• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservative Punk

rebecca said:


Um, is 24 old-timer yet? Because I love the Ramones, the Clash, and I just happen to be going to a midnight movie tonight.
Click to expand...
You seem like quite the catch. You like older men? ;)
 
LFTKBS said:


My god, you really are wrong about everything.
Click to expand...

I happen to like Bad Religion as well. NTW is about as relevent as a wart on Rush Limbaugh's butt.

Charlie (Jews for Jesus) Monoxide
 
Nasarius said:
Aha, found the full quote:

Conservatism, by definition, is defending the status quo.
Punk is challenging the status quo and thinking for yourself.
Click to expand...

The last line is contradictory. If you're challenging the status quo then you're not thinking for yourself but rather are simply automatically challenging whatever happens to be the status quo.

More generally, nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity is just another form of conformity (if that makes any sense).

I think that too many people uncritically accept the status quo but I also think that too many people blindly reject the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

When I was younger I thought art and commentary on reality were melded. When I found music I liked I (not necessarily consciously) thought it meant the people that made it had some kind of wisdom or that their views held special weight.

In retrospect I think that is a ridiculous position to take. If someone makes music I like then fine. If I find someone that I think has intelligent things to say then fine. But I think the two are unconnected.
 
Number Six said:

When I was younger I thought art and commentary on reality were melded. When I found music I liked I (not necessarily consciously) thought it meant the people that made it had some kind of wisdom or that their views held special weight.

In retrospect I think that is a ridiculous position to take. If someone makes music I like then fine. If I find someone that I think has intelligent things to say then fine. But I think the two are unconnected.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this, in a way. I like a lot of music, movies, art, etc. because the person who creates them has a viewpoint that I connect with which causes me to learn and grow. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything that person says and does, but it does mean that there is some wisdom in what they state.

It has nothing to do with blindly following whatever the Ramones tell you to do because that song has a nice beat and you can dance to it.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?
 
Nasarius said:


challenge != reject


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=challenge

That is all.
Click to expand...

Okay then, strictly speaking "challenge" doesn't mean reject, but then why is it "Challenge the status quo and think for yourself" instead of "Challenge the status quo and challenge the non-status quo and think for yourself?" Or better yet, just leave all the stuff about the status quo out completely and say "Think for yourself."

It doesn't explicitly say "Challenge only the status quo but not the non-status quo" because that would make the contradiction to blatant and people will immediately see that it's BS. Instead it's "Challenge the status quo and think for yourself," the implication being "If you think for yourself, you'll come to the conclusion that the status quo should be rejected in favor of something that is not now the status quo."

This reminds me of the "Question Authority" bumper stickers that I see now and then. It's the same principle. Saying "Question Authority" implies that non-authority should not be questioned, which is nonsense. A much better bumper sticker IMO, and one with a completely different meaning, would just say "Question Everything."

There was a time in my life when I thought the "Question Authority" bumper stickers were just great and daring and now I think they're about as daring as a Brittney Spears record. It's just blind non-conformity. No, thanks.

A _direct_ implication of _any_ non-authority telling you "Question Authority" is that same non-authority telling you "Do Not Question Me."
 
Charlie Monoxide said:


I happen to like Bad Religion as well. NTW is about as relevent as a wart on Rush Limbaugh's butt.

Charlie (Jews for Jesus) Monoxide
Click to expand...

That wart got Rush out of Vietnam. I don't think Nie can claim to have ever been that useful.
 
rebecca said:


I disagree with this, in a way. I like a lot of music, movies, art, etc. because the person who creates them has a viewpoint that I connect with which causes me to learn and grow. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything that person says and does, but it does mean that there is some wisdom in what they state.

It has nothing to do with blindly following whatever the Ramones tell you to do because that song has a nice beat and you can dance to it.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you here?
Click to expand...

I agree that if someone makes music or art or whatever that you like then on a certain level they are connecting with something inside you. But I just don't think that necessarily has anything to do with wisdom or intelligence or anything else. If I like sounds someone makes or pictures someone paints, it doesn't mean their view of current events or philosophy or anything else is any better than that of my next door neighbor. All it means is that they were able to make sounds I liked hearing or pictures I liked seeing.

The sniff test on this is to identify artists you like and listen to them (in a detached manner) speak about their view of things. Sometimes they're really on the mark, sometimes they're a little on the mark and sometimes they are total idiots.

Just because someone can make a tune I like doesn't mean they know (or don't know) how to solve the welfare problem. After all, if some politician decided to cut a record, would it make sense to think it was likely to be a good one just because you agreed with him on how to solve the welfare problem or a bad one just because you disagreed with him on how to solve the welfare problem? No. Just because he's a politician doesn't mean he can (or can't) make music.
 
Number Six said:


I agree that if someone makes music or art or whatever that you like then on a certain level they are connecting with something inside you. But I just don't think that necessarily has anything to do with wisdom or intelligence or anything else. If I like sounds someone makes or pictures someone paints, it doesn't mean their view of current events or philosophy or anything else is any better than that of my next door neighbor. All it means is that they were able to make sounds I liked hearing or pictures I liked seeing.

The sniff test on this is to identify artists you like and listen to them (in a detached manner) speak about their view of things. Sometimes they're really on the mark, sometimes they're a little on the mark and sometimes they are total idiots.

