Messages

Have a read of this recent article and take note of contestant #2:

http://www.omgjeremy.com/aff.shtml

[LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!!]

I found us the best instructor to teach us the ways of military combat:





LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!!



RAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA!!!1

A few years ago I had a cyst on my dick that made me cry. Does that count?

The first background I did for a game was a 3D BG for Dark Hero that looked like crap.

I changed the style to cartoony when I was making the actual game.

Then I deleted the game because it didn't interest me any more.

But people can still have communication flaws that can alienate certain members of a collective.

EDIT: I'm taking leave now cause this thread has climbed close to the 100 post mark and we're talking about something that's miles away the original topic.

That and I need an afternoon nap.

Actually, I want to do radio.  

Narangas, if I have a fault in my communication, then so be it -- I wasn't born with a roadmap on how to be an excellent communicator.

I mean, my communication skill are just as flawed as anyone else's here.

Even yours.

he only comment I have to DG is what evenatlab alread posted. If you're aiming at one person, send a pm.

But my comments fit the context of the thread.

This last page doesn't.

Even, in regards to your JUXTAPOSITION, My replies fit the context of this thread.

I said drop me a PM because a thread about popular culture destroying the fabric of society isn't the best place to condemn my replying style.

Or if you prefer, start a new thread on it -- we can all discuss whether I'm arguing for the sake of arguing and how we can better my replying style. (Though, I think that's a little extreme, but I'm up for it).

As for the "at times I am a bit of social problem, but realistically my impact on society is rather minimal", it was a joke -- a self-deprecating one too. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at myself.


And Narangas: I can't debate the asthetical nature of my reply method -- I'm writing it and other people read it. So, really, I know nothing about how I come across.

But my style is my style -- It's how I've been writing here for the last two years or so.

If it sounds agressive and "nitpickish", then that's how it goes I guess (though unintentionally) -- When I read a sentence from someone and see a point (or a joke) to be made, I reply.

It's easy for me the way I do it, and do not mean to isolate other readers.

The thing is, everyone has a style.

Some write long labourous paragraphs of text, other write a few lines.

Some use long, wanky words, others use short, lazy words.

Some don't even punctuate properly.

Some don't log-in to post.

But isn't that what being a community is all about?

Listen, Evenwolf, I appreciate you giving me advice on the proper way to argue, but the sad truth is I don't intend on debating for an audience.

My comments are directed to Darth and only Darth, thus the reason I'm replying to him -- anyone else who wants to read them can do so.

He has an opinion and so do I -- Thus, we talk about it.

If you don't like the way I write (or even what I write), then don't read it -- more power to you.

But you can't just expect me to conform to the "Evenwolf School of Replying to Threads" just because you don't like my methods.

And on another topic, why do this here and now?

This thread is supposed to be about what is wrong with society and problems with the future, as the title says.

Granted, at times I am a bit of social problem, but realistically my impact on society is rather minimal.

Having said that, wouldn't it be better to send me a private message if you have a problem with my writing methods?

At least I got the balls to post while logged in.  

Just give it a rest DG and agree to disagree, as opposed to trying to act all smart and pick out every little thing.

No.

Darth wasn't blaming EVERYTHING on MTV etc, and it was pretty obvious to everyone else. He just used MTV as a prominent example because it's so popular and DOES demonstrate a lot of what he was trying to say, which is easier than quoting 5,000 different resources.

And I've said (many times) that blaming MTV and mass media is a superfluous as blaming Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shooting.

Look, I've shown why I think Darth hasn't thought carefully about his original theory. I didn't just call his opinions "wrong" -- I backed up my claims with why I thought they were wrong.

And if you or Darth or anyone wants to take this so seriously that you feel I'm attacking you personally, then fine, think that.

But I'm not -- don't take it so personally.

I don't just argue for the sake of arguing -- I do have a point, and that is to show that some people haven't thought about their points of view very carefully.

I forgot to include The Pianist -- for some reasons, it's disappeared from my shelves.

Also, I got American Splendor today -- And that is a fucking funny film!

EDIT: Found The Pianist in my washing basket (don't ask) along with The Defiant Ones and The Best Bits of The Late Show: Champagne Edition

I had something to contribute to this thread in terms of discussing problems with society, which was the whole point of the thread in the first place.

Of course it's obvious that I'm out to debunk someone with as many arguments as possible -- that's the whole point participating in debates.

I mean, if you're not going to use arguments to prove your point, why bother participating in a debate in the first place?

I think I've been fairly civil in this thread -- I haven't resorted to name calling or sarcastic put-downs for once.

Darth Mandrub may not accept my point of view and I'm not forcing him -- I'm not sticking a gun to his head saying "You have to agree with what I say!"

