Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The Content of Character

Re: The Content of Character
September 19, 2008, 07:34:34 PM
I believe that those who share your views are intelligent people.

However, when you pass from intelligence into megalomania,
Your conclusions are mostly incorrect.

I believe people vary in intelligence, but not racially.
Some are just better than others.

You may have begun to to percieve yourselves as intelligent, more so than most,
and from that, began to believe in superiority.

I believe you are wrong.

You are the defects.

Society is not brainwashed,
the nature of humanity is to create a method to deal with any economical concerns they may have.

Society, such as ours, comes together because the majority of people within that group will it to be.
You are not special.
You die just as easy as anyone else.
There is a way of thinking ,
that I believe allows you to pass through life with the most ease.
Your way of thinking, the beliefs generally thrown about in this thread,
Are inferior because you simply make it harder for yourselves to exist.

You make about the same mistake that every other critic of this website and this forum makes, and that is one of believing that anyone here really cares about superiority in the manner that you present it. It is a well known fact that when confronted with reality that jeopardizes the personal illusion, most people react by lashing out with personal insults and accusations of elitism (LOL, like that's an insult anyhow). Society and culture are constructed on much more than an economic basis, and the will of the common man is not always the highest obtainable goal for a healthy and effective nation. Also, "You die just as easy as anyone else." Something about making such a statement on a website that totes acceptance of death as a beautiful component of life seems rather redundant.

Re: The Content of Character
September 19, 2008, 08:00:31 PM

You make about the same mistake that every other critic of this website and this forum makes, and that is one of believing that anyone here really cares about superiority in the manner that you present it. It is a well known fact that when confronted with reality that jeopardizes the personal illusion, most people react by lashing out with personal insults and accusations of elitism (LOL, like that's an insult anyhow). Society and culture are constructed on much more than an economic basis, and the will of the common man is not always the highest obtainable goal for a healthy and effective nation. Also, "You die just as easy as anyone else." Something about making such a statement on a website that totes acceptance of death as a beautiful component of life seems rather redundant.

I am no critic.
You yourself have made the mistake of assuming that I was "lashing out".

W\hat I said is a representation of what I believe,
which is contrary to members of this site.
I hate the game, not the player.

So, my post was simply in combat to another clashing idea, lol,
And you've accused me of doing what you did to me.

Oh, and my use of death was meant to invoke no fear,
it is simply to state that a bullet will enter your skull as easily as a black's.
It was a metaphor to dis agree with the ideas of superiority.
That would make a lot of sense if nature did not organize the majority of its systems into hierarchies already. Some people are superior to others, hands down. Only a fool would claim that a rapist who spends half of his day watching kiddie porn is in any way equal to a contributing member of a community.

Trolls are fun, but are you really getting anywhere? I enjoy having my ideas challenged, but your arguments have been presented here an almost uncountable amount of times. What new ideas do you have to contribute? If you have none other than "OMG, LOLZ! EVR1S TEH SAM3 U DUMASS!" than you might as well leave now, or perhaps give the material at anus.com a more in-depth read.

Re: The Content of Character
September 19, 2008, 08:22:34 PM

You make about the same mistake that every other critic of this website and this forum makes, and that is one of believing that anyone here really cares about superiority in the manner that you present it. It is a well known fact that when confronted with reality that jeopardizes the personal illusion, most people react by lashing out with personal insults and accusations of elitism (LOL, like that's an insult anyhow). Society and culture are constructed on much more than an economic basis, and the will of the common man is not always the highest obtainable goal for a healthy and effective nation. Also, "You die just as easy as anyone else." Something about making such a statement on a website that totes acceptance of death as a beautiful component of life seems rather redundant.

I am no critic.
You yourself have made the mistake of assuming that I was "lashing out".

W\hat I said is a representation of what I believe,
which is contrary to members of this site.
I hate the game, not the player.

So, my post was simply in combat to another clashing idea, lol,
And you've accused me of doing what you did to me.

Oh, and my use of death was meant to invoke no fear,
it is simply to state that a bullet will enter your skull as easily as a black's.
It was a metaphor to dis agree with the ideas of superiority.
That would make a lot of sense if nature did not organize the majority of its systems into hierarchies already. Some people are superior to others, hands down. Only a fool would claim that a rapist who spends half of his day watching kiddie porn is in any way equal to a contributing member of a community.

Trolls are fun, but are you really getting anywhere? I enjoy having my ideas challenged, but your arguments have been presented here an almost uncountable amount of times. What new ideas do you have to contribute? If you have none other than "OMG, LOLZ! EVR1S TEH SAM3 U DUMASS!" than you might as well leave now, or perhaps give the material at anus.com a more in-depth read.


You are the one lashing out.

Arguing over this is irrelevant, and frankly a waste of time.

Re: The Content of Character
September 19, 2008, 09:54:26 PM
Society, such as ours, comes together because the majority of people within that group will it to be.
You are not special.
You die just as easy as anyone else.
There is a way of thinking ,
that I believe allows you to pass through life with the most ease.
Your way of thinking, the beliefs generally thrown about in this thread,
Are inferior because you simply make it harder for yourselves to exist.

See here, your philosophy is flawed.

The "way of thinking that allows one to pass through life with most ease"
is called fatalism. People who slowly die in front of the television employ the same way of thought as you.

"Why leave the couch? life is easier if you don't."

Making life "more difficult" in this case only makes the quality of life greater for everyone.


Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.


Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Re: The Content of Character
September 19, 2008, 11:37:38 PM
This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

Fuck off. European culture starts with the Proto-Indo-Europeans. They domesticated horses, invented the chariot, developed epic poetry and created a system of metaphysics that gives modern philosophy a dirt nap. They also created the most prevalent family of languages present on earth from Gaelic to Sanskrit. Yes modern Western civilization owes a lot to the middle east in the fields of medicine, engineering, chemistry, and so on. But often they were carrying on traditions started by other cultures. This is not, in any way, an attempt to take away the significance of any of these cultures. But to claim that Europeans have no culture of their own, is simply exaggerated white guilt. Especially when the earliest instances of monotheism, often characterized as being an Abrahamic trait, come from the Persians and Egyptians. You also make the mistake of referring to Northern Europeans as crude barbaric tribes devoid of civilization. Let me give you a hint, in ancient Northern and Eastern Europe.. they built primarily with wood. Wood rarely preserves well through time. The reason Romans and Greeks get more of a rep as great civilizations is because their building materials left a larger archaeological record.
://

Re: The Content of Character
September 20, 2008, 03:18:46 PM
Society, such as ours, comes together because the majority of people within that group will it to be.
You are not special.
You die just as easy as anyone else.
There is a way of thinking ,
that I believe allows you to pass through life with the most ease.
Your way of thinking, the beliefs generally thrown about in this thread,
Are inferior because you simply make it harder for yourselves to exist.

See here, your philosophy is flawed.

The "way of thinking that allows one to pass through life with most ease"
is called fatalism. People who slowly die in front of the television employ the same way of thought as you.

"Why leave the couch? life is easier if you don't."

Making life "more difficult" in this case only makes the quality of life greater for everyone.


Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.


Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Quote
I play Pac-Man and I watch T. V.
I'm so happy 'cause it pleases me
I couldn't really ask for anything else
Maybe my own chain of Taco Bells

I'm perfectly happy right where I am
I could live forever in a traffic jam
It doesn't really bother me to breathe the poison air
I'd choke anyway, I don't really care

Sometimes I think about getting away for a while
But when I return I will be out of style
You may say I'm not an ambitious man
But let me tell you I've got some plans
Like there's a new car I wanna buy
And a video cassette recorder, yet I'm not sure why
I wanna get married and have three kids
'Cause I'm lonely and I've got a hard dick

Commuter Man
Commuter Man

—D.R.I. "Commuter Man"

Re: The Content of Character
September 27, 2008, 04:59:24 AM
This is now addressed to the entire forum. European culture as we know it only exists because of its imitation of Middle eastern Culture. Before Alexander the Great all cultural influence was a recession of European traditions to Middle eastern ones. Asides from Greece, who were prosperous because of their imitation of Middle eastern culture there was only Barbarian tribes with the exclusion of people like the Tuscans who imitated the Greeks. Even during the middle ages most technical and scientific discoveries came from the Middle east, in fact it was not until the Renaissance that Europe stated to make its own culture with limited external influences (asides of course from military incursions). Culture has hardly been derived from isolation.

You seem to confuse technology and civilization with "culture". Are you saying the ancient Germanics, Celts, Slavs, etc (or on a different note how about the Apache or I dunno, the conquering Polynesians) had no culture because they were a warlike people instead of a domesticated one?

I did not anywhere say that warlike cultures are less than domesticated ones. Also technology and civilization are a part of culture and are not exclusive from it.  I think people are misunderstanding what I meant. I did not mean that European culture is a fake imitation of a real culture. I was simply stating that cultures are hardly created in isolation and most faces of western culture were created through outside intervention, either direct or indirect. Lastly I did not mean to imply that the northern European cultures were inferior but rather I meant that their culture changed from there tribal lifestyle to the monarchs of the middle ages because of external cultural influence.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from:  MY AIDS YOUR ARSE
Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.


Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Your way is, as you say, easier; are you more commendable, therefore, for taking the easy way?

In reply to the DRI lyrics: this is my problem with Punk. There is no attempt to acutally understand the individual involved. The office worker becomes a faceless cipher, a simple concept: yet office workers can be men concerned above all with providing for their family; putting themselves in situations which they personally hate, which hurt them deeply internally, in order to do so (and the business life is really no fun: think about what it actually entails). I have met examples of this. And I ask you: if you accept "honour" as a criteria, is this man less "honourable" than you are? Are not his actions self sacrifice. Further, on behalf of his immediate kin. Surely this is what is praised here.

I believe that much hostility towards "mainstreamers" from "metal fans" stems largely  from idiot lower class resentment: anybody intelligent could be that "Commuter Man" if they wanted. Yet - wrongly or rightly - they have made a different choice.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 12:47:55 AM
Quote from:  MY AIDS YOUR ARSE
Yet contrary to what you've said still,
life becomes a little easier just for this very effort exerted.


Is it not just a little amusing how this works?

Your way is, as you say, easier; are you more commendable, therefore, for taking the easy way?

In reply to the DRI lyrics: this is my problem with Punk. There is no attempt to acutally understand the individual involved. The office worker becomes a faceless cipher, a simple concept: yet office workers can be men concerned above all with providing for their family; putting themselves in situations which they personally hate, which hurt them deeply internally, in order to do so (and the business life is really no fun: think about what it actually entails). I have met examples of this. And I ask you: if you accept "honour" as a criteria, is this man less "honourable" than you are? Are not his actions self sacrifice. Further, on behalf of his immediate kin. Surely this is what is praised here.

I believe that much hostility towards "mainstreamers" from "metal fans" stems largely  from idiot lower class resentment: anybody intelligent could be that "Commuter Man" if they wanted. Yet - wrongly or rightly - they have made a different choice.
Well you could interpret that song as an attack against every single office worker in existence, or particularly the ones who are similar to the person mentioned in the song.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 01:24:08 AM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 02:06:29 AM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.
The song never made any dogmatic statements about all office-workers adhering to that stereotype, so I never interpreted it in that fashion. I'm not particularly interested in a game of admitting who's right or wrong either; it seems to shift the focus of an argument to victory and less so to a better understanding.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 04:58:12 AM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.

You're right, there was no reference to individuals...there was a reference to the IDEA expressed, that that sort of IDEA is common, and an attack on that IDEA.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 11:48:10 AM
And I ask you: if you accept "honour" as a criteria, is this man less "honourable" than you are? Are not his actions self sacrifice. Further, on behalf of his immediate kin. Surely this is what is praised here.

I believe that much hostility towards "mainstreamers" from "metal fans" stems largely  from idiot lower class resentment: anybody intelligent could be that "Commuter Man" if they wanted. Yet - wrongly or rightly - they have made a different choice.

I hope you're in for a bit of a read, this actually makes sense.

http://www.ihatejobs.com/
http://www.ihatejobs.com/news/the_career_man.html

Quote
...We'll never see that ad, but maybe we should. We've been conned into trading our souls for the endless pursuit of money, often under the guilt-ridden guise of 'making a better life for our children.' But what good is it when our careers rob of us the time we'd have otherwise spent with our families. The career-man isn't a hero who 'takes care of his family'. He is the epitome of all that is cowardly and wrong with society; we ignore problems, jump in a suit, gather some money and run away, hoping they won't follow us as we don't really have a back up strategy.

Jobs were once means of supporting ourselves and our communities. People undertook a business (or worked for one) that provided a valuable service to the local community. Something valuable and necessary has been replaced by something for its own sake. People punch in and out of places where they shuffle papers that don't need shuffling and they sell things that people don't need. You'll see some people running around claiming the government channel drugs into cities as to keep the population unfocused and dumb. I disagree; maybe the government do want to do that, but they don't give us drugs, instead they make us get jobs under pain of being homeless and a social leper.

