THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: imapiratearg on 27 Mar 2008, 16:52
-
This kind of makes me ashamed to enjoy both metal and punk.
Apparently, "emo" kids are getting attacked all around the world. (http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/35463)
I really think this is ridiculous and unnecessary. The whole "emo" stereotype has been blown way out of proportion and I guess it's causing some tension in between scenes. I mean with religion it's a bit more serious, but fucking music? Come on, people. What happened to just ignoring something you didn't like? Should I be expecting future news sources to be headlining articles about RPG fans being physically assaulted by FPS fans in Europe? It's much of the same scenario, isn't it?
-
Cry moar pl0x.
Just becuase you're getting your emo ass kicked.
-
People riot over dumber things. Like soccer.
-
This is true.
-
Cry moar pl0x.
Just becuase you're getting your emo ass kicked.
YOU ARE THE COOLEST PERSON ON THE INTERNET. CONGRATULATIONS. REPUBLICANS! MEAT!
-
Caps Lock One Liner.
How long have you been sitting on that one?
I hear you lost that sense of humor in Nam.
Guess your parents are to blame for it all, oh well not your fault I guess.
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Fuck.
@tommydski
BUT DUDE THAT SEVEN TRILLION POUND POLARISE MISSILE WE JUST PURCHASED FROM THE USA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.
WHY OH WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THIS!
-
Are you complaining that he responded insensitively to your (pretty drastically) insensitive comment? :-o
And Tommy, amen to that.
-
Are you complaining that he responded insensitively to your (pretty drastically) insensitive comment? :-o
A moronic non-thought out responce is one I will not tolirate.
He just stuck the font size up and took a huge dump in this thread.
-
It will be a glorious day when the Army holds a bake sale to buy their next bomb
-
It will be a glorious day when the Army holds a bake sale to buy their next bomb
Happening all the time we just don't know about it.
-
tolirate
*tolerate
No need to thank me. I'm just naturally that hip.
-
tolirate
*tolerate
No need to thank me. I'm just naturally that hip.
Cheers hoe.
It looked wrong but I couldn't find the correct spelling.
Also hip isn't hip.
-
A moronic non-thought out responce is one I will not tolirate.
THE IRONY, IT IS DELICIOUS. IT TASTES OF LEMONGRASS AND WAFFLES.
-
A moronic non-thought out responce is one I will not tolerate.
THE IRONY, IT IS DELICIOUS. IT TASTES OF LEMONGRASS AND WAFFLES.
Is the Caps Lock key on your keyboard broken?
Once you get that fixed you should take some 9mm aspirin, help you clear up that god awful headache you have from all that shouting I assume you do in real life just to whore up some attention.
-
I WILL NOT BE TRICKED INTO ENTERING A SERIOUS CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
LURK MOAR.
TITS OR GTFO.
PUNK ROCK! DISCO DUCK! BIRTH CONTROL!
-
I WILL NOT BE TRICKED INTO ENTERING A SERIOUS CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
LURK MOAR.
TITS OR GTFO.
PUNK ROCK! DISCO DUCK! BIRTH CONTROL!
Oh great another /b/tard just what this world needs.
Also lulz at how we derailed this thread.
-
A lot of these people are just kids, and they don't think anything of smashing bottles into the faces of another person, including their school classmates. One of the most disappointing moments of my life, if not the most disappointing moment, was asking one of my classmates at school why he and his friends beat a bunch of drunk people, both male and female, with makeshift 'urban warfare' weaponry until they were bloody. He just grinned and replied "I don't know, it's just fun".
He later said "They're all moshers, who cares?"
That's right. They beat some people into unrecognisable pulp because they were wearing baggy clothes.
This behaviour of separation is nothing new, the 'alternative' kids have always been picked on in some way or another, but recently, in the last decade or two, the UK in-particular has been breeding this entire generation of kids with no brains or ambition by making celebrities of wastrels and glorifying binge drinking and drug use. As the education system crumbles into dust and the media continues to dumb down the population, these violent attacks have only increased and gotten far worse in terms of severity.
I honestly think it all stems from schools. The school yard is a violent place that rewards more violence. This isn't how children should be conditioned.
Edit: I try to hold a diplomatic tongue most of the time, but seriously. Jackie. Ultra Violence. Shut the fuck up, both of you. You're both intelligent enough to act the bigger man, so go ahead and try it.
-
Reminds me of the apartheid.
Ahh those were the days.
-
wait wait wait the UKs schools suck too? i'm sorry to hear that but on the bright side, america won't be lonely on the short bus.
-
THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY SARCASTIC USAGE OF INTERNET MEME-SPEAK IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INITIAL USAGE OF INTERNET MEME-SPEAK IS UNDENIABLE PROOF YOU NEED TO LURK MOAR.
OH FUCK YOU MADE ME ACTUALLY RESPOND SERIOUSLY.
Seriously, I am so fucking sick of the last six months of new posters who swagger in without lurking and proceed to try and be a "bad boy" and wave their e-dicks around with painfully cringeworthy attempts at being The New Cool Clever Guy.
Basically at this point I have just snapped and the forum can fuck itself. The regulars who talk about things in a thoughtful and interesting manner are being drowned out by the unwashed tide of teenage message board smartasses and to quote the greatest band in the history of ever, Dink, "Frankly, I'm getting a little ticked off."
tl;dr - BLAH BLUH BLEE BLOOP.
-
This behaviour of separation is nothing new, the 'alternative' kids have always been picked on in some way or another
Eh, not actually true in point of fact. The time and place I went to highschool, West Coast of Florida 89-93, "alternative" kids weren't picked on at all; in fact, they were highly regarded and quite numerous. Boys wore skirts to school, people had mohawks, cheerleaders wore Nitzer Ebb t-shirts, etc. I can't recall a single instance of anyone ever being made fun of in my highschool of 1800 kids. Just was not an issue. Everyone was pretty chill with everyone else, regardless of color, class or creed.
I think there are always locations where this is much more of a problem than others.
EDIT: Also, I'm sorry, but I find it hard to not be a prick to someone whose response to genuine tragedy is "Oh go cry moar(sic) because your emo ass is getting kicked." That is not an indication of intelligence. And clearly I am the bigger person, just look at my font.
-
ZD,calm down dude. You don't have to read their post. The regulars you enjoy conversing with usually have distinctive avatars, just scroll until you find them. Be cool. It isn't worth arguing sometimes. Infact, lately you've seemed pretty counter productive.
I think in the 80s just about everybody was using too much hair gel, and so they couldn't really say or do anything to anybody 'alternative' without being a huge hypocrite.
-
ZD,calm down dude.
I am being calm. I am calmly being absurdist and obnoxious in telling him to fuck off for being an insensitive dipshit.
-
See, this is what I am talking about. The humour doesn't always come through on the internet, and you just end up looking like a nutjob. Half of the forum will come away thinking 'Heh' and the other half will be thinking 'what a jerk'. It's not the most fair and accurate representation of yourself that you can show to people.
That said, I guess that divide could happen to people who meet you in person too.
-
Seriously, I am so fucking sick of the last six months of new posters who swagger in without lurking and proceed to try and be a "bad boy" and wave their e-dicks around with painfully cringeworthy attempts at being The New Cool Clever Guy.
Basically at this point I have just snapped and the forum can fuck itself. The regulars who talk about things in a thoughtful and interesting manner are being drowned out by the unwashed tide of teenage message board smartasses and to quote the greatest band in the history of ever, Dink, "Frankly, I'm getting a little ticked off."
You're just a forum elitist.
Thinking you are god over this small realm casting out anyone that dares stand up against you.
I've seen too many of your type.
You're just filled to the brim with over-used internet sayings that you spurt from every orifice on cue.
Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Damn MSN.
Ok.
Nice double post there.
Infact, lately you've seemed pretty counter productive.
I concur.
I am being calm. I am calmly being absurdist and obnoxious in telling him to fuck off for being an insensitive dipshit.
Calmly is size 20 font all in caps lock?
Haha.
Oh wow.
See, this is what I am talking about. The humour doesn't always come through on the internet, and you just end up looking like a nutjob. Half of the forum will come away thinking 'Heh' and the other half will be thinking 'what a jerk'. It's not the most fair and accurate representation of yourself that you can show to people.
That said, I guess that divide could happen to people who meet you in person too.
I have neither of those views.
He's just going about the whole "dickhead" thing the wrong way.
-
Actually, no, half of everyone thinking I'm amusing and charming and half of them thinking I'm a nutjob is a pretty good representation of my real life personality!
I never shout in real life though. Unless I'm singing.
-
Actually, no, half of everyone thinking I'm amusing and charming and half of them thinking I'm a nutjob is a pretty good representation of my real life personality!
I never shout in real life though. Unless I'm singing.
Holy shit.
Who gave you some cat-nip.
-
You're just a forum elitist.
Thinking you are god over this small realm casting out anyone that dares stand up against you.
I've seen too many of your type.
You're just filled to the brim with over-used internet sayings that you spurt from every orifice on cue.
A review of the majority of my posting history would show this all to be completely untrue.
I don't care if people "stand up to me". I'm one of the least-liked people on this forum (well, maybe it's half and half). A lot of people don't "get" me. I'm fine with that. Some people do. I'm fine with that, too.
I just honestly think you're a fucking asshole for making light of the fact that violence is being committed against people.
Feel free to be a real man and apologise and I'll gladly ignore you from now on.
I, too, have seen many of "your type". Everyone on a message board is a type. Nobody is a unique snowflake.
It doesn't help that I saw that your first post was in the General board asking "What are the rules and how can I break them?"
-
A review of the majority of my posting history would show this all to be completely untrue.
Thanks Columbo.
I don't care if people "stand up to me". I'm one of the least-liked people on this forum (well, maybe it's half and half). A lot of people don't "get" me. I'm fine with that. Some people do. I'm fine with that, too.
I just honestly think you're a fucking asshole for making light of the fact that violence is being committed against people.
Well you'd know all about fucking asshole now wouldn't you (LOL GAY JOKE LOL).
In all seriousness it shows that you think people dislike you. I can feel your teenage angst from here for Christ's sake.
Feel free to be a real man and apologise and I'll gladly ignore you from now on.
Oh hahahah wow.
I, too, have seen many of "your type". Everyone on a message board is a type. Nobody is a unique snowflake.
It doesn't help that I saw that your first post was in the General board asking "What are the rules and how can I break them?"
I'm a troll for my first few posts.
Testing the waters if you will.
If you're gonna quote do it right.
So what are the rules like here.
I see no rule thread.
What's the limit of these forums.
Who feels like testing them with me?
As you can see "What are the rules and how can I break them?" is not there.
So you fall flat on your ass again.
Jesus H Christ these forums are super cereal.
-
I'm sorry Ultra Violence, but arguing with someone by calling them Columbo isn't the greatest way to get your point across.
Also, Sox, Zerodrone really isn't that bad as far as these forums go. Wait until Kieffer is done taking a break from the internet, or if Chuck ever decides to show his face again. Those two do not tolerate new posters that slap culture into their comebacks without saying anything of value.
-
I'm sorry Ultra Violence, but arguing with someone by calling them Columbo isn't the greatest way to get your point across.
Also, Sox, Zerodrone really isn't that bad as far as these forums go. Wait until Kieffer is done taking a break from the internet, or if Chuck ever decides to show his face again. Those two do not tolerate new posters that slap culture into their comebacks without saying anything of value.
No you're right.
I should have said "Gee wiz sorry chum I didn't realise, even though I can't look through all your posts due to the profiles being blocked off I went to the effort of searching for each and EVEYRONE of your posts and saw that infact you are wrong. Oh well we can still be the very bestest friends".
I don't roll that way.
These forums are so fucking serious and slow, also you're threatening me with people...
Show me what YOU have got.
Also people that take breaks from the internet and someone most likely named after Chuck Norris are of no concern to me.
-
In all seriousness it shows that you think people dislike you. I can feel your teenage angst from here for Christ's sake.
I'm 32. I haven't cared if people like me or not in my entire life, because in my entire life, I have always found that enough people like me to balance out those that don't.
