times are changing and yr not allowed to smoke in clubs any more in many places - therefore i don't see that club culture and smoking will be as inextricably linked as a lot of you seem to think for very long.
it's not being in a club that makes people want to smoke, it's the consumption of alcohol. i will echo the previous sentiment that banning smoking inside of the club is not going to stop people from smoking while they are partying. they'll just go outside. it is linked and will always be linked until they stop serving alcohol at the club.
Alcohol use and cigarette use are linked based on your lazy observations only.
For instance I've been drinking since I was 13 and have been going to clubs since I was 16, yet neither has ever led me to smoke cigarettes.
In fact, going to smoke-filled clubs makes me want to smoke cigarettes even less than normal.
my "own lazy observations" are based on my personal experiences of being a smoker AND a drinker AND going to bars/clubs with many other smoker/drinkers. i didn't say drinking makes non-smokers want to smoke, you seem to have made up this implication in an effort to try and sound smart or talk shit, i'm not sure which. you're an idiot if you don't acknowledge the fact that alcohol makes the average smoker want a cigarette more than normal. but you know, that wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Alcohol lowers your inhibitions...to socialize, to dance, to cuss, to argue, to fight, to fuck, and to smoke.
Of course I see that.
But to go as far as saying that to stop people from smoking, we'd first have to stop people from drinking is still apples and oranges to me.
Some people crave a cigarette after a big meal. Should we stop serving food in restaurants in order to curb smoking as well?
You are really good at picking out single words form a sentence and using them in a completely abstracted context in your own little private mind garden!
Harvey would make an excellent idealistic law student with no real world applicable experience. Take the LSAT, score high!
Beg to differ. Shied knows very little about how to structure an argument and even less about confining himself to the evidence.
people in this thread are trying to deny the simple basics that:
A: When people go out to a club and drink, it loosens them up for smoking. They're called social smokers. So yes, it does go hand in hand with clubs.
YES
B. If Walmart, Camel, fucking SUV companies came to you with a multi million dollar contract, everyone's ass here would smile big, and dance around like little spider monkeys.
NO. some people do put their morals above money.
thats the easy answer when you're not staring at the check in your name.
Please to refrain from speaking for me. Just because YOU have no moral objections to anything does not mean others of us don't as well. I have walked away from plenty of checks and jobs alike due to differences in moralities.
You are so principled.
You have shamed us all...
ha ha, seriously.
I'm sure you've turned down some checks and gigs that you've objected to, but i'm sure it wasn't no multi-million dollar endorsement. Thats what I'm talking about, not some "well, I could pay my rent for a week" check. When you're getting SERIOUS moneys, it's much harder to make a "moral decission."
First off, "homie", its Decision, not decission... Second you don't know me so please again refrain from speaking for me. what is hilarious is that you are so shallow that you think anyone can be bought for money. Sorry man its not like that for me and I am sure for others on this board. Just because you can be bought for $5, don't play like everyone can. Its not that difficult to understand.
people in this thread are trying to deny the simple basics that:
A: When people go out to a club and drink, it loosens them up for smoking. They're called social smokers. So yes, it does go hand in hand with clubs.
YES
B. If Walmart, Camel, fucking SUV companies came to you with a multi million dollar contract, everyone's ass here would smile big, and dance around like little spider monkeys.
NO. some people do put their morals above money.
thats the easy answer when you're not staring at the check in your name.
Please to refrain from speaking for me. Just because YOU have no moral objections to anything does not mean others of us don't as well. I have walked away from plenty of checks and jobs alike due to differences in moralities.
You are so principled.
You have shamed us all...
yeh i am.
And no need to feel shamed, you just need to grow up a bit.
2) No matter how many ways you re-phrase it, at some point you need to accept that there ARE people who will turn down huge amounts of money for ethical/moral purposes. Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul does nothing but expose the failings of your own principles - or lack thereof.
there's nothing unethical about it. It may or may not be immoral, depending on how one sees the ramifications of doing what has been done here w/ the dj's and Camel. [start rambling] The reason people do things (or in this case, do not cosign on a tobacco sponsored event) though, may not be wholly for the love of the health of mankind. It's like volunteering- the volunteer does so for different reasons: a) to help others b)to gain utility from helping others, aka: doing something good, and personally feeling good about it, which is a form of selfishness.
