Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » NuttyFluffers » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
NuttyFluffers's Journal - Archives
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion
Thu Mar 03rd 2011, 04:00 AM
dehumanization (be it of 'the enemy' or of the 'inferior savage') is essential for the activation of a populace to gladly act out inhumane policies of mass murder and enslavement. no act of inhumanity is so singular that it cannot be integrated into the narrative where necessity of mental frameworks is used to excuse it. turning the mind to hate, but masked in the name of righteousness, is a prerequisite to carry out cruelty.

essentially, evil must be reasoned out to be morally imperative for it to be digestible to the populace. it takes logic unmoored and faith blinded to excuse the inexcusable.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in The DU Lounge
Sun Jan 09th 2011, 09:37 AM
almost an embodiment of sex.

smoke caressing, like breath made manifest, curling discreetly into crevasses, veiling from prying eyes. light dancing, at the edge of engulfing darkness, captivating, tracing memories of idle gestures. flame smoldering, raw power dancing at the tips of your fingers, tamed but crackling a warning of danger with each puff. lips sucking, passionate like a desperate kiss with a need as strong as a gasp for life itself. heat burning, pain preceding pleasure, unlike the pleasure's normal promise of pain. furtive grasps at a fleeting ecstasy reminding of a lost paradise...

oh yes, smoking is very raw and sensual like sex. and amusingly, the challenge is similar: indulging under your own volition, instead of need driving you instead.

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Oct 05th 2010, 10:29 AM
taxes is perhaps the most equitable and cheapest method of resource funding for service distribution humans have developed. and yet people are perpetually whipped into a frenzy to hate and fear taxes. we are the gov't, the world is no longer feudal. therefore our taxes is going to the "kitty" to help and support all of us. basically, it's asking people to invest in themselves, their neighbors, their community, and their nation -- it's perhaps one of the most patriotic and loving thing to do (determining how it's spent is vitally important, tho).

however, because it is obligatory people feel it is a burden. thus taxes are rapidly equated as an evil.

bonds are worse because they allow some people to not only evade taxation, but also profit from interest on the borrowed funds. this allows the richest among us to circumvent taxation for the advantage to safely store their money -- for a nice profitable sum in the future. this is not shared effort of the people, this is exploitation of a cash-strapped civic entity.

fees are worse because they are voluntary and thus lead to the disintegration of the social compact. they result in being higher than taxes individually because there has to be an allowance expecting a percentage of people opting out of the fee. further, those who choose to opt out of the fee tend to still need the service, but try to circumvent it by doing risky behavior to the commons. thus safety and community are agitated into a less secure and stable state, and resentment builds as these freeloaders offer a tempting alternative to communal support. by freeloading they give the illusion of rugged individualism, but really are parasitically living off of the body politic.

all of this because people are somehow praised for not "paying their fair share," and evading the obligatory taxation. but this is Robin Hood in reverse. however, people are easily swayed that requirements are punishments, sharing is weakness, taxes are evil, and any form of rebellion is sexy-cool. the human mob is tragically easy to manipulate.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri May 28th 2010, 07:37 AM
last mailed multi-page letter was i believe a few years ago. last handwritten cards was the previous holidays. and i'll be doing thank you notes by the end of this week. and that's just stamped stuff.

there's also diary writing, notes in class, and just regular jotted notes when discussing stuff with others or getting info off the computer/tv/radio/thought in my head.

writing a multi-page handwritten letter is actually a very intimate thing. being a child of phone and email i thought it was pointless, but after doing it for friends in the military or keeping in touch with old classmates, it really feels different. i was surprised how there's something special about the written word versus typed font. it comes back to me when i think about Heian Japan where stationary, handwriting, and envelope all gave an intimate, often secret, meaning into the letter.

it sounds silly, but i know that i still keep my letters. i try to keep some of my favorite emails, but there's still something disposable about them no matter the import or tone it conveys from the writer. something about writing and selected materials gives handwritten letters an almost relic-like quality. i know that i favor and cherish the handwritten works of my deceased grandparents, whereas i don't feel as strong a connection to their typed works. but then it also works that i cherish the recorded voice of someone versus just their written word. i think something of the human being is imparted on media, and that the more inflection and nuance that is recorded, the more intimate the work.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Mar 09th 2010, 09:58 AM
i expect this to be locked, cuz, DU rules or something, but whatever.