But hey, at least you admitted you were trolling. Congratulations! You admit to breaking the code of etiquette around here! You deserve every bit of hazing you get.
I got hazed when I first showed up and I didn't even troll. It's how message boards work, hoss.
-
I'm 32.
Jesus.
Now I just feel sorry for you.
-
UltraViolence, do you think I'm threatening you? I was talking to Sox, which is shown by the way I addressed him. Please read my quote as I believe it pertains here. Good day.
-
Seriously, UltraViolence, you haven't put a word in edgewise about the topic at hand aside from an incredibly pompous statement.
As you can see "What are the rules and how can I break them?" is not there.
There is. It's in the "Hi, I'm New" forums right here. (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,4161.0.html) There's a bit about trolling, too.
-
I'm 32.
Jesus.
Now I just feel sorry for you.
I don't even know what this means.
-
I think kieffer left these forums for Hipinion. May he fit in comfortably and find the peace he was looking for.
-
This guy's a real riot. If he's willing to stick around, can I keep him?
-
Seriously, UltraViolence, you haven't put a word in edgewise about the topic at hand aside from an incredibly pompous statement.
As you can see "What are the rules and how can I break them?" is not there.
There is. It's in the "Hi, I'm New" forums right here. (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,4161.0.html) There's a bit about trolling, too.
Argh.
I meant there isn't "What are the rules and how can I break them?" in what I said you douche.
Also why would "What are the rules and how can I break them?" be in the rules...
UltraViolence, do you think I'm threatening you? I was talking to Sox, which is shown by the way I addressed him. Please read my quote as I believe it pertains here. Good day.
I know you weren't threatening me.
I was replying since you talked to me in the first sentence.
This guy's a real riot. If he's willing to stick around, can I keep him?
You're now my sex slave.
-
Jesus, guys, why don't you all just get a room.
Re: the OP -- you guys all seem to be missing something:
The attacks are reportedly coming from metal, punk and rockabilly music fans who dislike the emo look and attitude, according to LA Weekly’s Daniel Hernandez.
Okay, now, usually in my experience, when a newspaper talks about "punk music fans" they're usually not actually talking about some dude's music taste, but rather a subcultural affiliation. Let's see what happens:
Meanwhile, Chile is also seeing a wave of violence against emo, with TV station Chilevision showing an attack on a group of PokEMOns by skinheads. Emo’s in Chile are known as PokEMOns. (emphasis added)
This story has pretty much nothing to do with emo kids being SO VERY SPECIAL in being picked on, and everything to do with skinheads being violent jackasses. If indie/emo/whatever types spent nearly as much time actually inside a real city and interacting with real subcultures as they sometimes pretend they do, they'd know that. This is more like gang warfare than anything else, except the gang being attacked doesn't know it's a gang.
cheerleaders wore Nitzer Ebb t-shirts
Aw. I would have joined that squad. All of ours were just your standard bland blondes.
-
Emo’s in Chile are known as PokEMOns
What? That makes me wonder about the validity of the whole article.
[EDIT - A bit of searching came up with this (http://www.newsweek.com/id/124098), which makes me wonder. Apparently the 'pokemons' all get together in large public orgies, which I guess could explain the attacks by skinheads.
-
People riot over dumber things. Like soccer.
no....Cricket. People are ASSASSINATED over Cricket. I think it was India's team manager that was killed by an angry mob. The game is incredibly confusing and boring and there are people murdering each other over it.
-
This story has pretty much nothing to do with emo kids being SO VERY SPECIAL in being picked on, and everything to do with skinheads being violent jackasses.
...
This is more like gang warfare than anything else, except the gang being attacked doesn't know it's a gang.
Those two sentences don't really go too well together. If a gang of violent jackasses go out and beat the shit out of members of a different subculture who are for all intents and purposes defenseless, at least in the sense that they 'have no idea they're in a gang', because they 'dislike their look and attitude', then yeah, the second group are kind of special, ya?
And new guy, hi there. Welcome. We're all impressed, and know your name now, so you can go ahead and cut it out. Thanks champ.
-
I'm one of the least-liked people on this forum
I like you. jsyk.
-
It's sort of obvious from his name (UltraViolence) that he wouldn't have a problem with the issue, if it is genuine that is. UltraViolence is a term which implies irrational violence for no particular rational reason, could his contribution be anything other than derailment?
Still, he choose a rather uncreative way of doing it. Anyone else get the vibe that this is some dumbfuck who somehow staggered in from the WoW or 4chan boards?
---
On Topic
Unoriginal Freudian position:
All societies have neurotic tics, the more suppressed violence is the weirder and/or horrible the nuerosis becomes; wars, irrational violence, wrestling (+outlet for homoeroticism as well), hentai, and whatever the fuck else.
I think we need to recognize that violence is part of the human condition and find healthy outlets (let’s bring back coliseums :-P ).
-
This story has pretty much nothing to do with emo kids being SO VERY SPECIAL in being picked on, and everything to do with skinheads being violent jackasses.
...
This is more like gang warfare than anything else, except the gang being attacked doesn't know it's a gang.
Those two sentences don't really go too well together. If a gang of violent jackasses go out and beat the shit out of members of a different subculture who are for all intents and purposes defenseless, at least in the sense that they 'have no idea they're in a gang', because they 'dislike their look and attitude', then yeah, the second group are kind of special, ya?
Not if the attackers do that and have been doing that for decades to a variety of similarly unsuspecting subcultures. Well, some subcultures have been less unsuspecting, I suppose, just because skinheads' reputation generally preceeds them, especially in areas where this sort of thing is frequent. All I'm saying is that skins beating up some kids they don't like the looks of is absolutely nothing new, and has pretty much nothing to do with the kids being beaten up and everything to do with skins just being assholes like that.
-
People riot over dumber things. Like soccer.
no....Cricket. People are ASSASSINATED over Cricket. I think it was India's team manager that was killed by an angry mob. The game is incredibly confusing and boring and there are people murdering each other over it.
Pakistan's, actually.
-
*beats the crap out of an emo kid*
what?
-
Emo’s in Chile are known as PokEMOns
I can only assume that this is pronounced like "Pokey moans".
-
This guy's a real riot. If he's willing to stick around, can I keep him?
You're now my sex slave.
hahahahahahahahah
hahaha
ha
this is unimaginably funny
P.S.: Sorry, I belong to James Murphy.
-
Those two sentences don't really go too well together. If a gang of violent jackasses go out and beat the shit out of members of a different subculture who are for all intents and purposes defenseless, at least in the sense that they 'have no idea they're in a gang', because they 'dislike their look and attitude', then yeah, the second group are kind of special, ya?
Not if the attackers do that and have been doing that for decades to a variety of similarly unsuspecting subcultures.
I understand your general point, but you then may as well just say "People have been dicks to each other for as long as there have been people, so any kind of violent crime is nothing new".
At this time, right now, a bunch of assholes are assaulting a bunch of kids for looking 'emo', and that's a specific sociological (is that the right word?) problem that, at this time, should be addressed.
-
*beats the crap out of an emo kid*
what?
To quote the thread title, "WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE".
-
Ah yes, this is a topic that makes me very embarassed, as a mexican. Specially because a lot of the attacks are mostly homophobic in nature. Thankfully, the city's mayor figure has issued specific orders for the police to safeguard Emo Kids' safety. Surreal times we live in, really. Every day on the subway i see a number of these kids and they seem to take shit from a huge number of people. Although i agree that the fashion is ghastly, the music terrible and most of the kids kinda annoying, there is really no reasn for abuse.
Anyway, as to the less amusing parts of this thread, zerodrone, when someone acts like a complete and utter douchebag, trying to one up them, even sarcastically often yields less that excellent results. New guy, stop acting like a complete and utter douchebag or go act like one elsewhere.
-
Removed for epic PC justice.
-
Caspian, with the interest of remaining on the board, would you care to revise your post?
-
perhaps a [/sarcasm] modifier would've been in order. It certainly wasn't a serious comment, anyway.
-
No, not really.
-
Guys, Okkervil River makes fantastic albums.
-
It seems to me like this thread is chock full of examples of how not to behave online.
This is a serious subject guys, no matter how you feel about the culture, or the people, this is still wrong.
And there are very few circumstances in which completely derailing a thread is cool or funny.
Zerodrone and UltraViolence, you've proved no points in your petty arguing with one another, other than the fact that you are both kind of douches.
And people people please remember, sarcasm is very hard to pick up on the internet sometimes.
Now, let's please be civil and remain on topic and friendly.
The fact that these attacks are happening is sickening. Nobody deserves to get beaten or killed simply because of their appearance.
-
It seems to me like this thread is chock full of examples of how not to behave online.
This is a serious subject guys, no matter how you feel about the culture, or the people, this is still wrong.
And there are very few circumstances in which completely derailing a thread is cool or funny.
Zerodrone and UltraViolence, you've proved no points in your petty arguing with one another, other than the fact that you are both kind of douches.
And people people please remember, sarcasm is very hard to pick up on the internet sometimes.
Now, let's please be civil and remain on topic and friendly.
The fact that these attacks are happening is sickening. Nobody deserves to get beaten or killed simply because of their appearance.
emo fag.
[/sarcasm and/or irony]
:-D
-
(http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg)
-
COREH,
You're almost doing it right enough to make up for the other people in this thread. Almost.
-
Picard FTW.
I understand your general point, but you then may as well just say "People have been dicks to each other for as long as there have been people, so any kind of violent crime is nothing new".
At this time, right now, a bunch of assholes are assaulting a bunch of kids for looking 'emo', and that's a specific sociological (is that the right word?) problem that, at this time, should be addressed.
Fair enough. I guess I was just detecting a hint of especially-special-emo-kid-self-pity stuff in the OP, as if no one but emo kids have ever been beaten up due to a subcultural affiliation (or even mistakes "subcultural affiliation" for mere "taste in music," which are totally different kinds of things), which reframes the problem as "People are mean to emo kids and shouldn't be!" when it ought to be "Skinheads are dicks."
-
Anyway, as to the less amusing parts of this thread, zerodrone, when someone acts like a complete and utter douchebag, trying to one up them, even sarcastically often yields less that excellent results.
I know, I know. Sometimes I just snap. Especially when someone makes jokes about something that is pretty horrible in nature.
-
I concur.
-
Man I was really hoping that was just Patrick douching around on a fake account.
-
Zerodrone and UltraViolence, you've proved no points in your petty arguing with one another, other than the fact that you are both kind of douches.
Explain to me the two different types of douche.
The fact that these attacks are happening is sickening. Nobody deserves to get beaten or killed simply because of their appearance.
I concur.
Yet, it is their choice to appear in such a way.
It's not as though it's racism. (Attacking [by any means] a person becuase of the way they were born).
People should stand up for themselves.
Although it is the attackers fault in the end, I would say it is lack of things to do so they let loose in other ways. Sometimes stupid ways.
I'm just trying to put up both sides of the arguements.
Dispite my first post in this thread, I say this attitude is sickening.
Let's just use this thread as an example which we can refer to in the future.
From now on, let's completely ignore stupidly obvious trolls. Don't quote their posts, just straight up act as if they haven't posted anything. These cretins want attention and from now on we're not going to give it to them. Simple but effective!
Jesus. - Do you think people will just do what you say like some kind of lick-ass?
I concur.
Wait what...
Man I was really hoping that was just Patrick douching around on a fake account.
Patrick Starfish?
-
Ignoring the above post.
Me and my friends have had to endure things a bit like this, not quite to these extremes though. The most we have had happen was one us getting knocked out by a thrown rock and the other being punched in the face various times. "The only reason we were given for this happening was we look weird and wear stupid clothes". It's sickening.
-
You guys need to read this blog:
http://alterophobia.blogspot.com/ (http://alterophobia.blogspot.com/)
People from subcultures are being assaulted, beaten, hounded, victimised, abused and even killed all over the world. Sophie wasn't the first, and I have a horrible fear she won't be the last.
-
Ignoring the above post.
Rancid stench of fail.
You guys need to read this blog:
http://alterophobia.blogspot.com/ (http://alterophobia.blogspot.com/)
People from subcultures are being assaulted, beaten, hounded, victimised, abused and even killed all over the world. Sophie wasn't the first, and I have a horrible fear she won't be the last.
Of course they are they always have been.
While racism has been taken into account when it comes to the law these type of actions aren't being dealt with on a large scale.
-
What is the "emo" attitude anyway? I'm being serious, here, too. I'm not talking about the "OMG GURLZ SUK" stereotyped "emo kids." I mean like, the attitude of the movement itself. All the way through. Starting with Rites of Spring and the like.
-
There is no cohesive 'emo movement' that starts with Rites of Spring and goes through.
-
Yeah, you're right. Still, what is this attitude they're talking about?
-
Why do I feel the sudden urge to type "Amen" after that?
-
Because Tommy is internets famous and has somehow reached demi-god status.
-
And, of course, we all do whatever he wants us to.
Amen.
-
Well, not all of us. In addition to being atheist for realsies, I'm also internet atheist.
GOOD POST THOUGH, OLD CHAP.
-
So who's behind the idea that crimes committed because of the way someone dresses should be treated in the same way as crimes committed because of skin colour or sexuality, ie they should be considered 'hate crimes' and carry stiffer penalties?
This wouldn't just apply to subcultures of course. I would also like to see such things bought in for football hooligans who attack people just because of the team shirt they're wearing.
-
Sounds fair.
-
It's worth noting that every single one of these first wave 'Emo' bands absolutely detested the phrase.
Emo Phillips? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdh0Qm_5A0)
-
I don't like the idea of "hate crime". I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why killing someone for being black is worse than killing them for sleeping with your wife.
NB: I can get behind the idea for having stiffer sentences for everyone who hurts someone else. A psychotic asshole is a psychotic asshole, regardless of their reasoning.
-
You can't see any difference between someone assaulting/killing someone who has directly aggrieved them, and someone assaulting/killing someone completely at random based on some arbitrary factor of their appearance or character?
Right.
Look at it from the societal view, if you must. If you kill people because they are black, then you are far more a danger to society than if you kill people for sleeping with your wife, because, lets face it, that's probably not going to be a problem anymore after the first conviction.
-
I think perhaps the reasoning behind killing someone for being different is worse than killing them for sleeping with your wife is the randomness of the killing someone for being different. I am not saying that you are asking for a killin' by sleeping with someone's wife, but that is a preventable situation whereas people cannot control their sexual preference, skin color, etc.
Also, killing someone for sleeping with your wife is a very specific murder while if you kill someone for being different... well what are the odds of someone else sleeping with your wife as opposed to the odds of you coming across someone who is different than you? I am definitely not condoning murder here but killing someone in a murderous rage is a whole different story than wanting to kill a lot of people because you don't like who they sleep with/how they dress/their skin color/etc.
KharBevNor said what I was trying to say here in a lot fewer words but I spent a lot of time typing this damnit, so I am still posting it!
-
Yeah, it's the way in which the murder of the one person transfers as a threat against all the rest. To kill someone for a personal reason that only applies to them stays limited to that case, but to kill someone of a certain group simply because they are of that group, I'd argue, is a symbolic act which is at least tantamount to making death threats against every other member of that group.
-
You can't see any difference between someone assaulting/killing someone who has directly aggrieved them, and someone assaulting/killing someone completely at random based on some arbitrary factor of their appearance or character?
No, I see the difference, I just believe in punishing people for what they do, not why they did it.
What about serial killers? Those are usually more random than "hate crimes" yet I don't see any push for national legislation to enact specific "serial killer crime laws".
And before people get all up in my business like I'm saying that someone who kills a queer for Christ shouldn't be strapped down and disemboweled, let me again re-iterate that I think we need stronger punishments across the board for all violent crime, not just "hate crime". For example, I'd be all in favour of the death penalty for any and all murder excluding self-defense, and for that matter, for rapists too. People who commit sexual acts with children under the age of, oh, 14? Put them in a mental institution for a long, long time. Etc.
-
Except there's always going to be a few people who are sent wrongly to their deaths.
The worst thing about this thread is that I'm not the least bit surprised by any of the crimes listed.
-
What about serial killers? Those are usually more random than "hate crimes" yet I don't see any push for national legislation to enact specific "serial killer crime laws"
Serial killers, in this country anyway, are treated far more harshly than 'normal' murderers. They normally get special injunctions which basically 'throw away the key'.
The Death Penalty is always a bad idea.
-
Except there's always going to be a few people who are sent wrongly to their deaths.
Society will never be perfect.
-
And nor will the judicial system, in any country, which is why I will always oppose the death penalty.
-
Bands that were influenced by these original groups operated throughout the 90s and for whatever reason they also became known as 'Emo' or 'Emocore'. Once again, practically all of these bands absolutely hated this description. Without exception in fact. Nobody has ever set out to be an 'Emo' band, it's essentially a construct of the media and fans of such bands looking for a broad term to make the music easier to discuss.
That's not true. React With Protest records has used the slogan 'keeping the emo violent' on a number of occasions, Kids Return refer to themselves as an emo band, so have plenty of others over the years. I was just thinking the other day that I'd really like to be in an emo band again. It's not something every band has hated, I've always thought that it was a pretty useful description myself.
-
I don't know if it's been pointed out just yet, but music doesn't really have anything to do with this. It has everything to do with men dressing effeminately. Saying these kids are being beaten up for being "different" or "alternative" is something of an understatement. Having odd taste in high school wasn't much of a problem compared to odd taste made you look gay. Add to that the fact that most of these kids are from a comfortable middle-class background and you see how much potential for trouble there is. It's not just jocks beating up these kids, it's metalheads and cholos and all kinds. It's not unfair to say that all the shit about music and culture are a smokescreen for a conservative reaction to a perceived homosexual element.
-
And that makes it better or worse... how? Or are you just arguing semantics, now?
-
Uh, I'd say that homophobia is a more insidious sentiment than intense hatred of a musical genre, yes. Some people are going to write this off as insignificant (some already have), which is pretty dumb in any case, but it's harder to dismiss someone being beaten up because they look gay than because they like popular music. More people seem to think that bad taste ought to be beaten out of someone than gayness.
I don't see why there's any potential for argument at all. This kind of thing should obviously not happen.
-
More people seem to think that bad taste ought to be beaten out of someone than gayness.
I'd question this statement, at least at the level of serious violence. Which is why I agree with you that this all has deeper roots than just musical taste. Lashing out violently on a large scale, based solely on what is coming through your headphones, is rather absurd. Musical taste, on the other hand, will often be perceived as a signifier for much deeper societal tendencies. They're not beating up emo kids because they think emo kids are homosexual; the emo kids, however, represent a movement that might call into question the standards of sexuality (and its expression) which they have held as bedrock truth for so very long. It's analogous to the WBC picketing military funerals, except at an even less rational level.
-
It has everything to do with men dressing effeminately.
Dude, punk rock was pretty damn homoerotic, back in the day. I mean, look at Iggy Pop for example. His junk was possibly hanging out on stage if you went to see him. Agnostic Front was a bunch of shirtless dudes on stage hugging and groping one another. The Ramones wore skin-tight pants. The New York Dolls?
(Or are the New York Dolls rockabilly?)
-
What's your point? Punks of all kinds, effeminate or not, would quite commonly run into trouble in the form of physical violence and general hatred directed at them all the time back when punk was still perceived as a dangerous outsider mindset.
-
My point is that he isn't entirely correct in saying that homophobia is the direct cause of the violence against "emo kids," because at least 1/3 of the groups doing the attacking had a fairly homosexual element to them.
-
My point is that he isn't entirely correct in saying that homophobia is the direct cause of the violence against "emo kids," because at least 1/3 of the groups doing the attacking had a fairly homosexual element to them.
Yes but arguing that the types of skinheads who are bashing up scenester kids have anything to do with the original spirit and mindset of 1977 punk rock is about as logical as trying to find a link between the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church with mainstream Christianity.
The link is existent, but so tenuous as to be negligible.
-
I didn't, did I? I may not have mentioned skinheads, but I wasn't lumping them together with punks. I was trying to disprove homophobia as the direct cause of the violence. It may be a factor, but I just didn't find it logical that punks were beating up "emo kids" for dressing and looking effeminate.
-
hell i just beat up emo kids for being in a scene derived completely amongst negative feelings
i also chant the ramones "beat on the emo little pussy bitch brat" while i beat them
to me it has nothing to do with homophobia, it has everything to do witht he fact the whole scene makes me sick to my stomach
-
geez, did you miss the last page where Caspian was offered the opportunity to reconsider his post with the intention of remaining on the board?
Well, guess who is now given that chance.
Oh yes, it is you.
-
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1725839,00.html
some good reading for those interested.
going back to the problem with "hate crime" vs. regular crime, my problem with stiffer penalties for hate crime is this: you are punishing someone for their thoughts.
-
I would actually feel a lot better about this if it was just skins getting in on this action, because skins are fuckwits, and will pick a fight with anybody for any reason, but I'm just really bothered by how widespread the acceptance of this violence is amongst the local metal scene. None of the people I know have actually engaged in the violence themselves, but they seem to condone it, and it sickens me to the point where I have do my narna at good friends of mine because they are actually engaging in this depersonalisation of an entire genre of human beings just for dressing ridiculously and listening to pretty shitty music (bear in mind most of these people I am talking about are deeply in love with Glam Metal, yes I know, its ridiculous)
-
dalcon, I am overwhelmed and awed by your amazing machoness, for surely, nobody would ever claim something untrue on the internet for the sake of seeming tough.
-
I'm just really bothered by how widespread the acceptance of this violence is amongst the local metal scene.
I was never quite clear on why certain things were or were not accepted in the metal scene that I had some vague interactions with a while ago. I do remember a lot of sort of inexplicably negative and angry shit being okayed for no apparent reason, though -- certain kinds of homophobia and sexism, for example. I don't know. I knew some pretty great guys who were involved with the scene, but I generally stayed away from it because there was just something I was never quite able to pin down in the unspoken undercurrents of it that made me a little nervous :|
-
I remember sometime last year police were called to a shopping centre near where I live in Sydney because kids who dressed in an 'alternative' sort of manner (which according to the masses constitutes as emo) were being harassed and ultimately assaulted. For all the Aussies on the board, it just reminded me of the whole Cronulla riots sort of situation on a smaller scale of course - plus its sub culturally motivated instead of racially. Sounds ridiculous, but such is the world we live. Kids at my school laugh and joke about how they'll go 'emo bashing' on the weekend - its not just limited to violence within the metal scene, sadly its a lot more widespread. Internationally it seems.
-
I would actually feel a lot better about this if it was just skins getting in on this action, because skins are fuckwits, and will pick a fight with anybody for any reason, but I'm just really bothered by how widespread the acceptance of this violence is amongst the local metal scene.
I know some really nice skinheads, a lot of them are very involved in anti-fascism and many get into that scene as a reaction against organisations like the BNP having a strong presence in the area they come from. As for metalheads, the main complaint from the ones I know about the kind of people who wear girls jeans and eye make-up is that they act all macho, start fights and trash venues. Things like this vary wildly from place to place.
-
I think many of us should stop to consider that the skinhead subculture was devoid of neo-Nazism, facism ect. for the first 10 years of its existance, and owes its long lifespan to the fact that it is a true brotherhood cult. Take away the violence and facism and skinheads can still exist, but the modern interpretation of "emo" cannot exist without the psuedo-depression and teen angst (as opposed to post-hardcore). The shaved head, the teardrop tattoo, ect. are signs of sacrifice and commitment to the skinhead culture and can act like a manhood ceremony, which today's youth culture lacks.
Indeed, since there is no solid event marking the passing of a young male into adult responsibility, one of two things often happen:
1. The line is blurred and arrested development can occur, where the young man has trouble accepting the responsibility that comes with privilege, rights and power.
2. The young man seeks out some kind of ceremony to mark his passing into adulthood. This can be many different things. For some, it's an epic binge drink, for others it's losing one's virginity and for others it can be violent, like winning a fight.