I think the disagreement people are having here is merely a price disagreement-- Indeed:
Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul
is true, everyone's got a different price based on their own personal beliefs. It's just a question of where your personal utility from saying "no" stops as the price rises. Some are lower than others, but for every situation it's different. There's no justification for setting a floor or ceiling for anyone besides yourself on this one though, and arguments for or against are moot.
There aren't a whole lot of completely selfless acts left, people do things to maximize their own personal gain, whether conciously or subconciously: it's called rational decision making.... eh, i'll stop now. [/end rambling] god i would like a drink or three. *exits thread*
times are changing and yr not allowed to smoke in clubs any more in many places - therefore i don't see that club culture and smoking will be as inextricably linked as a lot of you seem to think for very long.
it's not being in a club that makes people want to smoke, it's the consumption of alcohol. i will echo the previous sentiment that banning smoking inside of the club is not going to stop people from smoking while they are partying. they'll just go outside. it is linked and will always be linked until they stop serving alcohol at the club.
Alcohol use and cigarette use are linked based on your lazy observations only.
For instance I've been drinking since I was 13 and have been going to clubs since I was 16, yet neither has ever led me to smoke cigarettes.
In fact, going to smoke-filled clubs makes me want to smoke cigarettes even less than normal.
my "own lazy observations" are based on my personal experiences of being a smoker AND a drinker AND going to bars/clubs with many other smoker/drinkers. i didn't say drinking makes non-smokers want to smoke, you seem to have made up this implication in an effort to try and sound smart or talk shit, i'm not sure which. you're an idiot if you don't acknowledge the fact that alcohol makes the average smoker want a cigarette more than normal. but you know, that wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Alcohol lowers your inhibitions...to socialize, to dance, to cuss, to argue, to fight, to fuck, and to smoke.
Of course I see that.
But to go as far as saying that to stop people from smoking, we'd first have to stop people from drinking is still apples and oranges to me.
Some people crave a cigarette after a big meal. Should we stop serving food in restaurants in order to curb smoking as well?
You are really good at picking out single words form a sentence and using them in a completely abstracted context in your own little private mind garden!
Harvey would make an excellent idealistic law student with no real world applicable experience. Take the LSAT, score high!
Beg to differ. Shied knows very little about how to structure an argument and even less about confining himself to the evidence.
eh, that was more a personal rant against the mindset which a lot of people don't realize they practice until they are out of the scholastic bubble and on some "get up and get to work on muhfuckin time" steeze... but do you disagree that the way you thought you would practice law while in school and the way you do now in your everyday work are significantly different?
2) No matter how many ways you re-phrase it, at some point you need to accept that there ARE people who will turn down huge amounts of money for ethical/moral purposes. Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul does nothing but expose the failings of your own principles - or lack thereof.
there's nothing unethical about it. It may or may not be immoral, depending on how one sees the ramifications of doing what has been done here w/ the dj's and Camel.
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad, I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the right dollar amount.
I think the disagreement people are having here is merely a price disagreement-- Indeed:
Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul
is true, everyone's got a different price based on their own personal beliefs. It's just a question of where your personal utility from saying "no" stops as the price rises. Some are lower than others, but for every situation it's different. There's no justification for setting a floor or ceiling for anyone besides yourself on this one though, and arguments for or against are moot.
So you are just making the same argument, that "everyone has ther price." People are pretty quick to make assumptions about, and speak for, people they have never met and know nothing about.
times are changing and yr not allowed to smoke in clubs any more in many places - therefore i don't see that club culture and smoking will be as inextricably linked as a lot of you seem to think for very long.
it's not being in a club that makes people want to smoke, it's the consumption of alcohol. i will echo the previous sentiment that banning smoking inside of the club is not going to stop people from smoking while they are partying. they'll just go outside. it is linked and will always be linked until they stop serving alcohol at the club.
