A lot of confused soccer moms walked out of this concert with their depressed teenage boys.
Mihajlo
There were a lot of dads with their sons when I saw death grips.
Diego Dominguez
So true it hurts
deathtokoalas
i gave it a chance - i'm actually an oldskool fan of industrial music - but i left early to go to get another drink. you can't avoid the reality: this is stupid macho bullshit. it's perhaps pretentious, stupid macho bullshit - but it's stupid macho bullshit.
Diego Dominguez
I wouldn't go as far to call it macho, and there is far more "pretentious" and experimental music that makes death grips look like lil yachty
deathtokoalas
i run into this almost daily. why doesn't anybody understand what pretentious means? in fact, it means exactly what you said: pretending to be artistic, when it's really just bone-headed macho bullshit.
it's exactly what the problem is, right? if it was actually interesting or experimental, i'd be more likely to find a way to deal with the testosterone, a little. but, at it's most abstract, it's channeling boredoms from almost 20 years ago - or can from almost fifty years ago.
so, i'll agree with your second point, because it's exactly what i actually said. but, i'm not letting you deny it's inherent macho stupidity. because it is, in fact, what it is.
spittingblood
Probably left more of their soul on the stage than any other artist there. Why does macho equal not artistic? it taps into primal shit, it is art, you look unhappy in a photo you chose to put up on here :)
deathtokoalas
please. the dj in the back was literally doing mash-ups at points (i recognized some doubting thomas, and some can), while the frontman did an angry blackman routine and beat his chest and looked scary for a half hour. it was neither written, nor planned. it had no purpose. no message. no value, besides shock. it was fucking stupid - plain and simple.
Diego Dominguez
spittingblood ha noice
jessica why is "macho" a bad thing again?
are you kidding me? Stefan isn't a poser by any means necessary read his lyrics
deathtokoalas
testosterone literally kills brain cells. look it up.
jamie
jessica revives month-old comment thread on a video to start an argument on it ):
deathtokoalas
i didn't start an argument, don't look at me. i was just making a candid observation.
it's been a while, but i do remember perusing the lyrics at one point and they were hardly profound.
it would bother me less if people categorized death grips in the stupid macho bullshit pile with, like, gwar or something. what bothers me is that people want to elevate it beyond that. what you're seeing isn't there....
spittingblood
listen up, you nosy bitch, listen close
My most recent purchase, old black rope
Gonna learn how to tie it, hang it in my chamber
Perfect reminder occult I'm made of
Come try it out whenever you wanna
Last night, three thirty in the morning, Death on my front porch
can you feel him itching to take me with him, hail Death, fuck you waiting for?
Like a question no one mention, he turns around, hands me his weapon
He slurs, "use at your discretion, it's been a pleasure, Stefan"
What's the ratio of male to female suicides where you are? Here it's around 3 or 4 to 1. Maybe you don't get it because you're lacking testosterone. You keep going to pains to point out how old-school you are, but in reality you would've been bitching about the velvet underground violin noise being pretentious when they broke. Fuck off and listen to pink.
deathtokoalas
you think those lyrics are profound? honestly? it's fucking stupid whiny teenage emo bullshit, through a veneer of tough guy idiocy.
you are correct that the velvets are trash, and that nobody with any sense of music history or concept of art thinks otherwise. it sounds like a byrds record played at the wrong speed. and, all it's created is trash, as well. there's no art in the velvets - it's base fucking product. absolute capitalist bullshit.
there were actual art movements in the 60s, but you're clearly not intelligent enough to appreciate them, if you're even aware of them, if you're still citing the fucking piece of shit velvets in 2017.
(if i was alive in the 60s, i would have looked like a beatnik, and listened to stuff like davis and glass and stockhausen. as for pop music, i would have probably liked the beatles, and would have certainly loved hendrix but would have despised the rolling stones. i'd be barely familiar with dylan and confused as to why anybody cared about him at all. i would not have gone to woodstock, but i'd probably have an original pressing of come out.)
spittingblood
Checked out your channel, you're a freak. Good luck with that. Sort of fascinating but explains your blinkered extremism.
deathtokoalas
you could always check out my bandcamp site, as that is what the channel is meant to advertise (and actually the answer to your question.)
Z_Goombah
Jessica, if you're perhaps interested in hearing an intelligent counter argument from someone dedicated to analyzing music albums, you should look up Anthony Fantano's review of Death Grips. He very eloquently details what makes Death Grips good and unique. DG also posts music videos, most have stark visuals and exhibit respectable craftsmanship. Look up Fantano's review of Ex Military.
deathtokoalas
i have absolutely no respect for fantano's opinion at all - he just moves with the crowd, and consistently misses anything of any real value. the guy would literally not know a piece of art if you put it in front of him, and he's demonstrated it over and over again. about the only reason i can discern that he gets any attention from anybody for any reason is due to his stupid voice overs...
the guy has no taste at all. none.
Imperator
back the fuck up nigga, you'se dyed hair pierced lips gay rappers is where lines is drawn
"80% female, 20% male - and 100% NERD...."
"i'm below the poverty line, i do a lot of walking and i hit a fair amount of concerts. i enjoy ranting, much of it with a distinctly anarchist slant. but, mostly, i create things by myself. target audience: 30-50."
this nigga more insane than death grips.
deathtokoalas
well, i'm not a rapper. but, your opinion is meaningless, and you'd be advised to shut the fuck up. or, you could always take a one-way flight to saudi arabia...with that language, it sounds like that's where you belong.
you fucking racist, homophobic piece of shit...
Imperator
fuck yourself, choke yourself. Useless information occupies every open space inside your skull.
deathtokoalas
you need to accept reality. we exist, whether you like it or not. and, we're going to get louder and more aggressive until you're beaten into submission and accept it.
and, if you don't like it, you can get the fuck out of here - i'm not going to shed a tear for you, and nobody else should, either.
Imperator
I GOT SOME SHIT TO SAY, JUST FOR THE FUCK OF IT
THEM THANGS, THEM THANGS, DON'T EVEN ASK ME
deathtokoalas
i didn't ask you. that's the fucking point. you came here and you ran your fucking mouth off, and then you cried like a little child when you got beaten down. you should have just shut the fuck up in the first place.
nobody asked you. nobody is ever going to ask you, because nobody is ever going to fucking care.
listen, people: who is the liberal here, and who is the conservative? who is the one standing up for civil rights, and who is being oppressive?
you'd better pull your head out of your ass and work your way through the cognitive dissonance, or you're going to wake up in a world you didn't ask for.
raytho infulthretor
jessica, arguing is cool. But there's more things in life, like getting your dick, rode all fucking night.
deathtokoalas
i'd obviously rather have my ass fucked all night. but, why don't you look up the term chemical castration before you continue to sit there and make a fool of yourself?
all you're demonstrating is that you're too fucking stupid to think for yourself. but, don't you for a second think that i'm going to change myself for you. i'll spit in your face, and call you out for your oppression on any fucking day of the week. and, i don't give a fuck if it hurts your feelings, either.
Stay in Detroit
deathtokoalas
i grew up in ottawa, and i'll go back when i fucking please, and fuck you for thinking you can tell me what to do. how about i take a shit on your front step next time i'm there, huh?
I Cannot Fucking Wait Till Morrissey Dies
Is this Jessica bitch fr or just trolling?
deathtokoalas
trolling is real, and the premise that it isn't is just a lot of capitalist brainwashing in order to dismantle one of the most powerful tool that communists have at our disposal. you might call it "trolling" and ignore it, as you've been trained to by the capitalist press, but leftists call it agit-prop and use it as a means of agitating resistance. so, you're right to point out that i'm trying to piss you off. i'm not accidentally poking fingers in your eyes: i'm trying to make you angry. but, you're wrong to think that you shouldn't take it seriously, or that these aren't real issues that you're going to have to fucking deal with, whether you or your god like it or not.
candere
"the dj in the backup was doing mash ups"
its called samples you retard
deathtokoalas
no. they were mashups - and, unlike you, i'm smart enough to know the difference, you completely worthless fucking idiot.
if they were samples, i would have said they were samples. i was specific: they were mashups. i guess you can't read very well, can you?
and, if you don't know the source material, i've cited it. go fucking educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.
wallaby shrimples
ayy lmao stfu nobody cares you are the pretentious one here, your bandcamp is shit cuntttt
deathtokoalas
the music at my bandcamp site is more abstract, more creative, more structured and more original than anything that the poseurs in death grips randomly created on any of the random afternoons that they aimlessly jammed. the fact that you're unable to process this makes your opinion entirely worthless. nor am i interested in communicating with you further.
candere
is there anything that makes you more of a poser than spelling it 'poseur'?
deathtokoalas
it is actually the correct spelling in the context of attacking pretension in music from a punk rock perspective, and your attempt to suggest that you know better and it isn't is utter pretension on your own behalf. you will see this spelling in punk rock contexts going back to the 70s. it is, rather, your incorrect attempted correction from some kind of prep school grammar perspective that makes yourself a poseur.
i mean, you'll see the term spelled either way, despite the superiority of my own spelling choice. but, if you're going to criticize somebody for using a punk spelling on the basis that it doesn't conform to some english grammatical convention? you're a poseur. clearly.
i actually think the people on this thread, that are left, and will come here, require a bit of a history lesson.
the term poseur - much like the epithet of pretension - has become entirely reversed over time. today, young people tend to write off any expression of knowledge as pretension, as though it is impossible to understand anything and any attempt is just bullshit. the broad anti-intellectualism of the greater society has become as dominant in the counter-culture as it has everywhere else. but, the irony is that this is the height of pretension.
pretension refers to the tendency of people with superiority complexes to pretend they know what they're talking about. when somebody actually knows what they're talking about, they're not being pretentious - they just know what they're talking about.
example: a first-year economics student talking about the superiority of supply-side economics, because they've been brainwashed by right-wing talk radio. if you were to bump into this person at a party, you would be right to write them off as a pretentious buffoon that has no idea what they're actually talking about. broadly speaking, the accusation of pretension in the counter-culture came out of the phenomenon of working class people intermingling with a middle class arts school culture that thought it was superior to them. the working class reaction was to reject this superiority as pretentious, because they realized it wasn't actually true - that this so-called "middle class" was just a lot of working class people deluding themselves into expressing a false superiority complex, and they resented that.
counter-example: when an academic (or anybody else, for that matter) presents an argument with reasoned statements, sources and attainable facts, that is not pretension. nor does pretension refer to outward displays of the effeminate, expressions of homosexuality or tendencies to be dramatic or act with flair - which is the usual way the term is misused, today.
if you want to call me a queen, do it. but, don't misuse the term 'pretension' in the most ironic way possible.
likewise, the term poseur has been entirely reversed from it's actual meaning. today, a poseur is often considered to be somebody that does not conform to the in-crowd, and i will happily admit to being an outcast. what has happened is that the dominant culture has taken over the counter-culture, and used the term poseur as just another synonym for loser or freak or non-conformist.
but, what a poseur refers to is somebody that identifies as belonging to a counter-culture (which does not mean having a group of friends, but articulating a philosophy) and yet behaves in a way that is indiscernible from the dominant culture. and, this ironically describes the core of most of what refers to itself, today, as 'counter-culture' (but in truth is not).
most scenes nowadays are full of poseurs. it's almost impossible to find one that isn't. and, they'll attack the people that actually care about what the scene is supposed to be about, for caring what the scene is supposed to be about - because it's not cool to actually be an anarchist or actually be a punk.
all i've seen on this thread are a lot of poseurs reflecting dominant culture ideals about gender and repeating bullshit ideas that have been mass-marketed to them. but, it's what you would expect from a band that is obviously designed to appeal to poseurs.
when i have to defend my gender identity not once and not twice but repeatedly, it's clear i'm in a room full of mainstream poseurs that ought to just drop the charade and accept the reality of it.
you're a bunch of morons.
candere
just looked at your channel sorry yo. didn't realize i was talking to a mentally ill man
I Cannot Fucking Wait Till Morrissey Dies
Can you send a link to your bandcamp? that guy mentioned it before but I'm too lazy to go digging through the comment thread to find it.Nevermind I found it on your channel. Shit is straight ass
deathtokoalas
the bulk of it is pretty faggy synth pop, actually.
it's experimental and noisy and weird. but it's basically faggy synth pop.
a major influence was early nin.
(post deleted by moderator)
deathtokoalas
"faggy synth pop" is not a gendered term. it applies equally well to annie lennox, david bowie and marilyn manson (or bjork, for that matter). and, there is huge overlap in sound, there, too. and, i'd suggest you google the term platonic dialogue for the answer to your second question, although i'd argue against IQ as a meaningful metric for intelligence.
Ger Unkown
jessica is triggered but she loves coming here to fap that tranny dick to deathgrips
deathtokoalas
once again: i'm neither interested in, nor capable of, "fapping". this idea exists entirely in your own twisted mind. there is not even a modicum of reality to it.
i haven't been able to masturbate since the 00s. and, i'm sorry if that bursts your dream.
matthias
this is not because of your views on music, but jesus christ kill yourself you nasty transgender. you sick.
i would choke you to death irl you freak.
you must either be the greatest troll in the internet at the moment or the most disgusting thing that ever lived. this is coming from the bottom of my heart. please do not reply to me anymore, i had to take a break from work after seeing your disgusting mug pop up on my phone. kill yourself.
deathtokoalas
if you don't want to go to jail and get raped, which is what you deserve, you'll have to learn to change your attitude, won't you?
Camille Crow
i meant isnt death threats not illegal in some part of USA
deathtokoalas
i think most of us are in canada, and i'd be willing to go after him for hate speech, if i wasn't sure he was full of shit. i hope caitlyn isn't reading this :\.
Camille Crow
i dont think hate speech is a thing.
deathtokoalas
it is in canada. look it up.
matthias
please don't respond to me further.
deathtokoalas
typical retarded conservative: the dipshit comes here and replies to me, and then asks me not to reply to him. listen, matthias: i do not remotely care what you think. if you started talking to me, i would walk away. if i saw you drowning, i would sit back and open a beer. your existence is of no consequence to me. and, so, i would request that you shut the fuck up and go and wander off to die somewhere alone forgotten. send pictures, so i know it's true.
if you don't want further responses, then delete yourself from this thread. please remove all traces of your existence along with it. the world will be better off if you leave no trace that you ever were. and, i talked to your mom last night: she agrees with me, and is willing to help delete you.
Camille Crow
still,i dont think hate speech is a thing. i think thats an excuse to silence people because you dont like what they say
deathtokoalas
if you consider prosecuting somebody for uttering death threats to be "silencing people because you don't like what they say", you can be both correct and wholly unsatisfactory at the same time.
i mean, it's technically true that putting somebody in jail for murdering somebody is also punishing somebody because you don't like what they did. that's a true statement. it's not particularly insightful, though.
(post deleted by moderator)
deathtokoalas
it's my thread, you inbred white trash piece of shit
Camille Crow
no thats not what i mean,what i mean is "i dont like your opinion officer please charge this man with the worst crime there is in humanity" not "this man is giving me death threats" thats a whole lot different thing
also i dont care if you give me a death threat because i dont live where you live,in fact try to throw a death threat at me and see how it works
+ This was Z_Goombah Thread,you woman,or a gender that i dont know
deathtokoalas
was. it's mine, now.
i agree that what you're describing isn't a thing, because it doesn't actually happen, it's just another delusional fantasy in a long list of conservative delusional fantasies. hate speech is speech meant to threaten or harass individuals due to identifiable characteristics, not a frivolous means to shut down opposing viewpoints.
Camille Crow
but i think thats not right,hate speech is not a 'consevative delusional fantasies',its an excuse to just silence the shit out of some people who has an opinion more different than yours,Death threat is a way to silence people with death on some things,its not hate speech and its a whole different thing
unerelated question: do you want to know why some people want something thats historically correct rather than politically correct?
deathtokoalas
you need to read up on hate speech legislation.
Camille Crow
i cant find the thing so you'll have to provide me with link
again,hate speech is just another reason to just silence people because of their opinion,which just reeks of free speech violation.
do you know what a free speech is? its where everyone is allowed to talk whatever they want,talk whenever they want,wether its something negative or positive,and wether you like it or not.
hate speech is just not a thing. its only an excuse to just silence what you dont want to hear,for example you dont want to hear milo monopoly's opinion,so you scream "HATE SPEECH!" at him and then he gets arrested,bam wam in the lamp.
if that correlation doesnt make any sense at all then blame me and my brain
Also hey you didnt answer my question
deathtokoalas
you keep saying the same false thing over and over again, as though you've been indoctrinated by a cult or something.
an actual example of hate speech is threatening to strangle somebody because they're queer, as we saw in this thread.
Camille Crow
again,thats not hate speech,thats a death threat,not a hate speech.
Also mathias,actually use your mind rather than "ugh key way es",you're making a bad example of the right
deathtokoalas
i don't know who "milo monopoly" is. has she published material that is threatening towards identifiable groups? if so, there would be grounds to prosecute the person for hate speech. if not, people may be falsely accusing the individual of hate speech. but, the idea clearly exists in the criminal code. it's a very real thing, and there are very real consequences to it.
please google "hate speech laws in canada" and read the wiki page if you wish to continue this discussion further, as you clearly do not know what hate speech is defined as in this country.
you don't know what free speech is, either. free speech is a social contract between the state and the individual. in a situation where a group of protesters is trying to shut down a speaker through intimidation, the only possibility of a speech violation occurring would be if the police step in and prevent the protesters from expressing themselves. this would be especially egregious if the police stepped in on the request of the speaker.
speakers and protesters have equal rights to expression. the responsibility of the state is to avoid interfering.
Camille Crow
well i dont want to continue the discussion because its been like 50 milleniums so,so i'll leave you with mathias,if he doesnt come back with using his mind,tell him to do so. so aye,bye bye
deathtokoalas
the delusional dystopic vision on the alt-right would have you believe that those very people that the constitution is designed to protect are the ones that are breaking it. but, anybody that has taken any kind of law 101 knows that there is only one entity that can be accused of speech violations, and that is the state.
"The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make the
criminal look like he's a the victim and make the victim look like he's
the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. It will
make the criminal look like he's the victim and make the victim look
like he's the criminal. If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have
you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who
are doing the oppressing.
If you aren't careful, because I've seen some of you caught in that bag,
you run away hating yourself and loving the man — while you're catching
hell from the man. You let the man maneuver you into thinking that it's
wrong to fight him when he's fighting you. He's fighting you in the
morning, fighting you in the noon, fighting you at night and fighting
you all in between, and you still think it's wrong to fight him back.
Why? The press. The newspapers make you look wrong." - malcolm x
Camille Crow
well that quote can be applied to the right because we only get to be framed as the bad guy while the left gets to be framed as the good guy.
Remember berkeleley riot and the bike lock guy?
deathtokoalas
i don't follow local californian politics. sorry.
Camille Crow
aye it fine
Hey ,
Jesus fuckin Christ, I just looked at your channel. it's like daddy issues personified
I could pretend to be your dad ;)
good luck with that approach, you fucking pervert.
munkofpunk
Nobody cares about you, your pseudo-intellectual opinions, your "unique and special" taste in music, your daddy issues or your pathetic post-modern Marxist politics.
Using large paragraphs and words doesn't make you smart, you just look like you are trying too hard.
Fuck off.
deathtokoalas
i don't know who this guy is talking to, though. that certainly doesn't describe anything i've posted here, or elsewhere.
i'm an enlightenment-focused, empirically-driven anarcho-rationalist. i've been highly critical of continental philosophies. i don't even think my vocabulary is that powerful; unfortunately, we just happen to live in a broken society where most people can barely read at a grade school level.
i am absolutely certain that i have better taste in music than you do, though. you wouldn't agree. by definition.
Hey ,
You don't have any real friends, do you?
deathtokoalas
i don't have any fake friends, either.
friendship is one of those things that only the most naive people can imagine exists. the ability to actually believe in friendship exists somewhere between the idiot side of autism and the realm of magical thinking. a modern, naturalistic understanding of human interaction can recognize that altruistic interactions - mutual aid - can be of benefit to the survival of multiple parties. but, what foolish people call "friendship" is merely the intersection of self-interest and is always vulnerable to shifts in what self-interest is.
the idea of a "real friend" consequently exists on the same plane of the imaginary as unicorns and easter bunnies. in reality, all friends are fake friends. as such, i prefer to avoid people altogether.
munkofpunk
A empirically driven "Anarcho-rationalist" whos never read Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan" or "the social contract" because discovering that a anarchist society is impossible wouldn't gel with le edgy anti-capitalist politics. How can you be enlightenment focused and be a Anarchist at the same time, when the father of the enlightenment wrote a 450 page treatise on the importance of the state?
Every shitty word you've spewed so far has been heavily influenced by Marxist politics and post modern theory, so thats pretty much what you represent even if you are unaware of it.
Sorry, I don't enjoy listening to synth metal core hip hop through a feminist interpretation. you clealry have the superior taste.
I didn't ask for your life story either.
Wow so edjee and super smart. You really told us meer animalistic savages.
So basically " I'm a recluse who's only real source of comfort is the shitty V-logs i make and the post modern philosophies I obsessively read because i'm a shitty person who nobody wants to be around, but its ok because I'm le smart guy and friends and sexual partners are only in it for thier own well being".
deathtokoalas
i have actually read leviathan, but hobbes was not the founder of the enlightenment. hobbes was the culmination of dark age thinking, a true proto-fascist. the political component of the enlightenment could in some ways be described as the process of unraveling hobbes, as each step towards greater autonomy reversed his worldview, point by point. rousseau's dismantling of the "state of nature" was particularly devastating to the system that hobbes wished to inflict.
the end of the enlightenment saw an unfortunate return to hobbes on the continent as a reaction to the death of religion, but this was a foolish reaction to something that the real enlightenment had already long dispensed with. as hobbes represented the culmination of the dark ages, he also lead the path into a new one.
locke's theory of a social contract is valuable as a proof of concept, but i get the feeling that you've missed the point: what the social contract is about is the right of people to tear down corrupt governments, not a justification for the state, itself. social contracts are about revolution. that said, i find the lockean social contract lacking, and prefer an ontological interpretation of proudhon's. ether way, the social contract is not a law of nature, but an arbitrary construct that we may or may not choose to abide by.
i've already told you that i am extremely critical of "post-modernism".
munkofpunk
Anybody who refers to the middle ages as the "dark ages" when talking about history instantly destroys any credibility they have in a historical discussion. I could go on about the modern worlds warped perception on the European middle ages and the scientific, social and cultural advancements achieved in the middle ages, but I'll stay on topic, also simply labeling anybody with a different perception of the state as you a "fascist" makes you the equivalent of a toddler having a tantrum. Hobbes was the not the founder, yes, that was John Locke but Hobbes ushered in the debate on the state and society in 1651 with "leviathan".
btw the middle ages ended at the start of the 16th century and by the mid 17th century Christianity had already gone through a series of reformations as well as cultural and political change not to mention the growth of European trade empires across the globe. Europe was very different by then then it was just after the 100 years war ended, Hobbes work and the work of early enlightenment thinkers was the product of this cultural change, although whilst many scorned the middle ages they still owed a lot to the philosophies of that era.
The death of religion in the West is one of the worst things to have happened in Western History as Neitzche predicted, as it led to the new "religion being replaced by experimental right and left wing politics (fascism, socialism, nationalism from the rebellions of 1846 etc) which gave us the wild ride that was the 20th century.
The "social contract" is very much part of nature. With out referring directly to any specific philosophies, the emergence of hierarchies and "order" in groups is not only a natural occurrence but inevitable. Even before the advent of civilization humans were organised in tribes which had social structures, thinking that we can just stop this and scrap borders, nations, authority figures etc is unbelievable naive, and to take it one step futher and entertain the thought that we could maintain this as a successful model of society as AnComs and AnCaps unironicly believe is retarded. Succsful Anarchist societies are often anecdotal at best and either didn't last long at all or are small groups of people living in a rural area, and are often propped up by a external force, namely a government. Simply obeying a group of elders, chiefs or local authority figures is considered a form of government and since this kind of behavior (the establishment of social order and hierarchies) is ingrained in human and animal evolutionary psychology its impossible to achieve.
deathtokoalas
see, the irony is that this is the kind of historical revisionism that is generally associated with post-modernism, and that i'm so highly critical of. and, as is usually the case with post-modernists, you're just repeating what you were told without thinking about it.
i'll stick with the term 'dark ages', thanks. and, i think it's perfectly descriptive, too.
hobbes was neither a product of the renaissance, nor of the reformation, but a hard-right feudalist reactionary machiavellian tyrant looking to justify the state as a tool of absolute repression. it is historically accurate that he laid the groundwork for fascism, and to call him a proto-fascist is consequently not a pejorative insult but an actual statement of fact. as mentioned: he is only important in a dialogue of liberalism because the thinkers that followed him spent so much time, and worked so hard, to undue his influence as the standard defender of status quo feudalism. i would argue he shouldn't even be taught, if it weren't for the fact that not teaching hobbes makes locke and rousseau so hard to understand.
if nietzsche wanted to talk about the death of religion, he should have invented a time machine and gone back to the 17th century, when the discussion was actually relevant. his writings are clueless, and largely ahistorical. a comparison is something like publishing a speculative treatise on visiting the moon in the year 2150. he was just completely out of touch with reality. while the death of religion itself did not create fascism, the fact is that religion had been dead for decades before nietzsche was the last to realize it and it's death actually coincided with what we call "classical western culture", the line of thinking that nietzsche set in motion did create it, as a kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
you don't understand social contract theory; you're just repeating the point-form notes that your right-wing prof gave you. maybe you could stop sucking his cock for a minute and take some time to think about what you're actually regurgitating?
you can say the same thing about the united states: the high period of american culture was roughly 1930-1980, which coincides with a retreat from puritanism. american decline set in strongly with carter and reagan and the coinciding mass return to christian morality.
munkofpunk
"Hurr hurr stop sucking ur right wing professor sock u conservatard!!"shut up you pathetic cunt. The term Dark ages is rejected by any serious historian and your insistence on using it as a "descriptive" term just shows your ignorance on the subject, especially since it can be solved with a simple google search or reading a book. Calling Hobbes a fascist doesn't take away the fact that hes correct. Aside from absolute monarchies and fascism being two different forms of government (monarchies are generally decentralized and fascist nations are high centralized and have completely different attitudes to the general population and the social contract of feudalism) hes correct in his assumptions of governments being needed to keep people from going to war. Conflicts between two different interest groups are almost always kept in check by a governing authority. The only thing keeping people from turning into monsters or conflict from erupting constantly is the social expectation of behaviour since humans are high social creatures, even recluses abide by societal rules to a high degree. The Stanford prison experiment shows this, where unassuming students who felt free to do as they did in a mock prison/guard scenario turned into monsters who would regularity humiliate and abuse their fellow students. Genocides are another good example, when social Hierarchy and expectations are suspended humans have free reign to do as they wish, especially with the added anonymity of uniforms or disguises. But yes Hobbes is a product of his time in the aftermath of the English civil war, and the only fascistic element of his writings is his instance on people being forbidden to even rebel, which strongly goes against the essentially unspoken rule of English culture. Religion wasn't dead or dieing in the 17th century, wtf are you talking about. Europe was around 95% Christian as of a century ago and its death throws only came around at the start of the French revolution which championed some concepts only discussed before such as the divine right of kings, power of the Catholic church etc. The revolution didn't even start because of these reasons. It started due to members of the 3rd estate being kicked out of the Parliament for a vote and these modern ideas of the French revolution only appeared with the Sans Cullotes and Jacobins much later. Neitchse works have their flaws theres no denying that, and it seems that he was dedicated to slaying as many "sacred cows" of Europe as possible in his works, some of his last writings such as "Why I'm so smart" seemingly exist to cause controversy. Yes a lot of his work seems incoherent, but hes easily one of the most misunderstood philosophers in history and most of what people take away from him seems to be based on their own bias and selectivity. American high culture during the 1930's-1980's occurred during a period of intense international competition as well as the spread and encouragement of capitalism and mc-McCarthyism. Of course American culture and to a extent Western Culture up until the 60's and less into the 70's was based on European Christianity and now since thats essentially been sacrificed on the altar of secular society its no wonder we've seen a spread of massively destructive behaviors like mass sexual promiscuity. With women essentialy being encouraged to unleash thier own hypergamous nature for instance, its coincided with a huge rise in single mums, trouble children and depression in women.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19032en/s19032en.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/22/women-men-mental-illness-study
We have also seen a huge rise in sexual illnesses from our promiscuous culture, theres a reason why almost every successful culture has limited either by law or social taboo the matter of sex, especially before marriage. 1 in 4 teenage girls in the US have a STD. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-03-11-std_n.htm
STD treatment costs the US health care system $17,000,000,000 a year and there are 19 million new std infections reported every year in the US.
https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/trends-2011.pdf
The US also has the highest divorce rate of any nation by a clear margin, I shouldn't have to tell you what a disatater single parent households are for children growing up, especially in the early stages of development before the age of 4.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Divorce-rate
Porn is a cancer on society and the Brain, especially for men end of.
https://yourbrainonporn.com/
While its mainly men who feel ruined by this new Sexual culture, women are probably worse of for it, and their promiscuity which can destroy marriages and home life, at My uni for instance its seems that women become the objects used by guys for their highly sexual attitudes, and lose out because of it. https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
Yeah, as a society we need rules and laws to stop our own destructive nature.
deathtokoalas
i apologize for offending your sensibilities by using politically incorrect language, but i will continue to refer to the dark ages as the dark ages, as all enlightenment thinkers do, and whether it upsets you or not. i'm otherwise not interested in your opinions on the correctness of hobbes' writings (i disagree, as did all enlightenment thinkers.), on the extent of religiosity in seventeenth century europe (have you read any shakespeare?), on the value of christianity to civilization (i'd suggest reading gibbons.), on the value of the sexual revolution (which you seem to oppose, as an apparent young man...), or in this conversation, in general; if you're looking for some kind of culture war from the perspective of a 95 year-old extremely conservative male, i'm not interested in humouring you and waging it with you. i might suggest carrying on this conversation at your local old folks home, instead. i'm sure the geriatrics there will appreciate the company of an old soul.
munkofpunk
"I'm not interested in humoring you". Basically I know your right but I'm too proud to admit it and so I'll pretend I don't care and try and take the high ground by slandering you. I'm at uni so I've seen the full extent of what the "sexual revolution" has done to people and me, all its done is make people depressed, cause drama and encourage peoples self destructive sexual nature but thats not relevant.
All enlightenment thinkers refer to the middle ages as the "dark ages" because most were protestant, Calvinist or Atheist and had a song anti-Catholic bias, most of what modern societies perception of the middle ages comes from is Victorian protestant writers praising the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians and slandering the middle ages as backwards and oppressive to serve their own Bias and the new popular "romantic" view on history which had spread into most facets of Victorian society. A good deal of writings during the reformation (especially in protestant dominated nations) and afterwards has a heavy anti-catholic bias see such art as "the persecution of Christians" from 1622 in Germany depicting the Spanish inquisition, a organisation that killed only around 3000 people in the 200 years it was active, most executions were for severe heresy and conspiracy. Back to Hobbes again he describes the "kingdom of Satan" as having a very real influence on how society and government functioned. Actual Historians like David Englander suggest that it was almost impossible for people in the 16th century to seperate religious from secular affairs, the reformation only came about due to the abundance of the printing press and therefore bibles and many priests and reformists realizing the corruption in the Catholic church and concepts such as selling Alms for salvation not being present in the bible. To suggest it happened because people were becoming less religious and it was losing its hold in society is ridiculous and shows your ignorance on the topic.
As for Shakespeare his own religious beliefs are uncertain since many suggest he was protestant, but evidence suggests that he could have been secretly Catholic as his family had close links to the Later November plotters. Religion during this period was highly complex and the technicalities go beyond the label (especially in England) of Protestant, Catholic and Puritan, all you seem to show is your complete lack of the historical background of these writers and the societies they lived in. Shakespeare wrote plays for a protestant audience in the height of the reformation and the subjects and themes of his plays show this clearly. This article explains it much better then i could: https://blog.oup.com/2016/01/what-was-shakespeares-religion/
Christianity has been intrinsic to the development of Western civilization, anybody how denys it is deluding themselves. I recommend reading "Christianity and culture" by T.S Elliot, "Mere Christinity" by C.S Lewis and "the everlasting man" by G.K Chesterton. Christianity provided the foundation of Morals to European society that evolved as European society evolved.
deathtokoalas
that's some wonderful post-modernist historical revisionism. foucault would be proud that he's creating such proper conservatives.
munkofpunk
What a pathetic strawman.
It takes seconds to google this stuff or buy a book and read it up. You have no excuse except your own ignorance.
deathtokoalas
yup. typical post-structuralist - calls you ignorant when you dismiss their bullshit out of hand as so absurd that it's not even worth discussing.
munkofpunk
Classic. You can refute anything I say and so through some mental gymnastics claim victory.
If its so absurd surely it wouldn't be hard to refute?
deathtokoalas
this is never going to end, is it? but, how does this band manage to attract so many fucking retards, anyways?
Dino Spumoni
Don't blame us for such accessible music being over your head. Keep up the pretentious pseudophilosophy though.
deathtokoalas
please. this is written for angry 12 year-old boys to jerk off to. the guy can barely string a coherent thought together. and, there's nothing resembling a coherent musical idea. it's the fawning reviews that this nonsense gets that dip deep into the realm of the pseudo-intellectual. nor would i stoop to call myself a philosopher, as i'm a strict empiricist that rejects philosophy as nonsense, which i've made abundantly clear.
i'm not sure if i posted it here or elsewhere, but death grips belongs in the same category as something like yes: while fawned over by the pretentious, and the pseudo-critics that had little understanding of real music, it fails every possible test you could throw at it. and, i've demonstrated as much here clearly enough. yes fans tended to have little understanding of actual music, and were consequently easily dazzled by childish displays of nonsense. what i'm seeing here is something similar: you people can't have a real conversation about real music, because you don't have any understanding of it.
and, the only pretension here is consequently upholding this as something beyond the base, childish nonsense that it is.
there's nothing resembling art, here. there never was. you just imagined it. and, then you made up ridiculous excuses to justify your delusions - if you didn't just stoop to calling people names, instead.
Dino Spumoni
Coming from the person who at the very beginning of the thread said: "it was neither written, nor planned. it had no purpose. no message. no value, besides shock. it was fucking stupid - plain and simple."
Despite the fact that Death Grips concerts are painstakingly rehearsed with precision such that songs transition seamlessly between each other in carefully choreographed unison.
Being this mistaken about such an obvious little thing is definitive proof you are clueless about this band, and likely about music as a whole. You've repeatedly made a fool of yourself for months on end.
Again, don't blame others for your own intellectual and artistic shortcomings. If you don't understand it, fine, but don't pretend there's nothing to understand simply because you lack the ability to.
P.S. you should actually put some music on your channel since you claim to be a musician instead of a half hour of an uninteresting, unintelligent person rambling that nobody wants to watch. :^)
deathtokoalas
no. i stand by my statement. and, i repeat that you're just making up nonsense to justify your delusions. if you claim otherwise, please provide me with some evidence that death grips have ever bothered to rehearse anything, because i'd be surprised to see it.
there are prominent links to my music, which is hosted on sites that allow you to pay me for it. youtube is useless to artists...
Lloyd Nix
testosterone doesn't kill brain cells look at the fucking lyrics. If anything it's spoken word dressed up fancily. Go to genuis or something they can explain the meaning of the lyrics of you sense you are clearly to dense to understand them. It's JUST music man.
deathtokoalas
testosterone as a supplement does actually kill brain cells, this is peer-reviewed science. body-builders and other men that take supplements for body mass are, in fact, at a risk of brain damage from the injections they take. you can look that up yourself, if you'd like.
the literature uses the term "excess testosterone". i don't know how they measure that. i know that it explains why meatheads are usually retards.
also, if i wanted to have a laugh, i might actually enjoy reading through the reactions to the lyrics; the death grips section at genius may very well be the most pretentious place on the entire internet.
c lit
are you a tranny?
deathtokoalas
sharp one, here.
c lit
I just figured based on the rant
deathtokoalas
impressive. are you a logician?
ZionSype
you're legit fuckin retarded
deathtokoalas
definite logician, here. perfectly causal deduction.
the reality is that your people aren't smart enough to come up with anything besides deflections.
but, we also have to come face-to-face with the language: in the reality of dystopian late capitalist discourse, which this band is such a poster child for, "retarded" translates roughly to "intelligent" - because any kind of independent thought needs to be immediately attacked and neutralized as heretic.
it's not entirely imagined, either, there is a linguistic twist here: the perceived stunt in development comes from the inability to uphold, or disinterest in upholding, hetero-patriarchal norms and refusal to conform to the social darwinist cultural hegemony inherent to the judeo-capitalist world. socialism becomes a mental illness. if anarchism is just a lack of socialization into the system of capitalist brainwashing, it does actually follow that i'm completely socially retarded.
i can even tell you why: i stopped watching tv in the 90s. i haven't been conditioned properly. in order to cure my retardation, i need to watch more tv.
but, what i'm describing is an obvious dystopia.
ZionSype
Yeah dude, the band that has a music video that is literally just them taking apart a shoe is "Macho Bullshit"
There is A LOT to say about Death Grips, but "Macho" is literally a different fucking planet. It's so absurdly far from any of their traits, good or bad, that it's just funny.
deathtokoalas
if you can't see the obvious macho bullshit inherent in this band, it could only be because you've never experienced anything except hegemonic masculinity, so that what i'm pulling out as extreme is just your own norm. you may want to expand your gender horizon, a little.
but, you're probably merely being disingenuous.
that said, i can temper myself slightly: i could have spoken of a "celebration of male sexuality", or something along those lines. my biases were perhaps made clearly enough. but, softening the language doesn't make it any less boring, in my opinion.
user234567688
I'm genuinely curious to what you consider as "good music".
deathtokoalas
it wouldn't be fair of me to start dropping band names, here. but, i was at this show to see bjork (i came early to see austra, otherwise i probably would not have caught this set). the other band i saw at this festival was alice in chains. i had a free pass from somebody that performed at the festival.
(actually, i also caught the joy formidable at that year's bluesfest, and i caught loma prieta in a closet during the festival.)
