so did you spray it over with quake 5ever?

No I made an enraged text post on a bulletin board in the internet. Like we 90's people do.

Very accurate. Although I am lacking higher artistic endeavour.

'Me' is far more attractive though, and it's not like you can ascribe a higher sense of intelligence to that swag couple

well, she drew that herself, so of course she's gonna look pretty.

I wouldn't look pretty in a drawing if I were to draw it myself.

But it would be easy to make others look even worse than you. Just add a few "SWAG"'s and "YOLO"'s and you're done.

http://www.reddit.com/r/lewronggeneration


OMG PPL LIKE OTHER ONLINE GAME THAT I DON'T LIKE
#FML #t1e #tags4likes

SHARE, SUBSCRIBE! XD

What means DAE?

does anyone else

This is unconvincing, too. Third headline on the page:
http://i.imgur.com/5BvL6rW.png

Is 100% true, for example.

Would be even nicer if you read the thread you linked.

Explains pretty well how videos didn't become soft porn in the last 3 years, it's been like that for decades.

"You are going to take this as an insult, but I do not mean it as such...

You, are young. If you take a quick youtube trip into the world of 80's music videos, you'll see it was always this way. Look up a Whitesnake video, any of them. Not just them either, the entire hair metal genre practically REQUIRED hot chicks in little clothing and tied up some how.

Here is the thing though... it was this way before videos even came into existence. Look at some album covers from the 70's & 60's. Herb Albert & the Tijuana Brass's "Whipped Cream & Other Delights" or any Ohio Players album.

In short, Music has always and will always be linked with sex, even if we don't throw it visually right into someone's face. It always has been, and always will be. That today's videos are what you refer to as "softcore porn" is more an example of what is allowed to be shown on TV and what the "trend" is among certain musical genres than a reflection of how we associate music with sex."


+NSFW pic of madonna in 80s >http://dollypythonvintage.com/wp-content/uplo...114023.jpg

You think there isn't more vulgarity in today's videos and concerts than say, 30 years ago?

Could you at least TRY and read that thread?

"It's fascinating how people have this misguided idea that our parents and grandparents were somehow less sexual than us. The human species has been around a long time it wouldn't have worked if we weren't so into getting it on."

You want your kids to be sheltered and view an exposed ankle as vulgar?

Your parents did some crazy shit before you were born, if you had a normal childhood I expect you did so too - so why take this privilege away from the next generation?

Sex sells. Sex has been a selling point since forever.
And yes, 30 years ago concenrts were still "vulgar" - iggy pop exposed his dick, the whole "rock and roll" scene is an euphemism for sex.

aw come on, what's vulgar about a bunch of long haired male junkies in leather pants?

I read the thread, stop guessing I haven't.

That today's videos are what you refer to as "softcore porn" is more an example of what is allowed to be shown on TV and what the "trend" is among certain musical genres than a reflection of how we associate music with sex."

I'm perfectly fine with this from the post you quoted, even if the rest of the post is kind of strawman. Either way, some music videos, album covers (lol) and sex selling always being true in general isn't proof of anything - it's trendier than ever, and more acceptable than ever, to use sex more openly than ever before.


This effect is very visible with society's reactions to the music. Rock was music of the devil even for those album covers (lol), shock value and not being accepted were part of the appeal. Nowadays teens go "aww nice bum, good vid" as the hiphop artists much more openly than ever sing about bums, tits and such in what is by adults considered a sad state of affairs, not shocking or devil's work.
Half major female artists basically have sex onstage as standard practice, that's not just madonna alone doing shocking shows.

Either way, this is more importantly exemplified not in just the practices of US, but in other countries and the world in general, as things became more vulgar (like I said, more vulgar, not vulgar) as a trend.

I dislike this whole "It's always been like that forever, what's the purpose of arguing" type of argument in general. Before, there was opposition, so how does it follow that without opposition it won't be worse, anyway?

You have a point. So does Anhe. And now, I have a really pointy point in my pants.

Wait, that's ahnedotique? I thought teen queen has been called this forever. Eh, the function for changing names without any record is silly.

Your old name is displayed in profile weeks after the change
example:

1945
Posts: 749
Popularity: Superstar (49%)
Previously named: eksy (23 Jun 2014)

Yeah, but half people here have been registered for 10 years and probably also had many phases of inactivity. Weeks is nothing.

Nice to know [it's you], either way.

Sex shouldn't be this taboo thing people refuse to talk about. Everybody knows everybody likes to boink from time to time. Embrace your sexuality, don't repress it. That's just denying your own self.

I'm not against talking about it. I just think that accepting copious (tasteless) amounts of it in art can undermine a person's freedom to choose good art.

can undermine a person's freedom to choose

contradictio in terminis right there

So if we put candy in the healthy food section, are people more free to choose what they want there? It's decisions for the longer haul vs impulsive decisions, and most people agree that the latter is characteristic of less freedom.

