diatribe

[jpgm]

while i definitely dont agree with robideaux, its interesting to see some different and more intellectual discussions around here, no matter how relevant they may seem.

that said though, i think certain things here and the choices of certain people are being intellectualised when they needn't be.

i donate shit to charities from time to time, therefore helping the needy. i also buy mcdonalds and coke from time to time, therefore helping giant multinationals. i listen to DIY bands doing their own thing. i also listen to watered down, shit pop music. i see no conflict at all in my choices here. i like what i like. for me, there's nothing more to it than that.

[lil brown brother]

finally ... hegemony ... did i call that or what

[ashgromnies]

i like what i like. for me, there's nothing more to it than that.

exactly.

i enjoy diy skram and emo - orchid, ampere, pg.99, etc.

i enjoy indie - the liars are great, neutral milk hotel, xiu xiu, etc

i also enjoy cheesy pop music - fuck, i enjoy 50 cent sometimes even though he is a terrible rapper who's always in monotone and has shitty flow

and yes, i still enjoy cheshire cat and dude ranch by blink 182. and enema can be okay.

[englandmj7]

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple strudels

Doorbells and sleighbells

And schnitzel with noodles

Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings

These are a few of my favorite things

That is all..........

[junglejane]

mmm... schnitzel with noodles!

[tangerine]

I like the following:

Goodbye Girl by Squeeze

Walk Away Renee by the Left Banke

awaiting robideaux's analysis (which, to be honest, I am unlikely to read, but maybe someone else will enjoy it.)

[Guest jmatsu]

was the superconfessional thread not available?

[tangerine]

was the superconfessional thread not available?

Please pay attention to the topic, which is robideaux's diatribe(s) against people who enjoy pop music.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Leftist Scumbags

[cultpop 0217]

never read anything more ignorant

you really should read more. try the library.

btw robideaux, ur my hero

like i said you really should read more.

[lil brown brother]

... another one kicks up the dust...

[robideaux]

aside from accusations of ostentatious use of philosophical nomenclature (which i only did to relegate, as many of you do with obscure styles and fashion) the only substantial objections to my remarks take the cliche form of an appeal to the subjective nature of taste, i.e. the "egoless enjoyment of our cutlure's more plastic confections," or to "like stuff because...you liked it." Do you all actually suppose we should insouciantly assent to our every impulsive inclination? Even in the larger culture, we are not this liberal and impose a moral order on our actions: Someone may like blink 182 and listen correspondingly, and this is perfectly acceptable within the modern world; if someone however likes to molest little children, and acts accordinly based on a tautological defense of their tastes, they are still justly labeled as degenerates. regardless of the difference of severity, the act itself and its justification are equivalent in both cases. "Egoless enjoyment," now matter how harmless this clever phrasing makes it sound, implies the same acquiesence to pleasure regardless of its potential psycho-pathological origin. Further, if we really did uncritically assent to our every taste, none of us would truthfully be here for any reason other than chance (think about this).

Within the much smaller subculture of narcissistic would be fashionistas, who un-ironically post pictures of their vast array of shitty sneakers and graphic tee's on message boards such as these, one would expect there to be a more sophistocated rubric of taste in operation. In the absence of one, the most coherent definition of a fashionista that i can come up with is formulated in socio-political-marxist-dialectical terms: (true) fashionistas are those who reject the ruse of individuality that the fashion industry in mass culture thrives on, and instead opt for more obscure, organic, and marginal designers who all partake of an elite underground fashion-subculture. Think about it: what made marginal designers like Raf Simons and Hedi Slimane great is their ability to innovate--not in the sense of creating something genuinely new, but in the sense of being bold and knowing just the right moment to incite a dialectical turn. But you know what? sooner or later, the industry will exploit their creative talent by imitation, and in time ultimately consume them. like most artists in the modern world, their lifespan will be short and they will eventually tire of the ever-increasing pace of the game and either resort to the same old tricks or expire in self-indulgent madness. But when that finally happens, a new group of elite designers will ready to take their place, fulfilling the same social function of assigning what styles of clothing indentify and serve as secret handshakes for the "truly" fashionable.

