little like this...
you've probably had sex a few times. you may have noticed (or you may have not, pay more attention next time) that there's a point where you get into it where you sort of just start going. you might want to call this something like "flow". it's probably the single most defining characteristic of good sex. but what is it, in scientific terms?
it could very well be a hormonal response that is taking over your consciousness and driving it to an end point of passing on those genes.
now, for "normal people", two things are true - or at least we'd like to think these things are true for most people:
1) that doesn't kick in until you're well into the process.
2) it's relatively easy to turn off. although if you're honest, you know it's a bit of a challenge sometimes.
i might suggest that some rapists (not all rapists. like any complex phenomena, rape has multiple causes.) experience this hormonal takeover before they get into it, and lack the ability to turn it off as easily.
again: i wouldn't really take that to the point of not understanding. i've read some case studies where you're dealing with rapists with fas or something (it's a significant problem in the canadian aboriginal community, for example) where there really is a lack of understanding, and it's something else entirely.
but the level of control may not be a simple as something that can be portrayed as a "choice" that should be "punished".
Amy
So, we should just accept rape as it is? The way it's treated in court, the way it's treated in the media, the way victim's are treated? You're cool with that? What a fucking complacent way to live.
deathtokoalas
that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that the forces underlying rape culture cannot be removed through a shift in social attitude or pushing rhetoric, it's going to require an entire reworking of society from the bottom up. there's no bandaid solution to rape culture. you gotta blow everything up.
but what i'm really saying is that it's irresponsible to present this kind of messaging to young girls, and have them learn the hard way. i'm not going to blame a 14 year old for being a 14 year old, but i might blame laci for convincing her she has more freedom than the society we live in actually grants her.
PinkPenguinPajamas
But rape culture is exactly that. A social attitude. So by shifting the victim blaming attitude to an enlightened "hey, you're not going to get away with that" attitude, things will change. No, that doesn't mean that rape will never happen. And it certainly won't stop over night. The point is that the way these situations are handled will change for the better, and on top of that, the number of perpetrators will go down. Sexual assault or harassment will, unfortunately, never stop, but if we stop victim blaming and instead blame the person responsible, things will change.
And no, Laci's message is NOT harmful to young girls. What's harmful, and what will hinder the movement and make things worse, is telling a young girl "You shouldn't do that, you'll be asking for it," or "You did WHAT?! Well, of course he did that, you weren't very smart now, were you?". She'll cower down and be afraid her whole life, and that's no way to live. You don't live by the freedoms society grants you, you live by the freedoms the law gives you. And if anyone tries to take that away, you fight tooth and nail to prove them wrong and make them live with the consequences for trying to hurt you and keep you down.
I'm not saying go to town, get black out drunk in the ghetto in a bikini and a mini-skirt and then act surprised if you're assaulted (it's not the smart thing to do, but it happens). But by all means, if that happens, you don't let them get away with it. And that's the point of this video. Sexual harassment happens, but you don't let the assailants get away with it just because just because society says you were "asking for it". Don't settle because "that the way things are", push forward and fight back because that's not how they should be.
deathtokoalas
there's been a lot of studies done asking the question of if disincentives (or "deterrents") work in reducing crime, and the answer is that they very clearly do not. it's a christian-derived faith-based "rational" argument that does not hold up to any kind of empirical analysis. effective approaches will deal with issues of prevention from both angles.
PinkPenguinPajamas
While victim blaming and slut shaming women is a very Christian view, the US is changing. Tons of things that were thought scandalous and immoral are slowly changing to be more open and rational, even if some places are stuck in the past. The only logical thing to do is to change with the rationals, and if we feel that the progress is stagnant, keep changing for the better anyways. There is no reason to digress when progress isn't visible; it doesn't sense. It only ensures change will never come. Letting people get away with things when they're very clearly wrong only ensures that they will not pay the consequences, meaning they'll do it again and encourage others to act out as well. You have to be the change, and others will follow.
deathtokoalas
but you're not understanding that the empirical data makes it clear that tougher sentences have no effect on rates of recidivism. getting "tough on rapists" is not going to reduce rape, and nobody thinks it will except the fire & brimstone types listening to rush limbaugh.
the things that do have an effect on rates of recidivism have to do with social and economic factors and have solutions that lie in broadening the scope of social programs and rehabilitation measures.
further, all we've seen is social regress since about 1985. the period of progress that you're referring to is not just long over, it's largely been reversed.
Scott
so how about you present this almighty empirical data. Because up till now it's all just been rhetoric. Point me to the studies, show me the actual data. By all means make your points and present a view we can all benefit from. Show us the folly of our thinking. We need to know when popular belief and cultural tendency is out of step with statistical reality. But please don't tell me reality is different than what I think it is WITHOUT SHOWING ME REALITY! Because otherwise I might begin to think you're "just repeating the ideas of others as they have been presented with a collection of rolling eyes and snotty inflections because everybody knows that if you read something in a book at a university then it must be true, like, duh, right?"
deathtokoalas
this is a youtube comment section, i'm not sorting through journals searching for citations. if you'd like to contradict something, i'll take the time to rebut it but it's ultimately not my responsibility to educate you. sorry.
what you'll find, if you take the time to look into it, is that nothing i'm saying is contentious and that sources are mostly accessible through basic google searches.
Scott
"there was actually a report released yesterday or the day before that indicated rape statistics in the united states are increasing." Surely you could at the very least state which study you are referring to.
deathtokoalas
i think i saw it on google news. i don't remember the site that hosted the article.
this was quick to find, but i'm not going to spend my monday morning searching through journals, i already wasted all day yesterday doing this when i should have been mixing atonal choir parts...
http://www.refinery29.com/2014/09/74038/how-many-women-raped-sexual-assault-statistics?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss
Carrick
what kind of name is deathtokoalas
deaathtokoalas
koalas demonstrate a perverse cuteness that cannot be tolerated by any advanced civilization.
i just want to clarify what "prevention" means in a way that is not oppressive to individual rights. i'm not really interested in standing up for rights theory, exactly, and i think the idea is being rather abused here - there's nothing in the universal declaration about the right to be drunk or the right to wear short skirts - but i do agree that trying to regulate that sort of behaviour is oppressive. i'm going to explain what not to do by way of example of something i once did...
i was out dancing in a gay bar in ottawa one night a few years ago, went down for a cigarette and bumped into somebody that offered to smoke me on a joint in the park. much marijuana is smoked in that park, and i didn't think much of it. i was also at the point in my gender transition where i was beginning to "pass", and wasn't yet really cognizant of the different social realities attached to existing sexually as a female in a public place. so, i went and smoked the joint.
a few minutes into the conversation, buddy pulls it out and starts whipping it. now, i'm an open-minded person - i actually reacted by laughing at him. i wasn't offended as much as i was amused. had he tried to touch me, that's a different story. and had i been somebody else, he could have gotten himself into some trouble. in actuality, by the time he was done, i realized that he was extremely drunk and wasn't really safe to leave passed out in the park. what actually kicked in was my sense of empathy; instead of knocking him out, i helped him back out to a safer place on the road with lights and a bench before i very briskly walked off.
he seemed more embarrassed by my reaction than sorry about it.
but, the behaviour is arguably legally harassment, and the situation could have been rather different if the dude was a more aggressive person.
now, if something unfortunate would have happened, would i be to blame for it? no. but, i can look back at the situation and conclude it wasn't a safe thing for me to walk to the park with the guy in the dark and smoke some drugs of unknown origin or content (although my nose is pretty good on the last one). i've shifted my behaviour since then, and would not do that again.
does that in some way restrict my "right" to get stoned in the park on a friday night? in some abstraction, perhaps. but, i realize that it's something i should be less haphazard about for the benefit of my own well-being. there's some give and take on the issue.
i recognize i'm only describing a small class of possible rape scenarios. i didn't know this guy. but, the idea can be extrapolated more generally in terms of protecting drinks, staying in lighted areas, being wary of the dudes you think you trust, etc.
and that point needs to be gotten across just as loudly as safe sex needs to be gotten across, as part of a basic sex education.
but, you're interpreting the world through a moral/religious filter and demanding it behave the way you deduce it "should" rather than interpreting it through an empirical filter of evidence and reacting to it the way that it actually is. this is a fundamentalist type of thinking (which was labelled "ignorance" in the enlightenment, but has undergone a rehabilitation in reputation since the boomers decided to scrawl over everything in magic marker) that is not going to be successful in eliminating the causes of rape, it's just going to lead to yet another group of self-righteous religionists scratching their head in bafflement over why their axioms don't work. it really seemed like we were past this kind of thinking. it's going to be interesting to see what a future historian writes about the collapse of empiricism and rise of faith-based reasoning in america over the last quarter of the twentieth century. for now, the question is grappling with how we return to empirical reasoning. unfortunately, we may have to learn the hard way...
there's no independent thought in this video, it's just repeating the ideas of others as they have been presented with a collection of rolling eyes and snotty inflections because everybody knows that if you read something in a book at a university then it must be true, like, duh, right?
it's frustrating because it's not going to make women safer for them to walk around thinking they live in a utopia when the reality is that we're collapsing into the post-capitalist chaos of advanced neo-liberalism and self-defense is becoming more and more - rather than less and less - necessary.
there's a few things that all young women should have drilled into their head by the time they're ten.
1) there's no santa claus.
2) photoshop is ubiquitous and, no, nobody seriously looks like that.
3) babies come from sex. diseases do, too.