Except 'good art' is purely subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Food isn't subjective.

purely? You mean that me bashing a stick against a rock is in no way worse art than Beethoven?

in terms of how far you push the medium, then yes, Beethoven is 'better.' In terms of how much people like it, everything is equal.

Also no matter how much trash society throws at you, there's always the possibility to be an independent mind with opinions and tastes of your own through critical thought.

in terms of how far you push the medium, then yes, Beethoven is 'better.'

Now, is this a coincidence, or does it have something to do with... being better art? badum tsh.

Nothing at all. Your base assumption here is that certain criteria for judging the quality of art are better than others.

And I would confirm that base assumption when asked.

Tell me, do you extend your view of purely subjective art to cinema and painting as well? My painting is as good as anything else?

Thinking in terms of good or bad when it comes to art is the wrong approach. There is no universal absolute definite for 'good' out there, instead 'good' is simply what a specific individual enjoys and 'bad' is what he does not enjoy. Usually an individuals taste is influenced by his environment and often a majority shares a liking to something.

That actually goes for almost anything where the words good and bad are involved.

Actually, there's a lot of "good" art that I don't enjoy. But I still have to recognize it as "good" if it really is. Even if it makes me sick. ;)

That just means it conforms to the criteria you've been 'programmed' (so to speak) to identify as superior.

Let me give a very clear example:

To an ear accustomed to western music, this sounds like a cacophony. It's off-pitch, it's even hard to discern any structure in it. However, for Indonesian, this is formal music, somewhat like western classical in sense. Because their criteria for judging music are different, in a quite literal sense even, because the scales are different.

There's still both good and bad music in both the systems, a person can understand both. You can't 'understand' me banging a stick on a rock in such a way.

Again, from the fact that there's no single system of values that none of possible systems are valuable.

For me, the "good art test" is a personal involvement with the thing I'm experiencing at the time. After entering "the thing", whatever it is, I look to see if I can find its "limits"; how far has the artist taken his point to, what possible dimensions within the thing the guy explored and, most importantly, how does it connect back to reality, where's it's ultimate sense? If I enjoy its "effect" or not (replying to the apparent cacophonous aspect of traditional Indonesian music) is actually secondary to the process. (And I did enjoy that medley, by the way.) :)

There is no universal absolute definite for 'good' out there

Never said any such thing. Instead, there's a bunch of possible relevant criteria that shine a limited, but strong enough sense of value to say at least in the clearer cases that X is bad (my painting) and Y is good (Michelangelo).

A lot of people tend to assume that since there's a little subjectivity, it's all subjective, which is a logical mistake obviously.

You never said it no, but it is what your argument is ultimately based on. That there is something that transcends individual taste.

Universal was key in the sentence I quoted. There's nothing universal, but that doesn't prove anything.

Of course there's something that transcends individual taste - if you take a 100 different recordings, with some of them being good music, some mediocre and some being me banging a stick against a rock, and give it to a thousand kids isolated from culture and each other, different songs will have different popularity, and not by accident.

Such an experiment may not produce pure objectivity and the children may not choose the best music (limited education, and I don't mean they didn't have the same education as us, I mean they had little education of any kind), but they won't choose me banging on rocks much.

There's something universal, but it's not the rational criteria we make up to classify things, for sure.

We're talking about different things, I feel. I'm talking from a very abstract pov while you're more down to earth.

Let's be faggots and say we're both right

I think I have the backing in abstract thought as well, I was just hoping to quickly show by example why your abstract thoughts are wrong. If you don't know how theory is linked to practice, you don't understand either right?

But we can agree to disagree if you don't want to argue.

Yes, purely. I'd rather listen to Beethoven but if I had to listen to dubstep rock-stick-bashing sounds like a fucking dream to me, yet lots of people actually like it.

You have the same view of painting too? Any movie or painting I make is as good as anything else, too?

In terms of purpose, yes, all art is equally useless.

and subsequently, all art is equally useful :P

An insight so profound I think I can safely call it art :P

And there's sufficient criteria as to why it is at least one possible characteristic of good art in literature.

"Remain true to yourself, but move ever upward toward greater consciousness and greater love! At the summit you will find yourselves united with all those who, from every direction, have made the same ascent. For everything that rises must converge." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

> 80's music videos

She's my cherry pie
Cool drink of water such a sweet surprise
Tastes so good makes a grown man cry
Sweet Cherry Pie

I still remember this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOmgTKPvos and not for the music :D

Hahahah the money suit, wtf!

pretty sure it says "puck COD"

To answer the question, I don't think Battlefield 4 ever fucked Call of Duty.

Quake > all

Some fucking hipsters in here.

Vandalized over every sign except the handicapped sign. Makes sense he didn't want to upset the major audience of either games.