That was why he said "what I believe to be negative attributes" I personally agree, I don't like creationists, homophobes or old fashioned people, those may not be negative to you, but I find them to be negative.popdafoo said:
resultsmayvary said:
Zeitgeist? Fup if I know what that is... is it wrong that I like some of their music?BGH122 said:
It won't let me view it, due to country lock.resultsmayvary said:
I agree...I tend to idolize the characters they portray more than the celebrities themselves. I find myself liking Jack O'Neil a lot more than Richard Dean Anderson, of course this doesn't apply to authors and other people who create similar works of art.Sigel said:
Zeitgeist just means the spirit of an era, that which is endemic of or epitomises a particular period of time. For instance, the Zeitgeist of the first half of the 20th century could be said to be courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable evil. The Kaiser Chiefs are just annoying with their faux common accents overdone to the greatest degree possible, it's like singers such as Kate Nash and Lilly Allen deliberately dropping their T's or The Kook's completely fabricated Bristol accent. This posing really gets on my nerves and I wish they'd all just grow up.Booze Zombie said:
Ah, I see. Would you hate me if I said I liked one of their albums, though?BGH122 said:
Yeah, this. This is the issue. They think their irritating posturing is something to be proud of. Also, no, I wouldn't hate you if you liked one of their albums. My best friend loved them at one point. Personally, I think all their music is monotonous drivel that any untalented band could write and perform, but that mostly applies to the singing. It's all so emotionless, so superficial. I love Brand New because, whilst their guitar stuff tends to be simplistic and Jesse isn't going to be winning any singing competitions any time soon, all their music is real and every line is interesting and thoughtful. I'll take "I used to care, I was being cared for, made sure I showed it to those that I love" over "Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, Rubaaaay". It's the same reason that I like Scroobius Pip (although he can be a pretentious, supercilious twit).Booze Zombie said:
So, your problem is that they have no soul and are more focused on money and fame than making truly good music?BGH122 said:
A little, I suppose. It's not just isolated to the music industry though, this is all over the place and I don't necessarily mean not being emotional or being anything for the right price, more just being willing to deny reality for the (false) affection of others. The reason that any affection such people receive, those who'll be anything you want them to be, is false is that they're not receiving any affection at all, this thing, this false being that they've created to please their audience is receiving affection. It's a meaningless existence.Booze Zombie said:
So... you're saying that being two-faced is common and that by living such a life only your fake self recieves love, the real you suffers for it and this is extremly negative thing all around?BGH122 said:
No, it seems like a very logically thing to say.BGH122 said:
It's tough when they're alone with you because they'll just emulate whatever you say you like (as long as it doesn't conflict with anything which is widely recognised as cool or right). But when you see them try and tackle the challenge of making themselves likeable to several very different people at once it becomes clear they're fake. I've met way, way too many of this kind of person and it deeply angers me for epistemological reasons; I believe that truth is the ultimate thing we should strive for as only truth can improve society in any way. In order for truth to be achieved people should ideally be entirely honest (this is unreasonable because the majority of society would shun the entirely honest, so people should be as honest as the situation allows). Presuming that there's one world and one reality then it follows that there's one true version of events too, one understanding of the world which is objectively correct. However, each individual has a subjective understanding of the world which is possible erroneous, but the only way they'll ever know is by testing their beliefs with others. The amalgamation of all the logical truths of everyone's beliefs is pretty much the closest we can get to the objective truth, but the more people that contribute their beliefs to this pool, the more veracious it becomes. So that's why I don't like fakes. Their fakeness damages society's chance to find truth.Booze Zombie said:
People have their skills, it's just the supply and demand. There aren't too many people who decide that their face should be made of plastic and eventually find out that the movie life is just a media excavation trying to find as many skeletons as possible. Then there's drugs, when the journalists yell "JACKPOT!". At least if the media don't have a bone to exercise their doggy teeth on they can 'last resort' interview "stars" *cynical eyeroll* for what's their favourite drug.Sigel said:
