#metalgate: SJW hipsters will trash metal like they trashed the Hugo Awards

social_justice_warrior_hipster_sjw

Angry hipsters are like discontented housewives: living in the midst of plenty, with any option open to them, they prefer to combine excuses for failure with a passive-aggressive attack on the world. It is as if they are seeking to justify their fedora-wearing, basement-dwelling ways in the face of the many possibilities they could have explored. Life peaks early for such people, and peaks low.

Last night’s debacle at the Hugo Awards, nominally granted for science fiction excellence, shows what happens when SJWs take over a genre: they kill it by replacing it with an inferior version of itself, and by doing so, drive away anyone interested in quality of art, music or literature. This parallels their infiltration of metal with terrible indie rock like Deafheaven, Necrophagist, BabyMetal and Wolves in the Throne Room.

They attack under the guise of humor. Remember Metalocalypse? It was Adventure Time with a butt-metal theme. Then they demand you be open minded, and spiritual, which showed up everywhere from the fruity New Age lyrics of Cynic through the recycle-your-cigarette-butts environmentalism of “Cascadian black metal.” Finally, they make the political demand: start preaching what we preach, or you are the enemy and must be destroyed.

They did the same thing in science fiction. This explains why the genre has fallen off the radar for the most part, since the “new classics” — coming on the heels of some execrable years of Fantasy hybrids — are all bad and meaningless. The days of Heinlein, Card, Asimov, Niven and other giants are removed from the present-day drivel. As writer John C. Wright described it:

Once, the Hugos were the popular award given to the best works by Frank Herbert, Robert Heinlein, Issac Asimov, Bob Silverberg, Ursula K LeGuin and Harlan Elison, and Roger Zelazny. After much patient effort, the Hugo Awards, together with the SFWA (the Science Fiction Writers of America) were controlled by a small clique of like minded creatures loyal to Mr. Hayden.

Thereafter, the Hugo voters awarded awards to the Tor authors Mr. Hayden selected based on their political correctness, and expelled those whose politics the clique found not to their taste.

None of this was done on merit. Editors and writers in the field have been silence or shoved to the sidelines thanks to the action of the clique. I mention no names in public, but those in the field recall the various false accusations leveled against numbers of people, both working for Tor and outside.

So, in effect, the Hugo Award became the Tor Award. It was given, over and over again, to works of modest merit (such as REDSHIRTS by John Scalzi) or none at all (“The Ink Readers of Doi Saket” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt) or selected solely on the grounds of their promoting political correctness or sexual abnormalities (“The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu).

We know this pattern: we’ve seen it!

Every month, the cozy little clique of labels and “journalists” prances out a new favorite which they claim is new because it “breaks down boundaries,” which actually means that it is indie rock music with metal grafted on top. Metal-flavored rock, in other words. That means that it is not new, or breaking barriers, but in fact reverting to what existed before metal and what many of us came to metal to escape, i.e. endless droning self-drama victimhood songs by bored people who never found anything worth giving a damn about in life.

The real story at the Hugo Awards is that the voting was corrupt: SJW hipsters were buying votes in an attempt to block all non-SJW authors from receiving awards. The whole point of being an SJW is to have a personal army, so that if you want to show the world how important you are, you can summon a whole horde of internet people to come forth from their basements and inundate whatever target you have selected. Then, you alter it — just like the SJW invasion of metal turned it into indie rock — and declare that it has “changed,” even though what has really happened was an invasion from outside.

Even WIRED magazine, normally pro-SJW like most media, noticed the clash. Its story looked in-depth at the SJW passive-aggressive phenomenon, where SJWs style themselves as anti-racist and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of — you guessed it — being racist. WIRED pointed out the origins of the backlash against this:

But from the start, Correia had some serious complaints. He felt that the Hugos had become overly dominated by what he and others call “Social Justice Warriors,” who value politics over plot development. Particular targets of Puppy derision include two 2014 Hugo winners: John Chu’s short story, “The Water That Falls on You From Nowhere,” in which a gay man decides to come out to his traditional Chinese family after the world is beset by a new phenomenon: whenever a person lies, water inexplicably falls on them; and Ann Leckie’s debut novel Ancillary Justice, whose protagonists do not see gender. Leckie conveys this by using female pronouns throughout.

