Mike Mike
I agree, but don't blame that on metal heads, it was the east coast 2nd wave hardcore scene that brought all that jock shit about- not metal..when you have bands of skin head/thug/criminal NY types on stage promoting racism and gang mentality- the crowd follows suit, and soon the whole scene looks like a frat party or high school pep rally/ jail playground..it wasn't metal it was 2nd wave hardcore, which is not and will never be true punk..
deathtokoalas
i think you're contradicting yourself without realizing it. you're right that second wave hardcore wasn't punk; you're wrong that second wave hardcore wasn't metal. it had every attitude associated with metal, it was marketed to metal fans by metal labels and it didn't even sound like punk anymore. further, it's lineal descendants have realized this and integrated the term metal into their marketing - "nu metal", then "metalcore". i refuse to even call second wave hardcore "hardcore", or their fans "hardcore kids" (whatever their age). it's metal, and they're metalheads.
real hardcore mostly morphed into grunge and then split off into noise & etc.
Mike Mike
Eh, I see what you're saying but that second wave NYHC and east coast hardcore was 3 chord Black Flag influenced for the most part. It wasn't really progressive enough in anyway to hear metal influences in it, although I guess you could say it was also Motorhead inspired. The mentality at those shows was never seen at any metal show I've ever been to..gangs, fights, nazism, just really ignorant behavior all over the place. The thrash metal bands of this time integrated the sounds of Priest, Sabbath, and Maiden into their sound..The second wave hardcore groups were kind of just Black Flag with less creativity and more stupidity...(says a lot because Rollins era Black Flag was pretty stupid as well)
deathtokoalas
see, i've never heard much of it like that. it's always sounded to me like metalheads that can't play. metallica without the guitar and drum solos, sort of thing; what i hear is a lot of recycled thrash riffs, and not much ripping on black flag or bad brains. and, while i wasn't there, i'm of the understanding that the nazi bullshit came out of a common root as satanic black metal, that it came out of all that early 80s metal that glorifies white, northern europeans as this viking super-race that worshiped satan.
Mike Mike
There was definitely the nazi element in black metal as well, and while there's no excuse for hardcore nazism, at least the black metal bands usually did it with some knowledge of viking and pagan roots, and not all of those bands had nazi lyrics..The 2nd wave hardcore bands and mostly their fans (more so than the bands themselves) brought an 8th grade drop out gang themed, extremely ignorant nazi mentality to the scene. That black metal scene you speak of was so far from here (Norway mostly) and I don't even believe a lot of those bands played many live shows.
deathtokoalas
i don't mean to suggest the norwegian stuff was a direct influence on nyhc, though, and i don't mean to ignorantly directly label anything as nazi (because i just don't know enough about it, and don't really care to). but i think the norwegian church burning nonsense actually post-dates nyhc by a good margin. i think the earlier viking/satan stuff was mostly british, was rarely explicitly nazi (although was between the lines) and itself probably developed out of "immigrant song". i was more trying to get across the idea that black metal and nyhc shared a common influence in early 80s satanic viking metal, because i think that's where the bullshit in the hardcore scene ultimately came from.
Mike Mike
You could be right and it's wrong to generalize any scene as "Nazi" as you pointed out. Norwegian black metal definitely post dates NYHC by about a decade as well. First wave black metal had it's roots in stuff like Bathory, Celtic Frost and Venom (kind like thrash with satanic lyrics, sloppy playing) That stuff probably did influence some 2nd wave hardcore, although it's tough to say because it was really all happening at the same time. Agnostic Front came out very early along, I believe it was 83 or 84, the first wave of black metal hit a little earlier , and so did the early thrash metal releases. All pretty much happened rather quickly, tough to say what exactly influenced what.
Attila the Humble
Don't you like us koalas? :(
deathtokoalas
your despicable cuteness is subversive and must be eradicated for the well being of all other life forms in the galaxy.
Jorge Martín Pérez
This song remember me to Weezer.
deathtokoalas
yeah, there's an influence, but the thermals are generally fairly straight forward whereas weezer plays on the angular shit. the average non-musician may be surprised by how complicated weezer actually is. thermals are a couple of chords, a driving drum beat and a good attitude. if you take it back another generation to the general power pop sound of the early 80s and it's hybrid punk-pop offshoots (like the vaselines), you get a big common influence that's probably more important...