Just because someone can make a tune I like doesn't mean they know (or don't know) how to solve the welfare problem. After all, if some politician decided to cut a record, would it make sense to think it was likely to be a good one just because you agreed with him on how to solve the welfare problem or a bad one just because you disagreed with him on how to solve the welfare problem? No. Just because he's a politician doesn't mean he can (or can't) make music.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling we're totally misunderstanding one another here. I'm saying that the artists I like, I like because of the views they express as well as the way in which they express them. To me, you can't be a good artist without having something intelligent and thought-provoking to say. If you don't, there's no reason for me to take any interest in your work.

So no, just because you can make a tune, it doesn't mean you have anything good to say. But if you don't, you're not really an artist in my book, you're some schmuck with a guitar.

And of course a politician can be a good at his job without being able to make music. That has nothing to do with anything.
 
rebecca said:




It has nothing to do with blindly following whatever the Ramones tell you to do because that song has a nice beat and you can dance to it.
Click to expand...
/pulls glue bag away from face
Wha?
 
rebecca said:

It has nothing to do with blindly following whatever the Ramones tell you to do because that song has a nice beat and you can dance to it.
Click to expand...

I meant it has EVERYTHING to do with it, EVERYTHING!

Sorry, fellas.
 
Conservative Punk?

:dl:

Bwahahaahhahahah!!!

What a joke!

Punk is either one of two thing:

The most extreme example of sex, drugs, and anti-'whatever adults are into' teenage rebellious debauchery

or

A specific youth movement enriched in radical leftist ideology.

I don't see how anyone can be deluded enough into thinking there is any reconciliation of Punk with Conservatism.
 
†= Crap! said:
Conservative Punk?

:dl:

Bwahahaahhahahah!!!

What a joke!

Punk is either one of two thing:

The most extreme example of sex, drugs, and anti-'whatever adults are into' teenage rebellious debauchery

or

A specific youth movement enriched in radical leftist ideology.

I don't see how anyone can be deluded enough into thinking there is any reconciliation of Punk with Conservatism.
Click to expand...
Nah, there's all kind of stuff out there. A lot of punk doesn't deal with politics at all. Angry Samoans come to mind. Dwarves. Black Flag wrote about going nuts for the most part. Misfits!
 
A specific youth movement enriched in radical leftist ideology.
Click to expand...

Gaw? The only well-known punk figure that I would consider a "radical leftist" is Jello Biafra.
Unless you're one of those people who thinks that most Democrats could be considered "liberal" and anything to the left of them is radicalism.
 
rebecca said:


I get the feeling we're totally misunderstanding one another here. I'm saying that the artists I like, I like because of the views they express as well as the way in which they express them. To me, you can't be a good artist without having something intelligent and thought-provoking to say. If you don't, there's no reason for me to take any interest in your work.

So no, just because you can make a tune, it doesn't mean you have anything good to say. But if you don't, you're not really an artist in my book, you're some schmuck with a guitar.

And of course a politician can be a good at his job without being able to make music. That has nothing to do with anything.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose we're defining "artist" differently then because I enjoy the music of some artists just for the way it sounds instead of what they say. Hey, lots of songs are just love songs that basically say "I love you" rather than some kind of social commentary. And there are other songs that do have social commentary that I don't agree with just because I like the way the song _sounds_. And there are songs that have social commentary that I do agree with that I don't like because I don't like the way the song sounds.

If I like a song I like it, if I don't I don't. And anyway, all the songs in any given artists entire career covers about 0.001% of possible topics so even if I agreed with the commentary in every single song in an artists career it would tell me very little about his/her overall worldview.

We've exchanged more content in this thread than most artists do in an entire album. A lot of art is more style than intellectual substance, which is fine, style has it's place too, but it's just a different matter.
 
Let me clarify. Just because someone is an artist doesn't make their views wrong. It's just that it doesn't make them right. I assess their views on their own merits, not on whether I like their art.

"Surfer Girl" just sounds nice even though it's about nothing but boy/girl. I don't know what Brian Wilson thinks about the environment, and simply because I like "Surfer Girl" doesn't mean I care what he thinks about it.

Chumbawumba had the hit song "Tub Thumping" several years ago and I liked it. It sounded good. Apparently they had some unusual views about things and I saw one of their members on TV encouraging fans not to buy the album but rather to steal it because it fit in with some kind of philosophy he had that people should steal sutff or whatever. The fact that I like the song doesn't mean I agree with his assessment that people should steal stuff that they want. I don't think they should and so I disagree with him. If he said that people _shouldn't_ steal stuff then I'd agree with him. If he didn't make commentary on stealing then I wouldn't know what he thought of stealing but I'd like the song anyway.

If someone injected their views into their art to such an extent that their views stood out amongst the art then I suppose that my agreement/disagreement with their views would affect my opinion of their art, but at that point I wouldn't consider it just art anyway but rather a combination of art and views about X.
 
Nasarius said:


Gaw? The only well-known punk figure that I would consider a "radical leftist" is Jello Biafra.
Unless you're one of those people who thinks that most Democrats could be considered "liberal" and anything to the left of them is radicalism.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if you can't think of anyone in the punk movement farther left than Jello, then I would have to say you don't know DI*K about Punk.

In fact Jello is on the pretty mild side of Politico Punk. He can only be considered radically left relative to standard Democrat/Republican politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom