Thursday, September 18, 2014
see, what you don't know is that the cheating girlfriend called the sad-sack-of-shit's friend up and asked him to get him drunk so she could go on that date in the first place. the friend agreed to it because he wants to sleep with her, but wants to make sure they're broken up first. so, he takes his friend to where he knows they'll be so he can see it, pushing through the whole process.
guys are generally fairly naive when it comes to how they understand women...
guys are generally fairly naive when it comes to how they understand women...
deathtokoalas
this is terribly regressive...
and, remarkably, nobody has said it yet. there's some dumbass mras kneejerking to it, without stopping to realize how remarkably anti-feminist this is, to the point that it's arguably worse than the 60s music it's ripping on.
please don't let your daughters listen to this pro-patriarchal shit, and please take the time to talk to them about it if you see them being brainwashed by it.
dear future owner,
it'll be nice if you don't beat me.
subserviently yours, meghan trainor
Alyssa W
Ya.. but, thank god, it takes many types to live in this world. If this is her dream, and if anyone else wants to buy into it, so be it. As long as the rest of us can live more or less completely different lifestyles, and arn't oppressed.. no harm, right? *shrug.
deathtokoalas
the funny thing about oppression is that it's mostly a perception.
i don't really care about meghan trainor's personal life decisions, i'm more concerned about the renormalization of female domestication that this furthers without seeming to realize it. the message of the song is that the existing hierarchy is acceptable so long as it produces certain concessions. that's a big step backwards for social progress, and a big victory for the status quo.
it'd be one thing if it was some kid in her basement, it's another when it's media that is mass marketed to children with the explicit purpose of expounding a worldview.
also, to clarify: the play here is on 60s girl groups, like the supremes. this does not sound like music from the 1950s. whatever journalist initially wrote that had no idea what they were talking about....
this is terribly regressive...
and, remarkably, nobody has said it yet. there's some dumbass mras kneejerking to it, without stopping to realize how remarkably anti-feminist this is, to the point that it's arguably worse than the 60s music it's ripping on.
please don't let your daughters listen to this pro-patriarchal shit, and please take the time to talk to them about it if you see them being brainwashed by it.
dear future owner,
it'll be nice if you don't beat me.
subserviently yours, meghan trainor
Alyssa W
Ya.. but, thank god, it takes many types to live in this world. If this is her dream, and if anyone else wants to buy into it, so be it. As long as the rest of us can live more or less completely different lifestyles, and arn't oppressed.. no harm, right? *shrug.
deathtokoalas
the funny thing about oppression is that it's mostly a perception.
i don't really care about meghan trainor's personal life decisions, i'm more concerned about the renormalization of female domestication that this furthers without seeming to realize it. the message of the song is that the existing hierarchy is acceptable so long as it produces certain concessions. that's a big step backwards for social progress, and a big victory for the status quo.
it'd be one thing if it was some kid in her basement, it's another when it's media that is mass marketed to children with the explicit purpose of expounding a worldview.
also, to clarify: the play here is on 60s girl groups, like the supremes. this does not sound like music from the 1950s. whatever journalist initially wrote that had no idea what they were talking about....
deathtokoalas
i know almost nothing about gaming, other than that gaming doesn't seem to cause antisocial behaviour (beyond it's addictive qualities). rather, it seems to be that people with pre-existing issues are attracted to certain types of games.
i think the point is that if there's a problem then it's not gaming culture precisely, but more what gaming culture reflects - as mainstream film and music also reflects. you're not going to get to any conclusion at all by looking at gaming in this monolithic way, as though all games are the same or present the same perception of reality. there's not some centralized body overseeing sexism in games. some games may present a strong female protagonist, while others are full of patriarchal bullshit - and they may be released by the same company.
if the games that sell are the awful ones, the process of addressing it isn't demonizing the industry but addressing the cultural issues that produce the market for them in the first place.
fl4shblade
Games do not addict anybody. For a game to be addictive they would have to alter brain chemicals like for example alcohol. Games do not do that. They can create a compulsion to play though.
deathtokoalas
games actually do do that. they create a physical dopamine dependency in the same way that cocaine does.
in terms of addictive power, games are far worse than most drugs.
(although you don't overdose on them)
(deleted reply)
deathtokoalas
i'm merely stating the science. addicts will rationalize their addictions in complex and convoluted ways, but i'm not an addictions counsellor and i frankly don't give a fuck about your problem(s). i'm not going to empathize with your struggle or entertain your delusions, i'm simply going to remove your nonsense and block you.
video games are dangerously addictive. they ruin people's lives. that is a fact. no amount of anecdotes or bitching and moaning is going to change it.
i know almost nothing about gaming, other than that gaming doesn't seem to cause antisocial behaviour (beyond it's addictive qualities). rather, it seems to be that people with pre-existing issues are attracted to certain types of games.
i think the point is that if there's a problem then it's not gaming culture precisely, but more what gaming culture reflects - as mainstream film and music also reflects. you're not going to get to any conclusion at all by looking at gaming in this monolithic way, as though all games are the same or present the same perception of reality. there's not some centralized body overseeing sexism in games. some games may present a strong female protagonist, while others are full of patriarchal bullshit - and they may be released by the same company.
if the games that sell are the awful ones, the process of addressing it isn't demonizing the industry but addressing the cultural issues that produce the market for them in the first place.
fl4shblade
Games do not addict anybody. For a game to be addictive they would have to alter brain chemicals like for example alcohol. Games do not do that. They can create a compulsion to play though.
deathtokoalas
games actually do do that. they create a physical dopamine dependency in the same way that cocaine does.
in terms of addictive power, games are far worse than most drugs.
(although you don't overdose on them)
(deleted reply)
deathtokoalas
i'm merely stating the science. addicts will rationalize their addictions in complex and convoluted ways, but i'm not an addictions counsellor and i frankly don't give a fuck about your problem(s). i'm not going to empathize with your struggle or entertain your delusions, i'm simply going to remove your nonsense and block you.
video games are dangerously addictive. they ruin people's lives. that is a fact. no amount of anecdotes or bitching and moaning is going to change it.
experiencing some manchester in detroit
"you're in the wrong washroom, sweetheart."
as incredibly complex and slightly patronizing as that statement is, it actually means i'm in a cool place. i've been over this a few times, but allow me to reiterate why i usually (not always.) use the dude's room.
1) the primary reason is that i can use the urinals and will choose to in most circumstances. i find something disrespectful about forcing women to listen to it fall in the toilet, cause it's just obvious. the reality is that public washrooms are gross. if you did a random survey of women, you'd learn that something like 98% of them would urinate while standing if they could, because it avoids the ickiness of squatting. it would be irrational of me to not take advantage of my biology in this sense, considering virtually any woman would do the same thing if given the opportunity.
2) i transitioned late. it's generally clear that i'm trans, but few people are going to confuse me for a cis. i completely grasp why the idea of me walking into the women's washroom would be a little unsettling. if i were cis, would i want the actual me waltzing in there? the truth is that i probably wouldn't. i know there's going to be a spectrum of reactions, but i feel obligated to be respectful of this concern and aware of how other people feel about it. the converse is that the worst that's going to happen from using the men's room is a funny stare or a concerned reaction. in the end, it's not really important enough of a concern to me to start pissing people off.
i mean, i support the whole bathroom rights thing. but, personally? i don't really care if the bathroom door has an M or an F on it and i'm willing to compromise pretty dramatically to keep the peace on the issue.
it's not absolute. if i'm wearing a dress, or some other particularly effeminate clothing, and i feel safe in doing so, then i'll probably use the women's washroom. it's pretty rare, though. i really default to standing when i pee....
i actually had a good time tonight at the detroit museum of contemporary art. the drinks were exceedingly strong, it got me a little drunker than i planned to be and i ended up dancing a little. i actually kind of needed that, it'd been a while. reviews in the comments...
got distracted there...
so, the opening dj was actually mildly interesting. he was playing with max or audiomulch or something in real-time, which, yes, tends to unfold somewhat predictably. but it's not clear to me why people will knock some software for this, while not bothering with others. any software system is going to colour the output in a roughly equal manner.
he had some syncing going on with the background films. as one example - bucephalus or not - he had some kids bouncing balls synced to some beats bouncing.
http://shop.overlap.org/album/chris-mcnamara-vague-cities
this is what i pulled myself out to see, and it was quite enjoyable. there's a lot of process in their approach to deep bass music, which tends be very dark ambient and integrate a lot of glitchy noise. you can't dance to this, but it's nice to get as a blast of sound. it was plenty loud, but i do kind of wish it was just a bit louder.
there's an improv inherent in the design, but they did something quite similar to this.
here's a full set:
so, reading up a little on the show, it became apparent that what was driving it was an attempt to pull a little manchester into detroit house. true or not, detroit gets a lot of credit as being an epicentre of electronic music that has sort of lost it's way. so, from detroit's perspective, the idea is to try and bring a little bit of that british artistic genius in (a british invasion, if you will) to kickstart a more interesting electronic music scene in detroit.
but, i can only assume that the opposite perspective is of a sort of a pilgrimage to mecca - detroit being where it all came from. these are a bunch of lanky brits that have never been near to the city, remember.
so, you have to think that andy stott was maybe a bit nervous about playing detroit, and that the overly minimalist start to his set had something to do with playing to the audience - who was visibly a little restless, apparently looking for a drop. whether by design or reaction, he seemed to become very british all of a sudden and morphed into some solid danceable idm - we're talking amen breaks, autechre melodies and rdj basslines. in fact, it seemed like it was just about to break into some kind of totally mental squarepusher chiptune freakout before the clock turned to midnight and we all turned into pumpkins on the floor.
