― mark s, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
unless his = her
Then what, huh? If I'm "her," I can't beat my wife? Are you gonna beat my wife? "Gonna beat my wife!" Oh wait, is that an indie song?
Seriously, what the fuck is the wife-beating thing about? Must be another ILM thing that I wouldn't understand. Inside jokes, *yawn*.
Thanks for answering the question, Mark. Underwhelming as evah.
Cheers.
― namdam, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
the problem w.yr posts, namdam, is that they always contain even numbers of letters
― ethan, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
I won't, though. I'm gonna go to the corner store for some Coke.
― Nate Patrin, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
throw out the elitism or ditch the egalitarianism so you feel ok.
result: snotty hipster elitists or, uh, sterl ha ha
― Josh, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
P433R M3.
― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
I'll see your *yawn* and raise you a *sigh*: "the wife-beating thing" is the classic rhetorical example of a loaded question.
The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. Since the example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers: (a) "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife." (b) "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife." Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which cannot be directly answered without implying a falsehood. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.
― nabisco%%, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― gareth, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― jess, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― bnw, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
I'm less making that argument than I am suggesting it. Other thing to consider: the other half of indie-bashing on ILM revolves around criticizing indie kids for being head-up-ass insular. Note the twin pincers, both of which get adopted by the indie-friendly and the indie-bashing and used as appropriate: (a) you suck for only listening to indie, and (b) you suck for making conspicuous efforts to listen to things other than indie. Isn't "indie guilt" in the question as posed here just a way of saying either (a) you suck for both of those or (b) you suck for caring about the question at all?
The issue's been gone over enough times on ILM that I don't fault anyone for not wanting to put a ton of energy into it again. A lot of it is "political" anyway, a tool for those who want to chip away at the stranglehold indie-centric discourse has had over music discourse for the last decade (especially online). And a lot of it is a way of slapping back at whatever perceived "indie community" wasn't giving enough credit to, say, pop fans during that period. And a lot of it is just sides-switching, now that indie's having something of a bad patch and danceable radio-friendly pop is having such a good one. All of which combines to make it basically irrelevant. YES indie is a bit of a whipping-boy around here. It still gets talked about constantly and seriously, and the barbs thrown its way aren't any worse than the barbs a lot of indie kids still reflexively throw at anything in the top 40. Fine. Good. Listen to things, talk about things, and quit being so hypercritical of everyone's motives for listening to or talking about the things they do.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― cuba libre (nathalie), Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― mark "the s is for sweeps out grandly" s, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
http://www.ludd.luth.se/ ~kavli/Thunderbirds/TracyFamily.jpg
anthony to thread!!
That doesn't matter. In fact it doesn't even matter whether they actually look or not. The point is that a certain percentage of indie fans at least mentally recognize that their other-genre listening doesn't live up to their ideals of being critically open- minded and musically omnivorous. The thought experiment was that by Tom's standards, that should be a step better than just ignoring everything else.
And once again what the hell is wrong with that? I mean, why wouldn't people who like indie like music from other genres that has affinities with indie? You can use the same thought- experiment to turn that back into a compliment, if you want to: you could argue that indie kids really are as open-minded about genre as their rhetoric likes to think, insofar as they'll listen to anything, regardless of musical genre, so long as it offers them what they enjoy in the "emotional" or "philosophical" or really "cultural" senses.
Parker's saying to Lady Penelope "I'm better than you, because you like Helen Love"
― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― John Darnielle, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― , Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Mark, Wednesday, 29 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)