We argued to the nth degree and I think we've both made ourselves very clear -- I think we've been very democratic.

Beside, I stated the true answer to this thread ages ago:



SIXTY-NINE, DUDES!!!!

EDIT: Also, if you don't like my replying style then fine -- I can't do much about it because it's my style. I do it so people won't be confused as to who and what I'm replying to.

The current one is 400 x 65.

Give me ONE gratuitous puzzle.

The turtle puzzle.

Calling me 'genious' and calling my logic 'rediculous', isn't bordering on personal?

First of all, would you prefer me to call you "idiot" or "loser" to genius?

I think "idiot" and "loser" is getting personal -- calling you "genius" isn't that personal cause, hey, you seem to be certain that MTV and mass media re the bane for all the problems in the world.

Am I being facicious? Maybe, but that's not because I think you're not a genius -- it's because I don't think you've thought carefully about your original argument i.e. "MTV and mass media are the causes of society's problems"

Second of all, yes, I did call your logic ridiculous -- Because, yes it was a ridiculous argument in the context you placed it.

But I didn't call you "ridiculous" -- that would be personal.

If you want to interpret those things as getting personal, that's your problem, but I didn't mean either of them as an attack on you.

I like you and want to have your babies.

Disregarding everything I type just because you don't agree isn't bordering on personal?

I never disregarded what you said -- where did I type "I disregard everything you type"?

I said, you were making broad generalisations, but no where did I say "I disregarded that whole broad generalisation".

It just would be helpful if you could actually back up your argument with exmaples and facts.

Other people's opinions and ideas aren't wrong just because you don't feel/think the same way.  That's arrogance.

No, but other people's ideas are wrong when they're illogical, as I said earlier.

That's not arrogance -- that's just pure common sense.

Sounds like you know best.

I'm glad you put that in italics, cause me being a moron would never have guessed that sentence was directed at me.

I'm done arguing with you.

Good. I've made my point too.


Look, to show there's no hard feelings, I'll pay you a compliment:

he will surely eat your balls.

But that'd take all week!!!

BOOM-CHING

But one could interpret the humour as glorifyinh drugs. i.e. Hey you can get into a wacky situation like this.

This is a weak argument IMO.

Yeah, but you're looking at the end result -- what about individual scenes, like say Michael Mann cutting the ear off the police officer.

Isn't the end result where the message comes across?  (Michael Madsen)

You obviously don't know kids very well, do you?

Kids don't look at the end result and messages -- They just see Michael Madsen acting cool and cuting a cop's ear off and forget about him getting blowed away.

And even then, Tim Roth uses violence to solve his problem.

And Harvey Keitel uses violence to solve his problem.

Same with Pulp Fiction -- Tavolta uses drugs, and he's cool.

Forget about Uma though.

And don't get me started on glorification of violence in Kill Bill.

So once again, why single out gansta rap when there are other glorifications of violence and drugs.

Seems a little biased to me -- You're just justifying violence and drugs in things you do like.

I'm talking Taxi Driver, where Travis Bickle blows away everyone to save Iris, the hooker

Yeah, and how does the movie end?  I haven't seen it a long time and can't really remember.  My hunch is that's it not really a happy ending for Mr. Bickle.

Wrong -- he was praised as a hero.

Go watch it again if you don't believe me

The song STILL GLORIFIES DRUGS, genius, even if he died from an overdose.

Again, the end result proves my point.

No, it doesn't, because...

He glorifies the very thing that killed him at 27.  How absolutely GLORIOUS!!  You'd think people would learn.

People don't learn.

It's very easy to get the idea that "death from drugs" is cool.

Thus, the song is still glorifying drugs (and you haven't proven otherwise) and Hendrix himself glorifies drugs (and I've proven why).

These are just broad generalisations -- you're not providing any basis for this.

"There may very well be some musicians who believe they're making social commentary. My guess is that most of them just want to make money and don't care about the consequences." (this is the only one of the three quoted  that could be interpreted as a 'broad generalization')
If I had used a specific artist for this reference I would have been accused of thinking I know what somebody else is thinking.  That's why I said it was 'My guess'.  Do you know for a fact why Hendrix wrote Purple Haze?  Do you know for 100% sure he wasn't just out for the money and feeding on the popular opinions of the 60's?

Yeah, like I can see record companies desperately capitalising on a black man in a period where racial tensions were at their peak in the 60s -- Yeah, it was all about the money.

You obviously don't know the 60s very well.

Hendrix was successful because he was talented.

And it's pretty obvious that Purple Haze glorifies drugs just by reading the lyrics.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm using 'rediculous logic'.

No, but you are using ridiculous logic when you make a point that's illogical.