Thus, the lasting popularity of the skinhead, metalhead, rocker ect. cultures can be supported due to their hazing processes, tribal rites, ect. that define the member of the subculture among the group. This is why counterculture that is sold never lasts, since it is designed to be quickly and easily accessible with the minimum amount of knowledge and experience in the culture needed. Thus, the popular "counterculture" of a time as often looked down upon as shallow and is often unfulfilling in the long term, and modern "emo" is a prime example.
It may, indeed, be fair to say that homophobia has something to do with the attacks but I believe the real root of the issue lies within the fact that the older, richer subcultures feel somewhat taken aback and/or insulted by what is perceived as the arrogance of the new culture. A classic case of "Let's show 'em what [blank] is REALLY about!". Thus, often ignorant people get beaten up by those spurred by collective resentment and superiority.
But, fuck, what do I know? It probably is just some shitstupid skinheads being dicks, as usual.
For the record, and the benefit of my kind, I'd like everyone to note that any metalhead that abuses someone due to appearing or seeming gay or effeminate is clearly ignorant of both Judas Priest and Motley Crue and therefore is not, in fact, a metalhead.
NOTE: The above psychology mainly applies to males. In many cultures, the female rite of passage is often as simple as menstruating for the first time, at which point one is considered ripe to bear children and is married off/fucked like a wild thing ASAP.
-
As for metalheads, the main complaint from the ones I know about the kind of people who wear girls jeans and eye make-up is that they act all macho, start fights and trash venues. Things like this vary wildly from place to place.
I could see this as a pretty fair reason to cause tension between scenes, but not enough to cause unsolicited violence against teens in shopping malls wearing My Chemical Romance Shirts.
-
It doesn't, I was just saying that in some places the situations flipped in that the kind of kids that are seen as likely to beat someone for no reason are the same ones that appear to be getting the crap kicked out of them in other parts of the world. Although those kids who end up starting shite are more Waking The Cadaver than My Chemical Romance the look is pretty much the same. I think there is some kind of ongoing feud between those kids and the more 'teenage goth' looking types, but it's nothing like what's being reported from Mexico and elsewhere, just standard teen rivalry and nothing too serious.
-
I know some really nice skinheads, a lot of them are very involved in anti-fascism and many get into that scene as a reaction against organisations like the BNP having a strong presence in the area they come from. As for metalheads, the main complaint from the ones I know about the kind of people who wear girls jeans and eye make-up is that they act all macho, start fights and trash venues. Things like this vary wildly from place to place.
I think we are coming from wildly varying cultural contexts here, because here, saying someone is a skin is precisely equivalent to saying someone has racist tendencies, believes in a National Socialist creed, and is generally a dickhead. There's not any community of skins disavowing the actions of these sorts of people, there are just people who are racist fuckheads who refer to themselves as Skins, and reasonable people who think that these people are a bunch of fucking idiots. A shaved head and a tendency to wear combat boots aren't enough to classify someone as a Skin. I understand the term is probably much more complicated in other places, but that is not the way in which I use the term.
And in a similar vein, the reasons for which the metalheads I refer to have for despising emos is not based on their behaviour, which is an entirely legitimate manner by which to judge someone, but is specifically based on their manner of dress, which seems fucking ridiculous.
I think many of us should stop to consider that the skinhead subculture was devoid of neo-Nazism, facism ect. for the first 10 years of its existance, and owes its long lifespan to the fact that it is a true brotherhood cult. Take away the violence and facism and skinheads can still exist, but the modern interpretation of "emo" cannot exist without the psuedo-depression and teen angst
I think this is a massive double standard, that one subculture is inherently tied to the stereotypes that surround it, and another isn't? I realise it may seem like I am applying the same double standard in reverse, but what I am talking about here is patterns of behaviour. Where I am from emo exists quite easily without any of the undesirable attributes you attach to it, whereas Skinheads simply do not. In the specific social context I am talking about here, there is just no such thing as a Skin who is a good person, unless you can perform the mental gymnastics required to allow a person to be both a racist, and a good person in your mind. Even the people who engage in the kind of depressing social drama infused with angst in the emo scene here are far more tolerable than racist shitfucks.
I must admit though, the behaviour that A pack of Wolves is attributing to certain people seems equally unbearable, but the backlash against emos here is simply just not warranted by their behaviour.
-
Double-standard? I don't think so at all.
The reason there are emos perceived as good people is, probably, because they are just regular people who got caught up in the trend. It doesn't alter them much at all, while a skinhead definitely is changed after initiation (which basically supports my point).
The idea of my post, however, was not to attach moral responsibility or irresponsibility to a certain subculture or group but to explain how an older subculture might collectively feel about a subculture like "emo". There is no doubt that in comparison to other subcultures, modern "emo" is very shallow.
In any case, subcultures aren't necessarily tied to their stereotypes. For instance, the metalhead culture is seen as being one of violence, idiocy and drug abuse, which is ironic considering the most celebrated heavy metal song ever (Master Of Puppets) is a warning against drugs and that outside glam metal there are far more songs warning against substance abuse than condoning it. The situation is the same for violence and intelligence, too. The most popular metal bands among metalheads are, for the most part, remarkably intelligent and this is very often communicated in the music (and thus you have a subculture where being a stick-figure nerd among a bunch of large, muscle-bound headbangers is not only accepted but almost the norm).
So, indeed, that is just one example of a subculture that breaks the stereotype.
"Emo" will not break the stereotype, since it is a subculture that is specifically marketed. Its popularity is based on the fact that it is a collection of stereotypes, most of which are attractive to the teen consumer audience. Take away the clothes and the attitude and you'll find that modern "emo" is just pop-punk with a different look and a very far cry from the post-hardcore it originally was, having lost anything to do with its original namesake... which really just goes to show its lack of substance. It's really got about as much meaning as the gangster subculture brought on through modern US rap has to middle-class white kids.
It's really not very hard to see why the subcultures that walk under the legs of metal, indie, rock, ect. and yes, even the skinhead subculture are more long-lasting. They mean something that is very real to those taking part in them. I think there's no question of why you never see an "emo" in their 20s.
-
Hating on emo kids is unoriginal and kind of pathetic.
...this guy at my school threatened to beat the shit out of me because I'm 'an emo fag' because I have long hair.
-
There's not any community of skins disavowing the actions of these sorts of people
SHARPs immediately spring to mind.
Take away the violence and facism and skinheads can still exist
You don't think the violence and fascism serves as not only a major point of bonding and commonality among this so-called "brotherhood," but even perhaps the most important one? What "rites of passage," as you call them, would be left over without the guiding influence of an inherently violent and fascistic ideology? I think the rest of what goes into designating someone as a skinhead is all just window dressing -- established aesthetic commonalities of culture that serve to connote this ideology which would be empty and superficial without it.
Having established that, here's my main point, though -- don't you think that a culture that propogates violence and fascism might be, I don't know, a bad thing?? Especially considering that it's not as if being a skin is even remotely the only game in town insofar as your precious sense of brotherhood is concerned -- unless you think that brand of violence and fascism are somehow inherent to the "male" experience, which I do see some possible suggestions of in your posts.
-
I think Hat was talking about the skins where he lives rather than all skins worldwide. Presumably there is no anti-racist and anti-fascist skin culture there like you get in other places.
I'm also confused as to what the coming of age rituals are supposed to be among the older subcultures though. I can't think of any in punk that I've been pretty immersed in for a long time now. I definitely don't remember being hazed or anything tribal, unless owning a lot of records containing songs about how much you hate cops and the government counts.
-
You don't think the violence and fascism serves as not only a major point of bonding and commonality among this so-called "brotherhood," but even perhaps the most important one?
I do not.
What "rites of passage," as you call them, would be left over without the guiding influence of an inherently violent and fascistic ideology? I think the rest of what goes into designating someone as a skinhead is all just window dressing -- established aesthetic commonalities of culture that serve to connote this ideology which would be empty and superficial without it.
I have to disagree. The skinhead culture is a a culture that unites a large number of people and while the common visual trend assists with that, I don't believe for a second that the violence and facism are the bottom line. This is because, for at least the first decade of its existance, skinhead culture had absolutely nothing to do with the racism, facism and neo-Nazi stance. That is what leads me to believe that there is real substance behind such behaviour and thus I call it a "brotherhood cult". It is, after all, male dominated.
Having established that, here's my main point, though -- don't you think that a culture that propogates violence and fascism might be, I don't know, a bad thing?? Especially considering that it's not as if being a skin is even remotely the only game in town insofar as your precious sense of brotherhood is concerned -- unless you think that brand of violence and fascism are somehow inherent to the "male" experience, which I do see some possible suggestions of in your posts.
Are you butthurt or something? I'm trying to be quite fair, logical and unbiased here and I honestly don't give a flying fuck about whether the skinhead culture is "bad" or "good" or a "brotherhood" thing. That's not even the argument - I was giving an alternate explanation of the violence towards emos from members of this culture and to call one culture or another "bad" or "good" is not only analytically reprehensible but only strengthens stereotypes. It would probably help if you had knowledge of the conditions that often lead to joining what has become a violent culture and why it occurs. People joining skinheads aren't necessarily looking to destroy blacks or fuck a lot of people up, they're looking for a sense of belonging and that is very much confirmed via a "rite of passage", which is something that is lacking on modern youth culture.
If you want me to say it: I, in no way condone or support violent, racist, sexist or otherwise unfairly exclusive culture. I DO, however, believe in looking at things without a moral perspective to first gain an understanding before applying flawed moral codes to behaviour.
tl;dr: Morality gets in the way of a fair analysis and it would be unfair to stereotype any lasting subculture, no matter how violent.
-
Are you butthurt or something?
Uh-huh.
to call one culture or another "bad" or "good" is not only analytically reprehensible but only strengthens stereotypes.
This is (one reason) why we can never agree. To remain neutral and unmoved when confronted with systematic violence is to be morally reprehensible (which seems a lot worse to me than "analytically reprehensible," which doesn't even make sense as a phrase).
It might be true that whether or not an act is itself "bad" or "good" is kind of irrelevant if you're only interested in the psychological situation of the actor. But in the context of a conversation, there is going to be some reason why one is doing such an analysis, and I think it's obvious from your posts that the reason why you're doing such an analysis is to cut skinheads some slack, as it were, and even admire them as a superior culture to what you percieve as the "emo" culture (which, by the by, doesn't that involve making a moral judgment of a culture, to call one better than another?) -- thus at least implicitly assenting to acts of violence by skinheads against members of less established subcultures, since, after all, skinheads are superior and have a long and proud tradition to maintain.
P.S. What is this "real substance" of skinhead culture if not the unifiying force of a shared ideology of violence and fascism? It can't just be this "brotherhood cult" stuff you keep going on about (but apparently "don't give a flying fuck" about) -- pretty much every sufficiently fringe subculture will have that. Or you could always join, you know, an actual cult.
-
I used the skinhead culture as an example since it contrasts with the "emo" culture. What I said in the first place is, generally, just as applicable to the cultures of metal, punk, rock, ect.
That is, they are all cultures that aim to create a sense of belonging.
You can choose what to believe in regards to my point, but I never set out to elevate skinheads. I do believe, however, that people like to dehumanize them in the same way that other unpopular and morally dodgy groups are dehumanized. Nazis and the KKK are prime examples, but you must remain aware that despite the actions of such groups, they are still human beings, and not parts of a gestalt. They think they are doing the right thing. Who is God to say that they are, or that they are not?
Since that question is unanswerable, it is quite clear that preconceptions of morality only hinder such a debate. After all, we're not discussing whether violence against emos is right or wrong (we all believe that physical abuse is wrong), we are discussing the causes for such violence and I put forth my thoughts.
But okay, I'll give you that I think every subculture ever is more relevant and deeper than emo, but I discussed that above.
-
they are still human beings, and not parts of a gestalt.
Can't it be both?
They think they are doing the right thing.
The sympathy and understanding that we do feel as fellow human beings for those who commit evil acts is what makes the possibility of doing evil so very terrifying. It should make us more attentive to our own moral judgments, not less.
-
Can't it be both?
Not by the definition of "gestalt".
The sympathy and understanding that we do feel as fellow human beings for those who commit evil acts is what makes the possibility of doing evil so very terrifying. It should make us more attentive to our own moral judgments, not less.
Don't get me wrong. I think a moral code is very important in the course and living of life each day, but I think it only applies to psychological analysis after the information required is in our hands.
-
So you think that in some situations systematic violence is okay, in that the psychological situation surrounding such violence might somehow justify it?
-
No. You're getting the action confused with the analysis.
-
Goddammit idiolect, you keep misunderstanding Alex's points completely. This is why women should not be allowed on the internet.
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5368/thekitchenky9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Then again, most women aren't THIS stupid, so you're probably a troll. Either way, make me a fucking sandwich.
-
...
Edit: I'm pretty sure there's never a right time for the above, but even if there were, now is not it.
-
Don't type with your hands full.
Though at least you had the decency not to talk with your mouth full.
Goddamn, bitches these days.
-
People riot over dumber things. Like soccer.
no....Cricket. People are ASSASSINATED over Cricket. I think it was India's team manager that was killed by an angry mob. The game is incredibly confusing and boring and there are people murdering each other over it.
Man Cricket aint even fun.
-
You can't tell me this doesn't look like fun ----> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUBNqCANjw (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUBNqCANjw)
-
Zombie survival is clearly the only suitable use for a cricket paddle. Simon Pegg says so.
-
1. Bolt Vanderhuge: what the fuck, dude? Even if you were kidding--line crossed. idiolect's points were just as valid as Alex's.
2. I have to disagree. The skinhead culture is a a culture that unites a large number of people and while the common visual trend assists with that, I don't believe for a second that the violence and facism are the bottom line. This is because, for at least the first decade of its existance, skinhead culture had absolutely nothing to do with the racism, facism and neo-Nazi stance. That is what leads me to believe that there is real substance behind such behaviour and thus I call it a "brotherhood cult". It is, after all, male dominated.
You'll take this as a wild divergence, but your rationale doesn't make any sense--think; the first few years of Al-Qaeda's existence was spent defending Afghanistan and fighting for what many people believed what a "righteous" cause. That doesn't change the fact that nowadays, it's an organization devoted solely to death, destruction and hatred. Whatever the past of a group may be, it doesn't negate what the movement has become in present times. I'm generally a moral relativist--there is no "good and evil" but there is certainly "right and wrong" in terms of human welfare and life. It doesn't matter what ideals an organization or subculture may be founded upon: once all or the majority of members of that group begin participating in systematic racism, violence, hatred and advocacy of all of these things, they lose respectability and any claim to be recognized as a legitimate entity, rather as terrorist organizations lose any political legitimacy with any nation in the world. Skinheads obviously are in no way the equivalent of Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist network.
There are skinheads that renounce such things, but the fact is that since the 1970's, a large portion of the skinhead movement has been based around "working-class" skinheads blaming minorirtes and immigrants for economic and social problems. I mean, christ, the grassroots of the National Front in Britain consisted almost entirely of skinheads. You can't just ignore facts because you personally feel that a group has gotten a bad rap. Skinheads are people, they think, breathe, feel, hurt, etc. At the end of the day, that doesn't come into the equation of what the general message of their group has come to be, nor does it exonerate the things they do or say. You can say that I'm "confusing action with analysis," but when it comes right down to it, there's not much difference. The actions that a group participates in is what defines it, not their self-proclaimed ideology, or lack thereof.
-
Guys, what I'm trying to say here is that I don't think the beatings can be easily pinned on homophobia. That was my whole point to begin with.
But, as for the post above mine, I believe each of your points has been addressed previously. Just understand that the entire idea was to look at these groups free of moral restraints. I won't argue against you if you say that skinhead culture is currently a largely negative influence in the places that it's apparent, because I agree. On the other hand, just because you personally dislike the culture doesn't mean they are any less relevant to the argument at hand. You might notice that I never argued in support of such a culture, I merely maintained that it had a greater depth of significance than corporate countercultures such as modern "emo".
If you want to argue against that, then go ahead but please do not imply that I think cultures such as the skinhead one are free of wrongdoing.
-
1. Bolt Vanderhuge: what the fuck, dude? Even if you were kidding--line crossed. idiolect's points were just as valid as Alex's.
Ahem. Go fuck yourself.
If you're going to miss the point of my posts (ie. that women are useless and that I am always right), fine, feel free to slam a a fistfull of LCD down your throat and wash it down with a wheelbarrow full of vodka. Hell, I might even set your parents on fire and try to revive you by forcing you to snort their ashes. But I will be FUCKED if I put up with an insult like that.
I am BOLT. FUCKING. VANDERHUGE. YOU WILL ADDRESS ME AS SUCH. I AM FUCKING HUGE. DO NOT FUCKING FORGET IT.
Good day to you.
-
Bolt Vanderhuge (sorry, BOLT. FUCKING. VANDERHUGE.) and Ultra_Violence should begin a touching, lifelong romance, sweetly bonding over their mutual hatred of women.
See the following if you don't know what I'm referring to: http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,19536.msg632766.html#msg632766 (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,19536.msg632766.html#msg632766)
-
Oh dear.
See, what we had here was something like an informed debate, which I was haphazardly attempting to structure a reponse to. And now what we have here is the social equivalent of a juvenile delinquent yelling 'look guys, I've just smeared myself in excrement lolz'.
I'm going to look away for a second and hope it goes away.
ANYWAY. The problem with skins is not one that I'm too familiar with, though there's a lot of sense in the points that both Alex and Idiolect were making - but I'm diverting away from notions of moral responsibilty for a moment here..
The problem of violence against certain groups is growing - subcultures with a target stereotype younger than the people writing about it in the press (such as emo) usually fall victim to public derision, and tat rags like the Daily Mail (and to some extent the NME) pick up on this, print a few poisonous words and market it as a scandal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400953&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400953&in_page_id=1770) which would be fine, if people had the common sense to realise that the Mail just happened to be short on copy that day and the author of the piece is a morality (and fact) deficient hack, but I digress.
The press makes it easier for people to justify their hatred/dismissal of a 'scene' by making it appear like common opinion. Therefore, some guy in skinny jeans and eyeliner getting pulverised in the street may well get people's backs up because violence against others is generally abhorrent, but that same kid will still be accused of 'bringing it on themselves' by adhering to a trend which is so much maligned by the drink and drug fuelled people who appear to populate the streets and decorate them with their fists and smashed bottles of Becks. This seems to be an attitude which prevails whatever the target group is - I've had friends out on a 300 people strong LGBT pub crawl in Brighton get told to put their rainbow flags away, because it 'might upset people' - in one of the most gay friendly areas of one of the most gay friendly towns - the capacity for dickish behaviour and ignorance will never go away.
The reason that emos seem to be getting the hardest ride at the moment may have a lot to do with, as Alex said, the apparent shallowness of the scene, but also the fact the main culprits of the violence are also kids, who are being taught their rights and what they can legally get away with, without taking on any notion of responsibility, moral or actual.
Therefore, anyone looking 'alternative', 'emo', 'goth' etc will feel vulnerable. And it's not a culture of violence which is restricted to males, either. I'm female, and appearance-wise probably fit into the aesthetic stereotype lumped in with emo, though I'd call it pretty conventional myself: (creatively dyed hair combined with a tendency to draw colourful designs on my face from time to time) and in the last year, I've been pushed over in the street, had broken glass thrown at me, among other things, and been hit in the face in a club that I work at, mid set. And whenever these things have happened, onlooker's responses have been dismissive, as though I should have expected it for not leaving the house dressed in beige or something equally inoffensive to people's notions of stereotype.
The assumption to be made in these particular instances is that the perpetrators are 'chavs', but that's another horrendously dubious accusation to make: the label of chav is another media enforced stereotype, the origin of which is an acronym for 'Council Homes And Violence' which is an offensive generalisation to begin with. The problem, as I see it, is that there is no specific social group acting out of malicious intent against another. It's a general acceptance of the fact that there is a problem, but if a group of regular people in the street see someone, male or female, getting thrown to the ground, they don't see it as a reflection of moral deficiency, they accept it and make sure that they either dress a little more blandly next time, or don't go out unless they're bolstered by enough friends to fend off any potential aggression.
Generally, people are kind of useless. Whilst it might seem daft to get uppity about the fact that it's affecting people with a certain music/aesthetic preference as opposed to something like perhaps race, religion, sexual orientaton and the many factors which have been attracting the most morally deficient forms of human behaviour, it's still valid.
I'm gonna hop off my soapbox now.
-
Bolt Vanderhuge, get out of my thread if you're not going to contribute anything relevant to the conversation.
-
feel free to slam a a fistfull of LCD down your throat
liquid crystal display :? :? :?
-
All the cool kids are doing LCD. Plasma is for the try hards.
-
Alex: It seems like you're saying that on the one hand it's unfair to paint the entire skinhead and metal scenes with the same brush, but also saying the entire 'emo scene' is shallow. You say that the skinhead movement is completely able to exist without the violence, but the emo subculture cannot exist without the teenage angst. Which is not very fair at all. Maybe if you were as familiar with the one as you seem to be with the other, you wouldn't see it that way.
I'm just saying, it makes the rest of your argument, which is very well thought out and compelling, hard to swallow.
-
I believe the popularised view of "emo" (that is, the pop-punk kind) is quite shallow due its large reliance on image, regression in terms of sound (we've have pop punk for ages now) and glamourisation of mental illness such as depression.
On the other hand, I don't condemn the post-hardcore movement of "emo", since it was largely a movement devised by the musicians themselves to alter the music to their desires.
-
But it's just as easy to say that the popularized view of skinheads is that they're a bunch of neo-Nazi thugs, so if it's unfair to say one, isn't it just as unfair to say the other?
-
Not necessarily, because what I'm talking about here is substance. As I keep repeating, modern "emo" culture is based off a corporate-pushed image, backed by lots of music consumed by kids who are rather well off. To many, it is indeed nothing more than fashion.
As I have also said before, the skinhead culture for those who partake of it is a way of life, and the conditions that lead to it are rarely chosen or desirable. That is, modern emo is a reversible display of trends while the skinhead culture is a true commitment.
-
i hear you, but you are clearly looking at one culture from the outside, and the other from the inside. I'm completely unfamiliar with both, so I will defer to you when it comes to the skinhead culture, because you obviously know what you're talking about. But by the same token, I can't help but think that you are as wrong about the emo culture as the 'conventional' view of the skinhead culture is, because, at the end of the day, it's hard, if not impossible, to have any insight into a subculture when you're outside it. That seems to be what caused the whole mess to begin with.
-
I've a fair amount of experience with the emo culture (but not really as one of them, as you point out) and I personally didn't see much meaning in it. I can understand, for instance, why someone might commit themselves to the skinhead life or metal or rock or punk because, however much you agree or disagree there are ideals in those, or a common goal. But emo, to me, rather than a subculture seems like a number of people with completely different views, tastes and ideas come together to celebrate looking somewhat alike.
It kind of seems like the unisex equivalent of a housewive's magazine, honestly.
-
Not necessarily, because what I'm talking about here is substance... the skinhead culture is a true commitment.
I'm still curious to hear what the "substance" is, what skinheads are committing to if it isn't a shared ideology whose main features are violence and fascism. I'm not trying to give you crap, I'm really curious, because my own experience has told me that it is.
its large reliance on image, regression in terms of sound... and glamourisation of mental illness such as depression.
Pretty much the same things could be said about the goth scene, but I'd say it's definitely established as a real subculture, and it's been around for almost 40 years now.
-
I'm still curious to hear what the "substance" is, what skinheads are committing to if it isn't a shared ideology whose main features are violence and fascism. I'm not trying to give you crap, I'm really curious, because my own experience has told me that it is.