4) you cannot trust men not to rape you, no matter how well you think you know or trust them.
marx would have labeled this kind of thinking as "utopian socialism" and rejected it as delusional and consequently unable to meet the challenges that it intends to meet. he would have been right, too. whether his solutions were actually scientific or not is less clear, but he had the right idea in approaching social problems using the power of empiricism rather than the arbitrary, utopian dictates of moralism.
wollstonecraft's argument was always that women only seem less intelligent because they're kept in ignorance and that the solution is to educate them the way men are educated. it's such an obvious observation that it's hard to believe it took as long as it did to be taken seriously. it's a very sad - but entirely reversible - orwellian twist of history that feminism has now become the tool to keep women trapped within naive and ignorant utopian fantasy realities, where their little heads don't have to grapple with how awful men in the real world actually are.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
before the rise of the "new left" (which is right-wing liberalism masquerading as leftism), leftists would generally argue that "rights" are an imaginary concept that can only be enforced by an authoritarian state that will always prioritize the "rights" of the ruling classes. this goes back to marx' polemics against rousseau. the leftist approach is not to argue that we ought to have all these rights but to attack the social conditions that lead to the inequalities underlying the injustices.
you're technically correct when you state there's no contradiction between not assigning blame to the victim and suggesting precautions are necessary in a violent and unequal society. there's nothing inherent in the core ideas of feminism that equate the suggestion of precaution with victim blaming; in fact, if you follow the arguments of systemic patriarchy, the actual rational deduction is that it implies precautions are necessary. but this isn't what is being taught nowadays. it's a very common rhetorical approach (and logical fallacy fwiw, but i don't want to get into that) to hear young feminists make that connection (i have firsthand experience of it being taught) - and it's certainly made in the video.
when you hear somebody state "i ought to be able to wear what i want and feel safe", there's nothing really contentious about the statement. but there's a lot of things that ought to be true, but really only exist or ever will exist in our minds.
(deleted response)
deathtokoalas
the statistics are clear: most rapes are carried out by people the victim knows and trusts. sorry.
justforcomment1
We fight for how we want the world to be, to show it what it can be if we all work together. It's not a matter of ignoring what the reality of the situation is in the moment but wishing, striving and working towards it being other than it is. It's not an act of deluding ourselves, but one of hope. It's called progress and it applies whether you're talking about it from a scientific, economical or sociological standpoint. What it seems like you're advocating is stagnation because we should accept that the reality of it is immutable, point blank and period. As history has proven time and time again, that just isn't the case.
deathtokoalas
what you're doing is describing every failed utopian movement that has ever existed and learning absolutely nothing from the mistakes of the past. the world is not there for you to create anew, it's there for you to adjust and adapt to. this is the great insight of nineteenth century science, an insight that america has only ever fought against and that it's inability to accept will be it's ultimate demise.
hope is another word for delusion. it's not possible to build a workable, fair society on such nonsense - it's the tried and tested algorithm to push off advances to some future time, be it the next generation or some kind of afterlife, and spin around in perpetual circles. change must occur through analyzing data and adjusting strategies to react to that data, not by placing hope in the faith of social progress.
stagnation is what happens when you don't adjust to evidence - when you place your plans for the future in ideas like hope.
Shanockdotcom
Had I more than one like to give, I would give it.
deathtokoalas
i can agree that strategies are required to address rape. in order to develop those strategies, we need to understand it better. it's something that seems to come out of a combination of biological impulses and hierarchical social organization. from that basic understanding, what we need to do is abolish the hierarchical organization of society and develop pharmaceutical approaches that minimize those biological impulses. while we're studying this, it's important that we teach our young women how to minimize the risks involved - not to play into the lies that uphold the liberal state and expect that a hierarchical patriarchy designed to negate female rights and reduce them to vessels is somehow going to uphold them, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
i don't want to blame anybody for being the victim of somebody else's criminality, but if there's a point of failure here in getting the messaging across it isn't in what people are wearing or where they're going or in how much they're drinking - it's in falling for the lies of liberalism, and being tricked into thinking we live in a free society. any slave will tell you they ought to be free. but, there has to be a shift in the economic basis of society to allow for that. and, in the meantime, a slave needs to be careful if it wants to avoid being beaten - or take the beating as an act of defiance.
Mark
She's discussing and promoting a change in approach. Which is evidence based beacuse we can see rape statistics change in places with different policies and cultures around rape. It's reasonable to discuss ideals, it's not religious, if she was saying that the world was safe for women that would be religious. I do agree that there will always be rape, just like there will always be murder and violence but we can greatly reduce rape statistics and make the world safer without having women sacrifice their freedom in order to do so. This is what is: I'm a man and I could be raped but it's unlikely enough that I can go around not worrying about it which gives me more freedom than women and that is an unethical imbalance. If we only talk about what is we can't make progress. Women should be taught self defence, and they should be made aware that the world is dangerous and that the greatest danger that women face is violent men but men should also be taught to control themselves, and to recognize when they are thinking like a rapist. All people should learn to protect one another and society/the state should take a greater role in providing protection and should stop promoting a culture that nudges men toward rape and that then blames women for it. We also must offer comfort and empathy to people who are victims rather than blame, if someone were to rob me tonight people would ve sympathetic and offer support but if my fiancé was raped tonight there would be people who blamed her in order to protect the establishment and that is sick and could be fixed.
deathtokoalas
there was actually a report released yesterday or the day before that indicated rape statistics in the united states are increasing. there's no doubt a partly cultural basis to this and it does need to be addressed, but an evidence-based response to that report would be that women need to take greater precautions for defense - even as various cultural concerns are addressed. what pisses me off isn't the suggestion of approaches - i advocate those - it's this idea of teaching teenagers that they don't need to protect themselves because they're protected by their rights, when the evidence suggests the exact opposite - that the system continually ignores and tramples all over their rights, and will continue to do so so long as it exists in the socio-economic context that it exists within.
this is why it's very difficult to talk about the state taking action, law enforcement responding or even the courts adjusting. we live in a patriarchal society that is designed to enforce male dominance. the role of the courts is not to abolish that existing order, but to maintain it. the role of the police is to enforce it. the role of the state is to exploit it.
...and, if you're going to challenge that order, it's going to beat you up.
like it or not, this neo-liberal fabric of society places that responsibility on the individual to avoid harm. that doesn't place blame in the victim, but it does mean it's absolutely necessary that young women understand the way that society is ordered - which is not an order of egalitarianism and social unity but an order of violent, competitive individualism and exploitation.
we don't live in a society where anybody can claim it's somebody else's responsibility to ensure their well-being, safety or responsibility. we live in a society where the individual must adapt or die. it's been designed that way very carefully.
i don't like that. i think we should fight to change it. but it's of fundamental importance that people understand it.
you can't change behaviour within the system, which produces the behaviour in the first place. you show up on the state's door and say "umm, guys, you're turning all our boys into violent, misogynist pieces of shit" and the state's response is "well, yeah. asia's pretty big, and we need some soldiers to conquer it.". you go to the state and say "gee, you're taking away reproductive rights. da fuck?", and the response is going to be "you're not making enough slaves for us, so we don't want you aborting anymore.".
all of this produces a context where being a woman is dangerous. denying that doesn't make people safer, it just creates a mindset that puts sheltered young women at risk - until they're forced to deal with reality in ugly, disturbing ways.
Mark
Oh I see what you mean. I agree with you but I think you can make a difference (although not a very big one) within the current system and that we should do that while we work to usurp the establishment. Is oppression here to stay as long as the current system exists? Yes but the oppression is in many ways growing more comfortable with time which is thanks to the hardwork of good people. Starvation is the lowest it's ever been, equality amoungst groups that aren't economic is the best it's ever been, and education and information are more accessible than ever. But you're right that sometimes these movements under the establishment can make people blind to real danger. The revolution isn't tomorrow but what can happen in the mean time is work to relive the oppressed but that has to be done responsibly. It is my opinion that revolutionaries should build alternative communities and then use them to help others thus showing and promoting a practical and alternative model, testing and exploring their hypotheses, developing a basis for revolution and providing intimedate help to those in need. I think this is also the path to a revolution that doesn't involve doing violence or forcing our ideas on others.
deathtokoalas
but just to address the religious aspect a last time: the root of her argument (it's all about choice) is not coming from any kind of social science, but from a basis in christian morality. all that stuff about choice is really just straight out of sunday school. we live in a system with all kinds of imbalances and injustices, then create rules to keep those imbalances in place. in most cases, crime is a result of those imbalances, not a choice to turn away from god.
it's important that we get back to understanding that if we want to actually address some of these issues, rather than just continue to stomp them out through police state tactics.