Correia’s New York Times best-selling book Warbound was up against Leckie’s novel at the 2014 Hugos. (He thinks he was a finalist because of an earlier Sad Puppies lobbying effort.) He and Torgersen, a 41-year-old chief warrant officer in the Army Reserve who took over the Sad Puppies campaign this year, told me they want sci-fi to be less preachy and more fun. Both bristle at assertions made in the blogosphere that they are racist, sexist homophobes.

In fact, their argument is actually pretty interesting. They say their beef is more class-based; Torgerson says his books are blue-collar speculative fiction. The Hugos, they say, are snobby and exclusionary, and too often ignore books that are merely popular, by conservative writers. The Sad Puppies have a name for those who oppose them: CHORFS, for “Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary Fanatics.”

In other words, on one hand there are affluent college-educated MFA-attending SJWs who want to write stories about “social justice” and have an audience buy them for that reason alone. On the other hand are more traditional writers, who may not have come from a privileged background and who mostly lack a political agenda, but are writing based on content alone, and push ideology and style to the side. Their sin, according to SJWs, is not that they oppose SJW, but that they fail to make it the centerpiece of all of their works.

A cynic might see this in simple economic terms. SJWs in metal and science fiction want a captive audience: if the book talks about “social justice,” buy it like housewives picking up the latest Barbara Kingsolver book because they feel too guilty not to, and therefore SJWs always have a job. The non-SJW writers compete with this, so the SJWs want to exclude them from the scene, just like they have waged war on non-political bands in metal, claiming that denial of “social justice” beliefs equals rejection of the validity of the underlying issues those SJW beliefs purport to discuss. In other words: there is only one right way to think about these topics, and if you do not join the bandwagon, you are literally Hitler.

As in science fiction, the problem created by SJWs is not right vs. left but all of us who want a healthy genre versus those who want to take it over and use it as a zombie bullhorn for their own propaganda. We resisted it with Christians, and with the far-right, and now we must resist it with SJWs, because once they take it over it will never recover. SJWs implement a type of “soft censorship” where if journalists, they refuse to mention non-SJW bands in a positive light, and mention the SJW bands ten times more. If labels, they sign only SJW bands. The fans buy only SJW-approved material. The result creates a market that replaces metal as a whole and crowds out the original fans and new fans, attracting — and allowing in — only fellow traveler zombies. That is our future if we do not fight SJWs like we did Christian metal and the far-right in the 1990s.

Tags: , , , ,

44 thoughts on “#metalgate: SJW hipsters will trash metal like they trashed the Hugo Awards”

  1. OliveFox says:

    When the science fiction community started accepting Neil Gaiman (who should have stuck with comic books) as one of their own, things started to get very pointless very fast. American Gods winning the Hugo in 02 was an attempt to justify the previous years Harry Potter win by giving it to a more “adult” version of badly executed pop-mythology. Then again maybe it was Phil Dick’s gnostic visions taken over by Hollywood that wrecked it all.

    What was the last great science fiction novel anyhow? Dune? Hyperion? Something by Stephenson? Gibson lost his luster awful quickly. Gotta be at least a FEW good ones from the 90s and 2000s, right?

    1. Good points. In the 1980s, the really cheesy “Fantasy” books merged with sci-fi to create a new genre where knights hopped out of spaceships and did battle in the name of New Age religions. I think it hit a nerve, which was the thought that history curves, and our future is our past, but it was so ham-handed and pulp that it drove everyone with a brain out of the genre. That laid the groundwork for today’s utter goo on the sci-fi shelf; Scalzi and Martin are the worst of it. You might note parallels between the more bro-core “death metal” of the late 1990s, merging into metalcore in the 00s, and finally today’s tek-deaf/metalcore which is basically failed rock music with metal + brown sugar flavoring adding.

      1. Daniel says:

        Star Wars started this trend.

    2. Gibson lost his luster awful quickly.

      Gibson provides an interesting case. He had one really good idea, which was a mostly commercial one. He made computer activity visible and anticipated the expansion of the internet. He hit his literary high with Pattern Recognition, which is the only book of his I keep beyond the first.

    3. Anon says:

      >When the science fiction community started accepting Neil Gaiman (who should have stuck with comic books) as one of their own, things started to get very pointless very fast.

      I don’t know if he is really that bad. I’ll admit that I’ve only readed his comics though.
      My main issue is that Neil actually respects to a good degree Freedom of Speech. I think we wouldn’t have problems if SJWs were actually like Neil.
      They aren’t.

      1. My main issue is that Neil actually respects to a good degree Freedom of Speech. I think we wouldn’t have problems if SJWs were actually like Neil.
        They aren’t.

        Exactly. But what is the difference between ideology and philosophy? Philosophy describes how things might work, ideology describes how things should work according to human emotions at their lowest point, which is scared and consequently selfish individuals in a crowd.

        Because ideologies are unstable, they inevitably lead to a need to exclude all other beliefs on the basis of non-compliance alone. This also proves their self-destruction, but people having emotional reactions no longer care about such practical things as avoiding the kaboom.

      2. OliveFox says:

        I honestly think he should have solely done children’s books/movies after he stopped doing comics (at least I think he stopped). He has talent for images and clearly has abundant knowledge of ancient mythologies. But his narrative structure is always the same, essentially some permutation of “Two Went to the Father” or “Lemmenkeinen (sp?)” set in some funky place.

  2. Metal Dude says:

    But Brett, wait a second… let’s not forget the Jews. SJWs and The Jew. There must be a connection that you’re missing to point out or, you don’t want to bring to the light. Why?

    SJWs are just copying the methods of The_Jews. They, the hipsters promote and consume their own kind of kosher-like culture. But, I think you’re clearly over reacting. SJWs don’t have an agenda of their own just like the Jews probably don’t either. The real problem is diversity itself, SJWs don’t believe in diversity of ideas just like the Jews don’t really believe in multi-racial breeding, at least for their own ethnicity. SJWs are drawn to their own group and clearly, just like the JEws, they’re are better educated than the average goyin.

    Just like the Jews, SJWs have risen to dominance because the rest of the groups have failed to assert such place for the survival of their own kind. Their weakness have paved the path for both The_Jew and the SJW to seize power.

    Now let’s be honest. Who wants a world without Jews? I don’t think anyone in the Western World would subscribe to that notion. Same with SJWs.

    1. The real problem is diversity itself, SJWs don’t believe in diversity of ideas just like the Jews don’t really believe in multi-racial breeding, at least for their own ethnicity.

      I realize your message may be designed to be merely provocative, but here’s (for me at least) food for thought: of course they do not want to abolish their own ethnic group. That’s self-preservation.

      The climate in Washington has turned ugly toward Israel and, I fear, Jews themselves. At first anti-Semitism disguises itself as an attack on The Rich™ who happen to be Jewish, then it targets the religion with the usual scorn for the outsiders and the odd appearance of their customs, and finally it becomes a desire to destroy Jews themselves. We have seen this happen in several dozen European, Middle Eastern and Asian nations, and even in America, there have been near-pogroms.

      I suggest we all reject this anti-Semitism, which is resentment of (1) perceived disproportionate Jewish success, and (2) Jewish self-preservation, by those who are working to destroy themselves. When Obama and the internet neo-Nazi whackjobs start saying the same thing, it is likely both have fallen prey to one of the oldest human failings, scapegoating. Even Leftist regimes like the Soviet Union went down this path, to their shame. Our civilization — which should also stop trying to destroy itself — should not make the same egregious mistake.

      1. Truth says:

        Much anti-Semitism results from the hypocrisy of modern Zionism. They were given land in the Middle East due to the actions of the Nazis who wanted lebensraum for the master race. Now the Israeli settlers want land to live on as they believe they are God’s chosen people and he gave them that land thousands of years ago. This is whiny hypocrisy even to the “Vae victis” social Darwinists. The Palestinian response generally is “They conquered our land two generations ago so we blew up a bus and they shot us! Shooting us for blowing up a bus is unacceptable!” instead of pointing this out.

        The condescension toward gentiles of some Jews, facial phenotypes that can only become prominent in a population through inbeeding, and the isolation of the ultra-Orthodox are legitimate points of criticism too. All make Jews easy scapegoats for the far right and dictatorial regimes like Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany, the USSR, Iran, and modern Muslim countries.

      2. Chris says:

        “When Obama and the internet neo-Nazi whackjobs start saying the same thing, it is likely both have fallen prey to one of the oldest human failings, scapegoating”.

        Ha! Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-ZX5V4Qft4

        1. The actual “horseshoe effect” is not ideological, but behavioral.

    2. Meek Metalhead says:

      “Jews don’t really believe in multi-racial breeding, at least for their own ethnicity.”

      You sure about that?

      https://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/china/jew-mix-strategy.htm

      1. Ol´ Timer says:

        @ Meek Metalhead

        Yeah that is well known about Jewish demeanor. It is even written and developed in “Mein Kampf”.
        Just checkit out yourself.