The substance I talk about is the family provision of the subculture. That is, it often acts as a security net for the members involved, especially when they themselves are fleeing from violence or are unwilling to go to a hospital for medical assistance (call it stupid because it is, but a lot of these people will go to lengths to avoid public places where they may be detained). The skinhead community is just that - a community. It's almost like a religion, in fact their extremist actions and attitude towards togetherness are very much classic elements of old relgion.
Pretty much the same things could be said about the goth scene, but I'd say it's definitely established as a real subculture, and it's been around for almost 40 years now.
Depends on the definition of "goth". It's a very tricky place to be. Plus, I doubt it's 40 years old considering:
1. It requires the visual influence of metal to take its modern form
2. Being an offshoot of punk, it has been around at 35 years at the most, probably less.
If I remember correctly, the goth subculture was a creation of the 80s, so it's probably got 30 years tops to its name.
For the record, goth, while similarly stereotyped, has its own lasting genre of music and the ability to describe other genres (e.g., gothic metal, goth rock), is a scene actually built on the basis of music and does not, in actual fact, belittle terrible mental afflictions.
I personally see emo as a cleverly constructed mockery of other subcultures. You'll find that modern "emo" doesn't really have a single unique factor; all the ideas are lifted from other subcultures or the stereotypes of those subcultures. There's also the fact that it owes itself more to record labels than bands themselves which is major discredit in my book. How can one take a corporate-made subculture designed to manipulate its consumers into spending more seriously? It's like a repeat of the late 80s glam metal thing, except at least back then the fans rarely got in drag and/or makeup. There's this new wave of superficial rock meant to suck all the meaning out of what is basically a solid genre of music again and this time metal's not the victim, but that doesn't make it worse at all. Why defend a subculture that condones being shallow?
Basically, I can get behind the idea of skinheads because they provide a family net, support and safety for one another, but I can't justify the modern "emo" culture in any sense. It completely defies the point of a subculture to me. Perhaps where you live, "emo" is somewhat more respectable, truer to the post-hardcore roots, whatever. But, where I live, "emo" is a bunch of black-clad teens who crowd the main train station's stairs, bitch a lot, act superior and betray and ignore their old friends.
Am I bitter? Hell yes. I very, very much see "emo" as a blight on the already troubled history of punk and while I do not, under any circumstances condone the considerable violence towards them I do believe that the sooner this joke of a subculture departs, the better.
-
I'm still curious to hear what the "substance" is, what skinheads are committing to if it isn't a shared ideology whose main features are violence and fascism. I'm not trying to give you crap, I'm really curious, because my own experience has told me that it is.
The substance I talk about is the family provision of the subculture. That is, it often acts as a security net for the members involved, especially when they themselves are fleeing from violence or are unwilling to go to a hospital for medical assistance (call it stupid because it is, but a lot of these people will go to lengths to avoid public places where they may be detained). The skinhead community is just that - a community.
And what I'm saying is that this will be true for any subculture sufficiently old and underground. What I'm proposing is that makes skinheads skinheads in particular is the politics and the propensity for violence.
Pretty much the same things could be said about the goth scene, but I'd say it's definitely established as a real subculture, and it's been around for almost 40 years now.
Depends on the definition of "goth". It's a very tricky place to be. Plus, I doubt it's 40 years old considering:
1. It requires the visual influence of metal to take its modern form
2. Being an offshoot of punk, it has been around at 35 years at the most, probably less.
If I remember correctly, the goth subculture was a creation of the 80s, so it's probably got 30 years tops to its name.
For the record, goth, while similarly stereotyped, has its own lasting genre of music and the ability to describe other genres (e.g., gothic metal, goth rock), is a scene actually built on the basis of music and does not, in actual fact, belittle terrible mental afflictions.
I'm not sure what "belittle terrible mental afflictions" means, but if it means "incorporates into their general subcultural (and musical) aesthetic" then I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I'm listening to a song called "Sanity Assassin" right now. And if The Cure isn't practically defined by being an affectation of major depression, I don't know what is. Also, just for the record, I'd say that (originally, at least) the goth subculture was a creation of the late seventies in the early 80s. If you want a particular birthdate, the opening of the Batcave in 1982 seems as good as any. As a total aside, I'm slightly annoyed that there are piles of indie rock fans running around who profess to listen to Joy Division all the time, but have absolutely no idea who, e.g., Bauhaus is.
Edit: Turns out Bela Lugosi's Dead, which people still listen to all the time, came out in 1979. And of course, a handful of the bands that later became major players seem to have formed around 1976, give or take a couple of years. So yeah, my "almost 40 years" doesn't seem too off.
Further edit! sorry guys. I think part of the reason I'm bringing up the goth scene is that, in my experience, it doesn't actually require a damn thing of its members except for enjoyment of a particular aesthetic. There's no unifying politics whatsoever, you don't have to be violent but you don't have to be Ghandi either, you can do drugs if you want but many people don't, you can sleep around like crazy or you can remain a virgin until you die. If you want other people in the scene to know who you are then you probably ought to go to some club nights but some definitely don't, there's nothing in particular the goth scene is positioned in opposition to besides, perhaps, a vague sort of social conservatism. I guess the goth scene is probably more gay-friendly and woman-friendly than most others on the whole. In any case, the real point I'm trying to make is that this seems pretty awesome to me since it gives people all the community of a subculture with none of the messy political extremism, violence, drugs, or vows of poverty required of a few others, and it does that by focusing primarily on things Alex is calling superficial and somehow ingenuine, that is, the aesthetic.
tl;dr goth>skinhead :-D
-
Am I bitter? Hell yes. I very, very much see "emo" as a blight on the already troubled history of punk and while I do not, under any circumstances condone the considerable violence towards them I do believe that the sooner this joke of a subculture departs, the better.
I've got to disagree there, the whole scene those kids are a part of is really distant from punk these days. They've got their own gigs, their own clubs, their own fashion and I can't see any way they really have much impact on punk at all. They're certainly much less insidious and troubling than Agnostic Front and all that right wing NYHC nonsense from the '80s, Victory Records and One Life Crew's xenophobia, tough guy bullshit, Nazi oi, Anal Cunt sucking all over the place and giving grind a bad name or a hundred other sketchy things that have actually been related to the punk scene.
These kids like to wear make-up and listen to pop music. Sounds like new romantics to me, I can't see anything to get upset about. The only thing that bothers me is that it gets tricky to explain that I listen to and like to play emo music without it getting really confusing.
-
Idiolect, I don't get why you've been going on about how skins are racists and fascists and yet you were the person who brought up SHARP.
The main difference I see between 'emo' and skins (or indeed any other subculture) is that emo-kids are generally under 18. Skins rarely are. (Qualified, of course, by the statement that is in my own experience and not an attempt to generalise.) There is more of a conformist pressure/desire when you're fourteen than when you're twenty-four.
Also, I must be very lucky. Barring the usual slagging from annoying kids, which goes for pretty much everyone, I don't think I've seen or heard of anyone being attacked for their subcultural affiliations. Actually, emo is one of the few cultural touchpoints which seems to be cross the cllass boundaries amongst teenagers.
-
Am I bitter? Hell yes. I very, very much see "emo" as a blight on the already troubled history of punk and while I do not, under any circumstances condone the considerable violence towards them I do believe that the sooner this joke of a subculture departs, the better.
But see, that's how I think of skins
-
If you guys are going to continue to talk about Skinheads then please make it clear whether you're talking about Boneheads (the racist pigfuckers) or Actual Skinheads (which are non-racist).
Otherwise I just get really confused.
Then again, it is pretty ironic that both "emo" and "skinhead" have an "old" and a "new" meaning which are very at odds with each other.
-
I've met a few when the social centre I volunteered at hosted a few meetings for some kids who the council were trying to boot out of the city centre, basically because they just hung around like kids do without spending enough money while they did it. They were just some typical teenagers, the exact same kind of kids who were listening to Korn and the like when I was younger.
-
Yeah, actually can we clarify what "emo" means? I thought it meant listening to Dashboard Confessional, wearing tight black pants, and having a hairclaw across your face. They were just kinda sad and quiet, but like a kicked puppy, not like a goth. I get the feeling it means something different now?
Please educate me, friends.
EDIT: Nope, apparently it means the same thing. But that makes even less sense! Why hit the sad kids?
-
There are two things. You have a very vague categorisation of people who like to wear tight fitting t-shirts and jeans, listen to bands like My Chemical Romance, often have hair that sweeps across their face that is usually black and straightened and that's about it.
Then you have music that's sometimes also known as post-hardcore in some of its forms which started with bands like Rites Of Spring, The Hated and Embrace and these days is played by La Quiete, Kids Return, Funeral Diner etc. It's very closely associated with/a subgenre of (depending on how you want to look at it) hardcore punk and is normally the most vehement in its attachment to the DIY ethic.
-
Without irony, I have an honest question.
Are there really kids out there who claim to be 'emo'? Seriously. Are there kids, wherever anyone here lives, who wake up and think 'today I will be emo'.
I cannot believe this happens. I really think this entire thing might be complete bullshit.
round near where I live, you will get people who claim to be emo, If you go in to the Cardiff, you will come across a field which they have named "emo field" if you walk across it you get hugged and walked at by drunk/stoned kids or given evil looks.
-
Idiolect, I don't get why you've been going on about how skins are racists and fascists and yet you were the person who brought up SHARP.
Because skins are racists and fascists, and SHARPs are not?
-
SHARPs are skins.
The acronym is 'SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice'.
-
Without irony, I have an honest question.
Are there really kids out there who claim to be 'emo'? Seriously. Are there kids, wherever anyone here lives, who wake up and think 'today I will be emo'.
I cannot believe this happens. I really think this entire thing might be complete bullshit.
I know people who wake up in the morning and think, "today I will be emo."
-
Me too, don't know them anymore though, since I am no longer in highschool, and have not seen any that act like that in college.
-
That's because people in college don't suck, as far as I can tell.
-
...So many jokes I could make. Oh so many. I did see someone there with a Clutch shirt, which I had never seen before, so that is bonus points to college.
-
BLOWJOBS HUURRR.
But seriously, people are more mature and therefore more fun to hang out with.
-
SHARPs are skins.
The acronym is 'SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice'.
Have you met many people who know to mention SHARPs in the context that I did but wouldn't know what it stands for?
Anyway, sure, okay, sharps are skins. I was considering them as two different groups in a large part because they generally function as two different groups and clash pretty seriously when brought in close contact with each other (in my experience at least, and admittedly all these things vary regionally). I mean, I guess if SHARPs are actively trying to reclaim "skinhead" as a term, then if I want to support that I should be more careful about how I use it, but I didn't really see any confusion in what I was saying before -- I mean, I brought up SHARPs because someone was talking about how they were worried that there weren't anti-racist skins :?
-
Without irony, I have an honest question.
Are there really kids out there who claim to be 'emo'? Seriously. Are there kids, wherever anyone here lives, who wake up and think 'today I will be emo'.
I cannot believe this happens. I really think this entire thing might be complete bullshit.
Yes, a lot of them. My brother went through a phase actually, and a lot of his friends call themselves "emo"
-
Have you met many people who know to mention SHARPs in the context that I did but wouldn't know what it stands for?
Anyway, sure, okay, sharps are skins. I was considering them as two different groups in a large part because they generally function as two different groups and clash pretty seriously when brought in close contact with each other (in my experience at least, and admittedly all these things vary regionally). I mean, I guess if SHARPs are actively trying to reclaim "skinhead" as a term, then if I want to support that I should be more careful about how I use it, but I didn't really see any confusion in what I was saying before -- I mean, I brought up SHARPs because someone was talking about how they were worried that there weren't anti-racist skins :?
It was very confusing actually, since you mentioned SHARPs you were clearly aware not all skinheads are racist or fascist, but then you started saying they were which doesn't make any sense and easily leads to the conclusion that you don't know what SHARP stands for. From what I can tell I think you were basically assuming that everybody else used a different term for any skinheads that aren't racist, fascist or violent, but this isn't actually the case.
-
Emilio, an aside. What does it take for someone to be banned?
-
But seriously, people are more mature and therefore more fun to hang out with.
You obviously don't go to UC Merced.
