Messages

Well, not only visual, of course.
For example, Rn'R was quite light-hearted in the beginnng, it was quite a revolution because it embodied a lot of social cultural and so on stuff.
But ( I think ) not as a representation of it - it was linked, in a net(or blob)-like structure ( don't take structure as a synonim of system ) to other expressions, behaviours, knowledges, and so-ons...
Coexisting, not in a side-by-side meaning, but in a co-existing meaning, ya know, existing together, cooperating at existence...
Maybe art is some kind of chord made up of different cultural, memetic, ( or else ) notes.When the chord hits the bulleye, we call it art. What do you think?

well, I think "art" is quite a made-up concept, ant thus an empty word.
I mean, what's art?
If it's meaning, why great essayists are seen as intellectuals but not artist?
If it's  aesthetics (not only in a visual meaning of the term), why isn't a bull-eye-hitting merchandise packaging art?
If it's skill, why isn't shuffling a card deck spectacularly art?
Defining "art" is futile.It has to be meaningful ( though not neccessairly in a rational way), aesthetic ( though horrormirth exist and may be art), and "well-done", the latter obviously being a very subjective and context-defined characteristic...

And so on

Also, some things are art if you are the genius who does it first,while is lame if you do afterwards, no matter how much soul and brains and skill you put in it.What would mean a "better" Monna Lisa nowadays? Wahrol? Seen better visual memes on the net. And so on

My idea: "art" is not only subjective, but really context-related. I just can't define it and relate to "artistic" stuff just thinking, in a quite instinctual way, about what it gives and mean to me, and, in a more rational way, about what it means in its time-space-society-culture-politics made context.
That's Art, the RJJB way

lightsaber black knight:http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm6IA_sZ1lw

Am I the only one who thought of extreme groin surgical reconstruction when reading "new member"?

They have found evidence that galaxyies stars etc. are moving the way they would if big bang actually occurred..
So big bang is almost surely happened, if and how it started Being and Matter and Time and .. is still unproven.
It's not like I believe that everithing can be found out anyway, and before the bang pressure and gravitation and temperature were so different from the ones we know that most likely phisics as we know it didn't apply..no surprise if we'll never find out what "creation" really means...
that's far from a bug in the system though, it's again logically implied in the system that creation is hard (maybe impossible) to explain

IMHO, believing in evolution doesn't require faith, believing that big bang, randomness or whatever is not a got is at thestarting point does.
I too have seen the fossils, and artificial selection, survival of the fittest and so on.I've not seen the trigger of it, so that trigger requires faith just like God does, one could say it plays God's role in my system.
Missing links? Fossilization requires some special condition, it's not like every single corpse becomes a fossil, so missing links still missing doesn't ask for my faith, actually they are logically implied by nature and geology.
Also, a creationist theory is that man is not "fittest" so it could not survive.If it does is only because of its intelligence (soul) but since you can't develop thought if you extinct, man must have appeared alredy intelligent. Made in the image of God.Well, we think at "man" as at ourselves, metopolitans, but man is in no way inferior to apes if developed that way, if we were primitives we'd be all like this guy, or dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVQNt64PxfE

So I don't need faith to believe Darwin, and for what started it all, and what was before Time and Being I'll answer with Ozzy Osbourne:
"Don't ask me, I don't know"

www.votenader.org

I personally think nader is the fucking man, who would pwn any of the so called front runners in a real debate.

Nader is the reason we have president Bush.

I cannot wait to take a huge shit on his grave.

Bullshit.Gore is the reason you don't have Nader.I'm fucking sick of this "useful vote" shit, for it screwed up my shitty country too many times.
"I'd vote the X candidate,but he's gonna lose anyway, so I'll vote someone else"....Yeah, can you imagine why he's gonna lose?
Maybe because his supporters voted some "centrist"...
This always hit the left, anyway..."C'mon,we'll never have social justice,if somebody tells you either way, he's not SERIOUS"
Then you vote somebody who'll do anything he can to make sure that you'll never get social justice..(like that fuckin' Veltroni, here's a guy a would really shit on)

this could be pretty cool, but it'll probably end in furries.
humans are soo predictable 

I disagree.COWABUNGA!!!!!!

So here is a question...

If there are still those out there (yes I KNOW we are talking radical groups) who continue with the persecution of the jews, blacks, hispanics and other races or religions.  Aren't those people still in the position of being victims?  Or does that make it an individual thing?

Well, even if the aggression and the plain outspoken racism wasn't such a threath to call minorities persecuted....
Do the majority look down on 'em?Do they earn less than the average?Are they considered rude?Or unclean?Or...?
Nazi-like persecutions are still carried on by some people, but are not institutionalized.Still I think that governments and "the silent majority" have much to do...So yes,I think racials  minorities,homosexuals of course and to some degree women too are "victims".Of a "white collar" style of discrimination, of course, but still...