Alcohol use and cigarette use are linked based on your lazy observations only.
For instance I've been drinking since I was 13 and have been going to clubs since I was 16, yet neither has ever led me to smoke cigarettes.
In fact, going to smoke-filled clubs makes me want to smoke cigarettes even less than normal.
my "own lazy observations" are based on my personal experiences of being a smoker AND a drinker AND going to bars/clubs with many other smoker/drinkers. i didn't say drinking makes non-smokers want to smoke, you seem to have made up this implication in an effort to try and sound smart or talk shit, i'm not sure which. you're an idiot if you don't acknowledge the fact that alcohol makes the average smoker want a cigarette more than normal. but you know, that wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Alcohol lowers your inhibitions...to socialize, to dance, to cuss, to argue, to fight, to fuck, and to smoke.
Of course I see that.
But to go as far as saying that to stop people from smoking, we'd first have to stop people from drinking is still apples and oranges to me.
Some people crave a cigarette after a big meal. Should we stop serving food in restaurants in order to curb smoking as well?
You are really good at picking out single words form a sentence and using them in a completely abstracted context in your own little private mind garden!
Harvey would make an excellent idealistic law student with no real world applicable experience. Take the LSAT, score high!
Beg to differ. Shied knows very little about how to structure an argument and even less about confining himself to the evidence.
eh, that was more a personal rant against the mindset which a lot of people don't realize they practice until they are out of the scholastic bubble and on some "get up and get to work on muhfuckin time" steeze... but do you disagree that the way you thought you would practice law while in school and the way you do now in your everyday work are significantly different?
this shit's a wrap. it would be great to have Zen pull out some of his jacob's ladder to make this shit interesting.
2) No matter how many ways you re-phrase it, at some point you need to accept that there ARE people who will turn down huge amounts of money for ethical/moral purposes. Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul does nothing but expose the failings of your own principles - or lack thereof.
there's nothing unethical about it. It may or may not be immoral, depending on how one sees the ramifications of doing what has been done here w/ the dj's and Camel.
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad, I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the right dollar amount.
I think the disagreement people are having here is merely a price disagreement-- Indeed:
Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul
is true, everyone's got a different price based on their own personal beliefs. It's just a question of where your personal utility from saying "no" stops as the price rises. Some are lower than others, but for every situation it's different. There's no justification for setting a floor or ceiling for anyone besides yourself on this one though, and arguments for or against are moot.
So you are just making the same argument, that "everyone has ther price." People are pretty quick to make assumptions about and speak for people they have never met and know nothing about.
not really speaking for you specifically- speaking for people in general in a theoretical sense. If your personal price on this issue is: "more money than a cigarette company could ever pay me", that's excellent for you. I just think that arguing about it and passing judgement on others for having a lower price than one's self is pointless.
there's nothing unethical about it. It may or may not be immoral, depending on how one sees the ramifications of doing what has been done here w/ the dj's and Camel.
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad, I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the right dollar amount.
your right, I shouldn't speak for you. I'm sorry. What I should have said, is most people would really question their personal morals/ethics for the right dollar amount.
A number of years back I read a story by the Doors drummer John Densmore.
He told about how he is having constant fights with Manzerik about product endorssements.
It's like this one time their manager got big $$$ for using a Doors song in a car ad. Everyone was happy until Morrison showed up and hit the ceiling. The deal was canceled because Morrison would not let his art be used to sell product. Any product.
So now at least once a year Manzerik comes begging to Densmore and Krieger to accept a song placement for what is now realy real big $$$. Every year Densmore makes an impassioned pitch to honor Morrison's wishes. Then he Krieger out vote Manzerik. Densmore also tiths 10% to charity, which is way more than he needs for his tax write off. I'm not sure if Krieger is still voting with Densmore today, but I'm sure that Densomre is not changing his view.
