He's still here and I do care.
Joaquin Phoenix isn't one of my favorite actors, and I don't think I like him as a person, either. But what he did with his latest movie is, in my opinion, truly brilliant. A practical joke goes terribly wrong when the media turns against Joaquin, after finding out that they're being mislead by him. JP does not give up, and throughout the whole film, you don't know what will happen next. Watching the movie, 2 hours passed by like 10 minutes.
I'm Still Here perfectly portrays how damaging Hollywood can be to an actor's personal life. Once you're in, and once you're famous, people won't let you pull out. If you want to do something else with your life, they won't even give you a chance. The ghost of your famous self will always be there, haunting you, and making you feel paralyzed and helpless. No one will ever take you seriously as anything else, but an actor.
Joaquin Phoenix, willingly or unwillingly, brings light to this issue in his documentary. He exposes the dark side of La La Land. He lives through the horrors that Tom Green once went through, causing his career to go down the toilet. You can read more about that in Tom Green's book "Hollywood Causes Cancer", which by the way, is a great read. Anyway, I can't help but spot a lot of similarities between the two actors: both fucked with the media and got their acting careers destroyed, both grew beards, and both became rappers.
And of course, people can't help but compare Joaquin to the notorious Andy Kaufman. But I don't think the latter would have ever dared to do what Joaquin did with I'm Still Here. JP went really far, and did not quit, even when his hoax was exposed and the media declared that "nobody cared". Was that his only choice? I think he could have gone out publicly and apologized. The damage to his career wouldn't have been that severe then. But executing an idea can be a slippery slope, especially when you've invested so much in it already, and Joaquin probably got too carried away with his act to ever consider quitting.
Even if you're at the top of your game, the media can chew you up in a few seconds and spit you out as a nobody. I'm Still Here is like a psychological snuff film that exposes this reality. Great documentary, that I recommend that you see at least once, if you want to support independent cinema and original ideas.
Oct 28, 2010
Oct 2, 2010
The Room - Lisa's Profile
The other night I had the urge to watch Tommy Wiseau's The Room again. It's a great movie and I strongly recommend it. This post is for people who have already seen the film. It's my analysis of Lisa's relationship with Johnny. The Room almost depicts Lisa as this evil selfish manipulative bitch, but are we to judge her this way? Is Johnny really this angel that the film so badly makes him out to be?
It seems that Johnny loves Lisa for no apparent reason presented in the film, other than her being beautiful. And she seems to have loved him just because she was supposed to - all her friends and relatives constantly assure her how nice Johnny is and how she should love him -- just because he's financially stable, charitable, and he gives her presents all the time. We see that Lisa did not love Johnny for his charms, and it was neither for his looks; she loved him because she felt she owed him that, in return for his unconditional love and endless gifts. She would have felt guilty if she didn't.
Lisa's love was fake, and she finds that out right before it's too late. But what does she do about it? Instead of ending her relationship with Johnny, she finds an outlet, where she can get rid of her guilt; the guilt of not being able to give back what she's given. The outlet that she finds is Mark. To get rid of the guilt, she passes it on to him, by loving him unconditionally, and forcing favors on him, mostly in the form of sex.
Are we to blame Lisa for not being honest with Johnny? I don't think so. In the scene where he confronts her for being deceiving, we see that he is actually capable of hitting her. He pushes her down at least twice. He looks scary. Is this really the way you encourage someone you love to be honest with you, by yelling at them and physically threatening them? This only shows that Johnny doesn't really care about Lisa's emotions. He shows no curiosity, so Lisa naturally doesn't feel like sharing her feelings with him. Yelling out "Why Lisa, why?" isn't really being curious, it's more like an agonizing self-pitying scream in the form of a rhetoric question.
Lisa is in a very "awkward situation" and it's completely understandable why she fears ending her relationship with Johnny. First of all, her friends and family will ostracize her. Secondly, Johnny might hurt her. And lastly, he might hurt himself. In the film, it becomes apparent that Johnny is psychologically dependent on Lisa. He needs someone who he can take care of, because otherwise he feels worthless. His happiness depends on babysitting Lisa. She is tired of being that baby, and she's tired of being responsible for his emotions. It's only natural that she resents him so much, and it's also natural that she becomes manipulative, because the honest way of dealing with the issue has been made a taboo for her.
Why is Mark Johnny's best friend? Because he is also susceptible to being a baby that needs taking care of, which becomes apparent when Lisa becomes her husband and Mark becomes her. Mark allows Lisa to force favors on him and become his caregiver. What about the situation with Denny? It's just another example of Johnny's narcissism - by helping Denny, Johnny feels good about himself.
In conclusion, Johnny was a bad narcissistic husband. Lisa was in a codependent relationship with him for a couple of years, but then she got smarter and wiser. Unfortunately, her friends and family weren't as smart, so she was forced to become the nasty manipulative "bitch" in order to get what she wants. In the end of the movie, it seems like everyone morally condemns her, and she "gets what she deserves". As if she has made a grave mistake not to obey her husband and relatives, and now she has to suffer for it. To me, she made a great choice, and I believe she is "in a better place" now, unlike dead Johnny, with real friends and a husband that she loves for what he is.
P.S. If you're a fan of The Room and you like adventure videogames, you are totally going to love this flash game dedicated to the movie: Click Here to Play. The game features beautiful 8bit graphics and chiptunes, cutscenes taken from the film, great sound effects, and what I enjoyed the most, secret places and alternative endings.
It seems that Johnny loves Lisa for no apparent reason presented in the film, other than her being beautiful. And she seems to have loved him just because she was supposed to - all her friends and relatives constantly assure her how nice Johnny is and how she should love him -- just because he's financially stable, charitable, and he gives her presents all the time. We see that Lisa did not love Johnny for his charms, and it was neither for his looks; she loved him because she felt she owed him that, in return for his unconditional love and endless gifts. She would have felt guilty if she didn't.
Lisa's love was fake, and she finds that out right before it's too late. But what does she do about it? Instead of ending her relationship with Johnny, she finds an outlet, where she can get rid of her guilt; the guilt of not being able to give back what she's given. The outlet that she finds is Mark. To get rid of the guilt, she passes it on to him, by loving him unconditionally, and forcing favors on him, mostly in the form of sex.
Are we to blame Lisa for not being honest with Johnny? I don't think so. In the scene where he confronts her for being deceiving, we see that he is actually capable of hitting her. He pushes her down at least twice. He looks scary. Is this really the way you encourage someone you love to be honest with you, by yelling at them and physically threatening them? This only shows that Johnny doesn't really care about Lisa's emotions. He shows no curiosity, so Lisa naturally doesn't feel like sharing her feelings with him. Yelling out "Why Lisa, why?" isn't really being curious, it's more like an agonizing self-pitying scream in the form of a rhetoric question.
Lisa is in a very "awkward situation" and it's completely understandable why she fears ending her relationship with Johnny. First of all, her friends and family will ostracize her. Secondly, Johnny might hurt her. And lastly, he might hurt himself. In the film, it becomes apparent that Johnny is psychologically dependent on Lisa. He needs someone who he can take care of, because otherwise he feels worthless. His happiness depends on babysitting Lisa. She is tired of being that baby, and she's tired of being responsible for his emotions. It's only natural that she resents him so much, and it's also natural that she becomes manipulative, because the honest way of dealing with the issue has been made a taboo for her.
Why is Mark Johnny's best friend? Because he is also susceptible to being a baby that needs taking care of, which becomes apparent when Lisa becomes her husband and Mark becomes her. Mark allows Lisa to force favors on him and become his caregiver. What about the situation with Denny? It's just another example of Johnny's narcissism - by helping Denny, Johnny feels good about himself.
In conclusion, Johnny was a bad narcissistic husband. Lisa was in a codependent relationship with him for a couple of years, but then she got smarter and wiser. Unfortunately, her friends and family weren't as smart, so she was forced to become the nasty manipulative "bitch" in order to get what she wants. In the end of the movie, it seems like everyone morally condemns her, and she "gets what she deserves". As if she has made a grave mistake not to obey her husband and relatives, and now she has to suffer for it. To me, she made a great choice, and I believe she is "in a better place" now, unlike dead Johnny, with real friends and a husband that she loves for what he is.
