Or like when you are at the mall and that one rock song comes on where the dude is screaming something and the woman is singing (or at least i thinks its a woman) and then the dude does a harmonizing scream with the lady singing. Its so awful I want to laugh. but that song fascinates me for some reason too. its so over the top corny it sounds like a parody or something, but no, they are totally serious and that is whats so amazingly awesomely bad.
they're more eager to prove they're not taken in by any kind of hype than anything else.
I mean, yeah. I can???t speak for elsewhere, but a certain unwillingness to be fooled--to be made to seem foolish by having invested, even/especially spiritually, in the Wrong Thing--has long been a Great American Defense Mechanism (second only to, I guess, murder). But for a good while that skepticism in what you didn't like was coupled with a belief in the importance and imperative of voicing enthusiasm for what you
did like (e.g. ???I like the Whopper, fuck the Big Mac???), and for a long time, the pace of culture made it possible for the two to coexist. As the media cycle has quickened, though, and as more and more fields of cultural production have become super-saturated and micro-divided and hyper-exposed, that coexistence has become less and less tenable. The cornerstone of enthusiasm is confidence (or faith, or belief, or whatever you prefer to call it), and when you???re constantly made aware that there???s always something newer/better/realer around the corner, always something more relevant that you might be overlooking, always a seminal influence that you???re inadvertently shortchanging in favor of some come-lately faker, that confidence is under perpetual assault, and it becomes more and more apparent that the only way to maintain any kind of enthusiasm for one thing is to just flat-out ignore some other things. It's true what they say: Love, to some extent, is blindness. It???s ignoring history and context and cachet and just liking what you like in your own way and for your own fucked-up human reasons. But blindness--especially willful blindness--can be seen as foolishness, and nobody wants to be seen as a fool, and so the love that necessitates the blindness gets jettisoned, to the detriment of everyone. ???I might not be a lover, but I???m definitely not a fool.???
It saddens me. A lot.
Yes to this analysis.
People are shortchanging themselves and as much as it can be blamed on technology/the media/etc. it's still people who are doing the actual shortchanging of themselves.
I cosign this, but it does raise a follow-up question:
How does one parse offhand dismissal or cynicism versus "I heard it, I gave it a chance, I just didn't like it?"
Well, I'm not sure one needs to parse it too much, as I don't think the issue here is the thoughtful/thoughtless nature of dismissal, but rather that it's become increasingly acceptable to define one's self more and more exclusively through what one has dismissed.
I rode the train up to seoul once to meet a kayagum master. he taught at a university. I told the lady at the desk "i would like to meet the master" and she said "why?" and i said "cause i think its cool" and she said "you think he has time for that shit?" and I said "uh, no?" and then she made me leave.
Why are so many people today defining themselves by what they don't like?
People are so damned forthcoming when it comes to snide attitudes directed at those things that within their little peer groups have been deemed as unfashionable.
Yet on the flipside, rarely do those same people openly ride for anything.
It's like with each individual, we get a mountain of rejection sitting next to a mere morsel of cosignature.
Group think and people focusing more on "being down" than seeking the truth.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
they're more eager to prove they're not taken in by any kind of hype than anything else.
I mean, yeah. I can???t speak for elsewhere, but a certain unwillingness to be fooled--to be made to seem foolish by having invested, even/especially spiritually, in the Wrong Thing--has long been a Great American Defense Mechanism (second only to, I guess, murder). But for a good while that skepticism in what you didn't like was coupled with a belief in the importance and imperative of voicing enthusiasm for what you
did like (e.g. ???I like the Whopper, fuck the Big Mac???), and for a long time, the pace of culture made it possible for the two to coexist. As the media cycle has quickened, though, and as more and more fields of cultural production have become super-saturated and micro-divided and hyper-exposed, that coexistence has become less and less tenable. The cornerstone of enthusiasm is confidence (or faith, or belief, or whatever you prefer to call it), and when you???re constantly made aware that there???s always something newer/better/realer around the corner, always something more relevant that you might be overlooking, always a seminal influence that you???re inadvertently shortchanging in favor of some come-lately faker, that confidence is under perpetual assault, and it becomes more and more apparent that the only way to maintain any kind of enthusiasm for one thing is to just flat-out ignore some other things. It's true what they say: Love, to some extent, is blindness. It???s ignoring history and context and cachet and just liking what you like in your own way and for your own fucked-up human reasons. But blindness--especially willful blindness--can be seen as foolishness, and nobody wants to be seen as a fool, and so the love that necessitates the blindness gets jettisoned, to the detriment of everyone. ???I might not be a lover, but I???m definitely not a fool.???
It saddens me. A lot.
Yes to this analysis.
People are shortchanging themselves and as much as it can be blamed on technology/the media/etc. it's still people who are doing the actual shortchanging of themselves.
I cosign this, but it does raise a follow-up question:
How does one parse offhand dismissal or cynicism versus "I heard it, I gave it a chance, I just didn't like it?"
Well, I'm not sure one needs to parse it too much, as I don't think the issue here is the thoughtful/thoughtless nature of dismissal, but rather that it's become increasingly acceptable to define one's self more and more exclusively through what one has dismissed.