ZionSype
Listen, I understand that you're trying to deflect your casual racism against us, but every shirtless black guy isn't some thug, mkay?
deathtokoalas
wow, you really sailed out to nowhere with that one. trust me: i'd describe limp bizkit the same way that i describe death grips. or eminem, for that matter. it's just stupid and boring. and, somewhere up there, i suggested it would be preferable if they were thought of as a dumb metal band for stupid white jocks, because that's what they actually are.
ZionSype
Look, I get it. You're the typical white girl, you see a shirtless black guy with tattoos, you get scared, and you assume he's trying to be macho because he scares you. So you cry that he's being too macho, because obviously YOU can't possibly be the problem, it has to be him, even though everyone around you clearly disagrees.
deathtokoalas
well, at least you're gendering me right. but, you had a better argument in pretending that i'm racist than you do in pushing down exactly the kind of toxic masculinity that i'm criticizing the band for.
...and, you wonder why you can't see it: it's because you are it.
even so, i can get up and walk away and let you guys jerk each other off, if you want. nowhere have i argued that he should put his shirt on. i'm just not inclined to sit quietly while people pretend this is some kind of art; it isn't, it never was and you're daft to think otherwise.
ZionSype
Jeez, some people really are blind to their own racism huh?
deathtokoalas
we can talk about it further when you finish beating your wife.
i've been clear in this thread that i don't have common cause with post-structuralists.
ZionSype
More deflection. Why even reply at this point man? You have literally no defense against your obvious racism other than "N-nuh uh, he's being a jerk! I'm smart, I swear!"
deathtokoalas
i understand that you're trolling, but not everybody that reads this will. it's a tactic that the authoritarian left uses fairly often: make up ridiculous accusations and then shift the burden of proof to the need to demonstrate a negative, which is of course impossible. you're right: i can't prove to you that i'm not a racist. and, you can't prove to me that you don't beat your wife every day, even though i'm certain that you do.
i need to provide some self-defence in disassembling your dishonest tactic, which i perhaps went bond criminal in actually providing to you. but i ultimately need to rely on the intelligence of readers to see what is obvious here and what isn't.
and, i will again state that the irony is false, as i am neither on nor apologetic to the authoritarian left or the tactics that you're utilizing; this is not my own medicine, but something i routinely speak out against.
ZionSype
Keep using big words to pretend you're smart, racist. Not following anyone
deathtokoalas
*plonk*
Toxic Potato
Best comment thread in the history of threads, matched only by the legendary "is wario a libertarian?" discussion.
deathtokoalas
bullshit. i've had at least a dozen threads, myself, that are better than this, but i delete in the long run, so you won't find them.
minsiii
when did Flatlander do Doubting Thomas and Can mashups? That sounds awesome! Why was no one recording lol
Mr. Galaxy
Death Grips is a visual/auditory art act tailored by the loudness, the in your face aggression, and the lyrics that explore themes such as schizophrenia, paranoia, and alienation. While it is hard to define them with genres they tend to be classified by hip hop, punk, noise, and others. I personally enjoy them for the pure aggression, and the originality. Just because you like old experimental music doesn't make you special, it makes you the pretentious one for assuming that just because you don't get something it's bad.
when you were told that they were mashups, the person who said they are samples did not hear you wrong as you seem to have implied 9 months ago, (I'm aware of how late I am) he was simply correct, and calling out your psuedo-knowledge about music
however I think it's a bit past the line to insult your gender orientation. Irrelevant, even. That goes for most of what you said as well
what am I even bothering with. I've not said anything that hasn't been said. Anybody insane enough to think taste isn't inherently subjective can't be talked to with sense.
also the genius lyrics section of ANYTHING is idiotic. Don't trust somebody else to tell you what a song means, that defeats the whole purpose of music in my eyes.
You keep on mentioning you like Björk. Are you aware Björk is a fan of Death Grips, and her and the band have worked together on many occasions?
last thing: it's pretty dumb to imply something with a masculine feel to it is inherently bad. As bad as it would be if I heard some all female band and instead of giving it a chance I said "what's this feminine bullshit." Björk fan here as well, by the way
deathtokoalas
again: this is simplistic music for uneducated people. i'm not having difficulty understanding it, i'm light years beyond it, and what i'm calling it out for is being simplistic, macho and stupid. if you consider this challenging, your taste in music is pretty undeveloped, and you need to explore abstract forms a lot further.
nobody "told" me that it was a mashup of anything. i identified the pieces standing there on the field. what did i say? doubting thomas and can? of course they would be samples, that's what a mashup is. but, mash-up is not an artistically valid genre, and it just goes to what i was saying about this being designed for people that have a very low bar for creativity. at the least, you would expect an act of this magnitude to avoid using samples in their live shows if they want to be taken seriously on an artistic level.
Octobarvaria Samoth
every album has a different tone, the lyrics you don't understand the meaning to, most of them probably, reference occultism and alchemy, which is not macho and makes up like more than half the lyrics
deathtokoalas
that's bullshit, and i didn't claim i didn't understand the lyrics, i claimed they weren't very well written, and weren't very intelligent. as is the case with almost all hip-hop, death grips is lyrically focused on a worship of money, hierarchy, dominance, fame and capitalism - things that should be attacked, not worshiped. the actual reality is there's nothing here that you wouldn't find stated better on a kanye west record, as much of a moron as he is, himself. and, are you suggesting that references to alchemy or occultism aren't vacuous or stupid? because i'd disagree with that point, and hardly want to hear somebody singing about occultism in the 21st century; to the extent that you might have a point about the lyricist frequently referencing alchemy or the occult, it just demonstrates the idiocy and pretension of the product.
MNIMnoob
you literally drink Mountain Dew and record videos with a shitty point-&-click please stfu
deathtokoalas
i apologize for not including a theme song or special effects graphics to my political analysis on youtube. maybe i should hire schwarzenegger to do the readings in order to pique your macho interests and keep your twenty second attention span. the guy probably doesn't even lift.
{WuTang} Bob Page
These dumbasses have to open their eyes. This music is shit, and I know so beacuse...uh...That's besides the point. The point is that if you like this, you have no taste. Get on my level, and listen to the music of the hunter/gatherer society. Real music only existed back then. Ofc, these mongoloids wouldn't understand it cause they're not intelligent enough. 😎😎😎😎
Saturn Jr
youre not smart
deathtokoalas
the feeling is mutual.
(post deleted by moderator)
deathtokoalas
this is what stupid people say when they can't follow an argument.
"the lyricist is smart because he talks about alchemy"
i mean, honestly. what is this, the fucking flat earth society?
if you want to talk about converting lead into gold in the modern period, you should be discussing nuclear physics, not alchemy. it's possible, if you have enough energy. but, i suspect that might be a little over the guy's head.
Mr. Galaxy
lmao, the samples argument immediately destroys any validity in your stance
deathtokoalas
i might rather suggest that the vacuity of your statements negates your validity as a human being. you can't even get away with mash-ups at a dj set. it's unacceptable on it's face at an outside festival with thousands of people in attendance.
{WuTang} Bob Page
I think some people in Canada should be region locked. Like internet ghettos. You should not have a presence in this comment section.
deathtokoalas
it would rather work the other way around, because this video is of an event in canada, and was posted in canada. i happen to have met the op a few times; she's a dj in ottawa.
that said, i'm happy to block you. *plonk*.
ugh. i'm not sure this is even possible. that's why i stopped using this worthless platform: you can't block morons anymore. but, of course, your opinion is completely worthless anyways, and it doesn't fucking matter what you think. so, if you don't want to read my comments, your best solution is to go kill yourself.
{WuTang} Bob Page
(post deleted by moderator)
deathtokoalas
you came to my country and posted on my thread. if you don't like it, go the fuck back where you came from - fuck off and die.
fucking imperialist yanquis.
yanqui go home!
Lord Takyon
Also, why are you threatening to beat people into submission when you look 100 pounds?
deathtokoalas
trans people don't become trans halfway through life. i needed to take self defense classes to protect myself from macho idiots and insecure bullies in elementary school, and i actually have a black belt in karate as a result of it. i can defend myself and will not hesitate to.
Lord Takyon
I feel like that was overkill, I'm sorry. You mean you've been taking Estrogen pills since a young age and you got bullied by transphobes?
deathtokoalas
i don't think it's overkill at all. the united states has a strong feeling of entitlement over canada, and it really needs to change. and, it's the opposite of what you're saying: i didn't start hormone therapy until university, and probably would have avoided being pushed around for ten years if i had some understanding of the situation when i was younger. back in the 80s, there wasn't the understanding of trans issues in kids that there is today. i was just interpreted as weak and told to man up. while it didn't work, i at least learned how to fight.
Lord Takyon
I meant my insult was overkill, I didn't even know there was a conversation about trans people. I got reactionary after seeing a reply of yours in this gigantic thread. More power to you and other women who have to deal with transphobes/intolerant fuckheads.
toxic_teaaa
Why are you still responding to this thread after two years?
deathtokoalas
because your mom asked me to update the world on what's been going on.
Zax Crew
Okay we get it, you went to art school.
deathtokoalas
i actually didn't go to arts school at all, actually. i have a degree in mathematics, 19/20 credits for an additional computer science degree, and the equivalent of a three year law degree that i never even formally switched into. i switched out of a qualifying year for a master's degree to do a computer science degree instead, but then spent the next several years taking fourth year math courses and ended up with enough credits for a master's, but likewise never formally applied to have that recognized.
my breadth requirements for arts were actually pretty minimal; i certainly spent more time taking science courses than arts courses as electives, although i did take a few music courses. i constructed the final version of my symphony of psilocybin induced madness in the confines of an electronic music course.
my education, though, is mostly in logic, not arts.
