Well this site is wrong as well. To tell the truth, this site is crappy as hell. Bruckner was Hitler's favorite composer. Hitler didn't like in fact Wagner's music (it was rather Goebbels's idea), but the Nazis tolerated it and used it for propaganda because Wagner had been known to be a rather violent antisemite himself.
And many, many other details you should have known should you have read true books.
Next time, I'll advise you to read a true historian, or the work of a true intellectual, and not the first lousy internet site full of half-digested clichés..
"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire
"Avant-garde (from French, "advance guard" or "vanguard") refers to people or works that are experimental or innovative, particularly with respect to art, culture, and politics.
The term avant-garde refers to a pushing of the boundaries of what is accepted as the norm or the status quo, primarily in the cultural realm. The notion of the avant-garde is considered by some to be a hallmark of modernism, as distinct from postmodernism. Many artists have aligned themselves with the avant-garde movement and still continue to do so, tracing a history from Dada through the Situationists to postmodern artists such as the Language poets around 1981."
"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire
Well this site is wrong as well. To tell the truth, this site is crappy as hell. Bruckner was Hitler's favorite composer. Hitler didn't like in fact Wagner's music, but the Nazis tolerated it because Wagner had been known to be a rather violent antisemite himself.
And many, many other details you should have know should you have read true books.
Like? You can even give just one book. I've read the Illiad, I'm sure I can check out whatever you mention.
Wagner, at any rate, certainly believed in the idea of low culture vs. high culture.
I don't think Mole is talking about avant-garde. Mole is talking about high culture, which is a different concept in my mind. The Nazis were opposed to avant-garde. The assertion that they were opposed to high culture, as well, is a new one that I have not heard before. It contradicts much of my existing understanding, so to reconcile the two, I'll need more information than you have, at present, given me.
The Nazis were opposed to avant-garde. The assertion that they were opposed to high culture, as well, is a new one that I have not heard before. It contradicts much of my existing understanding, so to reconcile the two, I'll need more information than you have, at present, given me.
During the Nazi regime, the German artistic production was virtually destroyed in favor of propaganda and folk/popular culture only. Blut und Boden ideology: Blood and Soil!
Architecture monuments that looked too foreign or too "international" were destroyed. Books were burned. Even some Classic Gardens were destroyed, especially when they contained too many "exotic species"!
Stalin did the same in Russia.
And the Talibans did the same too in Afghanistan.
During their reigns, one of their first tasks was to totally wipe out high culture, to make it illegal.
Last edited by Blackmail!; 10-08-2013 at 01:10 PM.
"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire
Quite relieving since you've made it painfully obvious how immature, bullheaded, and hypocritical you are.
It is clear who you are now, if only I could remember his/her name.
Probably an unhealthy 5 -- he/she was INTP -- gets off on convincing self that others are "responding emotionally" -- argumentative -- but doesn't actually engage with what was said -- it's all there (ha, now that I remember, he/she even ha the pot/kettle metaphor as his/her profile image -- typical
I have never posted on this forum until recently. This is my first account. Whoever you think I may be, you are mistaken. The dramatic irony of your statements is almost too much to bear. I see that you've also attempted, once again, to pin down my MBTI and have failed to do so. Perhaps you should just stop guessing? My icon as well as my personality type are detours from the subject at hand. However, I am quite curious to see a teapot that is completely round and levitates. It must be a marvel of modern science.
Jokes aside though, what you said seems a bit terrifying because the person that I suddenly remind you of, probably doesn't exist. All I have is your word and some completely irrelevant anecdotes. 'Ugh, they called me out for biting their head off for absolutely no reason... I guess I better make up an imaginary person to be mad at...' Truly terrifying.
Aren't you awesome Mister Enneagram 5?
Look how calm and dispassionate you are.
Others are clearly your inferior.
One, I'm female. Two, I don't use my personality types to rigidly define who I am, nor do I use it to put myself above anyone else.
To me, they are more of a guideline than the absolute rule.
To use them as a tool to feel someone out is one thing.
To use them in such a way as to think that you know exactly how a specific person thinks and feels
and that only your view or, perhaps your own projection on such outlines that make up something as
complicated and deep as someone's personality is very, very telling MBTI or no.
(nevermind the fact that you're projecting what's not actually there, and unable to actually deal with the objective points that are raised)
(really don't need to deal with a self-described shut-in incapable of getting outside his own head -- have better things to do)
I really appreciate the fact that you are emphasizing my points for me. It saves me a lot of time. And since you seem to be have a problem with black and white thinking, shut indoors and shut inside one's own mind are not the same at all. And again, this is coming from the same person who was infuriated that I would ever imply that I knew anything about them and their own life.
Yes, well, since you first responded to me, in response to something asked of someone else, and I never responded to you, nor had any intention of doing so, it's not really on me to have read your posts beforehand, whereas it is on you to have done so to me. See the principle? If you're going to pick a fight, then actually have done the homework. If a fight is picked with you, and especially by someone who did so without having first done their homework on you, then there is certainly no onus on you to suddenly do it on them.
A topic is raised, someone raises counter arguments but you are 'too good' to respond to such a low ranking poster? Interesting. I would think that you would be aware that this forum is not private and anyone who registers can respond. I happened to come in and leave some input so I don't know why my one post would have a deteriorated value just because I'm a new member. Your own hurt feelings are not my concern, problem, or intention. I was merely responding to the thread and the most recent posts and quite calmly too, I might add. How that's 'picking a fight' with you is beyond me. However, you've made your stance quite clear. I was wondering if you were going to say anything of real value in the entirety of this response but, I was doomed to be disappointed.
It's actually very distinct.
Some people have that knowledge, some do not.
Some people also have different value systems / senses of morality. That was all I was trying to say.
I wonder what it's like to think so absolutely about something? To never be willing to ponder all sides of an issue but instead just resorting to insults and blocking out what you don't want to hear? I'm just going to go out on a limb and figure that you are either very young, very old, very close-minded, or a combination. And yes I am actually projecting there in particular based off of my own experiences. I, however, will not have a conniption if I turn out to be incorrect. About your age. Not the other things. You make the other things painfully clear.
I just chose to address the general category of people, not the specific individuals who fit under that category.
You completely ignored my question, yeah, I can see that.
Holier and more pompous than naming yourself "Holy" and calling yourself a "PURE" type?
Ahahaha. I knew you were going to bring that up. 'Holy' is a spell in a series of Japanese Role Playing Games called Final Fantasy.
The MBTI I chose was just a play off of that reference. Pretty mundane if you ask me. And since you make hints later that you've read my introduction thread I really do wonder how it was so difficult to deduce considering the title of said thread, but I also know and can actually accept that not everyone has the same interests that I do.
Watch our for that pot/kettle metaphor that you seem hell bent on using, seeing as how aptly it fits you; one might come to reason that your tendency is to go around wielding it, precisely because it's so true of you (albeit unconsciously).
I really really need to get my hands on those blinders of yours. They are beyond perfect.
We're on a typology website, you don't have your type listed, and type affects why and how we perceive and judge things.
Pretty relevant, on many counts, actually.
Relevant to the purpose of the site, but not to topic at hand, I'm afraid.
No, again, you cannot.
Based on the principle, and an understandable one, laid out above.
Anything less would be uncivilized (i.e., expecting something of me that you did not do yourself, when you were the one who initiated).
I...was pretty calm. Whatever slights you have perceived from me are either overblown, or purely imaginary.
Believe it or not, while I understand that in your unhealthy enneagram 5 mind this makes you feel superior, it's actually a completely reasonable response to get pissed off when someone who you have not said a word to, unprovoked, comes out of nowhere and calls you a hypocrite, falsely, based on a blatant and demonstrable misreading of what you've said.
If you had such faith in your stance to begin with...I really don't understand why you would become so offended. And initially, I didn't call you anything. Again, you have made it incredibly clear exactly what you are with your own responses. It's quite easily inferred based off of your own tone and (ridiculously unwarranted) vehemence.
In such a case, I don't feel the need treat such a person civilly, as the very first interaction that they initiated was uncivil.
In other words, go **** yourself.
You started this, and not only did you start it, but you can't even keep up with the logical arguments that have been made, so don't fret that there's a fire in the back, when you can't even handle the logic that's up front.
Far be if from me to call you a near imperfect example of very dramatic irony.
I have responded completely appropriately to everything you have asked.
If you want an example of people who fall in the category of "people who know", then ask.
This is just getting cartoonish now.
Why are you so arrogant to think that I would even give a shit about getting your examination?
Believe it or not, your examination means absolutely nothing to me.
I was under the impression that people were debating and discussing their opinion on a subject.
I just wanted to know if your thinking was as extreme and one-dimensional as I initially thought.
It seems the answer is 'yes' as a whole but 'no' in regard to the point that you responded to.
I understand that 5s (and TPs) get off off on this kind of shit, thinking their analysis is the most paramount thing in the universe, but, believe it or not, it's not. And, not only that, but based on your clear inability to follow what I have said, and your lack of thoroughness in surveying the evidence that does exist, and your unprincipled behavior in expecting something of me that you did not do yourself, when you were the one who initiated with me, not I with you, I have little-to-no faith in your ability to actually be objective.
Ah!, the typing exercise again. To your credit, you at least guessed my E type.
clear inability to follow what I have said
What's juvenile is everything about your behavior that I just enumerated above.
Glossing, ignoring, down right conjuring, and don't forget insulting
And I'm the immature one here?
And never anywhere did I say that's what you said.
You used Lolita as an example to muddle the lines between high and low culture.
All I stated was that because there are some pieces that muddle the lines does not mean there's no such thing as high and low culture.
There are people who decide what is 'high' and what is 'low'. That was my main point of contention. I didn't say that there is no delineation. I merely questioned it. And not necessarily because I do not agree.
Learn to follow an argument.
So very dramatic.
Your projecting is getting more evident.
I think what's more evident is that it is not me who is doing the projecting.
Yes, apparently you missed out on that principle I laid out above.
If you're actually capable of understanding it, then I'm sorry to have ruined the humor for you.
I'm sure, as an unprincipled person to begin with, you can find some other strategy to make yourself feel significant, tho.
You mean like, 'winning' an 'argument' on an internet forum? It is absolutely unfeasible that there could ever possibly be a greater joy in life （；¬＿¬)
Good for him.
That's one specific group who he thinks falls under the general category I laid out.
It's an understandable one, and many would, and I might have, laid it out, if I'd wanted to be specific.
That being said, though, they probably would not have been my first.
Yes, it is quite good. It shows me who is actually civilized here.
If honest inquiries were what you'd actually offered, I would have had no problem answering them, and pleasantly so.
But honest inquiries were not what you offered, pot.
You glossed over my OP and then flew into a rage because you managed to conjure up the notion that I have grievously offended you.
This...is not my problem. I know it's unthinkable for you to comprehend but you are actually wrong about something: you were the one who started with the insults and you were the one who flew off handle and can't even manage to articulate your opinion without resorting to childish and insipid tactics. It's quite obvious that I have said nothing to warrant the kind of responses that you have given and it's clear to see who the truly cultured people in this thread are.
But see? I couldn't give two shits what you think about me.
I know who I am, and I already know that I am completely reasonable.
You, on the other hand, know nothing about me, and, as such, your opinions about me don't mean anything at all.
Again, I believe, that this is my line. It's great that I didn't come into this topic to implicitly discuss you though. I was merely responding the the points that were presented. I've noticed that everyone else in support of the high class argument manages to do so without foaming at the the mouth. A lesson that you should probably take up in my humblest of opinions.
Once again, your clearly demonstrated inability to follow an argument: "doesn't say anything about" does not equate to "equates to".
I suppose it should not be surprising that an art school drop out would make such a conflation, tho.
Oh, was that supposed to hurt my feelings? I'm absolutely shattered.
I have a degree in Rhetoric, so I really don't need it pointed out to me.
I got your joke, I just turned it around on you.
I wouldn't point that out to you if you didn't demonstrate that clearly it needed to be.
Once again: pot calling kettle.
Just, in this case, the pot's not even naming the right color.
'I knew what you meant I just decided to respond in a way that made you think that I didn't know what you meant because my college professors taught me that it's a really neat and handy trick! Just look at how clever I am! Look! Look! I have the propensity to insult and tout my so-called 'higher' education that somehow did not successfully teach me how to engage in debate or how to express myself in a fashion that could easily be attributed to someone of lesser education and intelligence as a whole!'. That Ivory Tower must serve you really well. Or...perhaps not.
Oh, you know sarcasm. How impressive.
Cartoonish, embarrassing, etc.
Once again, congratulations Mr. Unhealthy Enneagram 5 on maintaining that false sense of superiority.
Perhaps when you actually learn to deal with reality and the external world I will be able to give half a shit.
I had no idea you knew so much about me or any of my experiences. Especially when all you have for reference is my E type.
Please do continue though, I'm quite curious to see what someone who is trying to impress a level of omniscience tinged with pseudo-intellectualism will have to say about someone who is doing something far less offensive like 'exuding a sense of superiority'. But, of course, I am doing nothing of the sort: superiority and confidence are not the same thing. I would think someone as cultured as you would at least know that as well.
And that's what's known as a false attribution of intention.
It would seem that we may both be guilty on these counts but if this were a measure of who has made the most false attributions, you have definitely given me a run for my money.
Nothing about my guessing your MBTI has to do with comforting myself.
I'm merely getting a read on who you are, and with each sentence it keeps getting closer and closer.
Closer and closer...to being wrong, yeah.
Actually, I did not berate you based on where I thought you were from (and when I wrote that, I fully maintained the possibility you were not actually European), but based on your displaying the same type of ignorance as those types of people.
There's a difference.
(even though you're not aware enough to see it)
Then perhaps, again, you should've been more clear. For someone who has a degree in writing, it seems that that knowledge was wasted on you.
You yourself have been displaying quite a large degree of ignorance okay. Please note that I can tell you this without insulting you, whatever school of thought that you subscribe to, or your educational status. Ignorance is always ignorance. It doesn't matter what level of society the ignorance comes from.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize "prototypical" and "postmodernist" were considered big words and labels anymore/on here.
And I didn't realize that someone who picks a fight, falsely calling someone a hypocrite, based on a clear and demonstrable misreading of what they have said, and lacking of reading of what else they said immediately above that blatantly contradicts your claims, was in any sort of position to state how others ought to behave.
And I didn't realize that this forum would have such temperamental babies who can't even have a clear cut debate but I can be disgustingly optimistic sometimes. Then again, I really should've known. There's always one...
And of course, my sarcasm was lost on you yet again, but wait!
Your lack of comprehension was intentional right?
I'm so very sure.
I'd already figured as much before your response.
'Yes, I was wrong but I wasn't actually wrong because I thought about the possibility of being wrong so that makes me right because I am never wrong'. And people wonder why I don't initially tell them my type. No one would want to admit that they actually had something in common with such an overly emotional, tunnel visioned, immature, child such as you. We all have to start somewhere though.
I'm following some pretty damn good principles already.
You're the one who needs to learn to get on board with them.
'Hey! I am always right! Don't tell me I'm wrong! If you tell me I'm wrong you must be immoral!'
you missed the point of why I said that
Your wellspring of secret knowledge must be God's Gift to Mankind.
Oh, I assure you, I do.
Going with 5w6.
Unsurprisingly, you are...incorrect.
That would be interesting.
I believe that's what the other one eventually typed as.
Seems to have a good dose of counterphobia (and unaware of it).
We'll see if they can actually learn to put it to good use.
You are grasping so far you are not even talking to me anymore.
Just some other (probably imaginary) person that you didn't get along with who I have no personal connection with in any way whatsoever.
I don't blame you though. Validation is nice, especially when it comes from yourself, to yourself.