Thread is now about Holist.

[Lord Cataplanga]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In any case, he's flounced, so thread is no longer all about Holist.

Part 6 in two hours fifteen minutes.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Been thinking about picking it all up, demonstrating first of all that the position that Roger holds and it seems Nigel may agree with (though she may not have grasped its full implications), and Gogira argues for with pedantic acuity against a straw man hastily constructed by same Roger is, while a safe one, is essentially a cowardly and insufficient one.

This can be summarised as the position that authenticity is purely subjective and there's no arguing about it in the same way that there is no arguing about tastes. But the sad thing is, unless you have a grounded concept of authenticity, you will not have a leg to stand on when you want to say no to culturally entrenched cruelty, for instance: if authenticity is just another subjective category without any connection to reality, then what is wrong with coercion? What is wrong with opression? What is wrong with culturally sanctioner mutilation? You may not like it, but they may not like you, and your positions are entirely symmetrical. Is everyone siding so quickly with Roger happy with that?

Been thinking about furnishing piecemeal answers to to the further wilful misinterpretation that came in the responses to my half-assed rant, such as pointing out that I didn't say Roger was killing PD, I simply claimed (and continue to claim, on the power of having lurked on and off for about 2 years now) that he is making an ongoing and large contribution to making and keeping it the way it is, a way he himself is regularly unhappy with. Or pointing out that inasmuch as I attempted any such thing at all rather than just venting my frustration, I didn't attempt to save "all of PD" from Roger's unwholesome influence (why the fuck would I do that, save yourselves, fuckers), but, rather, Roger himself. Not that he wants to be saved: that is usually the case with self-satisfied bigots who are usually quite happy being the obnoxious and overbearing buffoons they are, thought they sometimes feel under the weather and a bit hopelessly bored and then they whine about it. Despaired of convincing anyone here that I am way past the butthurt phase: I really don't give a flying fuck any more, and the way it looks, I won't be a regular around here.

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

There's better quality discussion at least a couple of times a week over on metafilter, anyway.

So long, thanks for all the fish.

Which, of course, is not saying I won't come back and say something sometime in the future, if I feel like it.

Here's a picture of Roger being condescending with something he doesn't, and doesn't want to, understand.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

And identifying as the argument is the end of learning a damn thing.

[Ben Shapiro]

Holist and RWHN are some how related? I see distant married cousins in the family tree?

[AFK]

Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

[Ben Shapiro]

Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

Maybe RWHN needs to "gamble a stamp".

[Ben Shapiro]

Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

Maybe RWHN needs to "gamble a stamp".

<3

[minuspace]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

And identifying as the argument is the end of learning a damn thing.

Uh...  That was frigging brilliant

[Dildo Argentino]

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

I read this as follows: "holist, if you stay here and talk to other people while avoiding me, you'll just admit defeat and prove that you need me in your sorry little life". Which is a subtle and passive agressive way of telling me to fuck off."

While you are entitled to your opinion, and certainly free to call me paranoid or whatever else you wish on account of the above interpretation, I simply wish to mention that, luckily, I am not obliged to share your opinion, and I most emphatically don't. Keep having fun!

[Dildo Argentino]

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.

Ha bloody ha.

[Dildo Argentino]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing.