User Tag List

First 91718192021 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 228

  1. #181
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    I find that most "art house" films are hopelessly mainstream. I honestly hear more about films by Darren Aronofsky on both the internet and in real life than anything else. Most of these films are, at heart, just as much pointless visual orgasms as the critically panned big budget action/science fiction movies with 2,000 plus visual effects shots and pyrotechnics. I don't see this as degenerative or progressive. Just entertaining, and perhaps, in some ways, inspirational to the viewers. For example, if it weren't for films like Star Wars, Jurassic Park, or Indiana Jones, I would've had no interest in filmmaking. I would hardly consider that degenerative.

    I find that movies that revolve around people over special effects are far more degenerative, case in point the Twilight movies, which have an amazing ability to brainwash its target audience into making them think they have to be a certain way. But that doesn't mean they're all like that. And more likely, it's just the impressionable target audience rather than the movie itself.

    But to answer the question, does mainstream = bad? No. Mainstream = neutral, and it all depends on what you do with it and how you view it. But I think it's absolutely pretentious and absurd to think that anything popular is the devil.



    PS: I'm sorry if my writing isn't concise enough, I'm sorta drunk. And I might consider expanding my thoughts later.

  2. #182
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Wow, this thread is huge! Others have probably already covered the sentiments I'm about to express; apologies if I duplicate something.

    I definitely do not think that mainstream=bad. Nor does mainstream=good. I would say that personally, I find most mainstream music unappealing, but there are several artists (such as Matchbox 20, Linkin Park, Adele, and the Decembrists) who seem to me to be quite talented, and seem to suffer the derision of music snobs simply because they are popular.

    I shouldn't be one to talk, because generally I find the general (US, at least) public's taste to be appalling, and I do sometimes take pleasure in disdaining one thing or another because "everyone else" likes it. But I am willing to be proven wrong; this is what happened with the Harry Potter series. I resisted reading the books for a long time because I thought they were just popular and must likely not well-written. Then one day, I picked one up out of boredom, and realized I had indeed been wrong about Jo Rowling-- girl can write!!
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  3. #183
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Actually, the assertion is not from me, but from socialists who took pride in the 70s that "France was an efficient USSR". Then the system shown gradually his failures through the decades, and libertarians took the socialist's assertion -not seriously but ironically and sardonically- to answer that France was simply an "USSR who has'nt collapsed yet", and not an efficient USSR.
    So some self-described socialists claimed that back then, and they spoke poorly I think. It does not mean they are correct. If you attack all people advocating "socialism" (or the extremely broad range of policies that you inaccurately group together as socialism) based on what those people said, that would be a kind of straw man argument, which is of course a fallacy. If you took what they said to be right just because they are self-proclaimed socialists, that would be a sort of perverted form of appeal to authority. It doesn't work either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    If France is not as rude as the true USSR, it's due to the rest of social and economic freedom in this country, not to socialism.
    Or, it's entirely possible that those things can co-exist and that's all France indicates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Actually, pointing that the true USSR was more rude, you show than even more socialism make things even worse, and actually make my point.
    This would only make sense if all politics could accurately be described as linear, which of course they cannot. The difference between France and the USSR may be due to variables other than how far left or right they stand on some so-called capitalist/socialist axis. Maybe, for example, the main difference between France and the USSR is the role of democracy, and maybe that has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

    But even if this unrealistic thinking were realistic, it still wouldn't prove your point because it wouldn't discount a golden mean. Maybe France is been than the USSR because the USSR was too extreme and France is closer to the mean, which would then mean that if a country go significantly less socialist than France, perhaps it would become to extreme to the other side, moving away from the golden mean again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    That's what socialists, original authors of the comparaison between USSR and France did'nt understand. They did'nt realized that the immense amount of wealth available for the french welfare state was not an accident but due to the relative persitence of capitalism and economic freedom in this country. Socialism does'nt create any wealth and to distribute wealth, you must create it before. A basic truth that socialist always forget.
    Could you define what creating wealth actually means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Of course, the weight of the sate in the 70s was nothing compared to what it is currently. No wonder that the economy was more prosperous then.
    Look at the global historical trend. Societies have healthier, less violent, and more technologically advanced, and I presume by whatever definition you give me they have become wealthier, too. Now also observe that unbroken trend that the rule of government has grown wider and deeper across the world this entire time. The correlation is the opposite of what you'd predict.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #184
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    So some self-described socialists claimed that back then, and they spoke poorly I think. It does not mean they are correct. If you attack all people advocating "socialism" (or the extremely broad range of policies that you inaccurately group together as socialism) based on what those people said, that would be a kind of straw man argument, which is of course a fallacy. If you took what they said to be right just because they are self-proclaimed socialists, that would be a sort of perverted form of appeal to authority. It doesn't work either way.

    Tssk, tssk.