We could be that man, yet we merely questioned our current situation and found better solutions. Is it honorable to push a boulder up a hill, only to watch your effort go to waste as gravity brings it down, only to find yourself returning to the bottom in order to push it back uphill to let it fall yet again, ad nauseam? The motivations expressed in that song are fairly typical of those around us who don't see anything better for themselves. Admit it.

As you'll also find here on ANUS, we have a disdain for current "metal culture", or what you seem to be referring to as "metal fans", because it has been diluted by the idiocy as described so accurately in that song. We don't take too kindly to those around these parts. Not necessarily as to whether or not something is "mainstream" or "underground", because such a distinction is pointless, and because neither is a good indication of quality. In fact, radio or mainstream music, as plastic and boring as it is, is more tolerable than much of the garbage you can find in the underground, across all genres.

It's all in the search for the music of artistic merit, and here, particularly in metal.

Re: The Content of Character
September 28, 2008, 09:06:20 PM
Admit it, those DRI lyrics didn't refer to any particular individuals - they were about a stereotype. A crude one at that.

Even so, the stereotype exists because such people exist.  Anyone who fits the description of those lyrics has none of the honorable traits you are speaking of.

You are right, however, that a lot of bands (and people in general) say stuff like this in order to feel better about themselves.  I don't think that's the case here.  We have to pinpoint what is wrong with society in order to fix it.

It goes back to the survival of the fittest as a product of character traits with which I started this thread.  The man in that song will accomplish nothing in life.  In fact, the man you described who sacrifices himself for the sake of his family will likely do nothing more than support his family.  While this can be seen as honorable, chances are he will have no time to contribute anything else.  If, say, one of his children goes on to accomplish something great, maybe it can be said that he has done his job.  However, I tend to think the case is more often that his children will go on to struggle with their jobs to support their families.  These people are not the next stage in evolution of which I was speaking.  The backbone of our economy?  Maybe.  We do need the ordinary to justify the extraordinary to some extent.

I guess I'm starting to get into Raskolnikov's whole argument in Crime and Punishment.  But it applies.  We have to have the right mindset when we go about our lives.  Never settle for mediocrity; if you have to struggle to get by, why not struggle to overcome?  Those who are of strong character will do so.  These men are more than honorable, and are ultimately the ones we should recognize on an individual basis.  I have no problem with lumping the others into a stereotype if it applies.

Re: The Content of Character
September 29, 2008, 12:57:54 AM

It goes back to the survival of the fittest as a product of character traits with which I started this thread.  The man in that song will accomplish nothing in life.  In fact, the man you described who sacrifices himself for the sake of his family will likely do nothing more than support his family.  While this can be seen as honorable, chances are he will have no time to contribute anything else.  If, say, one of his children goes on to accomplish something great, maybe it can be said that he has done his job.  However, I tend to think the case is more often that his children will go on to struggle with their jobs to support their families.  These people are not the next stage in evolution of which I was speaking.  The backbone of our economy?  Maybe.  We do need the ordinary to justify the extraordinary to some extent.

The "Commuter Man" is just one modern incarnation of the same "herd" animal Nietzsche and others spoke at length about. They exist just to exist, as the herd commonly does - and in so doing, their lives lose any real meaning, their goals become stunted and selfish, their senses are dulled, their strenght is sapped by grinding monotony and laboriousness. You will always have these types(no doubt mankind always has). The problem as I see it, is that this domesticated herd animal has now become the ideal, the chief representative of a "successful" western man. Thus, the "Commuter Man" is a fraud, a symbol of a "success" that is really neither noble or terribly satisfying - unless one is fully satisfied by really large televisions, luxury automobiles, suburban McMansions, corpulent/lazy children, a CD collection filled with vacuous "adult contemporary" warblers, etc. 

Actually, in many ways they ARE the "backbone of our economy." And that is why/how they makes such good slaves...they are fettered  to a monster of their own creation - and they live only to feed that same monster(with all the rubric about "providing for one's family and all that as a convenient distraction from the horrifying emptiness of their reality.) I know this condition well...I was once on my way to being there - indeed, I still struggle to fully escape from there! At least i don't have tubby kids, a big tv and bad CD's...