Jack SG
lmao you are way more pretentious than death grips is. look at how much you think your opinion matters, as if its fact. you need to step the fuck off and stop titling your opinions as "observations". if you didn't want to hear our opinions, why did you post yours in a comment thread pretending it was fact? you do realize this is a death grips video, right? of course people are going to say "no this is good" and then you get all offended as if it's impossible to someone to have their own opinion. get your head out of your own ass, stop pretending that your opinion is so christlike, and maybe you'll find that intelligent discussion you wanted, you fucking brainlet.
deathtokoalas
i'm convinced that my analysis is likely to age well, actually.
Bleach Mcnuggs
>who here is standing up for civil rights and who is being opposive
Id like to remind you of what political side fought for the abolishment of slavery during the american civil war
deathtokoalas
the side that fought against slavery was composed of northern industrialists seeking to break the power of the slave-holding industries, and take over the markets they controlled. further, while nobody disputes the particularly savage nature of american slavery, much has been written to compare the actual levels of freedom that existed in plantation slavery and has existed since in the form of wage slavery, both in the form of contrasts and comparisons, and hasn't always resulted in substantively better outcomes, for large segments of the population.
that's not to muddy the waters around the issue. the war was complicated, but the defeat of slavery was a moral victory. even if it just went to jim crow, and prison labour, and welfare & criminal justice reform. even if that's actually a fight that hasn't been won, yet. even if people don't realize it.
it's just to collapse the canard that the republican party was operating on some kind of moralizing mission; they were the bankers' party, and operating in the interests of their own capital.
the republican party, as it existed then, is no longer extant. what you call the republican party today is an entirely different legal entity, even. i don't remember the dates, but you can look it up. the closest thing to the historical republican party from that era that exists on this continent today is actually the canadian liberal party.
Noah HUdgens-Moore
even if I think you're reading way too far into this, and all of this argumentation could've been used elsewhere, I applaud your devotion to calling people on the internet who find enjoyment in something idiots. Only thing that confuses me is how you seem so obsessed with showing your dominance to people you deem inferior rather than channeling all of your passion into something more productive. You clearly enjoy music, so stop shitting on people who enjoy different music and focus on what makes you happy. I reccomend everybody else in this thread to do the same. Pursue that cool idea you had this morning, or when you were in the shower. Life is short, don't waste too much of it on such negative feelings
deathtokoalas
i enjoy the conflict - it's not about winning, it's about arguing. i'm an argumentative person. i despise peace; i loathe harmony. so, i would thoroughly reject your suggestion. but, the problem is that this garbage is taking up space that could be taken up by something more substantive, and every pretentious, bullshit review of something that has no artistic value means that all of the actual artists working out there get less exposure, less space, less of a platform to advance their actual art.
i very much have the opposite position - i don't understand why people dislike engaging, and just want to hold hands and sing solidarity chants. that's fucking boring.
there is a valid discussion to be had here about the objective value of this sound. i want to engage with it. if you don't, then fuck off - don't come here and tell me what i should or shouldn't post, and where i should or shouldn't post it.
Noah HUdgens-Moore
alright, fair enough. What would you say us retards should listen to instead? Surely your oh so superior intelligence should be able to try and show us the way. Or is that "too boring"? Are you so pathetically spiteful that you refuse to even do that? Stop pretending you accomplished something in this thread aside from proving how much of an insufferable asshole you are.
deathtokoalas
i'm not going to tell you what to think, what to read, who to hang out with or what to listen to. or at least not here, and certainly not on request.
besides, you're a complete stranger. i don't know what to recommend to you, i don't have a clue who you are or what you'd like.
what i'm able to accomplish in any given conversation is a function of the intelligence that i'm interacting with. i will be the first to concede that this thread has a lot of bullshit in it, but to suggest i'm the cause of that would be disingenuous - it's a reflection of the participants.
yknow, i'd consider myself an argumentative person as well, and I can tell you that what youre doing here is just being an asshole
youve been posting on a fucking youtube comment thread attacking random people for years. if youre a troll, then ill commend your dedication, but otherwise, pls see a therapist or something because this is not healthy behavior
also death grips ftw and its only your loss if you cant enjoy it
deathtokoalas
i hardly think i'm attacking anybody; rather, i think it's fairly apparent that i'm consistently on the defensive.
DisplacedHippie
You can't pretend to be artistic?.. You either are or aren't and art is a subject of opinion and liking to all their own. So expressing your opinion as fact is arrogant. Also, to be pretencious is to "attempt" to be artistic or creative in a matter to impress. It's no longer an attempt when said attempt meets viral fame and a following. So, check mate.
deathtokoalas
ugh. this dumb hippie can't even spell pretentious.
art can and should be analyzed for objective value, it shouldn't be reduced to somebody's opinion and left up to an exchange over the market. nor does financial success imply artistic value. so, no, being famous as a result of being an idiot doesn't mean your stupidity is all of a sudden art, it just means you've succeeded in being an idiot in a market that rewards stupidity. and i really don't care if you think i'm arrogant for stating as much, or denying that there is any meaningful artistic value to this at all; i think you're a retard, and are essentially defining terms in a skewed manner as a result of existing in a warped reality.
by your logic, the greatest artists are simply the ones that sell the most product, which is a definition of art that belongs in a satirical dystopia like the film idiocracy but not one that has any place in any meaningful discourse.
your argument is really, legitimately, a parody of the stupidity of modern capitalist existence, and you don't appear to even realize it.
DisplacedHippie
Art literally is a subject of opinion? What are you talking about? And wtf does that have anything to do with politics at all? Are you ok? You must not understand what art is at its root subject, which is any creation by any individual/s doing, like a computer, for example, is a form of art. Buildings are a form of art. A car is a form of art. All of which, are subjected to ones taste in said thing, because in their opinion, it is better than the other or they like this architects work over the others, this cars body style over the others. They are TOTALLY subject of opinion!? To say art has to have value to be art is idiotic and is bringing capitalism and politics into something that mostly has nothing to do with it unless said artist is influenced by it. It doesnt matter. I dont know where you came up with the political retort, to my comment which had to do with the word pretentious being used improperly in an earlier comment and debating that art is a subject of ones opinion, that's just a fact. Nowhere did I say anything political. That's a common trait with radical leftists isnt it? Getting butt hurt over anything that defers from your, ahem, OPINIONS, and start labeling. Honestly, pretty hypocritical of the very ideals you so supposedly support, and contradict yourself CONSTANTLY! So no, I'm not mentally ill, nor arrogant, as you are, your entire comment proves my point in one matter and is proving the one I'm stating now. You have serious issues and are probably very misinformed and undereducated on matters of reality and what someone even says verses what you want to talk about.. Nowhere was I saying art was valued by sells or fame? I dont know where you got that, I was starting to someone saying that this band isnt art, and the creators are pretentious pieces of shit, was definitively wrong BECAUSE they have a following; had nothing to do with the subject of art, just the band and what the person had said about the band as not being real artists, which is also a dumb thing to say. Nowhere did I say anything on whatever the fuck your raging out about. You also know nothing about me or my political views, and are probably very wrong about what they may be. So, maybe go lose another debate about, well, anything I guess, because just insulting a person for no adherent reason, makes you seem dumb. Your argument literally makes no sense here, hope you find happiness in life.
deathtokoalas
before i deconstruct this verbal diarrhea, i need you to realize that you exist firmly in a neo-liberal hyper-capitalist paradigm, because you clearly do not realize that, right now. you have probably never contemplated an existence beyond capitalism, and would lack the language and ability to even imagine it - like a slave chained to a wall, in a cave, all you can see are these shadows on the wall that capitalism creates for you. everything that you are saying is a corollary of market theory, of rational choice theory, of the reduction of art to an economic theory.
i completely reject all of that.
so, instead of simply stating over and over again that art is subjective and this is obvious (because you've never contemplated anything otherwise), please realize that nobody that has ever studied art in any meaningful way actually thinks that and try to adjust your thinking to that reality, instead.
what i say to you is this: you can shit on a canvas (or barf into a mic) and call it art if you want, but what i'm going to do after that is analyze it, and first and foremost attempt to answer the question as to whether the thing being presented as 'art' was created for an expressive purpose, or was created solely and explicitly to make money. it's not enough merely to create something, there has to be some reasoning behind it, and the intention is very important. if i deduce the latter, that this thing exists merely to make money, then i'm likely to reject it as art. see, and this is where your confusion sets in, primarily - you don't want to realize that art has to transcend the profit motive, or it isn't art, it's just a product.
so, we can separate things into two categories - one category is art, and the other category is a product. while they are not entirely mutually exclusive, the intersection is very small.
death grips is a means of expression, but it is not art because it is not created with a worthwhile intent; it has no actual purpose besides generating profit.
that said, something can also be art and yet be objectively deduced to be of poor quality. an example would be a drawing made by a three year old. while pure in intent, it would objectively be trash in substance, and appeals to subjectivity would not be taken seriously by anybody with any focus on any kind of intellectual rigour; the only possible deduction would be that anybody seriously upholding this childish drawing as substantive art would be an imbecile. and, that would have to be the unavoidable conclusion with death grips, if we were to look the other way at this being a product, rather than art.
i fully understand that a large percentage of the people in the world today are unable to think beyond the discourse presented via corporate advertising. you will interpret your ability to choose the red iphone or the green one as substantive democratic choice, and you will likewise reduce the value of art to an opinion on how it makes you feel. that's fine - that's your level of discourse.
but, understand that there are people thinking at a higher level than that, and we will never take this seriously, because it really is garbage.
Mustafa Tech Tips
Lmao i'm 3 years late but Jessica sounds like one of those hyper-sensitive, dunning-krueger posterchild, twitter dumbasses that complains about everything and when they're called out they use terms like "homophobic" or "racist" without responding to the person calling them out lol
deathtokoalas
that would be just about exactly wrong. but i'll tell you that mustafa sure sounds like your average asshole patriarchal muslim that's intellectually stuck in the dark ages.