Jorge Martín Pérez
Ok, so you are right.
KYLEizaFOX
I normally don't respond to comments that are this old but you're way off. Weezer, complicated? Are you serious? Is there a bit more technicality than the thermals have? Sure. Complicated? No.
You're comparing two bands who power chord their way through 75% of every song they write. That's not a criticism, just a fact. Two bands that also happen to love down strokes. Two bands who take heavy punk influence and add some power pop into the mix. Then you're going to sit there and tell me and others that finding the two bands comparable is a stretch?
deathtokoalas
early weezer is quite harmonically (or vertically) complex. the beatles were very complex in that way, too - whereas the who were generally not. power pop is not all at a comparable level of simplicity, but you have to have some knowledge of music theory to be able to have the conversation. otherwise, you're not able to even understand what the words mean, in context.
KYLEizaFOX
Your arrogance astounds me. I have knowledge of musical theory as I am a musician. The style of music that weezer plays is absolutely comparable to what the thermals play. To argue that is asinine. The structure of each song, verse, verse, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus is there. The type of guitar chords used are there. The down strokes are there. The upbeat pace is there. The distortion is there. The pop is there. The punk is there. There are enough similarities to hear one band and say, with confidence, "hey this band makes me think of weezer" or vice versa.
deathtokoalas
you might think you have the kind of knowledge necessary to have this discussion, but the language you've used demonstrates that you don't.
i'm only going to correct one error: the chord types used in weezer and thermals are not comparable to each other. thermals are mostly one-five power chords. weezer very rarely used those kinds of power chords in their early records, and almost always harmonized them with leads full of 4ths and 6ths and 7ths when they did.
KYLEizaFOX
You might think you have "won" this debate, but your inability to start it, and your dismissal of everything I have to say shows you simply don't have a leg to stand on.
There is no harmonizing a power chord with one guitar. By doing so it is simply no longer a power chord. 1-5. (8 optional)
You also keep referring to weezer's early work like you actually know it. You mean albums like the blue album? Their very first? With songs like In the Garage, My Name is Jonas, The Sweater Song, Say It Ain't So, and Buddy Holly? Songs so riddled with power chords you would have to be a fool not too notice if you are any form of musician?
No one is saying the bands play exactly the same music and are the same band. To sit there and tell me they are not similar is just stupid, and at this point you are just arguing to argue.
You're confusing your arrogance with intelligence.
This is all you do. You tell me "you don't understand." Every similarity between the two bands, and there are many, that I bring up, you ignore. Then offer me this "way out" that YOU are clearly looking for.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein
deathtokoalas
as i've pointed out repeatedly, weezer tend to write very harmonically complex rock songs while the thermals tend to produce very simple three chord rock songs. this isn't a controversial statement, it merely relies on an understanding of the music created by the two bands. all i've received in response is a lot of inaccuracies. i've corrected a few of them, but this argument remains meaningless to anybody that doesn't know what "harmonically complex" means. and it's not intuitive, so you almost certainly don't if you haven't studied it a little.
I was listening to "I am the Walrus" while working on a Master's Thesis (strange basis), and in the sidebar was the song in the subject line. I was floored. I cannot describe exactly what it is, but the entire song has been nothing short of amazing. (Admittedly, it has served as a good "backdrop" for working on my Thesis about cyberwarfare.) What inspired this absolutely incredibly frenetic work?
jessica
that version of the recording was written in late '01 as a stadium rock track for an unrealized rock project, but not constructed in it's existing form until about a month ago. there's consequently a set of influences relative to 2001 (it's half industrial, half no-wave/grunge) and a set of influences relative to 2014 (i've been listening to a lot of melodic hardcore recently), as well as a lot of stuff i've come in and out of in between. i've dubbed my work "blender rock", which means that it tries to take in as diverse a set of influences as is possible.
i should also point out that this is a reworking of what i call my fourth symphony. there are roughly ten versions of this track, and i will be compiling them shortly, but for now all i have is this, which is the version with the symphony title: https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/trepanation-nation
ganzonomy
It's some of the wildest, most interesting, stuff I have heard in a long, long, while. I'll take a look at those links when I resume my work on my MA Thesis, but from what I heard, I am thoroughly impressed.
I've been listening to a lot of late 1960s / early 1970s Miles Davis (The "Electric Era"), and I see parallels in it, especially the extent of keyboard and guitar work and the emphasis of such instruments. (If you have a chance, I highly recommend finding a copy of Dark Magus - Live at Carnegie Hall, for me, it seems to be his "peak" from that era). I've very often just sat down with a good pair of headphones and tried to pick apart each individual instrument and where it's going (or trying to go) compared to the others. (I like doing that with a lot of works, be it King Crimson, Frank Zappa, Miles, anything that has a lot of instrumentation that's intertwined, or just something that can be ridden like a "magic carpet").
Again, great work :-)
jessica
davis is an interesting parallel. i've certainly spent a lot of time listening to davis, but the times i've sat down with any kind of emulation purposes are pretty rare. i'd say i get my mclaughlin pull more out of the mahavishnu stuff. the prog is key for me: i was sort of reared on crimson, genesis, zappa and floyd and it formed the basis of my musical understanding before kurt cobain smashed a guitar over my head and made me take notice of punk rock, which i suppose was a fairly normal experience for people my age at that time. that prog rock childhood was very formative, though, and eventually defined my interests in post-rock in the late 90s and early 00s.
i'm glad you're enjoying it...
ganzonomy
Davis' work from 1972 to 1975 (post-McLaughlin, his primary guitarist by that point had become Pete Cosey), is less smooth and more a mixture of Hendrix-meets-Parliament. I got reared on what would be considered "classic rock", but one of the things I enjoyed doing was finding out where "the limits" were. I became a Disc Jockey at WHRW Binghamton from 2004 through 2008 (I was a student at Binghamton University, hated it... wound up going through the City University of New York (CUNY) Queens College from 2010 onwards to complete my Bachelor's... but I digress, back to Disc Jockeying. I found that era of my life to be the most musically expanding. I would play anything ranging from Django, to Antheil (Ballet Mecanique being a personal favorite), to Zappa (the show was named Frankly... Zappa for a time), to spike jones, etc., The premise was "if it's been recorded, it's playable, and if it hasn't, I'll figure out how to turn the random things in the station into musical instruments".
Alas, the master's thesis is on cyberwarfare - which due to the lack of political science stuff (but a TON of computer science stuff) is kicking my brains in. Thanks for making the research process easier. PS: I read some of your works from when you were in college for law, they're actually quite good. If you find the spark to finish, go for it.
jessica
i started off in theoretical physics and, after bouncing around quite a bit, finished a math degree in 2006. i went back in '08 to do a computer science degree for purely economic reasons and got to a half credit from finishing it before realizing that it really wasn't what i wanted to be doing with my life, so i mentally switched into law and finished up to the end of second year in it. i ended up concluding that i was arguing with the basic premises of the english common law and that there wasn't any future in continuing on with it outside of existing in some kind of purely theoretical space that is populated solely by anarchists. i couldn't possibly apply my perspectives in any kind of a real world context. i have loose plans on going back to school, but i think i'd probably want to focus on a master's degree in mathematics.
for the time being, i'm focusing on "completing my discography", which ran from roughly 1996-2011 and has dozens of half complete ideas. the track in question (as mentioned, from 2001 but finished last month) is a part of that process of finishing incomplete ideas. i've worked my way up to 2002, meaning i still have about ten years of musical ideas to finish before i start thinking about restarting an academic career.
ganzonomy
The basic arguments of law are some of the most absurd things i've seen, i'm not a lawyer (my area, were I to enter it after the MA, would be international law), but there are some arguments where i'm just like "REALLY.... what was being smoked when this was argued?!" (and that's even taking into account historical contexts in supreme court cases). I started out in Mechanical Engineering myself (discovered I couldn't do calculus) before going into psychology and finally political science. Insofar as anarchists, are we talking anti-government sorts, or are we talking about the IR idea of anarchy that is chaos?
The idea of having a vault of unfinished music, is something that has fascinated me. I'm a photography fan, and to see works that I've done years after they were made, I find interesting; particularly in seeing the things now that I could have improved, conditions that I could have changed (lenses, film type, etc.,), and I find I have very few that I'm like "Yes, this was PERFECT!". Admittedly though this travels to my writing, where I'm always - after the fact - going into analyzing every little grammatical mistake that was missed.