It's a different point of view that I'd wager a lot of people on these forums agree with.

Yeah, and a lot of people at one stage thought the Earth was flat.

Only they are aware (as I am) that debating with you is pointless 'cause you never stop disagreeing until the thread gets locked.

Darth, you're boardering on getting personal here.

Besides, you don't even have to debate with me.

Let me take you back to your orignal argument:

I blame the degredation of society on two things:
1) mass media
2) MTV

I've provided a lot of reasons that demonstrate that MTV and mass media are pretty minor compared to a lot of things that really cause degredation to society.

However, if you want to believe mass media and MTV are the sole causes for everything that's fucked up in society, be my guest.

Ignore corrupt governments.

Ignore big businesses that push their companies overseas, utilising slave labour leaving hundreds upon thousands of domestic workers unemployed.

Ignore lack of funding into public schools.

Ignore more education on sex so that teenage girl doesn't get pregnant.

Ignore gun-runners and drug barons that illegally import weapons and crack into the country.

Blame everything on gangsta rap, MTV, and sensational media, if you know best!

Pulp Fiction:
Uma Thurman does coke, then sniffs 'The Monster' up her nose.  The scene that follows wouldn't exactly, in my opinion, qualify as 'glorifying' drugs (funny sure, but not glorious).

But one could interpret the humour as glorifyinh drugs. i.e. Hey you can get into a wacky situation like this.

Resevoire Dogs:
The violence in that movie, in the end, gets them all killed and very bloody.  I wouldn't say that glorifies violence.

Yeah, but you're looking at the end result -- what about individual scenes, like say Michael Mann cutting the ear off the police officer.

Despite that Tim Roth blows him away, it still glorifies violence as a "fun" thing to do.

Casino:
Joe Pessi's character was hilarious, and very violent, but in the end he got a bullet in the head.  I don't think thats glorious either.  The tag-line is "No one stays at the top forever".

Forget Casino -- it's at the bottom of Scorsese's films.

I'm talking Taxi Driver, where Travis Bickle blows away everyone to save Iris, the hooker.

A lot of music now-a-days doesn't make the point that, in the end, drugs and violence get you nowhere.  They just try to make it seem cool.

There are other ways of preventing 'blinding children to that' and 'making them ignorant of problems in society'.  Glorifying a degenerant way of life isn't one of them.

There may very well be some musicians who believe they're making social commentary.  My guess is that most of them just want to make money and don't care about the consequences.

These are just broad generalisations -- you're not providing any basis for this.

Aerosmith - Janey's Got a Gun, that certainly doesn't glorify what she's done.  She was backed into a corner and had to fight back.  She's a fucked up little girl who killed her own father.

That IS glorifying it -- It's using violence to solve a problem.

Woke up this Morning - Alabama 3.  I don't know this song, but I know a song with the same name by Nickelback.  If it's the same song it's certainly not painting a pretty picture.  And is a great song!

No, the Nickelback song pales in comparison to what I'm talking about.

The song in question is about a wife who kills her rotten husband with a shotgun.

It's the same song used at the opening on the Sopranos.

Purple Haze - Hendrix.  What a great song!  I wonder why he hasn't released an album since the 60's??

The song STILL GLORIFIES DRUGS, genius, even if he died from an overdose.

I mean, by that logic, you'd consider gansta rap songs to be brilliant if all the artists died from overdoses.

No, you're just using ridiculous logic now.

['glorifies']

I wouldn't call it love ...

Admit it -- It is sweet, sweet lurve!

So, be it Rap/Rock/Hip-Hop/Country/Whatever, if it 'glorifies' violence, drugs, or other bad things, I consider it shit.  Songs about those things where the point is, 'they're bad', are okay (in my opinion).

But there are a lot of songs that glorify drugs and violence that are really good songs, like the ones I've mentioed.

And like I asked in my previous example, would you also hate Scorsese or Tarantino films because they glorify drugs and violence?

I mean, it sounds like you're judging the merits of songs based on the same methods that the Capalert website uses to rate films. (http://www.capalert.com/capreports/index.htm)

It's like you're discarding any artistic merit just because such songs glorify drugs and violence.

I just think there's some that is inappropriate for younger audiences.

Refering back to Capalert, here is their review of Saving Private Ryan -- in it, they say the film is inappropriate for children due to the violence and because the soldiers swear a lot:

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/savpvtryan.htm

They completely disregard the fact that the film is portraying a period in history where there was a lot of violence and soldiers did swear, especially when their Germans were shooting their buddies.

Likewise, gangsta rap demonstrates an aspect of life that most people in ghettos have to face -- blinding children to that makes them ignorant of problems in society.

"Oooo, I hate those Smurfs!"

I love people who try to be different.