time and time again this season we have the same discussions of cheerleaders v. pony riders (or whatever the hell the dualism is called). and time and again we have the near universal agreement that any act of voter abstention is going to be perceived as a needed shift to the RW. then we have some "letter of the law" interpreters who feel DU means strictly party line voting acquiescence for the privilege to even post here (how that's productive persuasion i'll never know -- considering a rubber stamp vote equals an undemocratic abdication of personal suffrage).

so what's left is back and forth bickering and hand wringing over the same stuff, like watching a car wreck in motion, and the *same* refrain "what're we gonna do?" comes up.

i'll tell you what to do:

do whatever the hell you want.

cheerleaders:
stop trying to "rally the troops" like some sort of Soviet commissar from WW II, and let people hash out their own strategies. we're roughly allies, so live and let live.

pony riders:
stop choosing the abstaining option that you already admit will not get the message across, and get over the mourning period. there's your own work to do.

if people went and voted their most favorite liberal, socialist, whatever candidate, good, you expressed yourself in a way that cannot be spun to go RW. and for others, shrugging off internecine strife and let it sort itself out does more for maintaining party health that you are so worried about.

either way, the country is going to hell in a hand basket, and there's little that your ceaseless chatter will do anymore because you are already too distant to bridge any current divide. sometimes family members need space from each other in order to find themselves coming back together (or not).
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Nov 11th 2009, 03:53 AM
remember, almost all major patriarchal societies have public injunctions against behavior of "men lying with other men as a woman." this includes The Great Vedic Tradition (Hinduism), its heterodoxies -- Buddhism (starting out as secular and having religious sects later), Jainism, Confucianism (which started and maintained being secular throughout), religious Taoism, Legalism, Korean Shamanism, Japanese Shinto, Manichaeanism, Zoroastrianism, Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Yoruban, Mayan pantheons, etc. even down to almost a majority of animist and "pagan" philosophies and/or religions. further, i see several societies have less of a religious hold onto these ideas and more of a secular purchase into them. secularization offers zero protection against this injunction on behavior, but dovetails seamlessly with patriarchal strictures. it explains why patriarchal societies, who have retained an unusual level of secularization, and have had limited to no contact with Abrahamic faiths, still held similar injunctions upon contact.

so, i think the big key is the "as a woman" caveat. male citizens, a.k.a. those who are not the penniless masses, women, children, intersexual/transexual outcasts, or slaves, had strict expectations placed on the production of heirs and tracing male lineage. this went beyond the other false dichotomy that this is derived from either religious or philosophical injunctions of tradition, because both placed these expectations that the male line must continue and property organization must follow codices to fall back on when there are extenuating circumstances. the last thing such a patriarchal society wants is people "messin' with the natural order of things" by going off and having pleasure but not fulfilling their responsibility to their "dynasty," if you will.

homosexuality, of any stripe, is well documented, but note that the issues of pederasty or homosexuality with slaves or religious "vestigal virgins" was never the big issue. it was, to be blunt, to take it from another male citizen, break the class boundaries, and endanger the lineage and legal codices. the only exception is during liminal periods, such as soldiers who have sex with each other for various reasons and are usually justified for morale. war, like pregnancy, and coming-of-age are routinely couched in ceremonial regalia (occurring with just as much having nothing to do with religion as it does with -- people in general will be surprised at the societies that existed). this is because liminal states, where identity definitions are being broken down and then reconstructed, and where great stresses will occur, are great emotional, social, and psychological threats to the community. to control such states ritual is used to confine them into a manageable structure.

so, during liminal periods, you may transgress the normative framework. but once you return to "peacetime" as it were, you cannot enjoy the pleasures of the liminal without censure. so, male sexual pleasure without producing heirs: bad. male sexual pleasure transgressing social class rules: even worse. male sexual pleasure transgressing social class rules within the same class, outside the liminal periods, subverting your own class into a submissive posture like the lower classes, and to accept this organization as equal and legitimate to the normative standard (a.k.a. lying with a man as a woman): all holy hell breaks loose.

in fact, i vote with some transsexual theorists that the real target of all this fear is not homosexuality but transsexuality. that there are male citizens who are "female inside" -- but have not been outed and reclassified into the sexual limbo classes -- and thus are like "booby traps" leading "normative, healthy male citizens astray." they are not the already known quantity of male-&-male love for pleasure and camaraderie (if you dig even further, most male patriarchies grudgingly admit this goes on all the time, and the elites are excused to play as they like), but the male-&-male-as-female unknown quantity that tries to emulate legitimization. however, since it cannot produce heirs, transgresses citizenship status, and stays perpetually in a liminal state, completely throws the legal codices for a loop -- BECAUSE IT CHALLENGES THE FIRST DICHOTOMY PARADIGM THAT JUSTIFIES PATRIARCHY: That Man Is Not and Shall Not Be Woman.

break the binary of gender identity and suddenly a lot of scary, unknown possibilities pop-up... from the one begat two, from the two begat three, from the three birthed the myriad of things.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Feb 09th 2009, 10:22 PM
in and of itself the components of anything can neutral. TV is film, audio, content, context, and broadcast. individually those things are tools. but combined together into a larger tool, you create a new device that has its own constructed context. this is where sociology and humanities thrive; we study human constructions, particularly complex ones -- noting why they were made and what sort of influence the construct eventually 'exerts' back. sort of like understanding why corporations, a legal construct, is ripe for abuse due to its immortal nature and primacy of profit over all. all constructs can be changed, but that's up to people to recognize the construct as it is, what it is composed of, what might be missing, and to get the will to actively change it.

the nature of television is absolutely ripe for abuse. it isolates the audience (thus culling audience interaction from each other, or the performers). the problem is the lack of interaction due to the manner of broadcast; it allows no dialog, only monologue. it gets the viewers into the same passively accepting sedate state used when watching any performance, such as a theater. however unlike other venues there's no herd environment of immediate feedback to challenge the world view presented. thus in essence it is the perfect tool for propaganda.

and unless you find propaganda to be inherently neutral (a blatant contradiction in terms), therefore TV is by its natural current structure not neutral. and how you define propaganda, often viewed by a majority of world views as stifling, coercive, and controlling often leading to fanaticism and destruction -- and therefore evil, helps define the nature of tv. so, an epic construct of mass propaganda DOES NOT HAVE TO BE USED IN AN EVIL FORM, but that does not take away that its very nature is geared towards evil. the same can be said for high interest rates (or interest rates in general), often remembered throughout the world by an older name -- usury. not everyone who uses interest rates within the confines of a single action needs to use it in an evil manner. however the sheer cumulative effect of using something expertly designed for evil intents by its nature tends to accrue evil in its wake.

ipso facto, TV (as currently constructed) is Evil.

thank you, i'm here all week! try the veal!

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Jan 12th 2008, 05:19 AM
though i do think the 'four day marathon of horrors' was scholastically and emotionally a bit much. something so powerful could easily be spaced out a bit more w/ a reading of Anne Frank, some documentary, read Night, watch a docudrama, have essay workshops, do an art retrospective, go back to graphic A/V, return to survivor stories, etc. making kids do reports on their own and present it, bracketed with intense imagery is just asking for overload.

but 14 is just when kids transition to high school while leaving some of their most beloved childhood friends. it's sort of an 'end of childhood' stage as much as we have in our culture. and there's so many kids who drop out of high school, i want as many people on earth aware about such an important thing while there's still time to draw forth and nurture critical thinking and empathy. it's a great 'safe space' where hormones and new social dynamics don't interfere as heavily, giving a place to gestate such trauma to create a better person.

i think what we often forget is that humans are amazingly resilient as they are fragile. it's something that's being lost in this new cultural moment as we continually try to divorce the everyday life and death and drama of the world from our 'precious ones.' from previous ages of farms and cities where most children learned about the death of living things and the casual exploitation dynamics of man, we are trying to create a society sublimated into some sort of College Campus/Mall of America Nirvana where there's no pain. that's not good and only going to bite us back in the ass. we need people educated at an early age not to be afraid of dark ugly things -- such as their own vicious human nature -- and be willing to confront it with the tools of empathy, critical thinking, and reserve of conscience.

and for something as big as the Holocaust i think people need to use a big blow to make sure it sinks in throughout the entire audience. it cannot be something that might mildly traumatize one small group while being completely a blow off (or, god forbid, amusing) to the larger audience. it needs to be a sledgehammer getting through everyone -- no escape. but, and this is where i disagree with the teaching methods, it shouldn't be a repeated blow of the sledgehammer with self-study being the main recourse of gathering and processing. there should be outlets of question and answer sessions, thought essays, artistic releases, etc. to process out, give release and context to the experience.

but don't worry about your child's trauma too much. humans, like i just said, are amazingly resilient. she just needs to go through all the stages of grief and is probably wandering somewhere around with a mix of it all. once she reaches close to the stage of acceptance would be a wonderful time to offer positive options to give a sense of empowerment when faced, god fobid, with similar challenges (a challenge we are currently failing, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion; we need to stoke the flame of justice, not snuff it).
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Dec 06th 2007, 05:37 AM
religious police in SA basically walked around with checkbooks and wrote out fines. they were nothing like the Taliban beating women for showing ankle. it might've changed recently, but i doubt it. and western women were wholly allowed, though discouraged, to dress showing their hair or 'modest displays of arm and leg.' and they almost never went into westerner's homes. and we heard that they rarely went into bedouin tents, sheik homes, etc either. they could 'invite themselves over for a chat' and oh yes you should hide everything contraband and mind your Ps and Qs, but you were in no immediate, accidental, life-threatening danger. the police there, unless you were known to be guilty and they had their equivalent of "warrant and due process" (read: strong suspicion of guilt with likely reports from family and friends), were far more likely to just TALK OVER TEA with you than anything.

but SA gov't worked pretty much that you could not attack someone, shoot, stab, kill, etc. just any ol' time you feel threatened. because if you did that you'd "invite the SA gov't to be 'responsible to all its citizens' and do an 'investigation,'" especially because the bereaved family would want justification, evidence, and restitution. killing people without notable guilt was quite the complicated matter as manslaughter was a rather foreign concept to them (unless it was the Pakistani and Philippino indentured servants dying from a Saudi Arabian citizen's negligence -- then that's the "Will of God"). so people were encouraged to defer capture and punishment to the gov't.

lets say a theft case occurs (mind bogglingly rare in Saudi), you would be better to memorize the faces/details of the thieves, point your assault rifle or sword at them and tell them to leave. then you'd tell the gov't (usually local tribal), they'd track the guy down -- amazing social network of clans provide primo intel if you work the diplo right, and SA definitely do -- grab 'em, try 'em, and if guilty lop off a hand. but here in USA you're justified by several state castle doctrines to allow you, or a neighbor, to shoot someone dead and then profess justification. that's kinda scary; that allows some individual to be judge, jury, and executioner -- even worse it allows liars to kill with relative impunity.

we had news stories when people would flip out and do something horrible there as in any country. but it was always emphasized, except for some honor killings -- which were also quite rare, that it was the gov't that meted out the punishment. must've been because if they let tribes do it there'd be civil wars and madness soon after.

when someone flipped out at a commisary and started swinging a scimitar around because of the expensive price of food and accidentally lopped off another shopper's head (british) that sword dude also was killed later by the state. but no one would've thought to do something like Yemen and have some 4 hour gun fight over each other's clans honor, let alone even consider busting out their gun and start a free-for-all in the commisary. all you were allowed to do was point the weapon to keep the person at bay and then run away. it was preferred you even just run away. it was the state and only the state's priviledge to mete out 'justice.'

in another case a man got tired of eating soup all the time and then mutilated his wife out of rage, lopping off a hand and most of the fingers on another, a foot and half the foot of the other, an ear, an eye, chunks of flesh all over, etc. quite horrible. in Saudi the gov't response is the man was egregiously cruel letting wrath get the better of him. so they arrested him, sent him to the operation table, and had a doctor do the exact same amputations on him as he did on his wife. then they released him back to his wife, when they were both healed, and said his punishment is to learn to survive and support his wife and himself with the new handicaps he inflicted on both of them. they had to rely on each other to survive, which would be a constant reminder of his crime, but also the means of redemption, and prevention from escape of his consequences.

gut wrenching in horror naturally, but such "attention of the gov't" was easily avoidable. and in that way you felt safer that the "eye and arm of the gov't" wasn't going to swoop out of nowhere for little to no provocation and "accidentally" destroy your life. and it's further kinda worrisome here in USA that any ol' john doe can mete out justice if they become "a'feared." draconian laws in SA, but at least there were clearly demarcated boundaries -- unlike seemingly here.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Dec 02nd 2007, 05:22 AM
if i control what you can see and hear, then i control what you can think about.

if i control what you can think about, then i control what you can believe.

if i control what you can believe... then i control YOU.


(for the record, all i need is my PBS and some internet access to foreign tv and i'm good to go. the stupid on american tv makes my brain hurt, more than the stupid from other countries.)
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Dec 02nd 2007, 05:02 AM
basically, if a medium-sized post-colonial "brown" nation rich in resources can decide for itself to become like other representative democracies, such as those in the "Western World" and G8, and improve its lot it would go quite far in removing the PROFIT MOTIVE in the corruption and degradation of all representative democracies.

that's it in a nutshell.

the parasites of the world cannot currently manage an overt overthrow and control of many large-sized post-colonial states, i.e. India and China, because it would be too obvious and attract too much dangerous attention to a real ongoing problem in the world.

the parasites can tacitly approve of post-colonial states rich in resources to be as conservative as possible -- they think alike and work well together on so many levels. besides, even if one becomes dominant than the other they can easily switch because there's already been plenty of collusion to set each other up in power. this explains nations like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, apartheid South Africa, etc.

the parasites cannot publicly reincite old oligarchies in "The Western World & G8" because many of those nations already went through all the growing pains of oppresion, oligarchy, fascism, world war, civil war, downfall, etc. this is why nations in scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, most of Western Europe, Canada, once upon a time USA... are not overtly converted into repressive regimes. but they make a fantastic cover in which to push the parasites' dirty work -- this is post-colonialism w/ intelligence agencies and their coup d'etats.

now, if a resource rich, but manageable-in-size, post-colonial state can break this cycle and choose to industrialize AND do it all the while being a representative democracy, without violent revolution etc., that would be an amazing example -- and working template -- to the rest of the struggling "3rd World". but post-colonial, post-industrial "1st World" states cannot afford such real competition, so says the parasites imbedded therein. "without cheap resources and cheap labor how can we continually skim off the top stolen profits in our usurous trade structure known as capitalism?", said with love by the parasites.

this is why states like Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc. are important to watch. because if the bad ways continue all these interconnected ills, such as illegal immigration, outsourcing, deregulation, etc. -- all of which to reduce your way of life and grind you into unwitting subjugation through divide and conquer -- will be worse. we'll all be living a post-apocalyptic, neo-feudalism hell. remember, united we stand, divided we fall. so who do you stand with? the parasites know who they stand with (and you are no way a member of their in-group), do you?
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Dec 02nd 2007, 04:23 AM
there's a reason cultures throughout the world taught about "soft virtues" of mercy, grace, temperance, etc. because utilizing "spirit of the law" vs. "letter of the law" thinking, a.k.a. allegory and critical thinking vs. literalism and blind obedience, helped keep a balanced perspective in society and its relation to its collective power. this is why strict formulas that work in the physical world cannot be applied upon the mental and social world of humans; our social technology has to be more like guidelines administered by wisdom's discretion because otherwise abuse and entropy will rapidly enter the system. flexibility, a.k.a. ethics, is a failsafe against this: rigidity, a.k.a. fundamental moralism, is the removal of this failsafe, hence why fundamentalism is a repeated danger to societies throughout history.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Aug 20th 2007, 10:40 PM
it's like how the Harlem Renaissance quickly became a threat to the power structure and co-opting in things such as the Cotton Club, studio movies, etc. occurred with a rapid attack against Harlem businesses by freeway projects, red lining, etc. so once the new energy has been contained into an expression permissable then the second job of mockery and denigration begins. basically, this is a very old song and dance.

so, Hip Hop is/was culture, but it isn't "high" culture because its roots were based in the democratization of expression (by the way this is the real genius of Hip Hop: if you can afford the record you already bought, and the player you play it on, and maybe a mic and some juice, *you too* can be an artist. your dreams and expressions are suddenly just as valid and entertaining.) it's "the people's music" in the clearest sense. this whole raising it into "high culture," along with the insinuation that it is cartoonish, materialistic, and self-destructive, is a deliberate sculpting of the message by a society that hates Hip Hop and its energy.

and here's the scariest thing about media, they can wipe out history. so, by utilizing this message of laughable materialistic fool along with the message that "this is all there is to their high culture" is basically a call for justification of racial stereotypes. in essence it is the reinvention of the Sambo and Zip Coon for modern times, "tha playa 'n tha hustla" respectively, making a comeback insisting that this is the best African American culture can do. it's utter garbage, but it's the only thing that is being allowed to mass market -- and with the insidious justification that "this is all that really sells in 'their' community." it's a fabricated cycle of internalized oppression against a scapegoat class of citizens that at some point becomes self-perpetuating because of the amnesia of history.