Side Question? What exactly did "death to koalas" come from?
jessica
one of the (many) assumptions i found myself having difficulty agreeing with was the idea that situations should be analyzed by an objective criteria. i'd ultimately take the perspective that this isn't even possible - which is essentially the critical legal studies view that law is functionally defined by actors using the rules to justify enforcing their opinion, rather than the other way around. where i'd break with the cls people is that i actually think this is preferable to an objective set of rules, so long as the class relations can be abolished or minimized in terms of decision making (and replacing incarceration with civil/tort law in all but the most extreme of situations would ease a lot of those concerns) and the decision making is take out of the hands of elitist judges and put more into the hands of the community.
even something as seemingly black and white as "thou shalt not murder" is not really acceptable to me. i can come up with endless justifications for murder that go beyond the immediate need for self-defense. so, i don't think that a system that produces these static, immutable rules and demands they never be broken is the right approach - i think a system that looks at the situation on a case by case basis and determines whether the behaviour is or is not beneficial to the community on that basis - completely independently of past decisions - is preferable. adopting this approach would throw the concept of stare decisis out the window and completely abolish the authority of the existing common law in favour of the authority of the actual, existing community.
the general position in opposition is going to be that a system of clearly delineated laws makes it clear what the boundaries are in terms of what behaviour is allowed and what behaviour is not. but i'd identify this "liberal" mindset as the basis of most of the problems we have in front of us, from financial speculation to environmental degradation. if we want to talking about improving our social conditions, we have to shift society so that people are thinking about actively making moral choices rather than behaving as badly as they can with the singular restriction of merely avoiding the law. if your only argument in favour of a behaviour is "it's not illegal", maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
but, in taking this position, i'm rejecting the very foundations of english society. it may be an interesting exercise in anarchist rhetoric, but it's not something i can explore in a courtroom or in a classroom. and, i ultimately don't feel i need those pieces of paper to write on the topic if i decide to in the future.
ganzonomy
The first two paragraphs are mind-blowing to me (not in a bad way, but in a way that I had never considered viewing things and will have to research further, since traditional law is built on absolutes and to a great extent ignores ethics for "if it's legal I can do it, if it's not deemed illegal, i can still do it!". Not to get too political-sciencey, but you are touching on the issue that existed between President Theodore Roosevelt and President William Howard Taft during the early 20th century. Whereas Roosevelt's mentality was primarily "if it's not stricken as explicitly illegal, I can get away with it", Taft's mentality was "it is only doable if the law explicitly states it is doable". (However both were notable for their "trust-busts" during the early 20th century as well as their presences in Latin America during that time period as well. As far as law goes - admittedly I'm not a law student in the US (right now, I'm finishing my Master's in CUNY Brooklyn, I may go for International Law after), I will agree that law is a construct that is built from the norms of the society of which it exists in, but the issue I have is that while not having "objective rules" may be preferable in either a small state / municipality, "objective rules" need to exist in some capacity for the purposes of providing a structure - however decrepit it may be - for judicial purposes.
I do agree with a case-by-case basis for things, because of mitigating circumstances. I find the allowance of organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA to act egregiously simply because someone's grandmother plays happy birthday from an MP3 download, to be asinine. (Actually, the fact happy birthday is copyrighted, and that the copyright law in the USA allows for it to be continually renewed, is mind-blowing. The recent movie, the butler, underwent an MPAA issue because Warner Bros. has a movie called the butler from about 1914, that is not publicly available (so it is not hostile-defended in a public market), but WB won the right to have that movie's name changed for "disambiguation purposes". Although I'm a liberal thinker in terms of economics (ie: I do believe some measure of patent law is necessary to protect original innovation, but the extent that such things are protected, and even what can be protected... is insane (video yoga, for instance recently was patented in the USA; DiMarzio has a registered trademark on its double-creme pickups for electric guitars, etc.,). Conversely, I do think there is a cost-of-service that comes with the rarity of the position and the ensuing difficulty (ie: an anesthesiologist should make more than a burger-flipper due to the level of skill that is required, but at the same time I have more respect for the working individual, regardless of whether he / she is a lawyer or a burger-flipper, than the welfare case, simply because of the effort being made). As someone who's put himself through undergraduate, and now graduate, school, I do appreciate the value of working - even though much of my work was physical, rather than intellectual, labor.
I think, if you could take what you are thinking, grind out law school for the LL.B or JD (depending on if you go in the USA or Canada or elsewhere), and then go for an LL.M or S.J.D., your views and the research you have for them, will be very fruitful. The first two paragraphs you wrote though - perhaps because i'm not a law student - were difficult to understand. So if I need some clarification, I apologize. The last two paragraphs though, I 100% agree.
jessica
i just want to clarify that i wouldn't align with either taft or roosevelt on this point. my position would be "as a sovereign individual, *i* decide if it's right or wrong". now, i'd give the community a sort of right to review the decision, but i wouldn't force any kind of a constitutional order on the community in their process of doing so.
so how do people know if something is legal? they answer is they don't and can't know by merely looking it up in a reference text - they have to work out those details and decide for themselves if the behaviour ought to be condemned (technically, behaviour cannot be restricted in a free society, so it's not a question of what is allowed or not allowed it's a question of what is censured or not censured) or not. there may be disagreements, but i wouldn't argue that this is a bad thing. i think the level of uncertainty is already inherent in the existing system and dismantling the facade of an objective system is merely being honest about it.
there are some obvious things: it's obvious that somebody that kills his neighbour for walking on his lawn should be censured. there are less obvious things: i would argue that somebody that kills his neighbour for raping his daughter is justified in his reaction.
ganzonomy
I'm going to ponder your argument a bit. I do like sharp conversation (A LOT!) and I thank you for that. (I'm pondering it because you have given me an incredible amount of info and i have to digest it mentally.)
I did see on your feed "He used to cut the grass". That album (Joe's Garage), has my favorite guitar solo (Watermelon in Easter Hay). That guitar solo was the first Zappa song I figured out by ear. I have the first part, and the last part, but I need to figure out the middle part. (But that solo... puts chills down my spine.)
deathtokoalas
that dog is thinking about what an easy lunch that is. it's licking it's lips. but it reflects on the general situation, computes the likely consequences of eating the baby and eventually concludes it's a better idea not to.
RedStinger103
Because dogs can contemplate, infer and conclude with their brains.
deathtokoalas
yup. they're not the best at innovating solutions to problems, but what i've described is well within the capability of the average dog. dog intelligence is more connected to individuality than breed, but, statistically, labs are also one of the smarter breeds.
RedStinger103
Yes, but you're way overestimating their intelligence.
deathtokoalas
i'm not. just about any dog understands the idea of action--->reaction. it knows if it shits on the rug it'll get in trouble. it knows if it bites it's cohabitors it's going to get in trouble.
i'd even go so far as to argue that dogs have the ability to form a defined mens rea and should consequently be held culpable for criminal behaviour. well, some behaviour, anyways. you could consider turkey theft, for example. the turkey stealing dog is entirely aware of the nature of the crime, forms an intent before the crime is carried out and may even take steps to hide the evidence. that's mens rea, if you ask me. other types of crimes? it may be less clear that a real intent is possible to establish.
so, i'm not overestimating anything. and i think i'm reading the dog's body language fairly accurately.
Jamie
You talk sooooo much shit.
Sound City Network
You clearly never had a smart dog before. I
had a White German Shepherd and she would hide things INTENTIONALLY.
Dogs are smarter than you think.
Gamingalkaline
I don't think that's talking shit, it's talking logically.
jsteel89
My dog has tried several times to take a mouth full or food from the garage and take it where he can hide and eat it.
catfoodtitans
Don't really think dogs have reasoning skills like that. Where would it have learned that would be wrong? Unless you're saying that dogs have morals.
deathtokoalas
well, i don't think humans really have "morals", either, but that's not what i said - i said it was able to foresee the consequences.
Shaul Rosenzweig
You are talking shit. If you knew anything about dog body language, this dog is gentle and submissive towards the child. He goes down below its level to lick it wagging its tail and then kisses the baby gently looking up towards it. Dogs are social animals, and body language is part of their instinct.
deathtokoalas
well, sure it is, after it decided not to eat it.
the tail wagging thing is more of a nervous reaction, and doesn't really indicate anything about how it's interpreting the baby. but, you'll notice there's a nice sniff before the lick. when dogs sniff like that, it's generally food related. now, chances are the dog is well fed. nor is it likely to really think the baby has a lead on where to find a dog treat. it's kind of a slip up that indicates it's thinking about food. and, sure it's thinking about food - it was just licking it's lips at the sight of the baby coming towards it.
but, it made the right choice, in the end. that face lick is indeed a friendly greeting. but what i'm getting across is that it had to think about it...
now, does that mean you shouldn't leave your baby with your dog? well, if your dog is well fed and well treated it's predictably going to make the same choice that this dog did. see, it might not be safe to leave your baby with your in-laws, either, if they're really hungry and don't have any other choice. it's not hard to find news reports about dogs eating babies, but you're almost always going to be dealing with hunger and abuse. so, is it safe? as safe as it is with any predator.
personally, i'd be a bit more cautious than what you're seeing in this video.
Blake
You understand that humans and dogs don't have a predator/prey relationship right? It's not ingrained in the mind of a dog to eat a child because their ancestry, evolutionary history, instincts don't provide them with that sort of impulse. If the parents have ANY dominance over the dog the dog will see itself as second in command, and the baby as kin that needs to be protected. Humans have socialized dogs for centuries that notion of a domesticated one even trying to naw on a baby is laughable. PLEASE do some research before you try to ruin everyone's fun.
The mind of a full grown dog is equivalent to that of a 2 year old. You're over thinking this.
deathtokoalas
canids are what you call "opportunistic feeders". they will eat whatever they can, including members of their own species. i would suggest you do some research, yourself.
and, while dogs demonstrate large amounts of variability based on both individual and breed, the estimated mental age of the smarter breeds (like labs) is more like 3-5.
SpicyHam
ahh the facts, ahhhh
Blake Prescott
I honestly don't think you've ever seen a dog in your entire life. A canid is the family a dog belongs to. A canine is the dog itself.
deathtokoalas
wolves and dogs are actually technically in the same species, and the ability for wolves and coyotes (and coyotes and dogs) to interbreed is relatively large, depending on the range of the species. hence the new species of "coywolves" that have appeared in algonquin park as a hybridization of wolves and coyotes, which perhaps should have never been considered as different species in the first place.
there are a few obscure canids scattered around the world that have diverged a bit further. but, broadly speaking, canids are really largely all the same thing, and the visible differences that we see between them are merely skin-deep phenotypes and local variation.
there's a valid point here, but i really wish they'd have approached it with rational sociological arguments rather than hippie jesus freak bullshit.
the rational sociological arguments might actually convince somebody.
hippie jesus freak bullshit is a feel good viral song sung to the choir.
debate and discussion is the preferable approach, but you have to understand what you're up against when you see it. you can't debate with a fascist coming at you any more than you can debate with a lion trying to eat you....
well, we've got to come to a choice with this - either we accept this is ok (and perhaps the boundaries could be blurred a little...), or we need to stop putting introverted women that came into themselves in their 20s in these kinds of situations.
24/15 is pushing it. you'll see 24/17 at any random trip to the mall. it's really not a strange thing. it's never been a strange thing.
one thing you could do is increase the educational requirements to get a teaching job. maybe teachers should have masters degrees.
but i don't see how you can expect anything different when you put 23 or 24 year old teachers in a senior high school classroom. that's like putting dogs in a room and locking the door.
i scrolled through dozens of threads here and it didn't cross anybody's mind to start a third party.
people talk about things being better in canada. some things are, for sure. it's a very simple reason - we have three major parties. now, the third party has never been elected, but the mere act of having three parties puts pressure on our "democrats". they're constantly forced to listen to a voice that is further to their left and adopt those policies. in fact, our "socialist" party (which isn't really a socialist party) is actually the opposition right now and our "democrats" are in third place. the reason that happened is that they thought they could get away with cutting services.
there have been periods in the past where america had a strong left movement. the reforms that roosevelt put through would not have been possible without a strong union movement, and the gains made in the 60s would not have been possible were it not for the groundwork that that union movement laid. there were big errors made in merging the left with the democrats. that has to be undone.
the situation is different: they shipped all the jobs off. so, there aren't any unions anymore.
but the only way out of this is to build a people's party that puts pressure on obama from the left. right now, the democrats take you for granted. you need to prove they can't do that if they want to win - make them lose and then make them listen. you have to tie electoral success to your demands being met.
deathtokoalas
the bible is pretty gruesome, but it's an iron age text - no less gruesome than the illiad, and really just as well written. it's really an elaborate justification for the jewish state, nothing more or less. "why do we have kings? why don't we kill them?". here, read this, kid...
....and the part about cutting the concubine up into 12 pieces (each representing a tribe of israel) is meant to describe the period of violence and anarchy that occurred before there was a centralized state, tying into the text's central purpose as a justification for that state. it's a hobbesian fairy tale. in fact, the village responsible for the crime was then burnt down by the israelites - which is a problematic reaction and everything but indicates it was taken seriously. in fact, the burning of the village is also presented critically.
so, it's one thing to point out there's a lot of gore in there. it's another to understand why it's in there.
ghenulo
It's impossible to understand why people live their life by this barbaric ancient fairy tale.
deathtokoalas
well, it's a little confusing why people still hold to it, sure. but it's really not hard to understand why the stories were written as they were written. there are entire departments at universities for this, and they present compelling arguments.
i'll admit the idea of the jewish scriptures as a justification for the jewish state is partially an original idea - the idea is danced around frequently, but i'm being far more explicit than anything i've read. it's also blatantly obvious if you sit down and actually read the damned thing.
ghenulo
If people took it as ancient literature, these satires wouldn't be necessary. But alas, we live in a crazy world in which horrible things are done in the name of these writings. Perhaps you heard about the man in Iran who got beheaded for doubting the story of Jonah. You don't see satires of the Iliad because everyone knows that it's historical fiction.
deathtokoalas
well, not everybody interprets it as fiction, but the people that don't tend not to seek power.
what i'm getting across is that disarming it means rationalizing it.
Damian Freeman (TheExceeder)
I really do think things like the Bible should probably be put in the Adults-only section. Knowing half the content of it makes me feel disturbed when I see those fluffy "Children's Bibles".
Also, am I the only one who finds it rather off that they never sell the individual books separately? They always force you to buy the damned compilation. I'm pretty sure if the books were all separated and presented individually we'd be able to find, on average, which ones that Christians actually endorse.
right. because ice cube was opposed to children's literacy when he started off. that's what nwa was all about - keeping people illiterate and ignorant.
who am i kidding? nobody listened to a word he said, they just liked his hat.
that's some of that wonderful private sector self-regulation at work, right there. it may be two billion dollars up in smoke - but don't worry, it's a better managed system. through cutting various corners, it will save the taxpayers money in the long run.
Sviaveldi
In my opinion the worst part about this thing is the one idiot who thinks he has the right to punch another person just because he doesn't like what he has to say. That's 'afk-SJW's' right there. Scum of the earth.
deathtokoalas
fuck that. what we saw there was a proactive response to keep racism out of the community. it was great to see somebody take the situation that seriously. warmed my heart. you know what they say about nazis - only good one's a dead one. you gotta fight the fasc wherever it appears...
Sviaveldi
I hope you're spared a situation where people would throw punches at you for your beliefs.
Frankly that you defend violence and even death of other people, however you might personally justify it is disgraceful to yourself.
deathtokoalas
as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's not a speech issue, and the fact that you're not acknowledging that indicates that you're not grasping the situation properly. you can repeat the same false statements as many times as you like, but it doesn't provide them with a greater level of truth.
beyond that, the kind of bullshit liberal rhetoric you're espousing has only ever led to the further production of greater and greater violence. you can't just sit around and appease community fascists, you have to stand up and get in their way. if you don't knock them out, it just emboldens them. when you're dealing with violence, you have to respond with violence.
nor am i interested in getting fucking cops involved. as was demonstrated here, the community can take care of itself - it doesn't need the government to send armed thugs in to sort it out.
this was dealt with properly in the way that it must be dealt with in a truly free society and the people that took these steps should be applauded for their reaction.
Sviaveldi
I'll conclude my interaction with you by stating I think you're insane, and I hope you get better soon.
deathtokoalas
right. well, i hope the light in your ivory tower is not as dim as your arguments have been. i take it you're reading up on neville chamberlain. maybe it's better that you stay sheltered, for your own benefit.