Mustafa Tech Tips
Holy fucking shit you replied to me on an alt LMAOOOOL
deathtokoalas
i have lots of accounts.
if you look up the thread, you'll see i've been using this address for a while; i'm stuck on a chromebook right now and don't want to log into my main account, so i'm getting notifications forwarded to this account instead. which is hardly important. but, you asked.
Mustafa Tech Tips
Oh, I see. I looked into your "Jessica" account and uh... I don't know if you're an insanely dedicated troll or a delusional person. If it's the latter go get some help please.
deathtokoalas
mustafa may be a backwards religionist, but he seems to have at least realized the value in exploring my art. i would advise that everybody that comes through here go to my bandcamp page, especially.
that's: https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com
Mustafa Tech Tips
Dude look, mustafa is a parody channel, he doesn't exist. I'm usually sympathetic to people so I would advise for you to go seek help. You're still replying to comments 3 years later, this isn't healthy. Go on some meds, I mean it.
deathtokoalas
so, this guy goes on the internet and denies he exists, and then claims that i need help. right.
you're the one claiming you don't even exist.
ewqn
im honestly amazed at how u are a real person lol this has to be an elaborate bait
deathtokoalas
a master bait, perhaps? i don't know what's so shocking about it.
welcome to master baits theatre, with your host - snookie monster!
ewqn
just kinda sad on ur part lol doesnt make sense to me if u hate death grips so much why are you staying on this thread for like 4 years
deathtokoalas
you keep asking me questions, you dumbass.
ewqn
me? i think ur mixed up i just commented a few days ago, youve been arguing with other people about why they cant enjoy things for 4 years, not me
deathtokoalas
well, it was a universal you, obviously. but, it's very simple - if you want this thread to die, stop responding to me. i'm not coming here looking for something to say, i'm getting notifications in my email and reacting to them.
ewqn
u could also stop responding but sure i guess, goodbye you oddly commited emo
deathtokoalas
no, i am not going to stop responding to questions. sorry.
ewqn
but it doesnt seem like its good for you, let people njoy what music they like and you enjoy ur music
deathtokoalas
again: that's a very capitalist attitude, rooted in a market theory approach to art, and i thoroughly reject that at it's core. art needs to be more valuable than just being reduced to a choice that a consumer makes on the market. so, no, i'm not going to let a debate go so long as it's being carried through with. you have the choice to walk away, but i don't have to have an intrinsic interest in the topic in order to debate for or against something; this isn't about marketing dollars, it's intellectual, and it doesn't necessarily have an endpoint, ever.
Boomslang
why the fuck are you even here lmao
deathtokoalas
why are any of us "here"?
there can be no satisfactory answer to that question, don't waste your time with it. or, at least not objectively, in the abstract.
you need to figure out what you want yourself to be "here" for, then do it. the why is self-constructing.
Ivan Somkin
Not often do I see such a violent YT thread spanning multiple years with the same person. I could say I support the dedication but that would be dishonest, I really don't; I would say, for the sake of your own goal, spend your time somewhere else. Here it doesn't work and you are not achieving much.
Despite having completely opposite mindset to jessica, however, I can still sorta see where she is coming from. Because people don't just follow illogical ideas this passionately, there must be quite a strong and fleshed out mindset for a conversation to be able to last this long. Probably a very idealistic communist or anarcho-communist ideology where everything is strictly purposeful and art is very strictly defined as well to be as valuable for some cause as possible. At least, that's my guess. Not a fan but it is indeed interesting to entertain the idea at times.
Still, I don't support a violent and non-critical view of one's ideology. Any dogma, be it a religious or an ideological one, is prone to make a person less rational and more emotional, unable to fairly judge own and opposing points of view. A healthy does of thinking like your opponent can do great things, both for you understanding them and them understanding you. Unless I'm missing something, there's really no point in being this aggressive and compulsive with spreading your views. It's just not effective in this manner in the current environment :\
deathtokoalas
just to clarify the point about where art fits into an anarchist framework, i'd advise reading oscar wilde's soul of man under socialism, not because he is the architect of any specific view but because he does a very good job of articulating it.
i'll explain this in my own terms as well, though.
let us take a step back and ask why we want an anarchist society? what is life like once work is no longer necessary? what happens "after the revolution"?
while capital will in the end not give up until it is abolished, ever greater concessions can perhaps be drawn from it, under arguments that it is necessary to keep the peace. and, there's certainly enough to go around.
but, what are we to do with our newfound anarchist freedom?
and, the answer is that we are to engage in civic activities, which includes engaging in the arts. we are to create, to write, to study - to utilize the parts of our brains that are being emancipated. that is the point of doing this.
so, i know you're phishing for some kind of "art's place in anarchist theory" type rant, but it's really so central that i need to reverse the causality - the entire point of abolishing capitalism is to refocus existence on more intellectual facets of existence. it's really a means to an end.
another way for me to articulate this is through a historical materialist lens of technological determinism.
if socialism is just an evolution of liberalism, and communism of socialism, each fitted to differing technological realities, then we can interpret this position as being the most current answer to the question at the heart of each theory: how can people be most free?
liberalism was defined for an agrarian economy, one where markets answered the question regarding how to maximize freedom.
socialism was defined for an industrial economy and was the answer to the question of how to maximizing freedom, whether it ever came to fruition or not.
and, full communism is the way to maximize freedom in an automated economy - answering that same question.
consequently, advocating for full communism in the developing economic reality is really just answering the same question that the liberals started off with in the first place, in deriving their market theories.
Ivan Somkin
Yeah, it is indeed an exciting theory to think about, in fact, I myself partly take the end goal of "unobstructed thoughtful expression" for my ideology. Like a state of things where people can think, imagine and create without obstructions such as funds, physical ability or violence from others. In my opinion, that's a great end goal, no matter the ideology system. (My main focus, however, is more on uncovering the mysteries of the universe, such as the structure of our word, the physical theory of everything and god, for example. God is there because god/gods as a general concept is still yet to be proven or disproven in my model. Not gonna go in depth on it but it mainly stands on interpreted agnosticism and "temporary end goals" that come from it and such.)
My main problem here is that this ideology of yours is obviously quite interesting when you present it that way but the way you presented your point in those very first comments doesn't really do it justice. People are immediately repelled and don't even try to understand you, mainly because the way you phrase it is quite rude and doesn't acknowledge the fact that people are less likely to listen to you when you throw out insults left and right and insult their opinion and them personally as well. Moreover, when you become preachy and self-righteous, people become even less interested than before and the whole "agit-prop" thing goes down the drain and becomes totally unsalvageable. A simple "that's just my opinion" would have been a better introduction to this, quite frankly, optimistic and solid worldview. It doesn't matter how rebellious it is, as long as you present it humbly, people might get interested and start respecting it's existence, which, for me, would be the most important part.
deathtokoalas
well, i think you're contradicting yourself. but, rest assured that some thought has been put into this, and we're not particularly concerned about fitting in.
Ivan Somkin
Wasn't really talking about "fitting in" but rather attracting new members. But okay, whatever makes you happy...
deathtokoalas
being an anarchist is hard, in the sense that your social values are necessarily juxtaposed rather profoundly against those of the judeo-capitalist paradigm. and, one of the most frustrating things about it is that we can't win until the masses fundamentally alter the way that they think. so, sitting down for tea and crumpets and convincing you that my ideas are worthwhile is not good enough; i need to smash your preconceptions of reality, and let you put them back together again, hopefully in the right way, as a rational adult.
it's not exactly that you're wrong, it's that you're missing the point.
and, if you're uncomfortable, and asking questions, it means what i'm doing is working, whether you understand it or not.
Ivan Somkin
Sorry, but I don't. I have already heard this kind of position before and it's not really something new to me or making me question things more than I already have. Others might have found it interesting but you scared them away. I'm not sure that anyone here actually did question their beliefs over the period of this discussion. Be honest, how many people have you honestly converted with this approach over the years?
deathtokoalas
you don't understand; i don't convert. i'm not proselytizing. i seek only to destroy. i have no platform. you must convert yourself once you've seen capitalism for what it is. all i can do is show you.
it is true that i can never have what i want until the majority shifts, but i understand that i must wait until we all truly understand. i have no choice but to be patient.
i will trot out the old argument from time to time about how we're going to need a few failed revolutions before we get to the right one. this is a messy process. we're going to fuck up, over and over; that's not a reason to stop trying. but, the type of revolution inherent to adopting an anarchist social organization has to be breathed, and felt - it has to be 'normal'. that is the reason that socialist revolutions have failed over the industrial era, in the few cases where they had some reasonable chance of success (i.e. not cuba) - people with capitalist instincts were given the task of socializing an economy, and they just couldn't get their heads around it.
so, i can't beat this into you. i can't teach it to you in a classroom. i can't convert it into syllogisms. you have to feel it; you have to be reprogrammed. i'm really better off shocking some sense into you, first, before we can talk.
i understand that you're critical of this theory; i think i've done what is necessary to defend it from the depth of existing criticism.