"THEY" are fooling you!Swallow it,quick!!!

I know(not about coffee,about the second wave bit),but I've just tried to understand what some controversial posts meant (and failed?)
Just to clarify a bit: I was not "defending OP assfuckery",only I don't believe that "they deserved it" is what he was saying.That's FAR from agreeing with him.
But:

If I got it right Phosphor point it's all about wipin' out the concept of "deserving".
I think he's point is that is pointless to look at history trying to find out who the bastards are:if you consider a long enough piece of history...Ta-Daan!Humanity itself is the villain.

So being a Nazi is okay, because someone else was mean a long time ago.

NO.IT'S NOT.But neither is judging PEOPLES the way you do with individuals:at some point everybody did something wrong.
That's the only point I share with Phosphor,and keep in mind that it doesn't imply that anybody deserved anything.
That's why I don't think he was saying so.

@ Verb (wich sounded pissed off): sorry, I need to say to you that if anything I say sounds like justifying tha nazis,read twice or ask explanations:it's surely meaning something else.I'm totally against guiltification of Jews/Hebrew (please tell me how I use two words both meaning "Ebreo"),and that also for personal cultural reasons:really TOO often I see people,even parlamentarian representatives,talking about "rewriting history about fascism,wich is been written by communists".I saw a Salò veteran named minister...

If I got it right Phosphor point it's all about wipin' out the concept of "deserving".
I think he's point is that is pointless to look at history trying to find out who the bastards are:if you consider a long enough piece of history...Ta-Daan!Humanity itself is the villain.
So,we should look for non-moral responsibility,for historical ones.So,if I got Phosphore right,he's analysis of holocaust goes like this:
"Nazis persecuted Jews for their reasons,okay,but also Jews "made" themselves an easy racist's target by not blending in the majority".
So point is not if they deserved it or not.Point is:are the historical and social ingredients wich built up the holocaust still there?
Do we have closed minority wich doesn't blend in?(I'm not questioning whether are they wrong or right in doing so,only if they do)
Do we have a majority concerned about it's "identity"?(same as above)
Do we have a crisis wich makes people wonder who's to blame?
If so,it doesn't really matter if military-looking parades are held or not in our country,the ingredients for xenophoby,identitarianism,and fascism are there.
We must think about it.

Now,only Phosphore himself can tell me if that was what he meant.If so,I think his point is very interesting.

Keep in mind language differences,for example Italian doesn't have two different words for "Jew" and "Hebrew" - both are translated with "Ebreo".Sure,we have "Giudeo" ("Judaic") but nobody uses it because it's too much "year 15 B.C."When referring to Hebrew institutions or culture we use "Ebraico", but this is just an adjectivation (does this word exist?) of the previously noted word,wich is anyway not offensive to Jews...
Also,there are some paradox you may not know:actually around here fascist and neo-fascist in particular loves Israel and Zionism,considering it an example of strict and strong identitarian state and ideology,things they really dig.
On the other hand critics of Israel are usually more pro-palestine-right-to-be-a-state than anti-Israel,and almost always anti-racist anyway.(all leftist groups are pro-palestine here,but surly non-rcist tough).
Neo-fascism is always been more identitarian than racist:for example they've always been anti-islamic presence in Italy,but on the other hand many groups looked at khomeini as an inspiring example:anti-islamic HERE,pro-sharia in Islamic countries:they believe that every Nation have an Identity it must upheld.That's why the most political fascist are pro-Israel:because it's Nationalist.
Obviously the more Nigger-beating oriented groups just hate Jews,Blacks,Reds (both political and ethnic)...
(don't get me wrong,both fascist styles are scum to me)
And the two groups DOES overlap.
This is because,unlike civilized countries,we have outspoken neo-fascist groups (forza nuova,for example) who are officially recognized and even ran at the last elections (without qualifying for representetion,luckily).
So,some neo-fascist use the more "politically correct" fascism just to get the benefits of legitimization,others really believes in it,making old and new school overlapping.

[DOES]

In my eperience the problem with generalization goes in a different way:
it's not a "sins of the fathers" kind of stereotypes set,but more a concept blending...
Some examples:very often,at least here,every criticism pointed to Israel (wich is a Country,so we are speaking of political criticism,mind you) is labeled by Israel supporters as "antisemitism". "Race" and politics are not the same,but they are blended for rethorical reasons..
"Euthanasia" have two different meanings in modern society and in Nazi society, but not seldom "pro-life" conservatards put some slight reference to the nazi origins of the term.But patient's agreement DOES make a total difference,right?
And so on...often victimization means to use the victims as a scarecrow,to paint some Hitler moustache on opponents...
At least it is like that in Italy,where political debates have nowadays the lamest rethorics,ever.

Didn't knew what a halibut is.
Googled it.
Got scared.