Yes, regardless of how someone gets there...why would so many rather be the guy who hates say Common rather than the guy who likes say Three 6 Mafia? If you really hate Common then you first have to consider that giving him the airtime to let people know you hate him validates Common. And if Common isn't you, then what is?
they're more eager to prove they're not taken in by any kind of hype than anything else.
I mean, yeah. I can???t speak for elsewhere, but a certain unwillingness to be fooled--to be made to seem foolish by having invested, even/especially spiritually, in the Wrong Thing--has long been a Great American Defense Mechanism (second only to, I guess, murder). But for a good while that skepticism in what you didn't like was coupled with a belief in the importance and imperative of voicing enthusiasm for what you
did like (e.g. ???I like the Whopper, fuck the Big Mac???), and for a long time, the pace of culture made it possible for the two to coexist. As the media cycle has quickened, though, and as more and more fields of cultural production have become super-saturated and micro-divided and hyper-exposed, that coexistence has become less and less tenable. The cornerstone of enthusiasm is confidence (or faith, or belief, or whatever you prefer to call it), and when you???re constantly made aware that there???s always something newer/better/realer around the corner, always something more relevant that you might be overlooking, always a seminal influence that you???re inadvertently shortchanging in favor of some come-lately faker, that confidence is under perpetual assault, and it becomes more and more apparent that the only way to maintain any kind of enthusiasm for one thing is to just flat-out ignore some other things. It's true what they say: Love, to some extent, is blindness. It???s ignoring history and context and cachet and just liking what you like in your own way and for your own fucked-up human reasons. But blindness--especially willful blindness--can be seen as foolishness, and nobody wants to be seen as a fool, and so the love that necessitates the blindness gets jettisoned, to the detriment of everyone. ???I might not be a lover, but I???m definitely not a fool.???
It saddens me. A lot.
Yes to this analysis.
People are shortchanging themselves and as much as it can be blamed on technology/the media/etc. it's still people who are doing the actual shortchanging of themselves.
I cosign this, but it does raise a follow-up question:
How does one parse offhand dismissal or cynicism versus "I heard it, I gave it a chance, I just didn't like it?"
Well, I'm not sure one needs to parse it too much, as I don't think the issue here is the thoughtful/thoughtless nature of dismissal, but rather that it's become increasingly acceptable to define one's self more and more exclusively through what one has dismissed.
Understood. But I do think that cuts both ways. I define myself based on what I like, and there's plenty that I like (and enthusiastically ride for). But there's also plenty that I don't like, and if I'm asked about that stuff, I will say that I don't like it. And almost as surely as night follows day, saying you don't like something will get you labeled a "hater" these days and thus lumped in with the "all you do is dismiss things" category, you know? While I think the meat of this argument is a very good point, it also comes with a lot of baggage like that.
I feel Harv and James on all of this, but still, I prefer it to what I used to hear all the time:
"I like all music--except for acid rock!"
I mean, what's the hell? I always felt that those people (you all know exactly what I'm talmbout) would be hard pressed to cite even one example of "acid rock." But I'm sure they knew it when they heard it, in whatever alternate universe that may have been.
Why are so many people today defining themselves by what they don't like?
People are so damned forthcoming when it comes to snide attitudes directed at those things that within their little peer groups have been deemed as unfashionable.
Yet on the flipside, rarely do those same people openly ride for anything.
It's like with each individual, we get a mountain of rejection sitting next to a mere morsel of cosignature.
isn't this post in itself what you are damning in the first place ?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Why are so many people today defining themselves by what they don't like?
People are so damned forthcoming when it comes to snide attitudes directed at those things that within their little peer groups have been deemed as unfashionable.
Yet on the flipside, rarely do those same people openly ride for anything.
It's like with each individual, we get a mountain of rejection sitting next to a mere morsel of cosignature.
isn't this post in itself what you are damning in the first place ?
This is the dumbest, most wannabe-clever, hipsteur-eque response you could possibly come up with, and you're not even the first in this thread to do so.
Comments
My mom plays this instrument.
Group think and people focusing more on "being down" than seeking the truth.
Yes, regardless of how someone gets there...why would so many rather be the guy who hates say Common rather than the guy who likes say Three 6 Mafia? If you really hate Common then you first have to consider that giving him the airtime to let people know you hate him validates Common. And if Common isn't you, then what is?
In other words, stand for something or sit down.
Understood. But I do think that cuts both ways. I define myself based on what I like, and there's plenty that I like (and enthusiastically ride for). But there's also plenty that I don't like, and if I'm asked about that stuff, I will say that I don't like it. And almost as surely as night follows day, saying you don't like something will get you labeled a "hater" these days and thus lumped in with the "all you do is dismiss things" category, you know? While I think the meat of this argument is a very good point, it also comes with a lot of baggage like that.
"I like all music--except for acid rock!"
I mean, what's the hell? I always felt that those people (you all know exactly what I'm talmbout) would be hard pressed to cite even one example of "acid rock." But I'm sure they knew it when they heard it, in whatever alternate universe that may have been.
Old, disconnected, and an extra in DAZED AND CONFUSED. Next.
It was gracious of you to omit "balding."
Actually I just forgot that one. What I omitted was "white guy spinning reggae."
isn't this post in itself what you are damning in the first place ?
This is the dumbest, most wannabe-clever, hipsteur-eque response you could possibly come up with, and you're not even the first in this thread to do so.
Congratulations.
Not particularly.