So, some people, rich and poor, do decide not to sell out. It does not matter if it is Camels or Nike or McDonalds or Sears, when you take an endoresment deal you are selling out. Unless, like these djs you are not an artist. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
All of the DJs in that ad suck. But maybe all of the GOOD DJs had a moral objection so camel was left with the bottom of the barrel.
The one year I went the list of DJs and Performances included: Grandmaster Flash Sugarhill Gang James Brown & special suprise guest Isaac Hayes
I know they change it up every year, and these events have been going on for years. Maybe they finally ran out of all the good DJs because they've all been used?
... and people are acting like it's Michael Jordan and U2 on the bill. It's not - and I don't know why ANYONE thinks these people wouldn't appear on a bill for death itself if it was hot with their set and paid well.
A number of years back I read a story by the Doors drummer John Densmore.
He told about how he is having constant fights with Manzerik about product endorssements.
It's like this one time their manager got big $$$ for using a Doors song in a car ad. Everyone was happy until Morrison showed up and hit the ceiling. The deal was canceled because Morrison would not let his art be used to sell product. Any product.
So now at least once a year Manzerik comes begging to Densmore and Krieger to accept a song placement for what is now realy real big $$$. Every year Densmore makes an impassioned pitch to honor Morrison's wishes. Then he Krieger out vote Manzerik. Densmore also tiths 10% to charity, which is way more than he needs for his tax write off. I'm not sure if Krieger is still voting with Densmore today, but I'm sure that Densomre is not changing his view.
So, some people, rich and poor, do decide not to sell out. It does not matter if it is Camels or Nike or McDonalds or Sears, when you take an endoresment deal you are selling out. Unless, like these djs you are not an artist. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Amazing. i cannot stand Ray Manzarek. Just last week on Tom Scharpling's talk show on WFMU the topic was "5 People You Would Least Like to Have Dinner With" and I swear, Manzarek made my list
"Artists and corporations working together, that's the 21st century. That's the true Age of Aquarius."
that's one of my favorite Manzarek quotes. what a douchelord
2) No matter how many ways you re-phrase it, at some point you need to accept that there ARE people who will turn down huge amounts of money for ethical/moral purposes. Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul does nothing but expose the failings of your own principles - or lack thereof.
there's nothing unethical about it. It may or may not be immoral, depending on how one sees the ramifications of doing what has been done here w/ the dj's and Camel.
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad, I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the right dollar amount.
I think the disagreement people are having here is merely a price disagreement-- Indeed:
Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul
is true, everyone's got a different price based on their own personal beliefs. It's just a question of where your personal utility from saying "no" stops as the price rises. Some are lower than others, but for every situation it's different. There's no justification for setting a floor or ceiling for anyone besides yourself on this one though, and arguments for or against are moot.
So you are just making the same argument, that "everyone has ther price." People are pretty quick to make assumptions about and speak for people they have never met and know nothing about.
*exits thread*
uh, whatever.
exactly.
My point was that your holier than thou shit is not a good look.
Making decisions based on principles is something i'm down with and something i do, but it is a luxury. Congrats on being comfortable enough to turn down money, must be nice up on that pedestal looking down at %99 of people, who would might even for a second consider a serious payday, and weigh it against their principles. Regardless, you can come with that elitist, well I would never do that, for any amount of money, and thats great for you, you still sound mad
2) No matter how many ways you re-phrase it, at some point you need to accept that there ARE people who will turn down huge amounts of money for ethical/moral purposes. Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul does nothing but expose the failings of your own principles - or lack thereof.
there's nothing unethical about it. It may or may not be immoral, depending on how one sees the ramifications of doing what has been done here w/ the dj's and Camel.
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad, I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the right dollar amount.
I think the disagreement people are having here is merely a price disagreement-- Indeed:
Your argument that there is a big enough check out there to buy anyone's soul
is true, everyone's got a different price based on their own personal beliefs. It's just a question of where your personal utility from saying "no" stops as the price rises. Some are lower than others, but for every situation it's different. There's no justification for setting a floor or ceiling for anyone besides yourself on this one though, and arguments for or against are moot.
So you are just making the same argument, that "everyone has ther price." People are pretty quick to make assumptions about and speak for people they have never met and know nothing about.
*exits thread*
uh, whatever.
exactly.
My point was that your holier than thou shit is not a good look.
Making decisions based on principles is something i'm down with and something i do, but it is a luxury. Congrats on being comfortable enough to turn down money, must be nice up on that pedestal looking down at %99 of people, who would might even for a second consider a serious payday, and weigh it against their principles. Regardless, you can come with that elitist, well I would never do that, for any amount of money, and thats great for you, you still sound mad
Please spare me. You don't know me or have ever talked to me to even make any kind of assumption about my character, what I stand for or even have an ounce of knowledge of where I have been and what I have done. GTFOHWTBS.
Everyone's principals are different. I have never sold out to morals I HAVE found objectionable and that IS my character. To say that everyone has a point they will sell out is a cop out and as noted above based more on your personal ideologies and need to project that trait on others than it is a truth that can be said for everyone. THAT and was the only point of contention I had.
Grow the fuck up and learn some reading comprehension.
My point was that your holier than thou shit is not a good look.
Making decisions based on principles is something i'm down with and something i do, but it is a luxury. Congrats on being comfortable enough to turn down money, must be nice up on that pedestal looking down at %99 of people, who would might even for a second consider a serious payday, and weigh it against their principles. Regardless, you can come with that elitist, well I would never do that, for any amount of money, and thats great for you, you still sound mad
"Holier than thou" "Looking down at 99% of people" = straight bullshit. You just got your hackles up because someone maybe takes that shit more seriously than you.
What does "comfortable enough to turn down money" mean? That's a totally relative definition. I'm an entrepreneur on a local scale. Most people I talk to, even good friends, have no fucking clue how hard up I am and how many things which they take for granted I do without. How many more hours of work and investment go into making back one dollar. And when Budweiser comes calling wanting to provide incentives that may help bring in income, I still tell them no thanks. Because their whole m.o. runs counter to my idea of how to run a business and I have no urge to help them buy authenticity.
I know 33third is also an entrepreneur and operates within the realms of capitalism, ie, in the real world. I'm also pretty sure he's not rolling in dough as we talked about taxes one time I respect those who have the self-belief to do it their way. Props to both of you, but I know who I'd invest in if I ever struck it rich.
And when Budweiser comes calling wanting to provide incentives that may help bring in income, I still tell them no thanks. Because their whole m.o. runs counter to my idea of how to run a business and I have no urge to help them buy authenticity.
My point was that your holier than thou shit is not a good look.
Making decisions based on principles is something i'm down with and something i do, but it is a luxury. Congrats on being comfortable enough to turn down money, must be nice up on that pedestal looking down at %99 of people, who would might even for a second consider a serious payday, and weigh it against their principles. Regardless, you can come with that elitist, well I would never do that, for any amount of money, and thats great for you, you still sound mad
"Holier than thou" "Looking down at 99% of people" = straight bullshit. You just got your hackles up because someone maybe takes that shit more seriously than you.
What does "comfortable enough to turn down money" mean? That's a totally relative definition. I'm an entrepreneur on a local scale. Most people I talk to, even good friends, have no fucking clue how hard up I am and how many things which they take for granted I do without. How many more hours of work and investment go into making back one dollar. And when Budweiser comes calling wanting to provide incentives that may help bring in income, I still tell them no thanks. Because their whole m.o. runs counter to my idea of how to run a business and I have no urge to help them buy authenticity.
I know 33third is also an entrepreneur and operates within the realms of capitalism, ie, in the real world. I'm also pretty sure he's not rolling in dough as we talked about taxes one time I respect those who have the self-belief to do it their way. Props to both of you, but I know who I'd invest in if I ever struck it rich.
I never said everyone has a point they'll sell out. I dont know anything about you, just like you don't know anything about me. I know this dudes got a website, but of course he's not making crazy white collar bank. I give props to entrepreneurs, and its great that he's able to say he's always done shit he believes in. Yay. He's fortunate, and I like to think the same thing, but im just saying, everyone draws their own line based on their personal situations at the time, and to act like there's no shades of gray just comes off as pretentious.
And to just come back on some 'you dont know me, gtfowtbs' is whatever...
And when Budweiser comes calling wanting to provide incentives that may help bring in income, I still tell them no thanks. Because their whole m.o. runs counter to my idea of how to run a business and I have no urge to help them buy authenticity.
Budweiser attempted to buy authenticity from you?
Not directly from me Daniel. Note the words "help them buy." It's called sponsorship and it was for an ongoing event that takes place at my place of business, a business I built with my own hands and from which I have got into debt up to my eyeballs because of things like integrity and wanting to "keep it real," so to speak.
Thanks for taking an interest though. You are welcome there anytime, I'll buy you a locally-sourced, non-minimum wage-produced sandwich.
He's fortunate, and I like to think the same thing, but im just saying, everyone draws their own line based on their personal situations at the time, and to act like there's no shades of gray just comes off as pretentious.
Most people get defensive when they think their values are being judged as naive or ignorant, and that cuts both ways in this thread. I totally agree, it's all about shades of gray, else you would either have to be a trustafarian or just not get up in the morning for fear of selling out. On that note, I need to get go to bed and get some rest for my other job. I've got some minor selling out to do tomorrow.
Comments
Beg to differ. Shied knows very little about how to structure an argument and even less about confining himself to the evidence.
First off, "homie", its Decision, not decission... Second you don't know me so please again refrain from speaking for me. what is hilarious is that you are so shallow that you think anyone can be bought for money. Sorry man its not like that for me and I am sure for others on this board. Just because you can be bought for $5, don't play like everyone can. Its not that difficult to understand.
yeh i am.
And no need to feel shamed, you just need to grow up a bit.
[start rambling]
The reason people do things (or in this case, do not cosign on a tobacco sponsored event) though, may not be wholly for the love of the health of mankind. It's like volunteering- the volunteer does so for different reasons: a) to help others b)to gain utility from helping others, aka: doing something good, and personally feeling good about it, which is a form of selfishness.
I think the disagreement people are having here is merely a price disagreement-- Indeed: is true, everyone's got a different price based on their own personal beliefs. It's just a question of where your personal utility from saying "no" stops as the price rises. Some are lower than others, but for every situation it's different. There's no justification for setting a floor or ceiling for anyone besides yourself on this one though, and arguments for or against are moot.
There aren't a whole lot of completely selfless acts left, people do things to maximize their own personal gain, whether conciously or subconciously: it's called rational decision making....
eh, i'll stop now.
[/end rambling]
god i would like a drink or three.
*exits thread*
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad,
I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone
has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the
right dollar amount.
So you are just making the same argument, that "everyone has ther price."
People are pretty quick to make assumptions about, and speak for, people
they have never met and know nothing about.
uh, whatever.
this shit's a wrap. it would be great to have Zen pull out some of his jacob's ladder to make this shit interesting.
exactly.
speaking for people in general in a theoretical sense. If your personal price on this issue is: "more money than a cigarette company could ever pay me", that's excellent for you. I just think that arguing about it and passing judgement on others for having a lower price than one's self is pointless.
Well, ok, but I wasn't refering specifically to the Camel ad,
I was directly responding to Troubleman's claim that everyone
has their price and would chuck their morals or ethics for the
right dollar amount.
your right, I shouldn't speak for you. I'm sorry. What I should have said, is most people would really question their personal morals/ethics for the right dollar amount.
He told about how he is having constant fights with Manzerik about product
endorssements.
It's like this one time their manager got big $$$ for using a Doors song in a
car ad. Everyone was happy until Morrison showed up and hit the ceiling. The
deal was canceled because Morrison would not let his art be used to sell product.
Any product.
So now at least once a year Manzerik comes begging to Densmore and Krieger to
accept a song placement for what is now realy real big $$$. Every year Densmore
makes an impassioned pitch to honor Morrison's wishes. Then he Krieger out vote
Manzerik. Densmore also tiths 10% to charity, which is way more than he needs
for his tax write off. I'm not sure if Krieger is still voting with Densmore today, but I'm sure that Densomre is not changing his view.
So, some people, rich and poor, do decide not to sell out. It does not matter
if it is Camels or Nike or McDonalds or Sears, when you take an endoresment deal
you are selling out. Unless, like these djs you are not an artist.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The one year I went the list of DJs and Performances included:
Grandmaster Flash
Sugarhill Gang
James Brown
& special suprise guest Isaac Hayes
I know they change it up every year, and these events have been going on for years. Maybe they finally ran out of all the good DJs because they've all been used?
No doubt, see my above post.
Amazing. i cannot stand Ray Manzarek. Just last week on Tom Scharpling's talk show on WFMU the topic was "5 People You Would Least Like to Have Dinner With" and I swear, Manzarek made my list
"Artists and corporations working together, that's the 21st century. That's the true Age of Aquarius."
that's one of my favorite Manzarek quotes. what a douchelord
My point was that your holier than thou shit is not a good look.
Making decisions based on principles is something i'm down with and something i do, but it is a luxury. Congrats on being comfortable enough to turn down money, must be nice up on that pedestal looking down at %99 of people, who would might even for a second consider a serious payday, and weigh it against their principles. Regardless, you can come with that elitist, well I would never do that, for any amount of money, and thats great for you, you still sound mad
Please spare me. You don't know me or have ever talked to me to even make any kind of assumption about my character, what I stand for or even have an ounce of knowledge of where I have been and what I have done. GTFOHWTBS.
Everyone's principals are different. I have never sold out to morals I HAVE found objectionable and that IS my character. To say that everyone has a point they will sell out is a cop out and as noted above based more on your personal ideologies and need to project that trait on others than it is a truth that can be said for everyone. THAT and was the only point of contention I had.
Grow the fuck up and learn some reading comprehension.
"Holier than thou" "Looking down at 99% of people" = straight bullshit. You just got your hackles up because someone maybe takes that shit more seriously than you.
What does "comfortable enough to turn down money" mean? That's a totally relative definition. I'm an entrepreneur on a local scale. Most people I talk to, even good friends, have no fucking clue how hard up I am and how many things which they take for granted I do without. How many more hours of work and investment go into making back one dollar. And when Budweiser comes calling wanting to provide incentives that may help bring in income, I still tell them no thanks. Because their whole m.o. runs counter to my idea of how to run a business and I have no urge to help them buy authenticity.
I know 33third is also an entrepreneur and operates within the realms of capitalism, ie, in the real world. I'm also pretty sure he's not rolling in dough as we talked about taxes one time
Budweiser attempted to buy authenticity from you?
I never said everyone has a point they'll sell out. I dont know anything about you, just like you don't know anything about me. I know this dudes got a website, but of course he's not making crazy white collar bank. I give props to entrepreneurs, and its great that he's able to say he's always done shit he believes in. Yay. He's fortunate, and I like to think the same thing, but im just saying, everyone draws their own line based on their personal situations at the time, and to act like there's no shades of gray just comes off as pretentious.
And to just come back on some 'you dont know me, gtfowtbs' is whatever...
Sorry for the threadjack....
Not directly from me Daniel. Note the words "help them buy." It's called sponsorship and it was for an ongoing event that takes place at my place of business, a business I built with my own hands and from which I have got into debt up to my eyeballs because of things like integrity and wanting to "keep it real," so to speak.
Thanks for taking an interest though. You are welcome there anytime, I'll buy you a locally-sourced, non-minimum wage-produced sandwich.
Most people get defensive when they think their values are being judged as naive or ignorant, and that cuts both ways in this thread.
I totally agree, it's all about shades of gray, else you would either have to be a trustafarian or just not get up in the morning for fear of selling out. On that note, I need to get go to bed and get some rest for my other job. I've got some minor selling out to do tomorrow.