Mark
yes very true. Rapists come from their experiences they don't just out if no where decide to rape someone. In fact I'm sure that many probably don't understand what they have done. That said rapists and abusers are the ine group of people that I hate, I don't want to hate them, and I can see I'm not being reasonable, but when three of the four women I love have been victims of rape and all the women I love have been badly abused by men in some way I can't help but have an emotional response and it's hard not to blame their choice to do what they did rather than the forces that lead them there. That said liberal feminists do oppose many of the direct forces that create rapists which is useful. Victim blaming is one of those forces. However they are only symptomatic of deeper sociatal issues. Justice is a false idol but it's one that's very easy to embrace when you are as upset as I am about this issue.
deathtokoalas
i think the changes you're describing are the result of technology increasing distribution. i identify as a social anarchist, but i largely hold to marx' idea about revolution being in the mode of production. that is, i don't think there's really a way to change the existing order within the realities of existing productive capabilities. if you look at all of the places that have tried, they end up with the same thing - because it follows as a corollary of the productive order. there's little tweaks that can be made - should workers own their own factories? - but in the end, there's not a way to avoid that division of labour and the class divisions that come out of it.
i think the only thing that's going to really get us out of this is automation. we're getting to a point where we may be able to finally abolish the slave/worker class and take communal ownership of production, at which point the shape of society will irreversibly alter. it's not just the slave class that evaporates with automation, it's the managerial and financial sectors that oversee them that get abolished as well.
but, so long as we have the order we have, and so long as it continues to be enforced by the state to maintain it's own hegemony, there is not a way out of this besides taking matters into your own hands.
i don't know if i'd go so far as to deny an understanding. i'm not really comfortable with the normal feminist idea of rape as power. it's an idea that was kind of pulled out of thin air and then backed up with deductive philosophy - there's no science underlying it. the science seems to indicate that it's true in some cases, but really only extreme ones - serial rapists, serial killers...the really disturbed scenarios.
the science underlying date rape (the most common form of rape) is pretty conclusive that it's driven by sexual impulse, not desire for power or control. but there may be a hierarchical underpinning to the idea of date raping women, specifically.
we can be certain at this point that there's a biological basis for rape. we're not clear exactly how strong it is yet. i'm not one for using genetics to explain behaviour, but i'm a strong advocate of the idea of using hormones to explain behaviour, which are controlled by genes. so, that's an indirect genetic thing.
again, you've gotta go back to this kind of christian (or even randian) kind of thinking that explains all criminality in terms of bad choices, and reject it as unscientific. humans are driven by all kinds of impulses. we're not at the point where we can prove it yet, but the science is leaning towards the idea of certain genetic predispositions placing some men in heightened hormonal and cognitive states that they really can't control any more than a dog or a gorilla can. yes, that directly contradicts the idea of humans as rational beings - but it's an idea that's so obsolete now that it shouldn't even raise an articulated opposition.
there's a solution to this in hormone blocking. if the genetics can be identified, it could even be diagnosed before it causes problems.
but we have to start thinking about the problem in the right way before we can get to these solutions. and, in the mean time, we need to understand the depth of it (i mean, we're talking about 20% of women - indicating nearly as many men are rapists) and take steps to keep us out of harm.
the way i'd hypothesize the hormones working (and i'm basing it on studies i've read, but it's my idea) can be explained a little like this...
you've probably had sex a few times. you may have noticed (or you may have not, pay more attention next time) that there's a point where you get into it where you sort of just start going. you might want to call this something like "flow". it's probably the single most defining characteristic of good sex. but what is it, in scientific terms?
it could very well be a hormonal response that is taking over your consciousness and driving it to an end point of passing on those genes.
now, for "normal people", two things are true - or at least we'd like to think these things are true for most people:
1) that doesn't kick in until you're well into the process.
2) it's relatively easy to turn off. although if you're honest, you know it's a bit of a challenge sometimes.
i might suggest that some rapists (not all rapists. like any complex phenomena, rape has multiple causes.) experience this hormonal takeover before they get into it, and lack the ability to turn it off as easily.
again: i wouldn't really take that to the point of not understanding. i've read some case studies where you're dealing with rapists with fas or something (it's a significant problem in the canadian aboriginal community, for example) where there really is a lack of understanding, and it's something else entirely.
but the level of control may not be a simple as something that can be portrayed as a "choice" that should be "punished".
Amy
So, we should just accept rape as it is? The way it's treated in court, the way it's treated in the media, the way victim's are treated? You're cool with that? What a fucking complacent way to live.
deathtokoalas
that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that the forces underlying rape culture cannot be removed through a shift in social attitude or pushing rhetoric, it's going to require an entire reworking of society from the bottom up. there's no bandaid solution to rape culture. you gotta blow everything up.
but what i'm really saying is that it's irresponsible to present this kind of messaging to young girls, and have them learn the hard way. i'm not going to blame a 14 year old for being a 14 year old, but i might blame laci for convincing her she has more freedom than the society we live in actually grants her.
PinkPenguinPajamas
But rape culture is exactly that. A social attitude. So by shifting the victim blaming attitude to an enlightened "hey, you're not going to get away with that" attitude, things will change. No, that doesn't mean that rape will never happen. And it certainly won't stop over night. The point is that the way these situations are handled will change for the better, and on top of that, the number of perpetrators will go down. Sexual assault or harassment will, unfortunately, never stop, but if we stop victim blaming and instead blame the person responsible, things will change.
And no, Laci's message is NOT harmful to young girls. What's harmful, and what will hinder the movement and make things worse, is telling a young girl "You shouldn't do that, you'll be asking for it," or "You did WHAT?! Well, of course he did that, you weren't very smart now, were you?". She'll cower down and be afraid her whole life, and that's no way to live. You don't live by the freedoms society grants you, you live by the freedoms the law gives you. And if anyone tries to take that away, you fight tooth and nail to prove them wrong and make them live with the consequences for trying to hurt you and keep you down.
I'm not saying go to town, get black out drunk in the ghetto in a bikini and a mini-skirt and then act surprised if you're assaulted (it's not the smart thing to do, but it happens). But by all means, if that happens, you don't let them get away with it. And that's the point of this video. Sexual harassment happens, but you don't let the assailants get away with it just because just because society says you were "asking for it". Don't settle because "that the way things are", push forward and fight back because that's not how they should be.
deathtokoalas
there's been a lot of studies done asking the question of if disincentives (or "deterrents") work in reducing crime, and the answer is that they very clearly do not. it's a christian-derived faith-based "rational" argument that does not hold up to any kind of empirical analysis. effective approaches will deal with issues of prevention from both angles.
PinkPenguinPajamas
While victim blaming and slut shaming women is a very Christian view, the US is changing. Tons of things that were thought scandalous and immoral are slowly changing to be more open and rational, even if some places are stuck in the past. The only logical thing to do is to change with the rationals, and if we feel that the progress is stagnant, keep changing for the better anyways. There is no reason to digress when progress isn't visible; it doesn't sense. It only ensures change will never come. Letting people get away with things when they're very clearly wrong only ensures that they will not pay the consequences, meaning they'll do it again and encourage others to act out as well. You have to be the change, and others will follow.
deathtokoalas
but you're not understanding that the empirical data makes it clear that tougher sentences have no effect on rates of recidivism. getting "tough on rapists" is not going to reduce rape, and nobody thinks it will except the fire & brimstone types listening to rush limbaugh.
the things that do have an effect on rates of recidivism have to do with social and economic factors and have solutions that lie in broadening the scope of social programs and rehabilitation measures.
further, all we've seen is social regress since about 1985. the period of progress that you're referring to is not just long over, it's largely been reversed.
Scott
so how about you present this almighty empirical data. Because up till now it's all just been rhetoric. Point me to the studies, show me the actual data. By all means make your points and present a view we can all benefit from. Show us the folly of our thinking. We need to know when popular belief and cultural tendency is out of step with statistical reality. But please don't tell me reality is different than what I think it is WITHOUT SHOWING ME REALITY! Because otherwise I might begin to think you're "just repeating the ideas of others as they have been presented with a collection of rolling eyes and snotty inflections because everybody knows that if you read something in a book at a university then it must be true, like, duh, right?"
deathtokoalas
this is a youtube comment section, i'm not sorting through journals searching for citations. if you'd like to contradict something, i'll take the time to rebut it but it's ultimately not my responsibility to educate you. sorry.
what you'll find, if you take the time to look into it, is that nothing i'm saying is contentious and that sources are mostly accessible through basic google searches.
Scott
"there was actually a report released yesterday or the day before that indicated rape statistics in the united states are increasing." Surely you could at the very least state which study you are referring to.
deathtokoalas
i think i saw it on google news. i don't remember the site that hosted the article.
this was quick to find, but i'm not going to spend my monday morning searching through journals, i already wasted all day yesterday doing this when i should have been mixing atonal choir parts...
http://www.refinery29.com/2014/09/74038/how-many-women-raped-sexual-assault-statistics?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss
Carrick
what kind of name is deathtokoalas
deaathtokoalas
koalas demonstrate a perverse cuteness that cannot be tolerated by any advanced civilization.
i just want to clarify what "prevention" means in a way that is not oppressive to individual rights. i'm not really interested in standing up for rights theory, exactly, and i think the idea is being rather abused here - there's nothing in the universal declaration about the right to be drunk or the right to wear short skirts - but i do agree that trying to regulate that sort of behaviour is oppressive. i'm going to explain what not to do by way of example of something i once did...
i was out dancing in a gay bar in ottawa one night a few years ago, went down for a cigarette and bumped into somebody that offered to smoke me on a joint in the park. much marijuana is smoked in that park, and i didn't think much of it. i was also at the point in my gender transition where i was beginning to "pass", and wasn't yet really cognizant of the different social realities attached to existing sexually as a female in a public place. so, i went and smoked the joint.
a few minutes into the conversation, buddy pulls it out and starts whipping it. now, i'm an open-minded person - i actually reacted by laughing at him. i wasn't offended as much as i was amused. had he tried to touch me, that's a different story. and had i been somebody else, he could have gotten himself into some trouble. in actuality, by the time he was done, i realized that he was extremely drunk and wasn't really safe to leave passed out in the park. what actually kicked in was my sense of empathy; instead of knocking him out, i helped him back out to a safer place on the road with lights and a bench before i very briskly walked off.
he seemed more embarrassed by my reaction than sorry about it.
but, the behaviour is arguably legally harassment, and the situation could have been rather different if the dude was a more aggressive person.
now, if something unfortunate would have happened, would i be to blame for it? no. but, i can look back at the situation and conclude it wasn't a safe thing for me to walk to the park with the guy in the dark and smoke some drugs of unknown origin or content (although my nose is pretty good on the last one). i've shifted my behaviour since then, and would not do that again.
does that in some way restrict my "right" to get stoned in the park on a friday night? in some abstraction, perhaps. but, i realize that it's something i should be less haphazard about for the benefit of my own well-being. there's some give and take on the issue.
i recognize i'm only describing a small class of possible rape scenarios. i didn't know this guy. but, the idea can be extrapolated more generally in terms of protecting drinks, staying in lighted areas, being wary of the dudes you think you trust, etc.
and that point needs to be gotten across just as loudly as safe sex needs to be gotten across, as part of a basic sex education.
at
00:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, September 6, 2014
it's not that i disagree with you. i do agree with you. when you say that you ought to be able to wear what you want and feel comfortable and confident and safe, you're absolutely right - you ought to be able to. this is essentially a logical type of thinking.
where i run into difficulties with the line of thinking is trying to extrapolate it from the point of logical reasoning to the point of empirical enquiry. you ought to. but can you?
i'm not going to pretend like the science is here, but it is currently leaning towards male sexual responses being inherently impulsive. we're not quite dogs. but, we might not be as different from them as we'd like to think. generally, this argument applies in less mundane circumstances than standing in line at a tesco, but nonetheless...
now, the reason this is important is that the problem is often framed in cultural terms - which is a logical argument. we tend to think that if we just spend a lot of time explaining to these guys that they ought to smarten up and be more respectful then they will - that our logic will be triumphant. and we look at dude a and dude b and say "if dude a can be respectful, why can't dude b?".
the upcoming problem that may be necessary to very difficultly grapple with is that dude b might be acting out of a different genetic configuration that puts him in hormonal and cognitive states that cannot be effectively transcended without treatment.
i'm not exactly saying that that's true. i'm very much hoping it's not true. however, i'm pointing out that it very well might be true, and the sum of evidence is suggesting that it may actually be likely to be true.
which brings you back to the is/ought issue. you ought to. but...
[something about a shirt in tesco]
where i run into difficulties with the line of thinking is trying to extrapolate it from the point of logical reasoning to the point of empirical enquiry. you ought to. but can you?
i'm not going to pretend like the science is here, but it is currently leaning towards male sexual responses being inherently impulsive. we're not quite dogs. but, we might not be as different from them as we'd like to think. generally, this argument applies in less mundane circumstances than standing in line at a tesco, but nonetheless...
now, the reason this is important is that the problem is often framed in cultural terms - which is a logical argument. we tend to think that if we just spend a lot of time explaining to these guys that they ought to smarten up and be more respectful then they will - that our logic will be triumphant. and we look at dude a and dude b and say "if dude a can be respectful, why can't dude b?".
the upcoming problem that may be necessary to very difficultly grapple with is that dude b might be acting out of a different genetic configuration that puts him in hormonal and cognitive states that cannot be effectively transcended without treatment.
i'm not exactly saying that that's true. i'm very much hoping it's not true. however, i'm pointing out that it very well might be true, and the sum of evidence is suggesting that it may actually be likely to be true.
which brings you back to the is/ought issue. you ought to. but...
[something about a shirt in tesco]
at
23:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
before i start, i want to stress that there's a human in there somewhere that's ultimately just doing her job, which is to read press releases that she has little influence over the development of. let's not forget not to shoot the messenger.
but she uses a quite restricted set of very clearly defined soft intimidation tactics that are constructed via a combination of the age and gender of the reporter. as the question and reporter shifts, the body language does in a way designed to control the discussion. that's not the behaviour of a psychotic person; it's actually too controlled, to the point that it must be the result of strict training. it seems to be largely successful. if this was in a back room meeting somewhere, it wouldn't be so easy to deconstruct. but, the thing is there's a camera on her and people watching that aren't getting stared down or smiled at.
the problem with a press secretary that has such clear, forceful body language is that she advertises things she doesn't mean to. it's quite easy to pull out when she knows she's lying because she stares right at the reporter she's lying to. again: not a bad tactic, except the camera that's there to deconstruct it. it's also easy to tell when she's challenged or flustered because she begins stuttering rather badly.
i know this is meant for internal consumption, but you have to understand that every powerful state has somebody that's smarter than i am and is watching this and taking these notes.
but she uses a quite restricted set of very clearly defined soft intimidation tactics that are constructed via a combination of the age and gender of the reporter. as the question and reporter shifts, the body language does in a way designed to control the discussion. that's not the behaviour of a psychotic person; it's actually too controlled, to the point that it must be the result of strict training. it seems to be largely successful. if this was in a back room meeting somewhere, it wouldn't be so easy to deconstruct. but, the thing is there's a camera on her and people watching that aren't getting stared down or smiled at.
the problem with a press secretary that has such clear, forceful body language is that she advertises things she doesn't mean to. it's quite easy to pull out when she knows she's lying because she stares right at the reporter she's lying to. again: not a bad tactic, except the camera that's there to deconstruct it. it's also easy to tell when she's challenged or flustered because she begins stuttering rather badly.
i know this is meant for internal consumption, but you have to understand that every powerful state has somebody that's smarter than i am and is watching this and taking these notes.
at
22:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
ugh.
this isn't a biased video. it's just straight up taking shots of the situation and interviewing people on the ground. if it's pro anything, it's pro-reality. and, it might do some people - and the world that is on the brink of a world war - some good if you partisan idiots can get your head around it.
there's no justification for this kind of force. it's slowly becoming clear that poroshenko ought to have a date in the hague. but, it won't happen because he's on the side that's protected from prosecution.
this isn't a biased video. it's just straight up taking shots of the situation and interviewing people on the ground. if it's pro anything, it's pro-reality. and, it might do some people - and the world that is on the brink of a world war - some good if you partisan idiots can get your head around it.
there's no justification for this kind of force. it's slowly becoming clear that poroshenko ought to have a date in the hague. but, it won't happen because he's on the side that's protected from prosecution.
at
21:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
"young lady", huh?
well, you're half right.
i guess i DO look like a teenager....
i think "young lady" applies to roughly 13-19.
i'm 33.
well, you're half right.
i guess i DO look like a teenager....
i think "young lady" applies to roughly 13-19.
i'm 33.
at
17:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
hey, kids. i got some bad news...
we're on the brink of a major global conflict and guess who's gonna fight it?
yeah. sorry.
but, hey, you could always fight your own government, instead.
it might be a good idea to get a head start on that.
we're on the brink of a major global conflict and guess who's gonna fight it?
yeah. sorry.
but, hey, you could always fight your own government, instead.
it might be a good idea to get a head start on that.
at
13:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
why can't people fucking keep appointments?
no, i'm not going to sit there in a room full of contagious sick people and let you tell me i'm an hour early when i have a fucking piece of paper that you wrote with the appointment time on it - because then you're going to tell me you're backed up past my altered appointment time. i set an appointment because i didn't want to sit around for three hours and catch pneumonia while i'm there. in fact, you pressured me into setting an appointment in the first place - i was just wondering if you had my correct phone number, and would have been happy to wait for a phone call.
i get that they're understaffed, but don't fucking tell me that's my fault and that i'm early when i'm waving the card in front of your face. i don't care who you are, i won't be lied to like that. take responsibility for your bad planning, apologize and tell me you're backed up. i'll go sit outside. but you lie to me, and i'm going to storm out the door.
no, i'm not going to sit there in a room full of contagious sick people and let you tell me i'm an hour early when i have a fucking piece of paper that you wrote with the appointment time on it - because then you're going to tell me you're backed up past my altered appointment time. i set an appointment because i didn't want to sit around for three hours and catch pneumonia while i'm there. in fact, you pressured me into setting an appointment in the first place - i was just wondering if you had my correct phone number, and would have been happy to wait for a phone call.
i get that they're understaffed, but don't fucking tell me that's my fault and that i'm early when i'm waving the card in front of your face. i don't care who you are, i won't be lied to like that. take responsibility for your bad planning, apologize and tell me you're backed up. i'll go sit outside. but you lie to me, and i'm going to storm out the door.
at
11:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
publishing me, myself and the time i thought this was a good idea (inri049)
i've been hard at work on a very vertically complex piece for over a month now and am taking a bit of a break this morning to jump ahead just a little. this is next in the list. it's the first track to come out of a project i shared with a singer through the end of 2001 and the first part of 2002.
none of the versions here are final, it's just a lot of demos, but i find all of them worthwhile in their own ways.
----
credits:
j - bass, guitars, synths, writing
sean - vocals, writing
jon - guitar performance (6)
1) sean suggested the bass line ought to sound like this, from which the track was built. sept 1, 2001.
2) this is the first bass & vocal demo, recorded the day the track was written. sept 1, 2001.
3) i built this up on my own the friday night following the sunday it was written, in preparation for the next sunday jam session. sept 7, 2001.
4) as our guitarist was a no show two weeks in a row, we decided to do a joy division cover rather than write new material. i've left the track without drums to better fit the feel of the recording, as none of the renditions on this single contain drums by a very conscious choice to not include them. sept 9, 2001.
5) the song is thematically about somebody launching themselves off a bridge, so i thought it would be an interesting idea to produce a walk passage. this idea was never well received, as there were concerns that the synthesizer sounds too synthetic. but, i mean, it's a synthesizer, what the fuck do you expect it to sound like? sept 22, 2001.
6) the initial demo was a temporary mix to get some ideas across; it was realized from the start that the guitarist would want to do the guitars and the synths would need to be less rough. i didn't expect him to play the part i wrote, though, which was just a weird thing. in the end, this reconstruction did not end up being a final mix (i took most of the end out, which was only ever there on the insistence of the guitarist in the first place, and added an extra guitar part). oct 13, 2001.
none of the versions here are final, it's just a lot of demos, but i find all of them worthwhile in their own ways.
----
rabit is wolf arose accidentally from the cynicide project (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/to-spin-inside-dull-aberrations)
but produced far more material in the end. what happened was sean and i
showed up to a few jam sessions and the guitarist (jon - it was his
band) didn't, so we started writing some material without him...
initially, the intent was to include rather than exclude jon but he quickly developed a disinterest due to a variety of obvious if never fully articulated reasons. i was playing guitar parts on the demos, which he couldn't deal with. we were doing joy division songs, which were outside of his sphere of interest. we were writing without him, which made him feel unimportant. we were talking about songs without drums, which he wasn't interested in at all. etc. however, he did record a guitar part (that i wrote) that was never replaced.
this is a collection of demos from the first month of rabit is wolf, which includes multiple versions of the title track and a joy division cover. in the end, none of this would be released in the form it's in here (which is only available for download), but it creates a cohesive (if short) introduction to what follows that is self-contained in a historical context. stated differently, this is the first (post-punk) incarnation of rabit is wolf.
written and recorded in the fall of 2001. compiled on sept 6, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
initially, the intent was to include rather than exclude jon but he quickly developed a disinterest due to a variety of obvious if never fully articulated reasons. i was playing guitar parts on the demos, which he couldn't deal with. we were doing joy division songs, which were outside of his sphere of interest. we were writing without him, which made him feel unimportant. we were talking about songs without drums, which he wasn't interested in at all. etc. however, he did record a guitar part (that i wrote) that was never replaced.
this is a collection of demos from the first month of rabit is wolf, which includes multiple versions of the title track and a joy division cover. in the end, none of this would be released in the form it's in here (which is only available for download), but it creates a cohesive (if short) introduction to what follows that is self-contained in a historical context. stated differently, this is the first (post-punk) incarnation of rabit is wolf.
written and recorded in the fall of 2001. compiled on sept 6, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - bass, guitars, synths, writing
sean - vocals, writing
jon - guitar performance (6)
released october 15, 2001
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/me-myself-and-the-time-i-thought-this-was-a-good-idea1) sean suggested the bass line ought to sound like this, from which the track was built. sept 1, 2001.
2) this is the first bass & vocal demo, recorded the day the track was written. sept 1, 2001.
3) i built this up on my own the friday night following the sunday it was written, in preparation for the next sunday jam session. sept 7, 2001.
4) as our guitarist was a no show two weeks in a row, we decided to do a joy division cover rather than write new material. i've left the track without drums to better fit the feel of the recording, as none of the renditions on this single contain drums by a very conscious choice to not include them. sept 9, 2001.
5) the song is thematically about somebody launching themselves off a bridge, so i thought it would be an interesting idea to produce a walk passage. this idea was never well received, as there were concerns that the synthesizer sounds too synthetic. but, i mean, it's a synthesizer, what the fuck do you expect it to sound like? sept 22, 2001.
6) the initial demo was a temporary mix to get some ideas across; it was realized from the start that the guitarist would want to do the guitars and the synths would need to be less rough. i didn't expect him to play the part i wrote, though, which was just a weird thing. in the end, this reconstruction did not end up being a final mix (i took most of the end out, which was only ever there on the insistence of the guitarist in the first place, and added an extra guitar part). oct 13, 2001.
at
06:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, September 5, 2014
deathtokoalas
there is an environmental benefit in not printing paper. i know that social progress isn't on the list of gen y sales tactics, but a trend back to paper really wouldn't be in the best interests of the species.
mailing catalogs that can’t be downloaded over pdf is a horrific and unjustifiable waste of resources, and their cute little ad shouldn't trick you into thinking otherwise.
obviously, the difference between electronic and paper distribution is that the electronics are being manufactured anyways as multiple purpose devices. there's really no reason that resource extraction and recycling can't be done efficiently. this is needless waste coming out of a marketing strategy trying to be "different" in the electronic era with no regard to sustainability. you reward this kind of nonsense at your own peril.
tovetroll84
I wonder how all the extra electricity we use since we all got computers and smartphones and kindles is affecting the environment.... (not saying that printing would be a better option though) Also, I don't think this ad is really about appealing for paperbacks, it's just for fun ;)
deathtokoalas
it's a dumb argument (and electricity generation has no environmental effect if it's generated using renewable sources, anyways). if you're looking at the situation socially, you want to look at what creates the least amount of harm first and then make the harmful parts as least harmful as you can. did you buy a laptop or a phone to download an ikea catalog? no. you're using it for work, school and day-to-day life. consequently, you need to look at the extra resource usage that downloading an ikea catalog has on top of what you'd be doing anyways, which is purely measured in terms of bandwidth. there's absolutely no environmental cost to this, whereas the costs of printing a book and sending it to every house are enormous.
it's an irresponsible marketing strategy, and ikea deserves a punch in the face for it.
telling people to use less electricity isn't environmental policy. switching to renewable sources is environmental policy. reducing usage just helps the companies maintain an artificially inflated price by controlling supply and demand (in an unregulated energy market, which is the case through most of north america).
Mark
I have to say I find it pretty hysterical that someone by the name of "deathtokoalas" is arguing an environmental issue. Your name suggests that you want to kill an entire species, which in turn would unbalance and decimate multiple ecosystems.
deathtokoalas
the subversive threat that koalas pose to our social fabric as a result of their despicable cuteness far exceeds any environmental threats that their demise would cause.
fwiw, koalas have no real predators and contribute virtually nothing to the ecology they inhabit, except, perhaps, limiting the growth of eucalyptus trees - which isn't really working out in our benefit.
there is an environmental benefit in not printing paper. i know that social progress isn't on the list of gen y sales tactics, but a trend back to paper really wouldn't be in the best interests of the species.
mailing catalogs that can’t be downloaded over pdf is a horrific and unjustifiable waste of resources, and their cute little ad shouldn't trick you into thinking otherwise.
obviously, the difference between electronic and paper distribution is that the electronics are being manufactured anyways as multiple purpose devices. there's really no reason that resource extraction and recycling can't be done efficiently. this is needless waste coming out of a marketing strategy trying to be "different" in the electronic era with no regard to sustainability. you reward this kind of nonsense at your own peril.
tovetroll84
I wonder how all the extra electricity we use since we all got computers and smartphones and kindles is affecting the environment.... (not saying that printing would be a better option though) Also, I don't think this ad is really about appealing for paperbacks, it's just for fun ;)
deathtokoalas
it's a dumb argument (and electricity generation has no environmental effect if it's generated using renewable sources, anyways). if you're looking at the situation socially, you want to look at what creates the least amount of harm first and then make the harmful parts as least harmful as you can. did you buy a laptop or a phone to download an ikea catalog? no. you're using it for work, school and day-to-day life. consequently, you need to look at the extra resource usage that downloading an ikea catalog has on top of what you'd be doing anyways, which is purely measured in terms of bandwidth. there's absolutely no environmental cost to this, whereas the costs of printing a book and sending it to every house are enormous.
it's an irresponsible marketing strategy, and ikea deserves a punch in the face for it.
telling people to use less electricity isn't environmental policy. switching to renewable sources is environmental policy. reducing usage just helps the companies maintain an artificially inflated price by controlling supply and demand (in an unregulated energy market, which is the case through most of north america).
Mark
I have to say I find it pretty hysterical that someone by the name of "deathtokoalas" is arguing an environmental issue. Your name suggests that you want to kill an entire species, which in turn would unbalance and decimate multiple ecosystems.
deathtokoalas
the subversive threat that koalas pose to our social fabric as a result of their despicable cuteness far exceeds any environmental threats that their demise would cause.
fwiw, koalas have no real predators and contribute virtually nothing to the ecology they inhabit, except, perhaps, limiting the growth of eucalyptus trees - which isn't really working out in our benefit.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, September 4, 2014
caulking gun
jessica
hi,
i'm just wondering if i could borrow a caulking gun. there's no urgency to this, and i'm going to want to wait until we get a dry day with low humidity so i can caulk with the windows open.
it's september now, so the weather is going to be cooling down a little. i didn't have to turn the heat on last year until very late in the fall, so i'm not planning on turning it on any time soon. but, last year you sort of explicitly told me to just turn the heat up to whatever i wanted - and i did. i'm going to be a little more aware of the electricity costs this year, for obvious reasons.
there was really a substantial draft heading under the window in the kitchen last year, and all the hammering upstairs has crumbled the plaster a little so i'd expect it to be even worse this year. i really think it's an easy thing to do that will make a big difference.
i still have some of your caulk under the sink but i don't have a gun, so i'm wondering if you'll let me borrow yours. the bedroom and bathroom aren't drafty, but i really think the two windows in the kitchen should be sealed around the cracks to try. it'll both keep costs down and make the air a little less dry, due to the heaters not needing to work as hard.
the landlord
I have a caulking gun there, I will be around and I will check in with you
hi,
i'm just wondering if i could borrow a caulking gun. there's no urgency to this, and i'm going to want to wait until we get a dry day with low humidity so i can caulk with the windows open.
it's september now, so the weather is going to be cooling down a little. i didn't have to turn the heat on last year until very late in the fall, so i'm not planning on turning it on any time soon. but, last year you sort of explicitly told me to just turn the heat up to whatever i wanted - and i did. i'm going to be a little more aware of the electricity costs this year, for obvious reasons.
there was really a substantial draft heading under the window in the kitchen last year, and all the hammering upstairs has crumbled the plaster a little so i'd expect it to be even worse this year. i really think it's an easy thing to do that will make a big difference.
i still have some of your caulk under the sink but i don't have a gun, so i'm wondering if you'll let me borrow yours. the bedroom and bathroom aren't drafty, but i really think the two windows in the kitchen should be sealed around the cracks to try. it'll both keep costs down and make the air a little less dry, due to the heaters not needing to work as hard.
the landlord
I have a caulking gun there, I will be around and I will check in with you
at
20:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
deathtokoalas
as was often the case, marx had it backwards. he analyzed the problem correctly - people focusing on an afterlife are going to endure large amounts of suffering to get there, and religions will continue to present this as a "virtue" in order to maintain the existing hierarchy of social inequality. this much is empirically obvious. however, you're never going to get the workers to revolt by having them abolish religion, you're just going to incite a xenophobic reaction and extreme cultural conservatism. we can see now that atheism is correlated with prosperity and can deduce that you're rather going to have to abolish poverty first, and then watch as people discard the mythology they don't need to numb the pain any further - even if they replace it with some other distraction.
it's difficult for the enlightenment thinker to accept that we can't all see through it so clearly. it drives me as nuts as the next egghead. but it is as it is...
Ronny Ron
And how are you going to abolish poverty? While I guess we will have to turn ot Marx for the answer; communism. Poverty is the lack of. In the case of Capitalism it is the lack of the ability to produce food and shelter if you do not own the means of production.
You are in a constant state of poverty until you rent out your labour. but because the capitalist owns the means of production the worker has to rent out their labour at a discount. Thus another form of poverty is created. Meaning religious is still needed.
Besides where you get the idea that when teh workers revolt there is incitement for a xenophobic reaction and extreme cultural conservatism. Those sound like fascist tendencies which have nothing to do with the rise of the working class.
you seem to be mixing propaganda into your conclusions.
deathtokoalas
actually, marx would argue that the way to abolish poverty is by putting society through a process of converting the primitive capitalism we call liberalism into an advanced capitalism, which he called socialism. communism then follows only as a corollary. now, i happen to disagree with marx that this is really possible - i don't think capitalism is going to collapse under it's contradictions or evolve into some kind of utopia. any kind of vanguard will always be co-opted. however, the absolutely key aspect in his teleological argument is that capitalism is required to produce the productive capacities to abolish poverty, and communism can only follow after these capacities are socialized. on the point of capitalism reducing poverty, he was absolutely correct.
i need to be honest that i'm not really following the rest of your argument. what i was getting at is that if you incorporate the anti-religious bent into your revolutionary politics too strongly then the workers will inevitably choose not to follow your programme because they will interpret it as an attack on their culture. they may be confused about the difference between culture and oppression, but holding the mirror up isn't going to get them to understand it so much as it's going to create a backlash, and push them back into the arms of management. fwiw, this has been well understood for many decades, and various internationals have ultimately chosen not to place the abolition of religion as central to their politics as a result of it.
i'm not a marxist, i'm an anarchist. i don't have much hope in the working class to free themselves from their own chains. and, as an artist, the idea of a state run by workers actually scares the fucking shit out of me.
i will say this though: one of the things marx was wrong about was the social inclination of the working classes. we can get gramscian about it if we want, or blame it on a lack of education, but it's also been well understood for many decades that wage workers tend to be very right-wing, overall, in terms of their social beliefs and cultural associations. the kind of enlightened liberalism that some people want to assign to the working class is in reality a function of the advanced levels of education that are only available to the more wealthy members of society.
if you look at history, every social revolution has either begun on the right or ends up co-opted by the right almost immediately. conservatism just offers a value system that is more in line with what people actually want.
i'm very guilty of standing on the left and calling everybody morons, but i realize it's not exactly a productive means of engagement.
Ronny Ron
I ome from atown that ws built by Unionists, aka the working lass.. We had no problems understand what was happening and being left winged.
yeah, I don;t hink Mar said that about Soialism. I think you are thinking of Lenon or later Marists.
Oupy Wall Street started on the right????
deathtokoalas
no, that was marx, alright. it's been argued that lenin tried to skip this process, and that was the ultimate failing point, but it's a subtle argument that i'm not going to get into. the real problem was the leninists were really badly co-opted by foreign capital. he was at once trying to convert russia from a feudal society to a capitalist society and from a capitalist society to a socialist society. i don't see a reason, in theory, why this ought to be impossible - even if lenin was explicit that they had to get to capitalism first. i do agree that russia wasn't the best place to try and build socialism, though, because it never went through a capitalist phase.
the best introduction to this is engels' socialism: utopian and scientific. it skips a lot of the theory (which really ought to be regarded mostly as nonsense, anyways) and just gets to the point in the proposed development of society from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism.
there were socialists that rejected this kind of teleological view of social evolution and argued for communism immediately, which is what you seem to want to assign to marx. they were called anarchists and developed through their own process, before disintegrating almost entirely between 1910 and 1950. i think history has proven the anarchists right, but marxists continue to reject them as not accepting various contrived marxist philosophical doctrines.
the occupy movement i was involved with was not very left-wing when you scratched the surface a little and talked to the participants. it attracted a lot of right-wing conspiracy theorists and right of centre libertarians (not to mention the odd nazi), but even if you throw these out as outliers the core of what was left really wasn't much further left on the spectrum than a fairly mild social democrat. the most significant thing that came out of it was the occupy sandy clean-up, which was no doubt beneficial to the people in the area, but was really operating on christian principles - and was, in fact, headquartered out of a church. it really ended up in the tradition of american liberalism, which tends to cluster around the center and lean a little right.
as for the topic, you'd be more likely to find occupy participants arguing for religious tolerance than the abolition of religion. that's a centre-right liberal/libertarian position.
something that's sort of been glossed over by history is that the anti-war movement in the 60s ultimately crested in electing nixon. there's a long history of this. part of the problem is that historians tend to have a leftward slant in their analysis, which blinds them to what is right in front of them. again: it's no depth of insight on my behalf to realize that the working class leans right. you can come up with gramscian excuses, you can take malatesta's line that unions are capitalist institutions that uphold the status quo rather than revolutionary institutions or you can swing pseudo-fascist like foucault does and more or less say "fuck 'em to their own misery, they're hopeless.". but you have to address it at some point. the evidence is just staggering.
even when we've seen some real organizing done and some real gains won, it's practically always been in the context of upholding the status quo - and much of the concessions have been produced with arguments that the demands are actually mutually beneficial. most of what was won was won in the context of fordism, rather than the context of revolutionary politics. union management and union rank and file have been more than eager to play along if they can just get a bit of spending income, which just keeps the system spinning at the expense of those outside the factories.
again: no insight on my behalf. this is well understood by people making decisions on both sides of the class war.
CaptainZuluGamma
I can not accept the argument that Lennin or Stalin are exceptions to the rule, Marxism generates totalitarianism by its process, after reviewing the man and his history I will even argue that he knew this and was the intent to marxisms design to usurp power from one group of alpha monkies to another group of previously beta monkies. Nothing beneviolet
deathtokoalas
i agree with you. marxism is an authoritarian, statist system. it's not possible to reach communism using marxist theory.
what marx outlined was an extremely exploitative form of capitalism. you're right that he was aware of it. and most of the socialists alive at the time were aware of it, too.
that's why they kicked marx out of the socialist movement.
and why the bolsheviks conquered russia with millions of dollars given to them from american banks.
it wasn't an accident. it wasn't a failure...
CaptainZuluGamma
You have my attention what do you suggest? Zietgiest is deception as well, from what I have learned. People are moral agents annd accountable to thier actions. When I was a victim and a part of my local zietgiest chapter I was poor and angry all the time. Then I took responsability for my actions and stoped doing things that made me suck as a person, now the community I live in and feed with my unique talents and gifts that only I and you can provide this world, now I am wealthy soon to reach 15 million a year in income, that can not be taken away unitl I die, not even communism can take my wealth as it is a part of my body where I go people thrive. Please join me in the light of truth and love.
I was a homeless person 12 years ago, so there are no excuses you need no money to start just a belief in your self and love for others.
deathtokoalas
lol.
i'm in favour of socially mechanizing production and abolishing currency. that's what communism actually means.
as was often the case, marx had it backwards. he analyzed the problem correctly - people focusing on an afterlife are going to endure large amounts of suffering to get there, and religions will continue to present this as a "virtue" in order to maintain the existing hierarchy of social inequality. this much is empirically obvious. however, you're never going to get the workers to revolt by having them abolish religion, you're just going to incite a xenophobic reaction and extreme cultural conservatism. we can see now that atheism is correlated with prosperity and can deduce that you're rather going to have to abolish poverty first, and then watch as people discard the mythology they don't need to numb the pain any further - even if they replace it with some other distraction.
it's difficult for the enlightenment thinker to accept that we can't all see through it so clearly. it drives me as nuts as the next egghead. but it is as it is...
And how are you going to abolish poverty? While I guess we will have to turn ot Marx for the answer; communism. Poverty is the lack of. In the case of Capitalism it is the lack of the ability to produce food and shelter if you do not own the means of production.
You are in a constant state of poverty until you rent out your labour. but because the capitalist owns the means of production the worker has to rent out their labour at a discount. Thus another form of poverty is created. Meaning religious is still needed.