Now you all may think that such discriminating taste should only be confined to the domain of clothing,but as masuerte correctly stated: "you can't "just like" something without it reavealing a part of you in some way." imagine this: say instead of posting the "guilt pleasure" of still listening to blink 182, naturaljax posted a picture of himself wearing an "atticus" t shirt. i am sure many of you would've been just as hard on him. anyway, this is probably the last i will have to say on the matter of "good taste" since most of you are obviously delusional. by the way, there is also a deconstructive dimension, akin to the modern art movement, but i will not discuss this aspect of it here to spare you all the burden of thinking. by the way, no thesaurus was ever needed/used.

[jpgm]

robideaux, may i ask why you are posting this? not an attack, just curious as to why you would post such lengthy messages on a board you seem to not like at all.

[robideaux]

robideaux, may i ask why you are posting this? not an attack, just curious as to why you would post such lengthy messages on a board you seem to not like at all.

because truthfully i am fascinated by the way fashion evolves. despite the jerks there are some seriously savvy dressers here who i find interesting on an intellectual level.

[poly800rock]

because truthfully i am fascinated by the way fashion evolves. despite the jerks there are some seriously savvy dressers here who i find interesting on an intellectual level.

smarty pants

[NESK]

robideaux:

you've compltely exhausted a subject that was barely worth deconstructing. your jargon cant save you from the fact that your completely overanalysing somethign very simple. we can tell you have an amazing vocabulary. now please shut the fuck up.

how can you dissect someone's right to listen to blink or whether or not they should feel comfortable in admitting to such bad taste when you yourself clearly know enough abotu them to know which clothing line they spawned? its obvious you have invested yourself in blink as much as anyone who considers them a guilty pleasure. the fact that you can intellectually masterbate over the value of their music/clothes does not make you any better than someone who admits to listening to them.

smart retards and the worst retards.

[robideaux]

robideaux:

you've compltely exhausted a subject that was barely worth deconstructing. your jargon cant save you from the fact that your completely overanalysing somethign very simple. we can tell you have an amazing vocabulary. now please shut the fuck up.

how can you dissect someone's right to listen to blink or whether or not they should feel comfortable in admitting to such bad taste when you yourself clearly know enough abotu them to know which clothing line they spawned? its obvious you have invested yourself in blink as much as anyone who considers them a guilty pleasure. the fact that you can intellectually masterbate over the value of their music/clothes does not make you any better than someone who admits to listening to them.

smart retards and the worst retards.

you are absolutely right. it is something very very simple and should be at least implicitly known by all here. all i did was make it explicit for those who misunderstood me and defended listening to such rubbish. i already admitted that i listened to blink 182 when i was too young to be discerning (which was 11 years ago when i was 13--i truly havent listened to them in over a decade). as for knowing who started atticus, i simply asked a co-worker's annoying little brother what it was and why all the neo-emo kids were wearing it about 2 years ago. so bollocks to you friend.

[tweeds]

robideaux -

i can see where you're coming from, but i disagree with your method of carrying your point across...

out of pure (unintellectual) curiosity, who are these seriously savvy dressers you keep an eye out for? i ask this because i am quite interested, and because i cannot imagine you being anything but bluntly honest with this question.

[Ratatat]

so what should we be listening to you pretentious fuck

[MilSpex]

Isn`t Blink 182 just a NOFX clone?

[bee hee]

Having just been exposed to Robideaux's neurotic, peevish indiscretions, I ponder how best to express my disgust at Robideaux's total lack of sensitivity and reasoning. Before I say anything else, let me remind Robideaux that he, already oppressive with his treasonous perceptions, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that Robideaux once tried to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you obviously don't understand how Robideaux operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that when he says that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded about Robideaux's unstable inclinations. I've concluded that I am offended by the way Robideaux talks down to me. That's just a fancy way of saying that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to warn the public against those ill-bred braggarts whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. I must emphasize this because his trucklers are more determined than most disorganized malingerers. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that he can't fool me. I've met vitriolic rubes before, so I know that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, if you think you can escape from Robideaux's untrustworthy crotchets, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that he insists that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Robideaux would be better off if he just admitted to himself that his expedients are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, some people feel that Robideaux operates on the basis of an unremitting hatred of civility and decency. Others aver that Robideaux's pathological newsgroup postings induce paralysis of the cerebrum. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: If you think that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Robideaux wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that on several occasions I have heard him state that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important, though, is that we must comment on Robideaux's tactics. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity.

Robideaux considers it fair game to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide, and everyone with half a brain understands that. I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. Do you? He is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for Robideaux to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of querulous, unscrupulous scatterbrains. You'd think I'd be pretty well inured by now to the lunacies of his grievances, but I have to say that he claims that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his personal attacks. Then again, if Robideaux bites me, I will bite back.

That reminds me: If you can make any sense out Robideaux's mutinous, vengeful asseverations, then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. Since this is one of those "don't say I didn't warn you" letters, I want also to note that Robideaux's apple-polishers don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat confused. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with Robideaux. I will gladly give Robideaux a day's salary if he can prove that the best way to serve one's country is to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery, as he insists. If Robideaux is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I rage, rage against the dying of the light. So, do we have a bet, Robideaux?

[onemancult]

This thread just became so much more interesting. bee hee for president.

[cultpop 0217]

why should i read more? do you know how much reading i do?

I hate university-educated people.

because if this is the most ignorant thing you've ever read you clearly haven't read much. and the fact that you seem impressed enough by robideaux to call him your hero also leaves me inclined to think you have some reading to catch up on.

[cultpop 0217]

p.s. im still not impressed.

[darkanimal]

Now where the fuck's my highlighter marker?

[xcoldricex]

i'm glad i wasn't a humanities major.

[bee hee]

i'm glad i wasn't a humanities major.

shit, classics is the only thing that I'm actually interested in studying when I go to college.

[xcoldricex]

actually i take that back. i was a humanities major. but also a science major. haha.

[poly800rock]

i'm glad i wasn't a humanities major.

i'm glad i wasn't a philosophy major. that way i can enjoy life somewhat

[robideaux]

shit, classics is the only thing that I'm actually interested in studying when I go to college.

hah, the classics--how bourgeoisie! i wonder why? not that i have anything against them personally, but its probably because you yourself secretly harbor an elitist agenda. I'm no psychologist, but with a fair amount of confidence i'll reduce your interest in the classics as being a mere symptom of a vast inferiority complex. How cliche you are! You have synthetic nostalgia for a time that even you must admit you can't ever know, given the warped-linear accounts of history we are presented with in school books.

what you wrote was a bunch of nonsense, but considering the intelligence level of some of the people here they will probably lap it up like an obedient puppy. all your post shows that you obviously took no time to seriously consider what i was getting at. but perhaps it's my fault, and maybe i could've been more explicit. i do not believe that the role of fashion is to opress (but in your case idiot i'de make an exception); instead i feel it should be used as an instrument to deconstruct the ideologies that promote social hierarchies, particularly the superiority burgeoise culture. If people however who consider themselves to be cool and hip fashionistas, yet dont realize the subversive capacity to fashion and instead just compulsively buy the latest cool clothes according to industry and media dictates, then they do not help and are part of the reification process. on an "elite" fashion message board, one would expect people to realize this.

by the way, in your schizophrenic rant, you were obviously trying to be more obscure than i. just a tip: instead of using "very serious nearsightedness" try "severly myopic." has a "smarter" ring about it genius.