if i were you i'd not buy into the bullshit. the hard part is trying to save the youth from this cycle as radio is horrendously monotonous. that's why i encourage nightclubs and solid DJs for youth nights. that way you can get various messages than the typical 5 songs on repeat that we've been suffering of late throughout radio.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Aug 17th 2007, 04:14 AM
pop culture, which is almost synonymous with disposable, is manufactured popularity -- plain and simple. it's why pop culture rock, country, easy listening, world, etc. are, for the most part, crap. it is an inescapable defining feature of the market it is pushed into. media is a method of information distribution -- the consequence is that it can be used for control and profit. the best ways to control people is to appeal to what they think is their basest desires, surge the message, silence the dissent, and then claim that's all what the community wants. this act of selective editing and promotion does 2 things: it silences mass distribution of real talent and message as well as reinforcing cultural attributions projected on the target audience.

now, once you get that all mass market media is deliberately selected to craft "identity" and thus control, and not inspiration and expression, you will rapidly understand that there is a reason so much stuff sounds like crap. there is a reason why Hip Hop was so amazing at one time, just like rock, folk, disco, etc. before it: the masters of media need time to understand the format to repackage the image to in turn silence the message. essentially they need to figure out why this new burst of creativity ticks, so in the first few years a lot of milestone works get released. once they figure out where they can market it into an image they feel "safe" with then the format begins to suffer unbearable monotony in the mainstream. no form of music has escaped this in modern times. jazz has its Kenny Gs, world music gets its Yanni and endless coffee house "Now This is What Makes Me Unique and Cultured! vol. 20" compilations, and easy listening has... well, shit, pick anything.

now, if you want to find good music, the best bet is talk to people who can remember good early works as well as keep up-to-date with underground releases. since all creative movements must be co-opted and neutered for an oppressive system to survive any real creativity has to go into hiding and evolve outside the masque provided for "the masses." i don't know what you are exactly looking for musically or message wise, but there's likely something out there that will appeal. i'm surprised that there has not been any mentions of Arrested Development, Bone Thugs N Harmony, Monie Love, anything with Ya Kid K, A Tribe Called Quest, Queen Latifah, etc. for those who don't know better there's quite a bit of rap that uses harmony and melody, though it isn't the main emphasis, but they often end up using far more complex levels of meter (referred to in the community as 'flow') and rhyme schemes.

furthermore, considering all songs that contain lyrics must consider harmony, melody, meter, and rhyme in the aspects of lyrics it would be just plain ignorance to say music with lyrics that places more emphasis on harmony and melody is "music" compared to music with lyrics that places more emphasis on meter and rhyme. in fact, discounting the background instruments in the identity of music, thus placing primacy on lyrics, is just as ridiculous as saying music w/o background instruments cannot be music (which would be saying choral hymns aren't music) or that music w/o lyrics isn't music (which would be saying all instrumentals aren't music). in fact, the extremes of music lacking either of lyrics or instrumentation entirely far exceeds the difference between music that just place different emphasis on how lyrics are used. and since we cannot say those greater extremes are not music, without looking like a total ignorant boob, then therefore something less than those extremes, by definition!, must be included in the spectrum of music. now with this we can say everyone has been marginally brought up to speed on the properties of music; so persisting on this "argument" that "rapping isn't music because i don't hear melody/harmony" would be traveling from the realm of ignorance (when you didn't know better) to the realm of stupidity (when you did know better). let's refrain from that again, shall we?
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by NuttyFluffers in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Sat May 27th 2006, 01:07 AM
people wear the mantle of 'scepticism' too easily without going through the hard, respectable work of true scientific method. basically they choose the opposite side of the same coin in order to 'feel safe,' just as much as 'blind faith' people do.

it's time to let go of both groups and embrace critical thinking skills. but critical thinking is so strong because it has one 'weakness' which is truly an ace up its sleeve: doubt. the irritating type of "sceptics" never doubt their belief in impossibility, just as the "gullible" never doubt their belief in surity. the truly free mind, the true critical thinker, must go to the most respected of places, innocence, and admit "i don't know." then logical guessing and good ol' fashioned elbow grease by testing all permutations eliminates all but the truth. grinding out a problem to success necessitates doubt.

faith has its value, just not so much in the realm of discovery. and false faith, i.e. stubborness, fanatacism, "blind faith," derive from the sin of false pride, and such failings come in all colors. it takes humility to hold the gift of doubt for true discovery. we are finite beings, we have no real idea how much we have no clue about -- and a lot of the impossible has routinely disproven to be possible throughout the years. it takes the openness not found in the extremes of "sceptic/gullible" to find the way. one must take the step forward as much as one must open one's eyes in order to progress, right? it is time to let such egoist trappings of the term 'sceptic' die already; it's not a virtue. we should start trying to use the word "doubtful," or "hesitant" instead of these now loaded terms.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.