Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[E. Spaceman]

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.

[bff]

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.

[Hat]

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)

[Nodaisho]

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.

[idiolect]

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 

[minorbird]

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.

[a pack of wolves]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[imapiratearg]

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.

[a pack of wolves]

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.

[Hat]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[Mister Arkadin]

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.

[idiolect]

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.

[a pack of wolves]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[idiolect]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[idiolect]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[idiolect]

So you think that in some situations systematic violence is okay, in that the psychological situation surrounding such violence might somehow justify it?

[MadassAlex]

No. You're getting the action confused with the analysis.

[BOLT VANDERHUGE]

Goddammit idiolect, you keep misunderstanding Alex's points completely. This is why women should not be allowed on the internet.




Then again, most women aren't THIS stupid, so you're probably a troll. Either way, make me a fucking sandwich.

[idiolect]

...







Edit: I'm pretty sure there's never a right time for the above, but even if there were, now is not it.

[BOLT VANDERHUGE]

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.

[morca007]

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.

[minorbird]

You can't tell me this doesn't look like fun ----> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUBNqCANjw

[KickThatBathProf]

Zombie survival is clearly the only suitable use for a cricket paddle.  Simon Pegg says so.

[RedLion]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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. 

[BOLT VANDERHUGE]

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.

[idiolect]

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

[muffy]

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 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.

[imapiratearg]

Bolt Vanderhuge, get out of my thread if you're not going to contribute anything relevant to the conversation.

[imagist42]

feel free to slam a a fistfull of LCD down your throat

liquid crystal display     

[Spluff]

All the cool kids are doing LCD. Plasma is for the try hards.

[karl gambolputty...]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[karl gambolputty...]

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?

[MadassAlex]

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.

[karl gambolputty...]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[idiolect]

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.

[MadassAlex]

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.

[idiolect]

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     

[a pack of wolves]

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.

[supersheep]

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.

[E. Spaceman]

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

[Jackie Blue]

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.

[a pack of wolves]

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.