    Theses dudes were not more "self-proclaimed" socialist than you, actually, it was a global agree in the french left, that did'nt come from some people specifically. And you must assume what people in you camp say. Especially if we consider that socialist compared France to URSS because they underestimate the severity or the situation, or conciously lied about it. I never took what they say as right, it was ironic, but you should relax your anus and stop to be an uptight socialist to really understand it.



    Or, it's entirely possible that those things can co-exist and that's all France indicates.
    No. There's not any year where France is not less free than the year before. Placing equality before freedom, socialist is driven by nature to eliminate freedom.


    This would only make sense if all politics could accurately be described as linear, which of course they cannot. The difference between France and the USSR may be due to variables other than how far left or right they stand on some so-called capitalist/socialist axis. Maybe, for example, the main difference between France and the USSR is the role of democracy, and maybe that has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

    Democracy matters only when the elected leaders preserve capitalism and freedom. Not if they use their power to control economy and society. And the more the country is socialist, the more they control it and the worse the situation is.

    But even if this unrealistic thinking were realistic, it still wouldn't prove your point because it wouldn't discount a golden mean. Maybe France is been than the USSR because the USSR was too extreme and France is closer to the mean, which would then mean that if a country go significantly less socialist than France, perhaps it would become to extreme to the other side, moving away from the golden mean again.
    As I ever said, the weight of the state was extremely lower in the 70s than today, and it's correlated with an higer prosperity and an almost inexistent unemployment. You're wrong.

    Could you define what creating wealth actually means?
    Proof that socialist don't understand anything about economy.


    Look at the global historical trend. Societies have healthier, less violent, and more technologically advanced,


    You ignorance is clearly blatant. Did'nt you know that the level of insecurity, unemployement and poverty in France had exploded in the 80s and that it's correlated with the burst of socialism? More techologically advanced? Yes, there's flat screen, computer, I-phone and I-pod, but that does'nt mean that the global quality of life is better, and France knew theses technologic advanced with a significant retard in comparaison with less socialist country.


    Now also observe that unbroken trend that the rule of government has grown wider and deeper across the world this entire time. The correlation is the opposite of what you'd predict.
    Hem. The almost constant growth of the state's weight have'nt done anything postitive, just muffled the economy and society and ancouraged irresponsibles behaviors.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  5. #185
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    OK, let me phrase it in a different way...

    If mainstream stuff largely legitimizes the status quo and the "power structures" of society, does that mean that liking it makes you a supporter of "the system"?

    (Can you tell I'm studying culture at my university? )

  6. #186
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    OK, let me phrase it in a different way...

    If mainstream stuff largely legitimizes the status quo and the "power structures" of society, does that mean that liking it makes you a supporter of "the system"?

    (Can you tell I'm studying culture at my university? )
    Yes.

    Think of the computer. If it wasn't supported by the mainstream, it would not have developed this far. We wouldn't have a home computer. We would not have the internet. I'd certainly say I would not be typing to you.

  7. #187
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Rave View Post
    Yes.
    To which question? The main one, or the one in parentheses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Rave View Post
    Think of the computer. If it wasn't supported by the mainstream, it would not have developed this far. We wouldn't have a home computer. We would not have the internet. I'd certainly say I would not be typing to you.
    Does that mean I need to leave TypoC to be a good person? But I don't want to choose between talking to you guys and not oppressing third world countries!

  8. #188
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viridian View Post
    To which question? The main one, or the one in parentheses?



    Does that mean I need to leave TypoC to be a good person? But I don't want to choose between talking to you guys and not oppressing third world countries!
    Yes, as in it is a supporter of the system.

    If you didn't support the computer, you wouldn't be using it right now... would you?

  9. #189
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Tssk, tssk.

    Theses dudes were not more "self-proclaimed" socialist than you, actually, it was a global agree in the french left, that did'nt come from some people specifically. And you must assume what people in you camp say.
    No, you don't. In fact, logically, you shouldn't. You don't assign people to camps and then just take their word on whatever they say about the constituents of whatever supposed camp you assigned them to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Especially if we consider that socialist compared France to URSS because they underestimate the severity or the situation, or conciously lied about it. I never took what they say as right, it was ironic, but you should relax your anus and stop to be an uptight socialist to really understand it.
    I understand what you said. The error I highlighted in it still stands. You have not addressed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    No. There's not any year where France is not less free than the year before. Placing equality before freedom, socialist is driven by nature to eliminate freedom.
    I'm trying to figure out how that's an answer to what I just said.