Our prime attractions are being the first research university built in the 21st century, a kick-ass writing faculty, and being a very green, environmentally conscious campus. While this is good and all, our brand new status means that we get a lot of people who wouldn't have the grades and test scores to get into any of the other UCs (me included). Hence, I hate a good 85%-95% of our student body, who happen to be idiot dumbfucks who couldn't properly put together a coherent, rational sentence, much less put them into an essay. While I missed out on traditional high school drama by attending an all-boys high school, UCM's pastiche of people who wear Hollister t-shirts is more than making up for it. Plus, a lot of them have terrible fucking taste in music. There is a small, endearing, yet good local indie scene that most people on campus couldn't give two shits about.
The people who are my friends here are wonderful people. The people who suck suck with aplomb.
I apologize for hijacking this thread.
-
It was very confusing actually, since you mentioned SHARPs you were clearly aware not all skinheads are racist or fascist, but then you started saying they were which doesn't make any sense and easily leads to the conclusion that you don't know what SHARP stands for. From what I can tell I think you were basically assuming that everybody else used a different term for any skinheads that aren't racist, fascist or violent, but this isn't actually the case.
I'm confused now -- what I at least meant to be saying was that there IS a term for non-racist (anti-racist, really) skinheads, which is a SHARP, but SHARPs generally call themselves SHARPs explicitly to distinguish themselves from what "skinhead" usually means, and so it seemed to make sense to mean "racist skinhead" when you say "skinhead" and say SHARP for "non-racist skinhead," since that's how they distinguish themselves, and that's what the words mean and how they're used...?
Just for the record, SHARPs are exempt from the complaints I've made about skinheads, for obvious reasons.
-
Ah, I see the problem now. SHARPs are a specific group and not an alternative word for a non-racist skinhead. SHARPs are skinheads, and not all non-racist skins are SHARPs.
-
Ah, I see the problem now. SHARPs are a specific group and not an alternative word for a non-racist skinhead. SHARPs are skinheads, and not all non-racist skins are SHARPs.
SHARPs are a specific group, but it seems weird to me to imagine non-racist skins who aren't SHARPs. I mean, if you're going to be a skinhead that pretty much requires you to take an active stance on racism, and to be an actively anti-racist skin is to be a SHARP, unless you're an actively anti-racist skin who somehow hasn't yet heard that SHARP is a thing you can be (which seems implausible to me).
-
Racism was not a part of the skinhead ideology at the point of its conception.
-
Racism was not a part of the skinhead ideology at the point of its conception.
Exactly my point.
-
Racism was not a part of the skinhead ideology at the point of its conception.
Yes but arguing that the types of skinheads who are bashing up scenester kids have anything to do with the original spirit and mindset of 1977 punk rock is about as logical as trying to find a link between the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church with mainstream Christianity.
The link is existent, but so tenuous as to be negligible.
-
Irrelevant, because I was arguing the relevance and depth of skinhead culture and viewing the issue from another viewpoint.
-
What exactly defines "skinheads" if they arent envolved in racist activity?
You obviously don't go to UC Merced.
Or the University of Manitoba (in Canada!! woo). I took two years off before going back to school, so a majority of my first year classmates are younger than me and my university is overflowing with the emo style. I think it looks cute on girls, but kind of repulsive on boys. I would never agree to any violence against them though. Its really unfortunate that things like this happen.
-
Irrelevant, because I was arguing the relevance and depth of skinhead culture and viewing the issue from another viewpoint.
My point was that it's a viewpoint which is manifestly not the same today as it was in 1977, and which we were originally discussing as it relates to a recent event that appears to involve current skinhead culture. If you want to bring the "depth" and history of skinhead culture to bear on the conversation we were having (i.e. argue its relevance), I could see it being enlightening to discuss the trajectory of skinhead culture from its original inception to today, and make note of the ways in which it changed over the years to become the kind of culture that would encourage violence, aggression, and a host of ideological problems.
-
BLOWJOBS HUURRR.
But seriously, people are more mature and therefore more fun to hang out with.
What do you mean blowjobs? I was talking about the number of people that smoke there.
I suppose you have a point about maturity, though I find it more fun to hang out with the one friend I have stayed in contact with from junior high / high school, that could very well have to do with how well we know each other.
-
SHARPs are a specific group, but it seems weird to me to imagine non-racist skins who aren't SHARPs...
There are other groups, such as RASH, or AFA. Plenty of non-affiliated, vaguely anarchist skinheads hanging around the Dublin punk scene too, as far as I know. Actually, I'd say that non-racist skinheads outnumber racist skins in Ireland by a huge wedge.
-
Indeed, idiolect, it seems you are doing little but holding to a stereotype.
Such misunderstandings, coincidentally, could be strongly linked to the current violence against "emo"s.
-
SHARPs are a specific group, but it seems weird to me to imagine non-racist skins who aren't SHARPs...
There are other groups, such as RASH, or AFA. Plenty of non-affiliated, vaguely anarchist skinheads hanging around the Dublin punk scene too, as far as I know. Actually, I'd say that non-racist skinheads outnumber racist skins in Ireland by a huge wedge.
Really? That's interesting. Well, sorry if I've been spreading misinformation then, I've been speaking from my own experience which is admittedly regionally specific (and probably also wouldn't be aware of anything that's happened since the very early 2000s, either). I wonder if there's a difference between how things are in the U.S. and the U.K. with regards to this?
Indeed, idiolect, it seems you are doing little but holding to a stereotype.
Still waiting for you to justify that claim to current relevance.
Such misunderstandings, coincidentally, could be strongly linked to the current violence against "emo"s.
Yep, it's totally my fault that some skinheads beat up some emo kids on a continent I've never even been to. I'm sure they couldn't help it, since they're just so misunderstood, and really it's easy to understand how someone would act bizarrely if they feel misunderstood. Unless, of course, they decide to express that angst through being an emo kid. That's just unacceptable.
-
This conversation is currently testing my patience, especially considering that the alleged racism of the skinhead culture is absolutely irrelevant to my point on the cause of the violence. I could have made examples of metalheads and punks and it would have made not an inkling of difference.
Let's make a deal: if you can prove, comprehensively, without a doubt, that racism and violence are the necessary ingredients of the skinhead culture then I will no longer argue against you.
In any case, the "relevance" is in relation to its members and the values that underpin the culture. In simple terms: skinheads provide an underground community for themselves that is closer knit than most religions. That is what I call relevant, especially when compared to a shallow culture of moneymaking.
Yep, it's totally my fault that some skinheads beat up some emo kids on a continent I've never even been to. I'm sure they couldn't help it, since they're just so misunderstood, and really it's easy to understand how someone would act bizarrely if they feel misunderstood. Unless, of course, they decide to express that angst through being an emo kid. That's just unacceptable.
Thanks for entirely missing my point. I was suggesting that your attitude and discrimination are what leads to violence in people so inclined. Because if a violently inclined person believed, like you do, that members of a certain subculture are a certain way all the time, then they may very well resort to violence.
Hell, your notion of "these people are definately always bad" is what leads to this.
-
Let's make a deal: if you can prove, comprehensively, without a doubt, that racism and violence are the necessary ingredients of the skinhead culture then I will no longer argue against you.
It would be much easier for you to concede that there might be a possibility that other places have skinhead cultures with absolutely no redeeming qualities, and then we can find another arbitrary point to argue about pointlessly!
-
That's basically the equivalent of saying that some places have communities of irredeemable black people. I will not concede to such a blatantly discriminatory viewpoint.
-
Man, I give up. You're just going to keep ignoring anything I say, not responding to any legitimate questions, and doing nothing except screaming OMG DISCRIMINATION against the oh-so-very-unusual notion that maybe skinheads are racist and violent, which is just absurd. And your last comment there, comparing this ridiculous "discrimination against skinheads" thing to discrimination against black people, is borderline racist itself. I suppose you can respond to this if you absolutely must have the last word, but you're not getting any more out of me.
-
To be fair, saying skinheads are racist and violent is discrimination since it's a lie. It may be true where you live, I wouldn't know, but that makes the statement 'skinheads in town x are racist' true not the statement 'skinheads are racist'. It is completely different to racist discrimination though, that's a poor argument and makes no sense as a response to what Hat said.
-
the oh-so-very-unusual notion that maybe skinheads are racist and violent
Saying that skinheads are racist and violent is literally as bad as saying that black people are drug dealers and gang members, or that gay men are promiscuous, or that women are no good at math.
Jesus, I think even the Wikipedia page makes this clear. Why are you arguing about this? You clearly have pretty much zero knowledge of the original, true skinhead subculture.
PS: I'm technically a skinhead. I don't call myself a SHARP but I am completely anti-racism and probably the least violent person I know.
-
the oh-so-very-unusual notion that maybe skinheads are racist and violent
Saying that skinheads are racist and violent is literally as bad as saying that black people are drug dealers and gang members, or that gay men are promiscuous, or that women are no good at math.
Or that emos are weepy and worthless and have brought this violence upon themselves with their unquestionably bad sense of fashion?
-
To me, a skinhead is someone who has no hair on their scalp. I mean that clue is in the name.
-
Emilio, an aside. What does it take for someone to be banned?
Just send a PM to Est. If you think someone has done something ridiculously ban-worthy, I'm pretty sure he will agree in 90% of the times.
That's what I do (and did) :-)
-
Or that emos are weepy and worthless and have brought this violence upon themselves with their unquestionably bad sense of fashion?
Yes, exactly.
-
Man, I give up. You're just going to keep ignoring anything I say, not responding to any legitimate questions, and doing nothing except screaming OMG DISCRIMINATION against the oh-so-very-unusual notion that maybe skinheads are racist and violent, which is just absurd. And your last comment there, comparing this ridiculous "discrimination against skinheads" thing to discrimination against black people, is borderline racist itself. I suppose you can respond to this if you absolutely must have the last word, but you're not getting any more out of me.
He was not ignoring what you said. You are both making very legitimate arguments. However, since they are basically polar opposites, both of you continued this circular argument because neither would agree with the opposing viewpoint.
And anways, he was just giving a frikkin example to work with, he was talking about the support that this kind of culture 'gang' (I use the term loosely) can provide what the so-called manufactured subculture cannot, because it won't last, or at least morph into a new entity to applies to a new, slightly different group.
You were only focused on the 'morally reprehensible' aspect of his argument, which made it impossible for you to concede to any of his points.
-
I'm just surprised at all of the people who actually buy into this whole "discrimination against skinheads" thing. I mean, just take the statement "skinheads are generally racist and violent." Do you guys seriously think that I'm just totally wrong about that, that skinheads totally aren't racist and violent and (as suggested) that I'm somehow lying about that? That's just crazy to me, the "wow do we even live on the same planet" kind. It's really not that I've got this extreme opinion that I'm unwilling to part with, it's just that (in the U.S. at least, I'm willing to buy that it might be different in the UK) that's just what people think of when they hear the word skinhead, and what people mean when they call themselves a skinhead. If they're not racist or violent or at least extremely right-wing, they're going to have a different name that denotes those departures from the norm.
Also, come on guys, saying that skinheads -- OR saying that any subculture, which people enter into by choice -- is this or that negative way, even if it is prejudicial, is never, ever as bad as actual racism or sexism. Please stop making those comparisons. Maybe compare it to religion if you want, but definitely don't compare the kind of discrimination that people suffer for dressing differently to the centuries upon centuries of institutional oppression that racism and sexism constitute.
-
I'm just surprised at all of the people who actually buy into this whole "discrimination against skinheads" thing. I mean, just take the statement "skinheads are generally racist and violent." Do you guys seriously think that I'm just totally wrong about that, that skinheads totally aren't racist and violent and (as suggested) that I'm somehow lying about that?
You're not lying, you're just not getting it. Are there idiots who call themselves skinheads that are racist and violent? Why yes, of course there are. That doesn't mean they are skinheads.