P.S. If you're a fan of The Room and you like adventure videogames, you are totally going to love this flash game dedicated to the movie: Click Here to Play. The game features beautiful 8bit graphics and chiptunes, cutscenes taken from the film, great sound effects, and what I enjoyed the most, secret places and alternative endings.
Feature:
Aesthetics
Sep 21, 2010
Mutualism
Something about capitalism has always bothered me and made me feel like my freedom was restricted in some way. A fellow anarchist once said, "in order for you to survive comfortably in capitalism, you will need to meet whatever sacrifices your neighbors make for themselves, to compete with them. You can make fewer sacrifices than your neighbors to maintain your principles, but you will have more difficulty in competing with your neighbors then, and you will be less comfortable as a result. [...] Whenever a person makes the decision to compete against his neighbors (who are probably strangers to him already), he is not only dooming himself but his neighbors also, since for them to remain in their comfort they will need to make whatever new sacrifices that you find to make for yourself. Capitalism seems like a vicious circle of sacrifice as it is" (tism). In fewer words, in a capitalist society, most people become slaves to their wages.
Well, it shouldn't be like that. Sure, some people would hate to lose their jobs, not because they are dependent, but rather because they love what they do for a living. But what about folks like me? I resent the contemporary employer-employee concept, and I hate having authoritative figures "above" me. I can't survive a day job for more than a month, because the office environment drives me insane. You are all familiar with what I'm talking about - the monotonous, repetitive workflow, the boring tasks that you are expected to be passionate about, and most importantly -- the annoying coworkers that you have to cope with. This isn't always the case, of course; it's rather a stereotype, but one that applies to a large percentage of the population, and can't be ignored. Am I too incompetent to find a job that escapes this stereotype? Yes, I am, although many of you would agree that I am very skilled at many things. Still, though, the competition is too hard for me to be a freelancer. And if it weren't for local solidarity, I'd be on the streets. Which brings me to the point.
Solidarity in the market, a.k.a. mutualism. As Charles T. Sprading describes it, "Mutual service in ethics might be described as an exchange of service between people with equal respect for each other. Real solidarity is established by a common nobility of sentiment. [...] The purpose of mutual ethics is collective human welfare. It is not self-sacrifice, but mutual service. It is a promise for a promise, a receiving and a giving; a mutual interchange of engagements or obligations; mutual assistance that is effective and preservative, wherein the servers are served. [...] The believers in mutual service do not need to convert the whole world, nor even a majority, to their plan, to benefit by it. A small group can apply it to members. The larger, the better, but there is no need to wait for a majority, as political parties must, to enact their plan".
Mutualism in many ways is preferring an inferior product for the sake of supporting your local community, or people who share your principles, etc. Why pay taxes for the welfare of strangers who might be assholes, when you can instead exercise your personal choice and pick the types of people that you want to subsidize? Mutualism is nurturing a friendly environment and eliminating alienation from the market. We don't have to be strangers at work -- we can be friends. If you find value in my skills, you aren't my boss, but rather -- a friend in need that I can help. Intellectuals don't have to be poor and miserable outcasts. They can trade favors and support each other, even without the need of a monetary currency.
So yeah, if you want to support the nice people that you respect and love, be a mutualist.
We are human beings first, and only then we are human doings.
Well, it shouldn't be like that. Sure, some people would hate to lose their jobs, not because they are dependent, but rather because they love what they do for a living. But what about folks like me? I resent the contemporary employer-employee concept, and I hate having authoritative figures "above" me. I can't survive a day job for more than a month, because the office environment drives me insane. You are all familiar with what I'm talking about - the monotonous, repetitive workflow, the boring tasks that you are expected to be passionate about, and most importantly -- the annoying coworkers that you have to cope with. This isn't always the case, of course; it's rather a stereotype, but one that applies to a large percentage of the population, and can't be ignored. Am I too incompetent to find a job that escapes this stereotype? Yes, I am, although many of you would agree that I am very skilled at many things. Still, though, the competition is too hard for me to be a freelancer. And if it weren't for local solidarity, I'd be on the streets. Which brings me to the point.
Solidarity in the market, a.k.a. mutualism. As Charles T. Sprading describes it, "Mutual service in ethics might be described as an exchange of service between people with equal respect for each other. Real solidarity is established by a common nobility of sentiment. [...] The purpose of mutual ethics is collective human welfare. It is not self-sacrifice, but mutual service. It is a promise for a promise, a receiving and a giving; a mutual interchange of engagements or obligations; mutual assistance that is effective and preservative, wherein the servers are served. [...] The believers in mutual service do not need to convert the whole world, nor even a majority, to their plan, to benefit by it. A small group can apply it to members. The larger, the better, but there is no need to wait for a majority, as political parties must, to enact their plan".
Mutualism in many ways is preferring an inferior product for the sake of supporting your local community, or people who share your principles, etc. Why pay taxes for the welfare of strangers who might be assholes, when you can instead exercise your personal choice and pick the types of people that you want to subsidize? Mutualism is nurturing a friendly environment and eliminating alienation from the market. We don't have to be strangers at work -- we can be friends. If you find value in my skills, you aren't my boss, but rather -- a friend in need that I can help. Intellectuals don't have to be poor and miserable outcasts. They can trade favors and support each other, even without the need of a monetary currency.
So yeah, if you want to support the nice people that you respect and love, be a mutualist.
We are human beings first, and only then we are human doings.
Feature:
Society
Jun 1, 2010
1000 Blank White Cards
1000 Blank White Cards is a card game where the players basically make up their own cards. There are almost no rules, and the game has the potential of constantly evolving according to the "market". I can't even begin to imagine what sorts of cards will be created. The possibilities are unlimited.
Click here to check it out!
I think the game is fucking amazing, but requires too much effort. So I have an idea that I wanna know if people would be interested in: an online version of 1000 Blank Cards, where instead of drawing each card, you can simply upload a picture (or embed a video). You have fields for the card description, whom it affects, how many points it provides, etc. Once you've made (or picked) a deck of cards, you can play online with your friends or strangers. It's totally possible. I have a very clear vision of how to make this thing work. But I really really wanna make sure enough people would be interested in playing. Let me know.
Click here to check it out!
I think the game is fucking amazing, but requires too much effort. So I have an idea that I wanna know if people would be interested in: an online version of 1000 Blank Cards, where instead of drawing each card, you can simply upload a picture (or embed a video). You have fields for the card description, whom it affects, how many points it provides, etc. Once you've made (or picked) a deck of cards, you can play online with your friends or strangers. It's totally possible. I have a very clear vision of how to make this thing work. But I really really wanna make sure enough people would be interested in playing. Let me know.
Feature:
Aesthetics
May 29, 2010
Sycial.com - A Model of Anarchy
This is the story of Sycial.com
It all started with free association. I like the concept of choosing who I want to associate with, and ignoring people who make me feel uncomfortable. I like it so much, that I am very passionate about helping others realize their amazing power of simple choice. I want to spread the word and convince people that life can be a non-zero sum game. I want to remind them that they're not forced to accept a cheater's rules, and that they can instead quit playing with him and start looking for fair players.
That being said, I really like having enemies. It makes me feel really good to know that I have the power to completely reject anyone who's being a bully to me, instead of being trapped in a frustrating game of trying to beat the bully at his own game. Many people would accuse me of being a pussy for "chickening out". They would say things like "life is hard, people are shit... deal with it". And they completely ignore the fact that no, nobody has to deal with this. Maybe you had to deal with bullies in your family, because you had no choice to leave your parents, since you were dependent on them. Maybe you had to deal with bullies in school, because you were obligated to attend. But you don't have to deal with any type of that bullshit, now that you are your own, now that you are an independent individual.
So I made a website where you can make that choice and be vocal about it. It's my way of saying "fuck you" to those who shame me for ditching my old friends and family members. It's a provocative way to get my message out that it's okay to have enemies, because that's the best way to find new friends. Once you label someone your enemy, you make a moral judgment, based on your principles. If you don't make that moral judgment, you'll keep hanging out with the same company, and you'll never get a chance at finding new friends that are any different. Once it's clear to you what your principles are, you'll know what sort of people you would like to have as friends. That's why I made a "Principles" field that users can fill out in their profile.