Ivan Somkin
I mean, you have a platform and you can educate people, just use your yt channel for educational videos on the topic. You don't need much to do that: just write a text, record your voice, and paste it into some free video editor with a simple background. Rationally explain it and people will naturally gain interest. You probably wouldn't like the example but FinBol did exactly that and now I consider communism as something actually worth considering. Sure, he is a totalitarian but there are also anarchist channels as far as I know. This, to me, is more efficient than going for shock value in random comment threads.
deathtokoalas
you don't understand the depth of the change in social attitudes that's required to make anarchism feasible. as mentioned - none of that is to be effective if you maintain your capitalist programming. sure - i can perhaps get you to agree with me on abstract, intellectual terms, but that doesn't mean i can get you to actually alter your thought patterns, and it consequently means i can't get you to actually alter your behaviour. i have to dig deeper than these surface debates.
i probably mentioned somewhere up there that i have a degree in mathematics. i am an advocate of careful, logical thinking. but, i know the limits of logic, and transcending capitalism exists firmly within those limits. we need to change how we order the entire world around us, and we can only do that by actually experiencing it differently.
the conservative argument against communism has always been "this is our human nature, to be greedy assholes". so, am i arguing that i have to shock your human nature out of you? no. i'm arguing that you're taught to be a greedy asshole, by a system that's run by greedy assholes and that needs you to be a greedy asshole so that they can continue being greedy assholes; it's not natural, it's not biological, it's learned behaviour, by a system that perpetuates it by design. i am not arguing that we need to alter our nature; they have created this false nature, and i'm arguing that we need to undo it. if we can revolutionize their means of control, we could undo and even reverse their conditioning. for, underneath every "human nature makes us bad" argument is the truth that our real nature as being born with a tabula rasa allows them total control. we have to find a way to address this before we can even talk about anarchism seriously.
again - i'm not making this stuff up. this has been thought through, and quite some time ago, now.
Ivan Somkin
Again, it's a better alternative than scaring people away. If the person is intellectually agreeing with you, then perhaps they are going to keep it in the back of their mind for a while. As soon as people start finding the idea acceptable, the actual implementation of it would be easier to find support for...
Like, dumb example, but imagine a virus that has to infect people and then kill them. The infection rate must be higher than the death rate so that the virus can get to as many people as fast as possible before it dies.
The infection, in this case, is the intellectual agreement and the death is, consequently, a total change of mind. A totally altered person, as we see in your example, is not the best at "infecting" other people. They are too scary, too radical, and too self-righteous to attract anyone and usually only make things worse, gaining more enemies and losing casual, "infected" supporters. On the other hand, a more reasonable and sympathetic looking person can place doubt in many, even if they are already a strong believer on the inside. Doubt can eventually lead to a primary mindset if the thing that they were doubting was actually proven to be false. Then this person becomes altered and might become a sort of messenger as well.
And so it can go on and on until there is no one left who can actually intellectually object against this theory. Then the real change will naturally begin. Of course, there will be stubborn people but you are revolutionaries, you'll probably kill them or something, that's how it usually plays out. It's probably better to convert the most people before this happens tho so that the opposition, in the end, would be as minimal as possible. You don't want to fight the whole society or even half of the society, it would be bloody, inefficient, and unpopular.
(That last paragraph was kinda cold but I guess it's just what you have to deal with when trying to think like an anarchist)
The question is whether the theory is intellectually impeccable enough to survive through this process.
deathtokoalas
listen, i appreciate your attempt to plead the benefits of moderation, but you're just not grasping the depth of the issue. if i were to follow your advice, it may help build some kind of mass movement that may even succeed in winning political power, but it would fail at substantive change, in the end, because it hasn't addressed the root causes of capitalist indoctrination. some process must address this, or we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. so, that is not interesting to me. i want the real thing. so, if you're finding my agit-prop so revolting that you can do nothing but condemn it then you're not ready to grapple with the sort of questions that are needed to be grappled with, and we'll see you later sort of thing. as mentioned, that's the thing about anarchism - we're not into converting you. we don't need every last vote. if you find my demonstration convincing, great; if not, i guess we'll need to wait you out.
Ivan Somkin
Isn't political power used to change the means of control?
deathtokoalas
the way that you've phrased that is technically true, but you've done so in a way that obliterates the entire thought process attached to it. if a bunch of programmed capitalists attempt to revolutionize the means of control, you will just have stasis, and they may not even understand why. so, my focus is not on political power at this point in time, but in creating the change in social attitudes required to sustain it.
Ivan Somkin
So basically only a true anarchist can change the system, but the system won't let them because they will never gain political power, is that it? If it is then yeah, it's pretty gloomy, I don't see this working out at all. The only approach you have creates more enemies than doubters, it's self-defeating at best, and suicidal at worst. Don't know what to say really, since you are convinced then go for it, no one can stop you, I'm pretty sure you are not changing your mind any time soon. Just be aware that your movement might not withstand the growing opposition that you guys are feeding.
deathtokoalas
lol. ok. thanks for the advice, ivan. i'll keep it in mind..
i'm going to try one more time, though. because i'm a masochist, i guess.
what i'm talking about is referred to in socialist and anarchist literature as the social revolution and what i'm saying is that it must come first. what that means is that we have to alter our social habits, our value systems and ultimately how we engage in the world around us, altogether. if we were to gain political power, we might utilize the means of control to help reshape these social attitudes, and a longterm vision would require implementing the means of control to uphold these shifts in values (as the capitalist state uses it to uphold it's own), but that does not mean that we require possession of the means of control to get to a point of social upheaval. it does mean that we must find ways to transcend their means of control, which first requires we understand such a structure exists, which we can best grapple with by being shocked into seeing it.
yes, this is the hard way. but, it's the only way to do it right. there is no royal road to communism, it's a long slog, and it just won't work until we get it, anyways.
Ivan Somkin
Yeah, fine, I get you. Still not something I will be changing over to but at least I understand it, in your interpretation that is. Again, just consider that people won't listen to you at all if you insult them, laugh at them or you are being too preachy. There are actual ways of getting your point across that don't require you to be a jerk (like, how you talked to me) and they won't constrain your argument or your ability to condemn their worldview (as can be seen above). Just general debating etiquette, that's all I'm asking for.
deathtokoalas
right. you want "acceptable debate". well, i won't be coerced by your control mechanisms. and, you can fuck off if you don't like it.
Ivan Somkin
It's not "acceptable debate". There is a difference between not touching certain topics and simply not being toxic.
Xavier Cockerton
It's Hip Hop with Industrial influences not full on Industrial.
deathtokoalas
this is balls out brainless macho gangsta rap.
it's not smart enough to be hip-hop.
Xavier Cockerton
Death is a preferable alternative to communism
deathtokoalas
in all honesty, i actually agree with that guy more than not, it's just that the way he uses the term "communism" is to refer to a brand of chinese confucianist fascism that i'm not much less opposed to than he is. i'm an anarchist, i'm all about causing shit in the name of democracy. it's too bad we couldn't get past the language, because i otherwise might have gotten along fabulously with this "liberty prime". he should probably drop the hokey ancap username though, kind of cliched.
"liberty prime is online".
...i'm imagining a 45 year old white male that works in a post office and dreams of buying a farm and evading property tax, and maybe having multiple wives while he's at it, despite currently being a virgin.
Ivan Somkin
I might have a theory that you insult people specifically to generate interest in responding you. These insults have nothing to do with the actual underlying ideology that you describe and are doing no good in promoting it. They are just added on top for the reason of better provocation. Since you stated that you like the debate itself and not winning I imagine this is something you would go for. I guess it makes more sense this way but it still doesn't lead to any meaningful results in a discussion. Unless, of course, the momentous joy of a debate is your main goal.
Is any of this correct?
deathtokoalas
listen, ivan, i've been patient with you, but the reality is that you're a fucking idiot, that i don't want to continue having this discussion with you and i'd be just as happy if you'd go crawl into a corner and die somewhere. so, just fuck off and go away and stop wasting my time. you do not understand agitprop, and i don't care if you ever do, i just care in realizing you're of no use to me, because you don't. what i've learned here is that you, as an individual, are completely useless to communism and are not worth feeding. that is all.
you used to be able to block people on youtube, which was much easier; now you have to actually tell them to their face that you don't like them, don't want to communicate with them and want them to go away and fuck off.
========================
deathtokoalas
my comments have recently begun being deleted, by whom i'm not sure. for that reason, i will no longer be replying to this thread. i do not engage in forums that moderate their users. consider it a boycott. however, it will eventually appear, edited to my liking, on my blog.
to be clear: the remarks that have been deleted will reappear as a part of this conversation when it is reposted to my blog, when i get around to it. but, i will not longer engage in a conversation that is being moderated, by anybody; moderation is anathema to any kind of free expression, and i just won't engage if that's how this is going.
i would encourage others to follow my lead of reacting to attempts to moderate or control via non-engagement, at all times. it's becoming a problem, and the only way to really get the point across and say "i don't consent to this. this is not ok." is to just get up and walk away.
=====
deathtokoalas
so, this is just to confirm that i did in fact log into this account to delete all of the posts. again - the reason is that two of the later posts were removed from the thread, so if you're heartbroken by the destruction of what i realize had become a famous thread, blame the fucking idiot that decided to try to control my free expression. i don't know what happened, but i can provide a few hypotheses. frankly, i don't care - i don't give a platform a second chance to try to moderate me, i get out immediately and move on.
there's essentially three possibilities. the first is that cpi deleted the posts. if that is the case, the outcome would be her fault, and you should blame her for it. the second is that whiny ivan up there reported the post, and youtube took it down. if that is what happened, you should blame ivan. the third is that i'm being keyed on by some faceless suits at youtube, which is probably more than a paranoid fantasy, but is likely a longshot, in context. in reality, it was probably either cpi or ivan. so, pick your target.
i believe that this was the last of a series of lengthy threads to come down, and it hit a kind of cutoff point. i have been dealing with censorship issues on youtube for quite a while; i should have taken this thread down a long time ago. but, it just kind of sat. and grew.
as youtube has extreme censorship issues, i very rarely post here anymore, so i wouldn't really look out for me on youtube in the future. there's some lingering political stuff, but this was really the last one like this. however, i have a blog...
i would like to get back to posting, but the internet culture is going to have to revert to a more liberal state before an acceptable forum opens itself back up. we're in some kind of moral panic, at the moment. these things are fleeting; it will pass. right now, there really isn't a safe place to post, so i just stick to my blog. but, i hope i'll be back...