        Overall, that doesn’t change their preservationist tradition. If they are picking up a few alien genes here and there from the elites for estrategic positioning then, kudos to them! They know their game, and they are the best on the Earth at it. With time, their ethnicity “cleans up and erase” those traces. What will kill the Jews however, is leftist multiculturalism since very few of them even associate Judaism with their religious texts and preservation notions. Leftism is their new God anyway. They just don’t know it yet. Nuclear warheads shouldn’t be their main concern.

        Another true fact: most Jewish people I know that are really into metal dislike Malevolent Creation. Coincidence? Some non-Jew non-leftist metal writers won’t review them, even if they thoroughly enjoy the Ten Commandments.

      2. NS says:

        When you see a website like “Radio Islam”, you know you’re only getting the most objective, unbiased news about Jews possible.

    3. Harvey Metalstein says:

      You’re filthy, you’re loud, you’re an SJW – these are justifiable criticisms because they attack your choices, what you do or believe. Being Jewish or gay or black is not a choice and doesn’t obligate you to any beliefs – which is where your analogy fails.

      But I’m sure you don’t see it that way. Those like you tend to characterize all blacks, for example, similarly – all women similarly – how else could you claim to know what’s best for all of them? Thoughtful people define others by their thoughts – racists define them by genetics.

      1. Oozing with emotion and AIDS says:

        Thats very SJW of you.

  3. Metal Dude says:

    Also Brett, your belittling of Malevolent Creation always struck me as a reflection of your inner Jew.

    1. I thoroughly enjoy The Ten Commandments.

  4. Vae Victis says:

    An interesting article on one particularly waspish SJW who is somewhat involved in literature.

    What is of particular interest is the amount of self loathing this SJW appears to have, as evidenced by the number of attacks on people of her own race and gender. Does the group think that self loathing a trait exhibited by many SJWs? This inability to come to terms with their own ethnicity/gender/class is frequently rather amusing.

    http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/

    1. Vae Victis says:

      One thing has always puzzled me about the SJW sphere: Why do they let everything little thing scare the shit out of them? Why are they so spineless?

      It is highly likely the non-SJWs amoung us have been targets of abuse or attempted abuse online at some time or other simply because we use the internet. And yet many millions of us shrug off negative behaviour without crying and whining about it. What is different about these special snowflakes that renders them so vulnerable to insulting and threatening behaviour?

      1. Ara says:

        It’s because their perspective is individualism in the guise of altruistic cross-bearing for all of humanity. Spinning the perspective to make it about the greater good makes it an infallible idea because it is to them a no brainier of a choice since it is one that is supposed to champion caring for people, which sure, sounds good on paper, but they are forced to be defensive when challenged because an attack on it both negates the idea of forced pity while exposing a self-serving agenda.

        1. It’s because their perspective is individualism in the guise of altruistic cross-bearing for all of humanity. Spinning the perspective to make it about the greater good makes it an infallible idea because it is to them a no brainier of a choice since it is one that is supposed to champion caring for people, which sure, sounds good on paper, but they are forced to be defensive when challenged because an attack on it both negates the idea of forced pity while exposing a self-serving agenda.

          Excellent analysis and very concise too.

          1. Ara says:

            Another aspect is that nowadays people can’t handle not being agreed with. The internet gets people at their most irrational since everyone posts their thoughts immediately before processing an opposing rationale. Young people are spoiled and don’t understand that life isn’t fair, and they are so ego driven that they think they alone can change the world, but not because they want to do it for the better on the whole but because current constructs offend their set-in-stone ways of thinking and once again the self obscures the whole.

            1. The “self obscures the whole” effect was in part what drove me to Hinduism. Unlike Buddhism, it does not make war against the self, but describes it as a process of a physicality and thus displaces self-identity from self-exclusively. Smart, those ancient Hindus (and many of today’s as well).

              1. Ara says:

                There’s often times when I have a lot to say (obviously). A lot of the time however I look at any utterance as a means to stroke my own ego and wonder if I would be best off not speaking at all, ever. The nature of argument is never to learn another perspective but to see who talks the loudest and wins. Asking anyone about their day to feign concern is really a means to be the shoulder to cry on to enable manipulation later. The desire for validation undermines every spoken word, and this is why the Internet is pure cancer and plays into the SJW ideology perfectly. Emotional instant responses negate rationality while calling for approval of others, and the resulting mob mentality enforces the idea that other perspectives are wrong, and the individual feeds the mob and the mob feeds the individual in an endless dick stroking ouroboros purely rooted in ego. Every post on the Internet is an ego stroke in the guise of education or catharsis, even this one.

                I disgust myself.

                1. Every post on the Internet is an ego stroke in the guise of education or catharsis, even this one.

                  I like Tom Wolfe’s take on it: we raise our status by giving information to others.

                  I’ve found that everybody, including myself, has information compulsion. That is, if you know something somebody else doesn’t know and they want to know it, you get a little status kick just by telling them. You know, you’re on the street and a car stops, and says, “How do you get to such-and-such a place?” If you know, “Oh, you go down here, and you take a U-turn and you go to the second stoplight…” — and you really feel good after you do it.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAKtP9f0qmU

                  This includes the joy of knowing itself and the joy of being accurate. I suppose status has both internal and external properties: status as in how we consider ourselves, and status as in how we believe we appear to rank in a social setting.

                2. Doug Killjoy says:

                  I didn’t get the memo about self censorship. Didn’t overcontemplation bring us the Black Album and not giving a shit bring us the Lamborghini Venono? I could see a surgical writer like Brett wanting to temper himself a bit if for no other reason than to avoid the burnout so many internet writing ventures have experienced. But you’re obviously a very smart guy so if you’re only writing/commenting in your spare time then say what you’ve got to say vigorously and don’t look for a reason to censor, I say, since insight is such a hot commodity right now and you may occasionally provide useful info for someone even smarter than you.

                  Writing demystifies anonymity and shows the world your “face” in the same way driving behavior does. Vigorous writing should only increase your appeal to those who don’t have some kind of weird hangup about such prose. And as long as the author has sufficiently established a minimal level of competence, the occasional turd will likely be forgiven.

                  1. Writing demystifies anonymity and shows the world your “face” in the same way driving behavior does.

                    That’s a wonderful insight and very true.

                    Adding to what you have written above, perhaps, I might opine that writing is the tactic of thinking. The thinking must happen first. Some good thinking going on in these comments over the last 48.

                    Where discipline seems most important to me is in thinking, and too many writers do not extend this into their craft, being naturally talented and thus able to make instructions for boiling lawn clippings into an interesting read. Truth must be found and spread to those who can receive it. The best writers win us over with their insightful observations.

              2. Daniel says:

                I wouldn’t defend Hinduism too much. The passivity, nutritionally-deficient diets, inbreeding, and casting large portions of the population as subhuman are all indefensible.

                1. Nicholas says:

                  Regarding diet, I assume that you possess some information about the subject to have made your assertion, but the following article has led me to the conclusion that the ideal diet for Hindus is in fact quite nutritious: http://www.yogachicago.com/jan05/diet.shtml. Do you mind elaborating on your comment?

                  1. Daniel says:

                    Most Indians eat a caloric or nutritionally deficient diet: The lower castes (classes) eat a traditional peasant diet of grains and pulses with supplemental vegatables and protein; the upper castes eat a nutritionally deficient (in protein and essential nutrients), ridiculous high in saturated fat diet. The impoverished cannot obtain enough calories while the upper castes refuse to eat foods containing essential macronutrients. The majority of the population is either malnourished or overweight. Even rich children are undergrown. All of this is religiously enforced along with the belief that sugar is healthy and holy.

                    Inbreeding is more regional than religious. The majority (70%) of Muslims from Northwest India and the non tribal regions of Pakistan are ridiculously inbred. Half of all Middle Easterners are dangerously inbred. Southern Indians of all religions too. Other South Asians such as Bengalis tend not to be. Pakistanis account for the majority of birth defects in the UK and Muslims account for the majority of mentally handicapped children in Sweden. This is almost entirely due to consanguineous reproduction.

                    1. Nicholas says:

                      I appreciate your elaboration, thanks.

                    2. disremember says:

                      Dear David,
                      India is not easy to pigeon hole…
                      Not all are vegetarian,in breeding and passive like cows…
                      There are many different type of cultures,tribes, hinduism and you simply cant pigeon hole them as much as you want them..
                      Deep in the rural south we slaughter goats and we eat them good wasting no bits..
                      there are some very ancient traditional rituals which requires drinking raw blood straight from a decapitated goats head.. not for the fainted hearted…
                      Its raw, brutal and real!
                      just 2 weeks ago I just helped out serving to around 200-300 hindus cooked slaughtered goat meat curried food
                      an annual prayer done on the darkest night…
                      So please dont generalize…

  5. QQ says:

    While the Hugo wasn’t without problems, the current debacle only really began when the Sad Puppies started to be a kind of SJW-clique of their own.