I think most people judge others by superficial standards, so in my website, I have attempted to accentuate on what I think truly matters about an individual's identity. And it's not their birthday, and it's not their sex. It has nothing to do with height, weight, or eye color. It's their personal beliefs, it's their unique models of the world. It's what drives them to behave the way they do. There is no social networking site that focuses on this raw psychological data, because most people feel that this is too personal to share with others. They've been scared away by shaming people in their environment. They've been told that such things you should keep to yourself. But why keep a social idea, if you cannot share it? Doesn't that defeat its purpose? Is that really freedom of speech?
Most social networking sites censor. My site is uncensored. I don't care if you're a racist, a bigot, a pedophile, or a rapist. Who cares, I'll add you as an enemy. You'll be ostracized and you won't be allowed to bother any of my friends. So go ahead and join. That's what I want the site to be - a working model of an anarchistic society. There's no laws, no censorship. It's all in the hands of the individual. I trust his judgment more than I trust the judgment of the majority. So let's see what happens.
I am really excited about this project. So excited, that I have already been working on it for more than 7 months. So far I've seen little success with the site, and a lack of support. But I'll keep working on it, nonetheless, and I won't give up this time. I'm through giving up. I don't care how many times I'll have to fail. I'll keep working, and I'll keep learning new things until I succeed with this. I was discouraged so many times throughout this process, even by people who I value so dearly. I saw little support, and little understanding. Who cares, I've been through this before, and it always turned out that had I been a bit more patient, I would have reaped the fruits of my labor. I won't be impatient this time.
Once again: Sycial.com
In case you want to join the website:
email me and I will send you an invitation code.
It all started with free association. I like the concept of choosing who I want to associate with, and ignoring people who make me feel uncomfortable. I like it so much, that I am very passionate about helping others realize their amazing power of simple choice. I want to spread the word and convince people that life can be a non-zero sum game. I want to remind them that they're not forced to accept a cheater's rules, and that they can instead quit playing with him and start looking for fair players.
That being said, I really like having enemies. It makes me feel really good to know that I have the power to completely reject anyone who's being a bully to me, instead of being trapped in a frustrating game of trying to beat the bully at his own game. Many people would accuse me of being a pussy for "chickening out". They would say things like "life is hard, people are shit... deal with it". And they completely ignore the fact that no, nobody has to deal with this. Maybe you had to deal with bullies in your family, because you had no choice to leave your parents, since you were dependent on them. Maybe you had to deal with bullies in school, because you were obligated to attend. But you don't have to deal with any type of that bullshit, now that you are your own, now that you are an independent individual.
So I made a website where you can make that choice and be vocal about it. It's my way of saying "fuck you" to those who shame me for ditching my old friends and family members. It's a provocative way to get my message out that it's okay to have enemies, because that's the best way to find new friends. Once you label someone your enemy, you make a moral judgment, based on your principles. If you don't make that moral judgment, you'll keep hanging out with the same company, and you'll never get a chance at finding new friends that are any different. Once it's clear to you what your principles are, you'll know what sort of people you would like to have as friends. That's why I made a "Principles" field that users can fill out in their profile.
I think most people judge others by superficial standards, so in my website, I have attempted to accentuate on what I think truly matters about an individual's identity. And it's not their birthday, and it's not their sex. It has nothing to do with height, weight, or eye color. It's their personal beliefs, it's their unique models of the world. It's what drives them to behave the way they do. There is no social networking site that focuses on this raw psychological data, because most people feel that this is too personal to share with others. They've been scared away by shaming people in their environment. They've been told that such things you should keep to yourself. But why keep a social idea, if you cannot share it? Doesn't that defeat its purpose? Is that really freedom of speech?
Most social networking sites censor. My site is uncensored. I don't care if you're a racist, a bigot, a pedophile, or a rapist. Who cares, I'll add you as an enemy. You'll be ostracized and you won't be allowed to bother any of my friends. So go ahead and join. That's what I want the site to be - a working model of an anarchistic society. There's no laws, no censorship. It's all in the hands of the individual. I trust his judgment more than I trust the judgment of the majority. So let's see what happens.
I am really excited about this project. So excited, that I have already been working on it for more than 7 months. So far I've seen little success with the site, and a lack of support. But I'll keep working on it, nonetheless, and I won't give up this time. I'm through giving up. I don't care how many times I'll have to fail. I'll keep working, and I'll keep learning new things until I succeed with this. I was discouraged so many times throughout this process, even by people who I value so dearly. I saw little support, and little understanding. Who cares, I've been through this before, and it always turned out that had I been a bit more patient, I would have reaped the fruits of my labor. I won't be impatient this time.
Once again: Sycial.com
In case you want to join the website:
email me and I will send you an invitation code.
Feature:
Mind Exploration,
Society,
Web
May 24, 2010
Jordaan Mason
Most people skip introductions, so I'm going to be brief. Jordaan Mason has been my favorite artist for quite a while, so I decided to spread the word and do an interview with him. His band's latest full-length album Divorce Lawyers I Shaved My Head has become a soundtrack of my life, and it's been basically the only thing I've been listening to in the past few months. His past work is also fascinating, and it's available for free at cllct.com. Everything else, you'll find in the interview.
Hello, Jordaan. Thanks again for the opportunity to ask you my humble questions. They might seem trivial to people who already know you, but I hope that this interview introduces you to new fans and listeners of alternative music. So let's get started. I think good music deserves its own name for a genre. What's a made-up genre that you think would best describe your style of music?
i have a really hard time answering questions about what 'kind' of music this band makes. i think it's easy to say it's folk music because we're playing with mostly acoustic instruments, the chord structures of the songs are usually fairly simple, and the songs are based around a story being told through words. all of those things are traditions in folk music.
but really i have no idea because, especially lately, the band is constantly changing. we also all listen to different music, and each have very eclectic tastes, so i have no idea. i bet everyone who's ever played in this band, past or present, would have a different answer.
To me, your lyrics were what initially made me want to check out more of your songs. They seem to be packed with amazingly disturbing metaphors, some of which, I think, people wouldn't even dare attempting to understand and visualize. You paint pictures with your words. If they were to be materialized, where would you hang them?
they have; they are; my bedroom.
Nice. You seem to present types of behavior and events that most people find disturbing or shocking in such a beautiful light. I love that. I love how you take things that people are shamed for, and you turn them into something completely acceptable, even beautiful. Is that really how you see things, or is that how you wish to see them, your art being a self-indulgent utopia?
i write about those things because they are happening to me and to people that i love and i need to talk about it. i need to talk about it without thinking about what's politically correct, or what's going to be seen as beautiful and what's going to be seen as disgusting. it's all kind of the same to me, in the end. or at least, i don't really think about the distinction between the two. things can be violent and loving at the same time.
I agree, in the sense that one person's love can be another person's torture... Anyway, do you have a "higher" purpose of your songs, other than entertainment? Perhaps a message that you want to subtly convey to society through your songs?
there's definitely things i am trying to say that are very important to me, but i don't really know how to sum them up here. the songs are personal and therefore political, but not political necessarily, if that makes sense. i have a lot of grandiose ideas about art and what it can do, for sure, beyond entertainment, and when i'm writing a song, "entertainment" is the last thing on my mind. it does come into play during a performance, though: because to a certain extent, no matter how natural and honest you're being during a performance, it is partially meant to entertain, to be thought-provoking, to be enjoyed for some reason or another.
Right, think I know what you're saying... I have a quote here from one of your songs: "The ghosts all say that God will save you". It seems to me like a cynical portrayal of religion, where people take advice from dead folks about an imaginary thing that would save them. Perhaps I completely misunderstood it... Can you tell me more about that song, and that quote in particular?
the song is pretty literally, actually. i wrote that song when i was seventeen, still living at home with my parents, going to high school. and i was having, whether real or not, a relationship in my bedroom with a ghost for a few years, which was perhaps hallucinatory.
Ouch. Ockham's razor has a sharp edge, indeed. Anyway... When I got used to your lyrics, I started appreciating the music behind them. I think you're a genius, vocal wise. I've never heard anyone else sing the way you do. It's not just your voice that I find unique, but also the melodies that you create with it. I noticed in your older songs, you were a bit shy to show off your skills, perhaps because you hadn't developed your own style yet? Tell us more about your journey of finding your own style. Who's your favorite singer that you think might have influenced you the most?
i started recording and releasing music before i knew what i was doing at all, so there's definitely been a transition. i was also seventeen when i started making records and my voice has just changed naturally since then. playing shows allowed me to have more confidence in my singing, and i hadn't actually played shows almost all when i made my first two records - they were made pretty much exclusively in solitary confinement. they were also recorded with bad equipment that i couldn't sing too loud with, otherwise it just sounded like terrible fuzz, and at night when i had to just be quieter in general.
most of my favourite singers are female. my favourite singer that's alive right now is diane cluck - she has so much control over her voice, it's astounding. there's still a lot of things i can't do with my voice that i wish i could. i really want to learn to yodel, for example.
You show such a wide range of talent. I read somewhere that you learned to play the guitar in just a few weeks. You also know how to play a bunch of other instruments, like the accordion, the piano, the saw, and I wonder what else. Are you a self-taught musician, or have you attended any music schools? How did you get into music?
my mother had a piano and an accordion while i was growing up, and i was given piano lessons on and off throughout my childhood, though i had a lot of trouble sitting still during them. in high school, i played bass clarinet in the high school band briefly. i learned the guitar because the accordion is heavy and the piano isn't really portable unless you have an electric one, which i don't. it took me a while to get the hang of it, but i recorded songs even though i couldn't really play it. i also have taught myself the saw and i'm trying to learn how to play the drums a bit, but i can basically only keep a 4/4 or a 3/4 beat. to be fair, i would say i play a lot of instruments just well enough to get by, but i can't play any very well.
You can't play all of the instruments at once, so obviously you need a band, at least for live performances... How did you guys find each other with the Horse Museum, and how long have you been playing together?
the horse museum formed really organically, in the latter half of 2007. i had written this album - divorce lawyers i shaved my head - and i wanted to start recording it with a band. so a small group of my friends started playing with me - that being sarah ayton, dee addario, jason aviss, and richard laviolette. richard had other things to focus on so we found jason mccrimmon to fill in on drums, and then we started recording the record, and more and more people kept getting added to the recording, and therefore the live band. the group got bigger and bigger for a while, and is now kind of imploding, changing, and getting smaller again.
You run the Oh!Map Records label. Most artists are obsessed with equipment. To me, the music behind the nice sound is what matters the most. The lo-fi sound that you guys have seems to really add to the genuinity of your music. Does equipment matter to you, and is your choice of sound a financial solution, or an aesthetic choice?
it's mostly financial. i really like a good recording, whether it's professional or 'lo-fi,' and there's certain sounds you can only get if you do it in your bedroom on a computer, and certain sounds you can only get it if you do it in a studio to a tapedeck. and i can appreciate both. ideally, i'd like to work with tape and analog equipment, but i can't really afford that right now. that's not going to stop me from making a record anyway, or doing the best i can with what i do have. the funny thing is, when this last album was finished, we all thought of it as being really 'hi-fi' (because, for us, it is/was) and every single article about us seems to mention that it's 'lo-fi.'
I'd call it mid-fi. I have a theory that the music industry is a scheme where people try to sell you shit you don't need. They overhype certain products for their quality of sound, and they keep propagating how anyone could become a rockstar with such and such equipment. I see a lot of bad consequences of that, one of them being that people wish to become rockstars just for the sake of it, and not because they have any good artistic ideas to share. Would you agree with me that there's a thing like that going on?
i definitely think there are artists, in all fields, doing it for reasons i maybe don't personally agree with. but at the same time, it's hard to decide 'why' art should be made; to put a maxim on that. there are some bands i really love that relied entirely on equipment - lots of really warm electronic music and 'shoegaze' (what a weird genre name), etc. but it also depends on what you're listening to music for - what you (this being a general 'you') want to get out of a piece of music. whether that's mood, or story, or whatever - i think it's all valid. that being said, there's a lot of really vapid and uninteresting music being made and that has been made. why anyone likes any music though is entirely personal, i think, and it can be debated, sure, but i don't think anything is necessarily definitive, either.
Good point, and I agree. It's all a matter of subjective opinion, when it comes to art. I guess the bigger harm is all these kids getting ripped off. Back to you, though. I've noticed that most of what you do is acoustic. Are you open to recording songs with electronic sounds in future releases, or do you prefer keeping things "unplugged"?
i like the idea of using electronic sounds eventually. i just don't really have any electric instruments, currently. i think the next record will have a bit more of a mixture, though live (for the time being, at least) it'll remain mostly acoustic. i like the idea that you can just play a show anywhere at any time with no set up required, other than being in tune with one another.
Some artists record with high noise levels on purpose, and they aim to make their sound as raw as possible. Hipsters dig it, but oh lookey here, they seem to not take too much fonding of you. What's your opinion on hipster culture and Pitchfork media?
to be honest, i think the definition of a 'hipster' is still kind of a grey area for me. i mean: i get the basics, but also the formula doesn't always equal the end result in my experience. and it sort of sucks that a lot of great things are associated with this culture of people who are regarded as 'apathetic.' because i know a lot of people who care about those things a lot, and who look really good when they go out at night, but they are not apathetic. so what are they then? my friend russ woods (aka 'tinyfolk') once defined the word 'hipster' really well, i think: 'a derogatory term used by fashionable young people to describe other fashionable young people they don't like.' it honestly just makes me feel like we haven't left high school or something.
Haha, nice. I think the dude hit the nail right on the head with that definition.
pitchfork is kind of a strange thing, and i don't really want to comment on it too much further than this: what i find so strange about it is how much their opinion matters to people. what i mean by that is: a good review from pitchfork can basically make or break a band's career right now. and so can a bad one. and when i talk to people about music, even if they hate pitchfork, they usually still read it. and most people can't even list five other music websites off the top of their head. which sort of sucks. they essentially are the controlling force of 'underground music' right now, and lots of people take their opinions way too seriously, for better and for worse.
Some people compare you to Jeff Magnum from Neutral Milk Hotel. Can you spot any similarities? According to Pitchfork Media, "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is a "true timeless masterpiece". Hipsters love that shit, and it's getting more the popular. So how come Pitchfork never told hipsters to listen to you?
pitchfork probably never reviewed our record because they recieve thousands of records to review every day. the music market is insanely oversatured right now, and especially in the last ten years or so, because it's so much more accessible to release your own record these days, to go on tour, to promote your band, etc., and so a lot more people are, plain and simple. 'in the aeroplane over the sea' is a great fucking record, that definitely has had an impact on me. and our album may seem similiar because of some of the instrumental influences and the fact that i'm also singing about sex in a very graphic way, but i think overall the records are very, very different. aeroplane is, for one, a million times more hopeful than everything i've ever written and it's also probably why it strikes a chord with so many people.
Is music enough for you to get by? Do live events pay off well?
right now, i work a job in the box office of a theater company in toronto and play shows when i can, and i barely make ends meet. in my free time, i'm trying to get a novel published and thinking about going back to school.
How can fans support you financially?
Is there any merch they can buy, or perhaps a PayPal address they could donate to?
the only merch we have at the moment is the album, basically. everything else is out of print. it can be ordered on our myspace / through our paypal (oh_map@hotmail.com).
What's the weirdest place you've ever played, and what was it like? How did it go?
probably this show i played in peacedale, rhode island. we were booked to play a festival, which ended up being the town festival, which ended up being full of children. i told the promoter that i felt uncomfortable playing for kids, and so we ended up playing in a parking lot nearby for a few teenagers. there's been a bunch of weird ones, though.
Oh man, I'm sure the kids would have loved it!
Speaking of children, what's the weirdest place you've ever had intercourse? (just kidding)
a greyhound bus station public rest room; in an office; a farm field; public parks...
Your song "Your Couch" makes me cry out with sympathy for you. A friend of mine went through a similar hell like that. How much of your material is based on personal experience, and what else inspires you to write new music?
pretty much everything is based on personal experience. if not directly my own, then someone close to me. if it didn't actually happen to me literally, then it happened to me in a dream or a daydream or in that strange waking state in between, which is where i usually am. i'm also inspired a lot by films and books. there's a really long list of things that have influenced / inspired me on our myspace.
Alright. Can you describe the range of reactions you get from the audience when you play live? Have you ever gotten in trouble, and maybe got thrown stuff at you?
audience reactions are definitely different all the time. we have played some very uncomfortable shows, and sometimes i think we just scare people. but usually the response is more positive, especially because at this point we know who to book shows with and who not to more often now. we've definitely been asked to stop mid-performance, and i've never had things thrown at me, but i've had people yell derogatory things at me.
It's nice that you found your own niche. What can your fans expect from you in the future?
Tell us more about your upcoming projects.
the horse museum is working on a 7" of two new(er) songs right now. we're also going to be releasing a digital split single with shelby sifers, where we each cover one of each other's songs. it might actually be a split with her and her partner tyler tadlock's new band, which is called peacock dreams. lots of members of this band are going on to do some really exciting things with their lives in other parts of the country, so this band will soon be a lot smaller. the next record, which we're going to start recording in the fall i think, is tentatively titled 'the decline of stupid fucking western civilization,' which is from a title card in gregg araki's film 'totally fucked up.'
Can't wait for all this! In your blog on myspace you mention releasing a Divorce Lawyers photo book. What's the progress there? I'm really curious what's inside that book.
the title 'divorce lawyers i shaved my head' was originally designated to a body of photography work documenting relationships, identity, illness, and sexuality. essentially: they are the literal version of the hyperbolic story happening on the album. right now i'm still working on pairing down the images (there are about 150) down to a reasonable size for publication, and in some cases, with the more sensitive subjects, trying to figure out if they are too personal to publish or not. some of the photographs are online, though: photos at flickr
Anything else you'd like to share?
i spent the last three hours or so at work filling this out. i hope it's ok.
sometimes i find these things very hard.
That was great, man. Thank you so much for this interview, and I wish you the best!
Hello, Jordaan. Thanks again for the opportunity to ask you my humble questions. They might seem trivial to people who already know you, but I hope that this interview introduces you to new fans and listeners of alternative music. So let's get started. I think good music deserves its own name for a genre. What's a made-up genre that you think would best describe your style of music?
i have a really hard time answering questions about what 'kind' of music this band makes. i think it's easy to say it's folk music because we're playing with mostly acoustic instruments, the chord structures of the songs are usually fairly simple, and the songs are based around a story being told through words. all of those things are traditions in folk music.
but really i have no idea because, especially lately, the band is constantly changing. we also all listen to different music, and each have very eclectic tastes, so i have no idea. i bet everyone who's ever played in this band, past or present, would have a different answer.
To me, your lyrics were what initially made me want to check out more of your songs. They seem to be packed with amazingly disturbing metaphors, some of which, I think, people wouldn't even dare attempting to understand and visualize. You paint pictures with your words. If they were to be materialized, where would you hang them?
they have; they are; my bedroom.
Nice. You seem to present types of behavior and events that most people find disturbing or shocking in such a beautiful light. I love that. I love how you take things that people are shamed for, and you turn them into something completely acceptable, even beautiful. Is that really how you see things, or is that how you wish to see them, your art being a self-indulgent utopia?
i write about those things because they are happening to me and to people that i love and i need to talk about it. i need to talk about it without thinking about what's politically correct, or what's going to be seen as beautiful and what's going to be seen as disgusting. it's all kind of the same to me, in the end. or at least, i don't really think about the distinction between the two. things can be violent and loving at the same time.
I agree, in the sense that one person's love can be another person's torture... Anyway, do you have a "higher" purpose of your songs, other than entertainment? Perhaps a message that you want to subtly convey to society through your songs?
there's definitely things i am trying to say that are very important to me, but i don't really know how to sum them up here. the songs are personal and therefore political, but not political necessarily, if that makes sense. i have a lot of grandiose ideas about art and what it can do, for sure, beyond entertainment, and when i'm writing a song, "entertainment" is the last thing on my mind. it does come into play during a performance, though: because to a certain extent, no matter how natural and honest you're being during a performance, it is partially meant to entertain, to be thought-provoking, to be enjoyed for some reason or another.
Right, think I know what you're saying... I have a quote here from one of your songs: "The ghosts all say that God will save you". It seems to me like a cynical portrayal of religion, where people take advice from dead folks about an imaginary thing that would save them. Perhaps I completely misunderstood it... Can you tell me more about that song, and that quote in particular?
the song is pretty literally, actually. i wrote that song when i was seventeen, still living at home with my parents, going to high school. and i was having, whether real or not, a relationship in my bedroom with a ghost for a few years, which was perhaps hallucinatory.
Ouch. Ockham's razor has a sharp edge, indeed. Anyway... When I got used to your lyrics, I started appreciating the music behind them. I think you're a genius, vocal wise. I've never heard anyone else sing the way you do. It's not just your voice that I find unique, but also the melodies that you create with it. I noticed in your older songs, you were a bit shy to show off your skills, perhaps because you hadn't developed your own style yet? Tell us more about your journey of finding your own style. Who's your favorite singer that you think might have influenced you the most?
i started recording and releasing music before i knew what i was doing at all, so there's definitely been a transition. i was also seventeen when i started making records and my voice has just changed naturally since then. playing shows allowed me to have more confidence in my singing, and i hadn't actually played shows almost all when i made my first two records - they were made pretty much exclusively in solitary confinement. they were also recorded with bad equipment that i couldn't sing too loud with, otherwise it just sounded like terrible fuzz, and at night when i had to just be quieter in general.
most of my favourite singers are female. my favourite singer that's alive right now is diane cluck - she has so much control over her voice, it's astounding. there's still a lot of things i can't do with my voice that i wish i could. i really want to learn to yodel, for example.
You show such a wide range of talent. I read somewhere that you learned to play the guitar in just a few weeks. You also know how to play a bunch of other instruments, like the accordion, the piano, the saw, and I wonder what else. Are you a self-taught musician, or have you attended any music schools? How did you get into music?
my mother had a piano and an accordion while i was growing up, and i was given piano lessons on and off throughout my childhood, though i had a lot of trouble sitting still during them. in high school, i played bass clarinet in the high school band briefly. i learned the guitar because the accordion is heavy and the piano isn't really portable unless you have an electric one, which i don't. it took me a while to get the hang of it, but i recorded songs even though i couldn't really play it. i also have taught myself the saw and i'm trying to learn how to play the drums a bit, but i can basically only keep a 4/4 or a 3/4 beat. to be fair, i would say i play a lot of instruments just well enough to get by, but i can't play any very well.
You can't play all of the instruments at once, so obviously you need a band, at least for live performances... How did you guys find each other with the Horse Museum, and how long have you been playing together?
the horse museum formed really organically, in the latter half of 2007. i had written this album - divorce lawyers i shaved my head - and i wanted to start recording it with a band. so a small group of my friends started playing with me - that being sarah ayton, dee addario, jason aviss, and richard laviolette. richard had other things to focus on so we found jason mccrimmon to fill in on drums, and then we started recording the record, and more and more people kept getting added to the recording, and therefore the live band. the group got bigger and bigger for a while, and is now kind of imploding, changing, and getting smaller again.
You run the Oh!Map Records label. Most artists are obsessed with equipment. To me, the music behind the nice sound is what matters the most. The lo-fi sound that you guys have seems to really add to the genuinity of your music. Does equipment matter to you, and is your choice of sound a financial solution, or an aesthetic choice?
it's mostly financial. i really like a good recording, whether it's professional or 'lo-fi,' and there's certain sounds you can only get if you do it in your bedroom on a computer, and certain sounds you can only get it if you do it in a studio to a tapedeck. and i can appreciate both. ideally, i'd like to work with tape and analog equipment, but i can't really afford that right now. that's not going to stop me from making a record anyway, or doing the best i can with what i do have. the funny thing is, when this last album was finished, we all thought of it as being really 'hi-fi' (because, for us, it is/was) and every single article about us seems to mention that it's 'lo-fi.'
I'd call it mid-fi. I have a theory that the music industry is a scheme where people try to sell you shit you don't need. They overhype certain products for their quality of sound, and they keep propagating how anyone could become a rockstar with such and such equipment. I see a lot of bad consequences of that, one of them being that people wish to become rockstars just for the sake of it, and not because they have any good artistic ideas to share. Would you agree with me that there's a thing like that going on?
i definitely think there are artists, in all fields, doing it for reasons i maybe don't personally agree with. but at the same time, it's hard to decide 'why' art should be made; to put a maxim on that. there are some bands i really love that relied entirely on equipment - lots of really warm electronic music and 'shoegaze' (what a weird genre name), etc. but it also depends on what you're listening to music for - what you (this being a general 'you') want to get out of a piece of music. whether that's mood, or story, or whatever - i think it's all valid. that being said, there's a lot of really vapid and uninteresting music being made and that has been made. why anyone likes any music though is entirely personal, i think, and it can be debated, sure, but i don't think anything is necessarily definitive, either.
Good point, and I agree. It's all a matter of subjective opinion, when it comes to art. I guess the bigger harm is all these kids getting ripped off. Back to you, though. I've noticed that most of what you do is acoustic. Are you open to recording songs with electronic sounds in future releases, or do you prefer keeping things "unplugged"?
i like the idea of using electronic sounds eventually. i just don't really have any electric instruments, currently. i think the next record will have a bit more of a mixture, though live (for the time being, at least) it'll remain mostly acoustic. i like the idea that you can just play a show anywhere at any time with no set up required, other than being in tune with one another.
Some artists record with high noise levels on purpose, and they aim to make their sound as raw as possible. Hipsters dig it, but oh lookey here, they seem to not take too much fonding of you. What's your opinion on hipster culture and Pitchfork media?
to be honest, i think the definition of a 'hipster' is still kind of a grey area for me. i mean: i get the basics, but also the formula doesn't always equal the end result in my experience. and it sort of sucks that a lot of great things are associated with this culture of people who are regarded as 'apathetic.' because i know a lot of people who care about those things a lot, and who look really good when they go out at night, but they are not apathetic. so what are they then? my friend russ woods (aka 'tinyfolk') once defined the word 'hipster' really well, i think: 'a derogatory term used by fashionable young people to describe other fashionable young people they don't like.' it honestly just makes me feel like we haven't left high school or something.
Haha, nice. I think the dude hit the nail right on the head with that definition.
pitchfork is kind of a strange thing, and i don't really want to comment on it too much further than this: what i find so strange about it is how much their opinion matters to people. what i mean by that is: a good review from pitchfork can basically make or break a band's career right now. and so can a bad one. and when i talk to people about music, even if they hate pitchfork, they usually still read it. and most people can't even list five other music websites off the top of their head. which sort of sucks. they essentially are the controlling force of 'underground music' right now, and lots of people take their opinions way too seriously, for better and for worse.
Some people compare you to Jeff Magnum from Neutral Milk Hotel. Can you spot any similarities? According to Pitchfork Media, "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is a "true timeless masterpiece". Hipsters love that shit, and it's getting more the popular. So how come Pitchfork never told hipsters to listen to you?
pitchfork probably never reviewed our record because they recieve thousands of records to review every day. the music market is insanely oversatured right now, and especially in the last ten years or so, because it's so much more accessible to release your own record these days, to go on tour, to promote your band, etc., and so a lot more people are, plain and simple. 'in the aeroplane over the sea' is a great fucking record, that definitely has had an impact on me. and our album may seem similiar because of some of the instrumental influences and the fact that i'm also singing about sex in a very graphic way, but i think overall the records are very, very different. aeroplane is, for one, a million times more hopeful than everything i've ever written and it's also probably why it strikes a chord with so many people.
Is music enough for you to get by? Do live events pay off well?
right now, i work a job in the box office of a theater company in toronto and play shows when i can, and i barely make ends meet. in my free time, i'm trying to get a novel published and thinking about going back to school.
How can fans support you financially?
Is there any merch they can buy, or perhaps a PayPal address they could donate to?
the only merch we have at the moment is the album, basically. everything else is out of print. it can be ordered on our myspace / through our paypal (oh_map@hotmail.com).
What's the weirdest place you've ever played, and what was it like? How did it go?
probably this show i played in peacedale, rhode island. we were booked to play a festival, which ended up being the town festival, which ended up being full of children. i told the promoter that i felt uncomfortable playing for kids, and so we ended up playing in a parking lot nearby for a few teenagers. there's been a bunch of weird ones, though.
Oh man, I'm sure the kids would have loved it!
Speaking of children, what's the weirdest place you've ever had intercourse? (just kidding)
a greyhound bus station public rest room; in an office; a farm field; public parks...
Your song "Your Couch" makes me cry out with sympathy for you. A friend of mine went through a similar hell like that. How much of your material is based on personal experience, and what else inspires you to write new music?
pretty much everything is based on personal experience. if not directly my own, then someone close to me. if it didn't actually happen to me literally, then it happened to me in a dream or a daydream or in that strange waking state in between, which is where i usually am. i'm also inspired a lot by films and books. there's a really long list of things that have influenced / inspired me on our myspace.
Alright. Can you describe the range of reactions you get from the audience when you play live? Have you ever gotten in trouble, and maybe got thrown stuff at you?
audience reactions are definitely different all the time. we have played some very uncomfortable shows, and sometimes i think we just scare people. but usually the response is more positive, especially because at this point we know who to book shows with and who not to more often now. we've definitely been asked to stop mid-performance, and i've never had things thrown at me, but i've had people yell derogatory things at me.
It's nice that you found your own niche. What can your fans expect from you in the future?
Tell us more about your upcoming projects.
the horse museum is working on a 7" of two new(er) songs right now. we're also going to be releasing a digital split single with shelby sifers, where we each cover one of each other's songs. it might actually be a split with her and her partner tyler tadlock's new band, which is called peacock dreams. lots of members of this band are going on to do some really exciting things with their lives in other parts of the country, so this band will soon be a lot smaller. the next record, which we're going to start recording in the fall i think, is tentatively titled 'the decline of stupid fucking western civilization,' which is from a title card in gregg araki's film 'totally fucked up.'
Can't wait for all this! In your blog on myspace you mention releasing a Divorce Lawyers photo book. What's the progress there? I'm really curious what's inside that book.
the title 'divorce lawyers i shaved my head' was originally designated to a body of photography work documenting relationships, identity, illness, and sexuality. essentially: they are the literal version of the hyperbolic story happening on the album. right now i'm still working on pairing down the images (there are about 150) down to a reasonable size for publication, and in some cases, with the more sensitive subjects, trying to figure out if they are too personal to publish or not. some of the photographs are online, though: photos at flickr
Anything else you'd like to share?
i spent the last three hours or so at work filling this out. i hope it's ok.
sometimes i find these things very hard.
That was great, man. Thank you so much for this interview, and I wish you the best!
Feature:
Aesthetics
May 16, 2010
Moviegoers: Easy to Please
You compromise good taste if you pay to see a shitty film just because it's a piñata full of eye-candy. Buying the ticket translates to "I want more of the same", which feeds the Hollywood asshole to shit out more of the unoriginal crap movies with offensively gigantic plot holes, and jokes that used to be funny in third grade. If you compromise a good story for beautiful special effects, you are automatically refusing to see a movie that has both a great plot and marvelous special effects. Yes, imagine if you had movies that had both of these elements. Well, you can't, because you are an easy to please faggot.
I can't blame Hollywood; they manufacture what the market wants. You loved Transformers 2 - they made it just for you. Smart things make people feel stupid, unexpected things make people feel scared. That's why people want to see the same thing over and over again. Fuck originality... You waste your money on fecal matter and you've learned to enjoy swallowing it, because they put lots of butter on it. Well okay, even if you didn't enjoy the movie, you'll lie to yourself that you did. You'll justify all the bad parts, just to avoid admitting that you've made a bad choice. Well at least you had a good time with your girlfriend, cuddling together, eating popcorn, and spreading grease all over each other's faces, right? Like my Bub-Bub says, movies used to sell popcorn, and now popcorn sells movies. I prefer watching cartoons.
I can't blame Hollywood; they manufacture what the market wants. You loved Transformers 2 - they made it just for you. Smart things make people feel stupid, unexpected things make people feel scared. That's why people want to see the same thing over and over again. Fuck originality... You waste your money on fecal matter and you've learned to enjoy swallowing it, because they put lots of butter on it. Well okay, even if you didn't enjoy the movie, you'll lie to yourself that you did. You'll justify all the bad parts, just to avoid admitting that you've made a bad choice. Well at least you had a good time with your girlfriend, cuddling together, eating popcorn, and spreading grease all over each other's faces, right? Like my Bub-Bub says, movies used to sell popcorn, and now popcorn sells movies. I prefer watching cartoons.
Feature:
Aesthetics,
Rants
Apr 15, 2010
Dear Haters
To all the haters who judge me for HAVING A CHOICE:
Fuck your manipulative bullshit, asshole. Fuck your self-righteous crap. I'm not obligated to put up with any of you douchebags. Just because you like to waste your time with me, doesn't mean I like to waste my time with you. Just because you "respect" me, doesn't mean I should respect you back. Respect is something you earn, you are not entitled to it. You like one-way relationships where only your opinion matters, and you should always have the upper hand. Hey fuckface, you demand that people listen to you, but you never listen to them. You're so pathetic in your attempt to "be heard" and "win", that you keep sending me hatemail that I never read.
I have an opinion and I act on it. That must drive you insane, because you're a passive shit and you can't do anything on your own terms. You're a coward conformist bitch. You keep lying to yourself that you're happy in your "prison cell", where you're forced to interact with your inmates, no matter how shitty they are. Whenever you see someone like me get out of "prison", and make real choices on who to interact with, it reminds you of the shit life that you have, and that's why you hate me so much. I'll keep reminding you of your bad choices (to make no choice is also a choice). You "imprison" yourself willingly.
You say I'll run out of friends. The only person running out of friends is you. Nobody likes you because of your shit attitude. You're against me and my writings because I could potentially inspire other people to realize their choice, and stop tolerating manipulative douchebags. That's against your interests, because you like controlling people and forcing them to interact with you. If people stopped complying, you would be left alone with nobody to make you feel less worthless. You hate yourself, that's why you can't understand me. You believe an individual's value is something external, dependent on other individuals' opinion, hence you are grateful to people who find you valuable. I will not be grateful to you for finding me valuable, because I already know that I am valuable, regardless of what you think.
Finding value in someone is not something valuable. Do you expect me to say "Thank you for finding me valuable"? That's bullshit. I don't need, nor expect, your praise. What I expect from you is reciprocity. And if I believe that my interaction with you is a waste of time, then surely, you've brought nothing to the table for me. I no longer have incentive to provide you with my "product" (whatever it is that you find valuable), because you never gave me anything in return, you big altruist! You've always been the altruist, haven't you, you big fat poser.
It's the same shit with families. "My mom loves me, therefore I should love her back". That's flawed logic. It doesn't make sense to value anyone's love. It's their behavior that matters. Love is not a virtue, it's a consequence of perceived virtue. It makes no sense to accept anyone's love as something good, if their behavior often hurts you. Some psychos kill their victims because they strongly believe the latter are better off dead. Love is a very subjective thing, you see. "I do this because I love you" won't convince me to love you back, if you just hit me in the face. Call it love, friendship, respect... it all comes down to subjective values and principles.
For the last time. I'm not obligated to tolerate anyone's bullshit, even if they have strong feelings for me, or whatever. If you're an asshole, I don't want you around. If you want my "product", buy it. I ain't giving it out for free anymore, and I surely won't be missing your praise.
Fuck your manipulative bullshit, asshole. Fuck your self-righteous crap. I'm not obligated to put up with any of you douchebags. Just because you like to waste your time with me, doesn't mean I like to waste my time with you. Just because you "respect" me, doesn't mean I should respect you back. Respect is something you earn, you are not entitled to it. You like one-way relationships where only your opinion matters, and you should always have the upper hand. Hey fuckface, you demand that people listen to you, but you never listen to them. You're so pathetic in your attempt to "be heard" and "win", that you keep sending me hatemail that I never read.
I have an opinion and I act on it. That must drive you insane, because you're a passive shit and you can't do anything on your own terms. You're a coward conformist bitch. You keep lying to yourself that you're happy in your "prison cell", where you're forced to interact with your inmates, no matter how shitty they are. Whenever you see someone like me get out of "prison", and make real choices on who to interact with, it reminds you of the shit life that you have, and that's why you hate me so much. I'll keep reminding you of your bad choices (to make no choice is also a choice). You "imprison" yourself willingly.
You say I'll run out of friends. The only person running out of friends is you. Nobody likes you because of your shit attitude. You're against me and my writings because I could potentially inspire other people to realize their choice, and stop tolerating manipulative douchebags. That's against your interests, because you like controlling people and forcing them to interact with you. If people stopped complying, you would be left alone with nobody to make you feel less worthless. You hate yourself, that's why you can't understand me. You believe an individual's value is something external, dependent on other individuals' opinion, hence you are grateful to people who find you valuable. I will not be grateful to you for finding me valuable, because I already know that I am valuable, regardless of what you think.
Finding value in someone is not something valuable. Do you expect me to say "Thank you for finding me valuable"? That's bullshit. I don't need, nor expect, your praise. What I expect from you is reciprocity. And if I believe that my interaction with you is a waste of time, then surely, you've brought nothing to the table for me. I no longer have incentive to provide you with my "product" (whatever it is that you find valuable), because you never gave me anything in return, you big altruist! You've always been the altruist, haven't you, you big fat poser.
It's the same shit with families. "My mom loves me, therefore I should love her back". That's flawed logic. It doesn't make sense to value anyone's love. It's their behavior that matters. Love is not a virtue, it's a consequence of perceived virtue. It makes no sense to accept anyone's love as something good, if their behavior often hurts you. Some psychos kill their victims because they strongly believe the latter are better off dead. Love is a very subjective thing, you see. "I do this because I love you" won't convince me to love you back, if you just hit me in the face. Call it love, friendship, respect... it all comes down to subjective values and principles.
For the last time. I'm not obligated to tolerate anyone's bullshit, even if they have strong feelings for me, or whatever. If you're an asshole, I don't want you around. If you want my "product", buy it. I ain't giving it out for free anymore, and I surely won't be missing your praise.
Apr 11, 2010
Revenge
I finally decided to finish my article on revenge. I will define the word "revenge" as the delayed infliction of perceived equivalent damage to an individual for damage received by the latter. I stress the word "delayed", because otherwise you wouldn't call that kind of behavior "revenge", but rather - "retaliation". So if a guy hits you with a baseball bat, and you wait until next week to hit him back, that would be revenge.
Why commit revenge? "To receive justice, and teach the bad guy a lesson".
You feel bad because you "lost" the "game" with the bad guy. He got away with doing harm to you, and you couldn't fight back at that time. This certainly hurts, and you feel like justice should be served, because there is a lack of reciprocity between you and him. The false-self hates "losing". So in order to "win", you think it's a good idea to fight back later. Why is that bad for you? If you fight back later, the bad guy might defend himself, and there's a chance you'll get hurt. Even if you do defeat him, he might later decide to fight back, which can then hurt you, and so on. This is what I call "The Game", where you're trapped in a vicious cycle of battles, and you never give up, because you can't stand the thought of "losing"; you want to dominate your enemy.
What would happen if you "lost"? You'll have to feel the burn. But this is good. The pain might actually motivate you to figure out how to avoid being defeated next time. You can conclude that you want to stay away from situations where you can't immediately retaliate. You'll be pushed to learn how you can prevent such unfortunate events from happening.
The second argument, "teach the bad guy a lesson", is based on the assumption that whoever hurt you lacked sympathy, therefore they should be taught a lesson in Sympathy 101 by you, yourself. "If he knows what it's like to be bullied, he'll probably stop being a bully". That statement could be true in some cases, but we shall see why it's not worth trying to teach the bad guy a lesson. By punishing the Attacker, the Avenger takes responsibility for teaching him a lesson. This may take great effort. Why would you waste resources for teaching someone you hate a lesson? It makes no sense to do him a favor after what he's done to you.
"If a loved one hurt you", then you might say, "it would probably pay off well to teach them some sympathy, so maybe then revenge would be beneficial". No. A reasonable person would be greatly offended if you tried to control their behavior through punishment, for there are better, more effective ways to persuade a person. A reasonable loved one would be greatly saddened if she hurt you, and she'll probably do her best to learn how to be sympathetic in the particular instance, without having to be forced by your revenge.
Even if we assume that your loved one is retarded, revenge still won't do your relationship any good. Urgency is of importance, like in conditioning dogs. If you hit a dog right after it's done some harm, it'll subconsciously register why you've punished it, and it might learn not to do what it did again. If however, you hit it hours after it took a shit on your carpet, you'll only confuse the dog, and it won't learn the intended lesson. I figure, it would be the same with retards.
The alternative to revenge would be ostracism, if the Attacker is someone of no importance to you. Just ignore them, and be prepared to retaliate, next time they attack. If the Attacker is rather valuable to you, and you prefer to keep your friendship, it would be much more productive to talk with him about your feelings, and how his behavior triggered painful emotions in you. It's up to him to decide whether he wants to change, or not. If he has no desire to change, it's up to you to decide whether you want to make a compromise, or end the friendship.
Why commit revenge? "To receive justice, and teach the bad guy a lesson".
You feel bad because you "lost" the "game" with the bad guy. He got away with doing harm to you, and you couldn't fight back at that time. This certainly hurts, and you feel like justice should be served, because there is a lack of reciprocity between you and him. The false-self hates "losing". So in order to "win", you think it's a good idea to fight back later. Why is that bad for you? If you fight back later, the bad guy might defend himself, and there's a chance you'll get hurt. Even if you do defeat him, he might later decide to fight back, which can then hurt you, and so on. This is what I call "The Game", where you're trapped in a vicious cycle of battles, and you never give up, because you can't stand the thought of "losing"; you want to dominate your enemy.
What would happen if you "lost"? You'll have to feel the burn. But this is good. The pain might actually motivate you to figure out how to avoid being defeated next time. You can conclude that you want to stay away from situations where you can't immediately retaliate. You'll be pushed to learn how you can prevent such unfortunate events from happening.
The second argument, "teach the bad guy a lesson", is based on the assumption that whoever hurt you lacked sympathy, therefore they should be taught a lesson in Sympathy 101 by you, yourself. "If he knows what it's like to be bullied, he'll probably stop being a bully". That statement could be true in some cases, but we shall see why it's not worth trying to teach the bad guy a lesson. By punishing the Attacker, the Avenger takes responsibility for teaching him a lesson. This may take great effort. Why would you waste resources for teaching someone you hate a lesson? It makes no sense to do him a favor after what he's done to you.
"If a loved one hurt you", then you might say, "it would probably pay off well to teach them some sympathy, so maybe then revenge would be beneficial". No. A reasonable person would be greatly offended if you tried to control their behavior through punishment, for there are better, more effective ways to persuade a person. A reasonable loved one would be greatly saddened if she hurt you, and she'll probably do her best to learn how to be sympathetic in the particular instance, without having to be forced by your revenge.
Even if we assume that your loved one is retarded, revenge still won't do your relationship any good. Urgency is of importance, like in conditioning dogs. If you hit a dog right after it's done some harm, it'll subconsciously register why you've punished it, and it might learn not to do what it did again. If however, you hit it hours after it took a shit on your carpet, you'll only confuse the dog, and it won't learn the intended lesson. I figure, it would be the same with retards.
The alternative to revenge would be ostracism, if the Attacker is someone of no importance to you. Just ignore them, and be prepared to retaliate, next time they attack. If the Attacker is rather valuable to you, and you prefer to keep your friendship, it would be much more productive to talk with him about your feelings, and how his behavior triggered painful emotions in you. It's up to him to decide whether he wants to change, or not. If he has no desire to change, it's up to you to decide whether you want to make a compromise, or end the friendship.
Feature:
Mind Exploration,
Society
Apr 10, 2010
Fuck Animal Rights
My view on animal rights - they shouldn't have any. I'm against rights overall, because a "right" can only be given by a third party authority with monopoly on violence. I don't like the idea of somebody going to jail for hurting an animal. Overall, I'm against any type of imprisonment, because punishment does not solve cruelty issues, it only causes more cruelty. You wanna make a lunatic less crazy? "Well, put him in a cell with other lunatics! It'll surely straighten him up". "Teach him the Bible". Are you fucking kidding me. By the time they're out, they're not only gonna be raping animals, they'd wanna rape you and your children and your mom. Fuck jail, and fuck rights.
Imagine a fucking zoopolice. Who's running it, animals? No, people are! You'll get cuffed by a police officer for hurting little Fifi. "Surely, little Fifi would contribute to the economy a lot more than you, so hell, let's put you in jail for being a cruel fuck, and send the dog to a spa. Surely it can pay for the service, it's a motherfucking dog! A citizen of this nation". No, the dog won't pay, tax payers will. You fuckheads will pay for both the dog's treatment and the sick fuck's prison cell. You wanna pay, fine, but keep me out of it. Your "animal rights" bullshit laws will have me forced to spend money on something I don't support. Rule of the majority, my ass. I bet most of you fucks would refuse to pay voluntarily, if it weren't made into a law.
I love animals. I treat them with great care, I'm super kind to them. But that doesn't change the fact that they are retards with no ability to cooperate with humans, other than being cute and submissive. I don't need to pet a cat right now, I need money. Surely a cat would give me comfort in the short term, and it would make me feel less sorry for myself, but think of the time I wasted there petting the motherfucker, that I could have spent on making money, or some other shit. It will give me comfort in the short term, but it won't help me with paying the rent. I can't charge the cat for making them a website.
Leave animals deal with their issues and take a look at yourself first. Why do you care about animals so much? What do they bring to the table for you? Do you really care about them? Or are you a self-righteous faggot who just gets pleasure out of morally condemning other faggots? You like to punish, because you were punished. You don't like animals. You like dominance. You like to see other people suffer under your first of "justice". You like revenge. That's alright, I don't care. But I won't let you force your "will" on me.
Imagine a fucking zoopolice. Who's running it, animals? No, people are! You'll get cuffed by a police officer for hurting little Fifi. "Surely, little Fifi would contribute to the economy a lot more than you, so hell, let's put you in jail for being a cruel fuck, and send the dog to a spa. Surely it can pay for the service, it's a motherfucking dog! A citizen of this nation". No, the dog won't pay, tax payers will. You fuckheads will pay for both the dog's treatment and the sick fuck's prison cell. You wanna pay, fine, but keep me out of it. Your "animal rights" bullshit laws will have me forced to spend money on something I don't support. Rule of the majority, my ass. I bet most of you fucks would refuse to pay voluntarily, if it weren't made into a law.
I love animals. I treat them with great care, I'm super kind to them. But that doesn't change the fact that they are retards with no ability to cooperate with humans, other than being cute and submissive. I don't need to pet a cat right now, I need money. Surely a cat would give me comfort in the short term, and it would make me feel less sorry for myself, but think of the time I wasted there petting the motherfucker, that I could have spent on making money, or some other shit. It will give me comfort in the short term, but it won't help me with paying the rent. I can't charge the cat for making them a website.
Leave animals deal with their issues and take a look at yourself first. Why do you care about animals so much? What do they bring to the table for you? Do you really care about them? Or are you a self-righteous faggot who just gets pleasure out of morally condemning other faggots? You like to punish, because you were punished. You don't like animals. You like dominance. You like to see other people suffer under your first of "justice". You like revenge. That's alright, I don't care. But I won't let you force your "will" on me.
Apr 7, 2010
Snoop Dogg is a Waste
Fuck Snoop Dogg, I'm sick of seeing his face everywhere. Snoop Dogg is shit. His flow sucks, and his voice is annoying. He was never a good rapper, too. All he does is show up and take a greasy shit on a cheap beat. It's no longer a privilege to do a song with Snoop; in fact, it's equivalent to collaborating with Vanilla Ice. Both fuckers are washed out wannabe gangsters with zero talent. And oh boy, Snoop is such a pimp, married to his high school sweetheart. He's a pussy-whipped shit. When I see his face on TV, I know the program I'm watching is cheap. He's ugly, too. Snoop's the new Mr. T, except he's uglier. He looks like the type of log a Chinese constipated old woman would leave in the toilet. Snoop's the kind of shit that would clog up your toilet and reek for weeks, he just won't flush down.
I feel sorry for Snoop Dogg and his embarrassments.
I feel sorry for Snoop Dogg and his embarrassments.
Feature:
Aesthetics,
Rants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)