Also, come on guys, saying that skinheads -- OR saying that any subculture, which people enter into by choice -- is this or that negative way, even if it is prejudicial, is never, ever as bad as actual racism or sexism. Please stop making those comparisons. Maybe compare it to religion if you want, but definitely don't compare the kind of discrimination that people suffer for dressing differently to the centuries upon centuries of institutional oppression that racism and sexism constitute.
I wasn't saying that skinheads suffer the level of unfair treatment that some genders and races do in some parts of history, I was saying that it is as logically indefensable to say "skinheads are this way" based on an untrue stereotypical caricature you have as it is to say "Well, all the black people I know are in gangs, so obviously black people are gangsters".
-
Except that subcultures are prescriptive, whereas something like race is not. There's a certain way in which a member of a certain subculture, as a member, is supposed to act, and so if you meet a sufficiently large enough sample size of that subculture and compare their behaviors to look for evidence of a common presecriptive mindset, you can probably get a pretty decent picture of what that mindset might be like (particularly if the subculture is obscure or hardcore or just generally disliked enough to weed out most poseurs).
-
um i thought the qualifier for being a skinhead was being racist and intolerant?
so what you are saying is that there are skinheads who aren't racist? wouldn't that just make them regular bald people?
-
But race was never the issue... that's the whole point. It's about people put together by fashion, interests, and personality. Genetic appearance has little to do with the decision. Which is important to the overall question and argments. It was that person's decision to become who they are. Which now begs the question: why are these other people violating their right to choices?
The fact that skinheads are a culture WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE.... for good or ill is anyone's decision.
The issue at hand is dealing with asking for the reason why these other cultures, dedicated to the parallel interests of emos, feel it their duty to react with extreme hate and aggression at any given moment.
-
How is "gangster" any less a subculture than "skinhead", exactly?
You're saying "I've seen a bunch of dumb white kids who shave their heads and beat up other races. They say they are skinheads, so I guess skinheads are dumb white kids who shave their heads and beat uip other races."
I fail to see how that is any different from saying "I've seen a bunch of dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs. I guess all black kids who dress that way shoot each other and deal drugs."
Seriously this is hurting my brain.
PLEASE JUST READ THIS ALREADY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead
-
How is "gangster" any less a subculture than "skinhead", exactly?
You're saying "I've seen a bunch of dumb white kids who shave their heads and beat up other races. They say they are skinheads, so I guess skinheads are dumb white kids who shave their heads and beat uip other races."
I fail to see how that is any different from saying "I've seen a bunch of dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs. I guess all black kids who dress that way shoot each other and deal drugs."
Because the actual parallel quote would be "I've seen a bunch of dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs. They say they are gangsters, so I guess gangsters are dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs." You don't see the difference between that statement and what you said above?
-
It's simple. Saying, "These people are this way" is the same as saying "These people are this way". No matter how you slice it, it's highly discriminatory and feeds stereotypes. No matter who it applies to, race, religion, nationality, subculture, it is just as dangerous and, in my opinion, morally questionable.
After all, saying "These people are this way" is what leads to most racial, religious, national and subculture violence. It's like the odd SxE hardcore kid beating up some guy smoking outside the venue he's at because he believes that people who "ruin their own bodies will have it done for them if they're that set on it". The violence happens on different scales, places and with different people but it's hard to deny that its root is, more or less, discrimination and pre-emptive judgment.
Which is why, idiolect, your argument is so ironic. In a thread about discrimination towards emos, you're arguing that we should discriminate against skinheads while holding the belief that the discrimination towards emos was wrong.
Who made us God to say, "These people are this way"?
-
Thank you, Alex. I am done beating my head against this particular wall.
-
hang on there, ZD.
i'll admit that skinheads were not always racist, if you admit that nowadays any skinhead you find is most likely a racist. you know why that is? because of what they say, not how they dress or what they do. anyone claiming to be skinhead today is extremely likely to be a racist. i doubt very many people today remember that skinheads didn't used to be that way. if there is a "traditional" skinhead who isn't racist etc. then he probably doesn't call himself a skinhead. he probably calls himself something different. not necessarily, but it's pretty likely.
i'm not discriminating against anyone, in case you were thinking about saying i was. i could care less about emo kids. they don't bother me in the least. it's also worth noting that i never said "skinheads are bad, let's kill them" because that's just plain silly. i do hate racists, but i don't wish harm upon them by any means. i wouldn't care if harm happened to befall them but that's not unique to skinheads or racist; that's how i feel about pretty much everyone.
-
um i thought the qualifier for being a skinhead was being racist and intolerant?
so what you are saying is that there are skinheads who aren't racist? wouldn't that just make them regular bald people?
This was my understanding.
Apparently this is isn't the case.
Bringing race into this argument is absolutely ridiculous. No one chooses to be black or white or whatever (or male or female, in most cases), but they DO choose to associate themselves with whatever group, be it skinheads, gangsters, or emos. I agree that in most cases judging people (or in the original case in point, attacking them) based on group affiliation is ridiculous. But they chose to join that group. This may sound like I'm saying "They brought it on themselves," but there is a difference. If the common viewpoint of skinheads is that they're violent racists, then even if someone is a non-racist skinhead, they have to realize that there is a cultural affiliation with racist skinheads, for better or worse.
Taking this back to the original discussion, if one chooses to dress and/or act in the emo style, they have to realize that some people DON'T like them, despite them never having done anything.
I face this sort of thing every time I mention I listen to metal, or wear a shirt that has any of my favorite bands on it. Most people (around here at least) think of metal as the likes of Korn, Slipknot, and Distrubed. By my definition, this isn't even metal. And hey, guess what, the common viewpoint is DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL MEANING! So I understand the frustration that comes when people think your choice of subcultural affiliation is different than what you think it is/means/whatever.
In my case this isn't that big of a deal, I just say "No, those band's aren't really what I call metal." and if they're interested, I inform them a bit more.
This is going to be harder to do with a subculture that has been known, whether correct or incorrect, to cause violence. Why? Because people don't like violence.
Whether the true original Skinheads were violent racists or not doesn't change the fact that the commonly accepted view of skinheads is that of a violent racist. Oh no! The common view is different from the truth or the original usage! This has never happened before! Oh wait, it happens all the time.
I do think that its kinda funny that in this case the discussion of skinheads had nothing to do with racist violence, and I actually agree with Max's original point, and that in order to understand why something happens, you have to look at it objectively first.
For example, Why did this one particular man commit murder? You could easily just say "Because he's BAD!" but that really doesn't explain why. Maybe he was insane, maybe he wanted to settle a grudge, maybe he didn't mean to murder, but things got out of hand, etc.
-
Bringing race into this argument is absolutely ridiculous.
How does the difference between choosing to be a skinhead and just being black make discrimination against them any less questionable? Or are you saying that it's more okay to discriminate against, say, emos because they chose to be the way they are? Like the metalheads, punk and skinheads described in the article are doing.
-
Actually I have known around 50 skinheads in my life and none of them were racist, and they all called themselves skinheads precisely BECAUSE they wanted to reclaim the original meaning of the term.
I've been all over this country and seriously, in America, neo-Nazi skinheads are way more rare than they used to be (partly because so many traditional skinheads exist who take pleasure in kicking the shit out of them if they see them harassing a person of color or a homosexual).
-
I don't think I know a single racist Skinhead.
I know a Jewish Skinhead who has some pretty terrifying opinions about what should be done to Palestine, does that count?
Also, why should I not be allowed to equate discrimination based on sartorial taste with other forms of discrimination? Subculture is at least equivalent with religion. My freedom to dress how I see fit is part of my freedom of expression, a basic human right easily on a par with freedom of worship. Fact of the matter is, I suffer discrimination almost every single day based on how I look. And really, fuck it all.
-
It's simple. Saying, "These people are this way" is the same as saying "These people are this way".
what
Or are you saying that it's more okay to discriminate against, say, emos because they chose to be the way they are? Like the metalheads, punk and skinheads described in the article are doing.
Maybe we could just live in a world where the rules are you are not allowed to act like a violent fuckwit towards anybody!
And I just wonder why those of you who are so determined to hold onto the term "Skin" as meaning a positive or at least neutral thing, when it the majority of the population believe otherwise. Emo didn't used to mean "whiny douchebags with shit music" but now it does because the world is bigger than your scene, and people are not under any obligation to maintain the meanings of the words you coin once they are in their vocabulary.
-
The terminology is really the least pressing matter here.
-
And I just wonder why those of you who are so determined to hold onto the term "Skin" as meaning a positive or at least neutral thing, when it the majority of the population believe otherwise. Emo didn't used to mean "whiny douchebags with shit music" but now it does because the world is bigger than your scene, and people are not under any obligation to maintain the meanings of the words you coin once they are in their vocabulary.
But why is it necessary to then admit the validity and dominance of the new interpretation of a word? Ten years ago nobody knew what the hell emo meant outside of the punk underground and the same is true now, the only difference being that the word's being used to describe something else too so using it to describe something to anyone unfamiliar with that subculture is just as pointless as it always was. The reason people keep using it, and why they keep using words like skinhead, straight edge, hardcore, black metal and many others that have had serious negative connotations in the popular consciousness is pretty simple I think. What the hell else do you call it? If people flee from a term as soon as it starts to become associated with something negative in the minds of some people then none of the music scenes that I hold dear would have got anywhere. The community and the sharing of artistic and other ideas that goes along with that would have been sacrificed with little gain, and if that's not to happen then you need to be able to say 'actually, you're wrong' when someone has a misconception about a subculture even if it is widely held.
-
I'm just going to say one more thing, because I really think it emphasizes what I think is the key point in pretty much all of the issues being argued about now, and I'm frankly annoyed that I didn't get a straight answer to this the first time I asked it. After this, though, I'm out, because if you don't get this point then there's really no way we can even have an intelligible conversation:
"I've seen a bunch of dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs. I guess all black kids who dress that way shoot each other and deal drugs."
"I've seen a bunch of dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs. They say they are gangsters, so I guess gangsters are dumb black kids who dress a certain way and shoot each other and deal drugs." You don't see the difference between that statement and what you said above?
Do you really, really not see the difference inherent in those two statements? Really?
-
That was already answered:
It's simple. Saying, "These people are this way" is the same as saying "These people are this way". No matter how you slice it, it's highly discriminatory and feeds stereotypes. No matter who it applies to, race, religion, nationality, subculture, it is just as dangerous and, in my opinion, morally questionable.
-
Bringing race into this argument is absolutely ridiculous.
How does the difference between choosing to be a skinhead and just being black make discrimination against them any less questionable? Or are you saying that it's more okay to discriminate against, say, emos because they chose to be the way they are? Like the metalheads, punk and skinheads described in the article are doing.
If you actually read my post you'd realize that I said its not okay to discriminate against anyone. I just said that you have to realize when you make a choice to be a part of an cultural affiliation that people react to it in different ways.
However, I still stand by my statement, that bringing race into this argument is ridiculous, and perhaps a better term would have been pointless.
Then again this whole argument has pretty much become pointless.
Skinheads aren't racists by definition, despite the commonly held belief!
Violence against emos or anyone else is bad!
Discrimination is discrimination!
Topic of discussion over!
-
Thank goodness!
-
But what about ... ?
-
... stem cell research?
-
No, gay marriage and abortion.
-
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/04/01/5160046-sun.html
Any better or worse than said situation in Mexico? I think not.
-
No, gay marriage and abortion.
Gay Marriage is one of my favourite new bands, but they are not as good as Brain Mist.
-
yay, semantics
-
You could be a post hardcore guy in a sombrero and that might even be a good idea.
I guess emos can technically wear sombreros. But they would go way better with hipsters desperately trying to be cool.
-
Sombreros are the new trucker hats. Ponchos are the new gas-station-attendant-shirts.
-
I guess emos can technically wear sombreros. But they would go way better with hipsters desperately trying to be cool.
"How can I possibly buy a hat that doesn't suit me? My hair is practically a hat. All hats suit me."
-
just paint it black
paint it all black
-
"How can I possibly buy a hat that doesn't suit me? My hair is practically a hat. All hats suit me."
Why does everyone like Vince, he is such a dick.
I like Vince. :(
-
It's because he has normal size eyes.