    And as for whining about the current state of SF… Well, how much up to date are you?

    There’s excellent recent stuff: Kim Stanley Robinsons’ 2321 and his latests, Aurora, are both novels up there with the greats. Also, the Hugo winner of this year, The Three Body Problem, is really good and deserves the award. Banks died a few years ago, but he wrote some classics in the decade before his passing, just as The Revelation Space trilogy of Reynolds is better than most old SF. Stephenson’s SF novel that appeared a few months ago, Seveneves, is good, and his major SF book before that, Anathem, is a classic too. I dunno, how many good books must a period generate? Most SF from the 50ies-80ies sucks balls too.

    1. While the Hugo wasn’t without problems, the current debacle only really began when the Sad Puppies started to be a kind of SJW-clique of their own.

      That’s obviously not true as shown by the order of events. They were a reaction to the existing clique, and otherwise had no reason to create one of their own.

    2. OliveFox says:

      If you stack up the quantity of output in any era I would imagine 90 – 95 percent of it is shite. But the best of 50’s and 60’s have much more lasting endurance, effect and legacy. I suppose it isn’t entirely fair to compare established classics to newer works that haven’t had the time to become either forgotten or canonized…but I certainly can’t see something like Among Others ever having the same value 50 years from now as Foundation.

      To your point, I cannot really comment on anything in the last 15 years with any great knowledge as I lost interest in the genre as a whole (outside of some Simmons and Stephenson), so I am being a bit of a blowhard. I am willing to be proven wrong (would that I was!), though I highly doubt I would be given the literary trends of the last decade.

      1. QQ says:

        I agree that Foundation 1-5 and Dune 1-6 probably won’t be surpassed ever. Both authors had the advantage of operating in a fairly new set of conditions, and such a context can’t be revived. Then again, most of Asimov’s other works don’t pass the test of time.

        1. Both authors had the advantage of operating in a fairly new set of conditions, and such a context can’t be revived.

          Horse shit. The same context exists for those willing to push their minds to enough levels of analysis to see it, even today.

          What made Mary Shelley, H.G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ray Bradbury, Orson Scott Card, Aldous Huxley and others stand out in sci-fi was their ability to expand our knowledge of what the future might be and the challenges it would hold.

          Modern speculative fiction, and almost all sci-fi, does nothing of the sort. It creates a neat little world and puts a sitcom or action movie into it. Witness Game of Thrones (or rather, please don’t subject yourself to that greebo nonsense).

      2. But the best of 50’s and 60’s have much more lasting endurance, effect and legacy.

        Those books contain better writing and better thinking.

        Looking at this objectively: what books from our current time are as good as the classics?

        If people cannot come up with some quality books without making excuses and ideological statements, the answer is none and the problem is a quality problem, not a living-in-the-wrong-year problem.

        This is why your viewpoint is correct on this issue, which is that modern stuff is not bad because it is recent, but because it sucks.

  6. david says:

    necrophagist is indie rock wtf are you smoking??

    1. Daniel says:

      Necrofagist is random autistic Shrapnel shred wank + broootal death metal riffs arranged in a random post-hardcore, math rock fashion. Basically it fucking sucks.

  7. Nicholas says:

    Re: Ara “A lot of the time however I look at any utterance as a means to stroke my own ego and wonder if I would be best off not speaking at all, ever.”

    I have very often felt the way that you describe. Permanent silence is one solution, and restrained speech is another. I have found that a good rule is “speak of the truth, or hold noble silence,” though maintaining this is not exactly easy. I can distinguish fairly easily between a desire to speak that is rooted in selfish satisfaction and a desire to speak that is rooted in utility, but when I get “carried away” and I am unaware of my thoughts and speech in the moment is when I say regrettable things. Furthermore, saying what is “right” is not always easy, nor is it always socially acceptable.

    Please feel no pressure to read the page linked below, but contained within are some excerpts from the canonical texts of Buddhism pertaining to so-called “right speech”. Perhaps you will find something of value in them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/

    1. Ara says:

      I especially like the criteria for what is worth saying. SJWs have this part all out of whack.

Comments are closed.

Classic reviews:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z