Besides where you get the idea that when teh workers revolt there is incitement for a xenophobic reaction and extreme cultural conservatism. Those sound like fascist tendencies which have nothing to do with the rise of the working class.
you seem to be mixing propaganda into your conclusions.
deathtokoalas
actually, marx would argue that the way to abolish poverty is by putting society through a process of converting the primitive capitalism we call liberalism into an advanced capitalism, which he called socialism. communism then follows only as a corollary. now, i happen to disagree with marx that this is really possible - i don't think capitalism is going to collapse under it's contradictions or evolve into some kind of utopia. any kind of vanguard will always be co-opted. however, the absolutely key aspect in his teleological argument is that capitalism is required to produce the productive capacities to abolish poverty, and communism can only follow after these capacities are socialized. on the point of capitalism reducing poverty, he was absolutely correct.
i need to be honest that i'm not really following the rest of your argument. what i was getting at is that if you incorporate the anti-religious bent into your revolutionary politics too strongly then the workers will inevitably choose not to follow your programme because they will interpret it as an attack on their culture. they may be confused about the difference between culture and oppression, but holding the mirror up isn't going to get them to understand it so much as it's going to create a backlash, and push them back into the arms of management. fwiw, this has been well understood for many decades, and various internationals have ultimately chosen not to place the abolition of religion as central to their politics as a result of it.
i'm not a marxist, i'm an anarchist. i don't have much hope in the working class to free themselves from their own chains. and, as an artist, the idea of a state run by workers actually scares the fucking shit out of me.
i will say this though: one of the things marx was wrong about was the social inclination of the working classes. we can get gramscian about it if we want, or blame it on a lack of education, but it's also been well understood for many decades that wage workers tend to be very right-wing, overall, in terms of their social beliefs and cultural associations. the kind of enlightened liberalism that some people want to assign to the working class is in reality a function of the advanced levels of education that are only available to the more wealthy members of society.
if you look at history, every social revolution has either begun on the right or ends up co-opted by the right almost immediately. conservatism just offers a value system that is more in line with what people actually want.
i'm very guilty of standing on the left and calling everybody morons, but i realize it's not exactly a productive means of engagement.
Ronny Ron
I ome from atown that ws built by Unionists, aka the working lass.. We had no problems understand what was happening and being left winged.
yeah, I don;t hink Mar said that about Soialism. I think you are thinking of Lenon or later Marists.
Oupy Wall Street started on the right????
deathtokoalas
no, that was marx, alright. it's been argued that lenin tried to skip this process, and that was the ultimate failing point, but it's a subtle argument that i'm not going to get into. the real problem was the leninists were really badly co-opted by foreign capital. he was at once trying to convert russia from a feudal society to a capitalist society and from a capitalist society to a socialist society. i don't see a reason, in theory, why this ought to be impossible - even if lenin was explicit that they had to get to capitalism first. i do agree that russia wasn't the best place to try and build socialism, though, because it never went through a capitalist phase.
the best introduction to this is engels' socialism: utopian and scientific. it skips a lot of the theory (which really ought to be regarded mostly as nonsense, anyways) and just gets to the point in the proposed development of society from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism.
there were socialists that rejected this kind of teleological view of social evolution and argued for communism immediately, which is what you seem to want to assign to marx. they were called anarchists and developed through their own process, before disintegrating almost entirely between 1910 and 1950. i think history has proven the anarchists right, but marxists continue to reject them as not accepting various contrived marxist philosophical doctrines.
the occupy movement i was involved with was not very left-wing when you scratched the surface a little and talked to the participants. it attracted a lot of right-wing conspiracy theorists and right of centre libertarians (not to mention the odd nazi), but even if you throw these out as outliers the core of what was left really wasn't much further left on the spectrum than a fairly mild social democrat. the most significant thing that came out of it was the occupy sandy clean-up, which was no doubt beneficial to the people in the area, but was really operating on christian principles - and was, in fact, headquartered out of a church. it really ended up in the tradition of american liberalism, which tends to cluster around the center and lean a little right.
as for the topic, you'd be more likely to find occupy participants arguing for religious tolerance than the abolition of religion. that's a centre-right liberal/libertarian position.
something that's sort of been glossed over by history is that the anti-war movement in the 60s ultimately crested in electing nixon. there's a long history of this. part of the problem is that historians tend to have a leftward slant in their analysis, which blinds them to what is right in front of them. again: it's no depth of insight on my behalf to realize that the working class leans right. you can come up with gramscian excuses, you can take malatesta's line that unions are capitalist institutions that uphold the status quo rather than revolutionary institutions or you can swing pseudo-fascist like foucault does and more or less say "fuck 'em to their own misery, they're hopeless.". but you have to address it at some point. the evidence is just staggering.
even when we've seen some real organizing done and some real gains won, it's practically always been in the context of upholding the status quo - and much of the concessions have been produced with arguments that the demands are actually mutually beneficial. most of what was won was won in the context of fordism, rather than the context of revolutionary politics. union management and union rank and file have been more than eager to play along if they can just get a bit of spending income, which just keeps the system spinning at the expense of those outside the factories.
again: no insight on my behalf. this is well understood by people making decisions on both sides of the class war.
CaptainZuluGamma
I can not accept the argument that Lennin or Stalin are exceptions to the rule, Marxism generates totalitarianism by its process, after reviewing the man and his history I will even argue that he knew this and was the intent to marxisms design to usurp power from one group of alpha monkies to another group of previously beta monkies. Nothing beneviolet
deathtokoalas
i agree with you. marxism is an authoritarian, statist system. it's not possible to reach communism using marxist theory.
what marx outlined was an extremely exploitative form of capitalism. you're right that he was aware of it. and most of the socialists alive at the time were aware of it, too.
that's why they kicked marx out of the socialist movement.
and why the bolsheviks conquered russia with millions of dollars given to them from american banks.
it wasn't an accident. it wasn't a failure...
CaptainZuluGamma
You have my attention what do you suggest? Zietgiest is deception as well, from what I have learned. People are moral agents annd accountable to thier actions. When I was a victim and a part of my local zietgiest chapter I was poor and angry all the time. Then I took responsability for my actions and stoped doing things that made me suck as a person, now the community I live in and feed with my unique talents and gifts that only I and you can provide this world, now I am wealthy soon to reach 15 million a year in income, that can not be taken away unitl I die, not even communism can take my wealth as it is a part of my body where I go people thrive. Please join me in the light of truth and love.
I was a homeless person 12 years ago, so there are no excuses you need no money to start just a belief in your self and love for others.
deathtokoalas
lol.
i'm in favour of socially mechanizing production and abolishing currency. that's what communism actually means.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's easy to understand why the israelis don't like this, but it doesn't have much to do with it - it's a deterrent against american intervention. and it's working. this is the reason the americans are funding mercenaries instead of launching air strikes.
there will be air strikes, but only on the condition that the rebels can disarm the air defenses. that's what their strategic objective is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H4mNooW2no
there will be air strikes, but only on the condition that the rebels can disarm the air defenses. that's what their strategic objective is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H4mNooW2no
at
00:58
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i have a new policy of blocking anybody that tags themselves as a redditor. there's a reason i don't use that site - the posters are terrible. go back to where ya came from...
at
00:34
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
as a response to libya, russia has invested heavily in syrian anti-aircraft weaponry. the americans rely on airpower; the russians & syrians have neutralized it (not in terms of absolute power, but in terms of ability to cause serious casualties and bad messaging). that's why they're funding the rebels. if it was as easy as airstrikes, assad would already be dead.
they are going to eventually get some strikes in to demolish the infrastructure (it sounds barbaric because it is barbaric, but they're going to want to eliminate the ability to recreate a sovereign state), but first they need a force on the ground that will take out those anti-aircraft systems - and ensure there aren't russian backdoors in the software.
they may actually give up before they get there. the americans really played dirty launching a distraction in ukraine. let's see what the russians have in terms of distracting abilities...
they are going to eventually get some strikes in to demolish the infrastructure (it sounds barbaric because it is barbaric, but they're going to want to eliminate the ability to recreate a sovereign state), but first they need a force on the ground that will take out those anti-aircraft systems - and ensure there aren't russian backdoors in the software.
they may actually give up before they get there. the americans really played dirty launching a distraction in ukraine. let's see what the russians have in terms of distracting abilities...
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
proverbs (first movement)
i was just sorting through the source files for this (which is 40 gb, yes, it is THAT intricately constructed.), which is the last thing i did with live bass, to see if the source on the bass buzzes, and sure enough it does. i guess i just dealt with it.
but, you know, every time i listen to this i'm overwhelmed with pride over how elaborate it is. my symphony of psilocybin induced madness is really something else in the way it merges romantic music with electronica, but it's always been more of a proof of concept. this is only the first part of an incomplete work, but it's really my opus.
and it is a legit opus. headphones, please.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/proverbs
it's really an electric guitar concerto when you break it down.
but, you know, every time i listen to this i'm overwhelmed with pride over how elaborate it is. my symphony of psilocybin induced madness is really something else in the way it merges romantic music with electronica, but it's always been more of a proof of concept. this is only the first part of an incomplete work, but it's really my opus.
and it is a legit opus. headphones, please.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/proverbs
it's really an electric guitar concerto when you break it down.
at
14:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
uploading bass fx jam to soundcloud
this is actually a bass guitar. it's through a high octave pitch shift guitar effect that i initially programmed as a noisy grunge fill, but the bass takes it down to a more acceptable octave range and, due to the thickness of the strings, allows for the creation of reedy, woody and brassy sounds. then there's that ghastly reverb. dunno what i'll do with this (it may end up in the crash symphony), but it needs gongs and spooky synths and stuff...
https://soundcloud.com/deathtokoalas/02-09-2014a
as an aside, that means i've isolated the buzz to a frequency issue, as the bass sounds fine when pitch shifted up a bit...
https://soundcloud.com/deathtokoalas/02-09-2014a
as an aside, that means i've isolated the buzz to a frequency issue, as the bass sounds fine when pitch shifted up a bit...
at
12:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Monday, September 1, 2014
actually, i can feel the a/c now, maybe he just got home. i want to wait until it gets down to 26 in there.
at
13:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
canadian accents tend to correlate south rather than across the country. vancouverites are hard to distinguish from other pacific northwesterners, the canadian prairie accent is similar to the american one, northern ontarians sound like they could be from minnesota or northern michigan, southern ontarians sound like new yorkers, quebec is inapplicable (french) and easterners sound like they could be from maine....
avoids newfie joke.
we also align culturally. so, if you're standing in alberta and mostly integrate with rural american culture, you won't hear it - just as i don't hear mine in relation to a new yorker.
avoids newfie joke.
we also align culturally. so, if you're standing in alberta and mostly integrate with rural american culture, you won't hear it - just as i don't hear mine in relation to a new yorker.
at
01:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
one of the many things that adblock can do is remove the entire comment section from youtube. good piece of software.
anyways, i don't watch this guy's videos or care about his content, but i was interested in how that would work out, and this option is certainly going to save his metrics while maintaining his sanity.
however, i would suggest something that more people ought to be using, and that's the blacklist in youtube. if you don't want people calling each other fags, you can put that word in your spam filter - and it will take it out. that's a dynamic struggle that will take some trial and error - and a comment base willing to expand it's vocabulary - but i'm sure a lot of the "bros" here that are a bit discouraged by the level of discourse would appreciate that implementation. it'd be nice if it got wider usage throughout youtube...
anyways, i don't watch this guy's videos or care about his content, but i was interested in how that would work out, and this option is certainly going to save his metrics while maintaining his sanity.
however, i would suggest something that more people ought to be using, and that's the blacklist in youtube. if you don't want people calling each other fags, you can put that word in your spam filter - and it will take it out. that's a dynamic struggle that will take some trial and error - and a comment base willing to expand it's vocabulary - but i'm sure a lot of the "bros" here that are a bit discouraged by the level of discourse would appreciate that implementation. it'd be nice if it got wider usage throughout youtube...
at
00:45
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i think the issue here isn't the drugs, if there were even any involved, but the misogyny. my best guess is that he's emulating behaviour he's observed....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHwlqhUb6io
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHwlqhUb6io
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Sunday, August 31, 2014
disease research should be funded with progressive taxation. i mean, people are dying and you've gotta get people to do a stunt to raise money to fight it. it's barbaric.
\
at
21:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
information is very scarce, as far as i can tell.
and there's little doubt that russia is arming and orchestrating the militants in the east...
...but it's hard to come up with motives as to why they might invade, and the stories of russian tanks flattening villages really don't seem likely.
the one caveat i'll point out is this: germany has recently announced a large amount of funding to rebuild the area. this may have triggered something in the kremlin, concerned that they're moving in.
it's been really clear from the start that the russians don't want control of the region because they don't want the headaches. they want a puppet state that gets it's welfare checks from a floundering kiev.
however, if forced to choose between a puppet state that gets it's checks from berlin and invasion, the invasion may all of a sudden become the preferable option.
and it goes back to what i was saying about how this can't be stopped.
and there's little doubt that russia is arming and orchestrating the militants in the east...
...but it's hard to come up with motives as to why they might invade, and the stories of russian tanks flattening villages really don't seem likely.
the one caveat i'll point out is this: germany has recently announced a large amount of funding to rebuild the area. this may have triggered something in the kremlin, concerned that they're moving in.
it's been really clear from the start that the russians don't want control of the region because they don't want the headaches. they want a puppet state that gets it's welfare checks from a floundering kiev.
however, if forced to choose between a puppet state that gets it's checks from berlin and invasion, the invasion may all of a sudden become the preferable option.
and it goes back to what i was saying about how this can't be stopped.
at
21:21
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, August 30, 2014
"mr. barak, mr. barak....you're full of shit and you know it...mr. barak...just...everybody realizes you're lying, doesn't that upset you....mr. barak...."
at
01:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, August 29, 2014
this isn't a binary discussion of choice v. biology, both of which appear to be wrong. at the very most, there may be a set of genes that can be triggered to produce homosexuality under certain environmental conditions but there aren't any convincing findings at this time.
the "i don't have a choice" thing began as a legal defence in certain backwards areas of the deep south (i think it was an area of texas) that were enforcing sodomy laws. the judge allowed the defence, the person avoided a sentence and it's become this thing ever since.
a large amount of biologists will tell you something like "homosexuality is probably genetic". what that actually means is "there may not be direct evidence of a genetic cause but, if it's not genetic, then i don't understand it. genetic is therefore my best guess.".
every little once in a while you'll see some headline that claims they found the gay gene, but the research is never solid. it tends to actually usually cycle around hormones, which probably does have a genetic basis, as it's something that's physiological. but finding a genetic cause for less masculine behaviour in cis-men (and less feminine behaviour in cis-women) has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. those hormonal reactions may place people into social niches, and that may have something to do with it, but it's not direct - it does nothing to explain the gay jock or the femme lesbian. worse, these studies are often inapplicable to women altogether.
it's entirely possible that it is neither genetic nor a conscious choice.
by analogy, consider somebody that is very shy. that shyness is not genetic, it's a reaction to various life experiences - something traumatic, over parenting, social isolation and etc. but the shy person generally does not choose to be shy, it becomes deeply embedded within their nature. further, a shy person can overcome their shyness - if they want to, which some shy people might not.
i have a bit of an unusual anecdote that i usually avoid when i have this discussion. i'm transgendered - born a male and transitioned to being female. now, orientation and gender aren't the same thing. in fact, statistically speaking, most male-to-female transgendered people are attracted to people that define themselves effeminately, and often to cis-women. when i was first going through treatment, i was asked questions about orientation and while the truth was that i wasn't really interested in either gender, i did find myself more attracted to women. i had a lot of questions about how i was going to react to both men and women as a result of hormonal changes, so i decided to experiment with some pornography to try and determine if i had any real attraction to men - or if i would develop one over time. what i noticed was that, the more gay porn i watched, the more i responded to it - and i realized at that point how fluid orientation is.
now, i'm not suggesting this kid was brainwashed with gay porn, but there are other social cues that could lead somebody to homosexuality as a culmination of experiences within their environment. it's such a complex thing with so many variables that it would be virtually impossible to test for - as a hypothesis, this is really not falsifiable. but, that doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate.
now, i'll be honest with you - i'd rather see society accept it as a choice. i want to walk into a church and see a pastor stand on the pulpit and say "homosexuality is a choice, and we respect and welcome people who have made this decision because we respect the personal autonomy of individuals". but, in most cases i don't think it's that clear cut. the choice is in not rejecting the stimulus that's developed. i don't think god has much to do with it, but if you locked this kid in a room and made him watch and masturbate to heterosexual porn for a month, he's likely to come out fully bisexual. but, that approach wouldn't respect his rights as an individual - that is, it wouldn't respect his choice not to conform and we should be supporting choices not to conform when they are real...
ultimately, what this kid has to come to terms with is that he has to find his own path from his parents. it's something a lot of people go through due to disagreements over lifestyle, career choices and a thousand other things. sucks, but he's gotta move on and leave them behind.
the "i don't have a choice" thing began as a legal defence in certain backwards areas of the deep south (i think it was an area of texas) that were enforcing sodomy laws. the judge allowed the defence, the person avoided a sentence and it's become this thing ever since.
a large amount of biologists will tell you something like "homosexuality is probably genetic". what that actually means is "there may not be direct evidence of a genetic cause but, if it's not genetic, then i don't understand it. genetic is therefore my best guess.".
every little once in a while you'll see some headline that claims they found the gay gene, but the research is never solid. it tends to actually usually cycle around hormones, which probably does have a genetic basis, as it's something that's physiological. but finding a genetic cause for less masculine behaviour in cis-men (and less feminine behaviour in cis-women) has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. those hormonal reactions may place people into social niches, and that may have something to do with it, but it's not direct - it does nothing to explain the gay jock or the femme lesbian. worse, these studies are often inapplicable to women altogether.
it's entirely possible that it is neither genetic nor a conscious choice.
by analogy, consider somebody that is very shy. that shyness is not genetic, it's a reaction to various life experiences - something traumatic, over parenting, social isolation and etc. but the shy person generally does not choose to be shy, it becomes deeply embedded within their nature. further, a shy person can overcome their shyness - if they want to, which some shy people might not.
i have a bit of an unusual anecdote that i usually avoid when i have this discussion. i'm transgendered - born a male and transitioned to being female. now, orientation and gender aren't the same thing. in fact, statistically speaking, most male-to-female transgendered people are attracted to people that define themselves effeminately, and often to cis-women. when i was first going through treatment, i was asked questions about orientation and while the truth was that i wasn't really interested in either gender, i did find myself more attracted to women. i had a lot of questions about how i was going to react to both men and women as a result of hormonal changes, so i decided to experiment with some pornography to try and determine if i had any real attraction to men - or if i would develop one over time. what i noticed was that, the more gay porn i watched, the more i responded to it - and i realized at that point how fluid orientation is.
now, i'm not suggesting this kid was brainwashed with gay porn, but there are other social cues that could lead somebody to homosexuality as a culmination of experiences within their environment. it's such a complex thing with so many variables that it would be virtually impossible to test for - as a hypothesis, this is really not falsifiable. but, that doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate.
now, i'll be honest with you - i'd rather see society accept it as a choice. i want to walk into a church and see a pastor stand on the pulpit and say "homosexuality is a choice, and we respect and welcome people who have made this decision because we respect the personal autonomy of individuals". but, in most cases i don't think it's that clear cut. the choice is in not rejecting the stimulus that's developed. i don't think god has much to do with it, but if you locked this kid in a room and made him watch and masturbate to heterosexual porn for a month, he's likely to come out fully bisexual. but, that approach wouldn't respect his rights as an individual - that is, it wouldn't respect his choice not to conform and we should be supporting choices not to conform when they are real...
ultimately, what this kid has to come to terms with is that he has to find his own path from his parents. it's something a lot of people go through due to disagreements over lifestyle, career choices and a thousand other things. sucks, but he's gotta move on and leave them behind.
at
21:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)