it really wasn't what i was expecting. andy stott is known for morphing minimalist house beats into these sort of impressionist soundscapes, which is something he leaned towards in the first half of the set but didn't really give enough time to develop as it's meant to. i've never heard of him being associated with that warp sound the way that demdike stare is often compared to autechre. unexpected or not, it sure was a lot of fun, though.....
i doubt i'll find much like what i heard out there. this is more the kind of thing he's known for - and did play around with a bit at the beginning of the set, although it was more stripped down.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2014/09/17.html
as incredibly complex and slightly patronizing as that statement is, it actually means i'm in a cool place. i've been over this a few times, but allow me to reiterate why i usually (not always.) use the dude's room.
1) the primary reason is that i can use the urinals and will choose to in most circumstances. i find something disrespectful about forcing women to listen to it fall in the toilet, cause it's just obvious. the reality is that public washrooms are gross. if you did a random survey of women, you'd learn that something like 98% of them would urinate while standing if they could, because it avoids the ickiness of squatting. it would be irrational of me to not take advantage of my biology in this sense, considering virtually any woman would do the same thing if given the opportunity.
2) i transitioned late. it's generally clear that i'm trans, but few people are going to confuse me for a cis. i completely grasp why the idea of me walking into the women's washroom would be a little unsettling. if i were cis, would i want the actual me waltzing in there? the truth is that i probably wouldn't. i know there's going to be a spectrum of reactions, but i feel obligated to be respectful of this concern and aware of how other people feel about it. the converse is that the worst that's going to happen from using the men's room is a funny stare or a concerned reaction. in the end, it's not really important enough of a concern to me to start pissing people off.
i mean, i support the whole bathroom rights thing. but, personally? i don't really care if the bathroom door has an M or an F on it and i'm willing to compromise pretty dramatically to keep the peace on the issue.
it's not absolute. if i'm wearing a dress, or some other particularly effeminate clothing, and i feel safe in doing so, then i'll probably use the women's washroom. it's pretty rare, though. i really default to standing when i pee....
i actually had a good time tonight at the detroit museum of contemporary art. the drinks were exceedingly strong, it got me a little drunker than i planned to be and i ended up dancing a little. i actually kind of needed that, it'd been a while. reviews in the comments...
got distracted there...
so, the opening dj was actually mildly interesting. he was playing with max or audiomulch or something in real-time, which, yes, tends to unfold somewhat predictably. but it's not clear to me why people will knock some software for this, while not bothering with others. any software system is going to colour the output in a roughly equal manner.
he had some syncing going on with the background films. as one example - bucephalus or not - he had some kids bouncing balls synced to some beats bouncing.
http://shop.overlap.org/album/chris-mcnamara-vague-cities
this is what i pulled myself out to see, and it was quite enjoyable. there's a lot of process in their approach to deep bass music, which tends be very dark ambient and integrate a lot of glitchy noise. you can't dance to this, but it's nice to get as a blast of sound. it was plenty loud, but i do kind of wish it was just a bit louder.
there's an improv inherent in the design, but they did something quite similar to this.
here's a full set:
so, reading up a little on the show, it became apparent that what was driving it was an attempt to pull a little manchester into detroit house. true or not, detroit gets a lot of credit as being an epicentre of electronic music that has sort of lost it's way. so, from detroit's perspective, the idea is to try and bring a little bit of that british artistic genius in (a british invasion, if you will) to kickstart a more interesting electronic music scene in detroit.
but, i can only assume that the opposite perspective is of a sort of a pilgrimage to mecca - detroit being where it all came from. these are a bunch of lanky brits that have never been near to the city, remember.
so, you have to think that andy stott was maybe a bit nervous about playing detroit, and that the overly minimalist start to his set had something to do with playing to the audience - who was visibly a little restless, apparently looking for a drop. whether by design or reaction, he seemed to become very british all of a sudden and morphed into some solid danceable idm - we're talking amen breaks, autechre melodies and rdj basslines. in fact, it seemed like it was just about to break into some kind of totally mental squarepusher chiptune freakout before the clock turned to midnight and we all turned into pumpkins on the floor.
it really wasn't what i was expecting. andy stott is known for morphing minimalist house beats into these sort of impressionist soundscapes, which is something he leaned towards in the first half of the set but didn't really give enough time to develop as it's meant to. i've never heard of him being associated with that warp sound the way that demdike stare is often compared to autechre. unexpected or not, it sure was a lot of fun, though.....
i doubt i'll find much like what i heard out there. this is more the kind of thing he's known for - and did play around with a bit at the beginning of the set, although it was more stripped down.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2014/09/17.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)