    Anyway, I'll point out that in the first world many, actually nearly all of them are considered by most standards to have more socialistic economic policies than the USA. However, many of them also have healthier and more robust democracies, less censorship, more lax laws regarding drugs and sex, etc... That would seem you at least partially contradict your supposed correlation between socialism and a lack of freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Democracy matters only when the elected leaders preserve capitalism and freedom. Not if they use their power to control economy and society. And the more the country is socialist, the more they control it and the worse the situation is.
    You missed the point entirely. This was not intended to invite a discussion of the flaws and merits of democracy, I was merely submitting democracy as an example of a possible additional factor. The point was that there is more to a country than just being more or less socialist. That is ridiculously over-simplified. Democracy is one of innumerable other factors that could be involved in the prosperity of a nation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    As I ever said, the weight of the state was extremely lower in the 70s than today, and it's correlated with an higer prosperity and an almost inexistent unemployment. You're wrong.
    But even France today is better than the USSR, right? That also doesn't actually show that the golden mean isn't true. Would you say France in the 70s was less socialist than contemporary USA?

    And I'm baffled because I'm pretty sure that by a good lot of measures France is doing better compared to the USA now than it was in the 70s.

    And while I know the CIA may not be the most sagely commentator on this, here's the very first thing the their page says on France's economy.

    France is in the midst of transition from a well-to-do modern economy that has featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms. The government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks, and insurers, and has ceded stakes in such leading firms as Air France, France Telecom, Renault, and Thales.
    That would be the exact opposite of what you claim is going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Proof that socialist don't understand anything about economy.
    It is not a clear term, practically nothing is. By academic standards that is a term you would have to define. That I want to know what you mean does not prove that I don't understand or believe what you mean. It's not possible to tell those things if I don't know what you mean in the first place, and I feel it would be a waste of time for me to start guessing several different things you could mean by "creating wealth" because there are several different things people tend to mean by that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post


    You ignorance is clearly blatant. Did'nt you know that the level of insecurity, unemployement and poverty in France had exploded in the 80s and that it's correlated with the burst of socialism? More techologically advanced? Yes, there's flat screen, computer, I-phone and I-pod, but that does'nt mean that the global quality of life is better, and France knew theses technologic advanced with a significant retard in comparaison with less socialist country.
    I would point again to the above quote, but that's besides. I just made a comment about the entire world over the span of hundreds if not thousands of years, and you countered me with something about France since the 80s. Obviously you are giving me too small a sample to be relevant. Do you know what a trend is? Like, if there's a 20 year downward trend, the trend line may go up and down throughout those 20 years but still ultimately decline overall between the start and end of those 20 years. If you can understand that, you can understand why your reference is too trivial to counter my point very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Hem. The almost constant growth of the state's weight have'nt done anything postitive, just muffled the economy and society and ancouraged irresponsibles behaviors.
    Then why oh why has the global historical trend manage to completely contradict that?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #190
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazashin View Post
    I personally don't care if I get a message or not. I listen to music for the way it sounds, most of the time.
    Mostly true for me as well. A good message is a nice plus but not a necessity. I'd rather listen to something that sounds great but lacks a real message than the reverse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazashin View Post
    Now see, I do enjoy to listening to a good bit of mainstream music, but I f*cking HATE when people think I am pathetic because of that. I've chosen not to share my true music interests with anyone who isn't a close friend, and even then, it's iffy. My music taste is one of the things I'm most self-conscious about. I admit, sometimes when someone asks me what I like to listen to, I lie.
    Yeah same here. It would be nice if people weren't so judgemental or snobbish. I won't always tell people what I'm really into and this extends outside of music as well. I don't want people to get a wrong impression of me. Especially if they don't know me that well. I probably worry too much about this though. I've had times where I've wished that some of my tastes in things were more sophisticated and profound. But then I realized that thinking that way is just silly. What's wrong with liking something simply because it makes you happy or it somehow strikes a chord in you? It's not harming anyone else. I'd rather be the person who derives joy from many different things in life even if they are rather simple and unsophisticated than someone with supposedly "good taste" who is rather cynical and hard to satisfy.


    Anyway, some of my own thoughts regarding this thread:

    Possibly my two biggest pet peeves are:

    1. People who like things just because they are popular.

    2. People who dismiss things just because they are popular.

    People should just like what they like and not have to feel either superior or ashamed for it. People shouldn't read so much into it. Sometimes people just want something that makes them happy and they don't need everything to have a profound meaning. It doesn't make them stupid. They're only stupid if they are basing their own likes or dislikes based on popularity as in points 1 and 2 above.

    Also just like the video someone put up earlier in the thread, it's okay to dislike something popular. Just don't be a douchebag about it.






    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    A new criteria for the every expanding definition of progressive, perhaps?

    Doesn't like Ace of Bass = progressive.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




Similar Threads

  1. Does this movie intrigue fellow INXPers?
    By princesssockhead in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 12:57 AM
  2. Bad day - bad bad day.
    By Park in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 12:37 AM
  3. Does Eraserhead need a mastectomy?
    By Martoon in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 09:18 AM
  4. Bad Decisions
    By labyrinthine in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-11-2007, 05:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO