"Fest is a circular narrative in many ways. Where it kind of sums up the human race in a time capsule" is a circular narrative in many ways. Where it kind of sums up the human race in a time capsule.

Holy fuck dude.

I don't know what you just said but ANS are an awesome band. If Dante is gonna blog and blow a band he could do a lot worse than ANS.

Report  
victim (August 9, 2009)

Who is ANS?

Report  
InaGreendase (brian) (August 9, 2009)

http://www.punknews.org/bands/ans

Report  
victim (August 9, 2009)

Thanks I thought it was an abbreviation like AWS

the government?

Take out a student loan and then drop all your classes.

dress like a fireman and stand beside a busy traffic light with a boot and tell people you are taking up money for hurricane katrina.

its working fine for me

Its down for me too. It worked yesterday though.
From what I hear it just goes down for certain people from time to time. It never seems to be everyone at one time.

it has been down for me all day. maybe its because i was such a drunk bastard last night

Hey, I'm here, or my email is autosuggestion50@gmail.com if the forum doesn't work for a while longer

I haven't posted again in the thread concerning the forums. I don't know why I thought you had an exclusive forum. It must have been something you said in the past.

Report  
MyStereoHasMono (August 9, 2009)

Works fine for me:
http://www.orgsummit.com/



Report  
victim (August 9, 2009)
I'm not avoiding emailing you so much as

1. email is a cumbersome way of communicating

2. don't assume that just because its a one on one exchange that other people aren't reading it or interested and following the convo. I try to keep things public..sometimes I go back and find stuff that was written years ago that is very valuable..not on punknews so much (lol) but you feel me

What I wanted to tell you is that communicating on the internet is HARD. The reason is two-fold

1. you may think people aren't hearing you, but you don't write to convine anyone..people convince themselves and youI just provide a little push "help" here and there. This can lead to a real frustration and fatalism that is not productive. If you find that happening, gotta take a step back. Remember, if you know a little something, you have an obli

show rest of commentI'm not avoiding emailing you so much as

1. email is a cumbersome way of communicating

2. don't assume that just because its a one on one exchange that other people aren't reading it or interested and following the convo. I try to keep things public..sometimes I go back and find stuff that was written years ago that is very valuable..not on punknews so much (lol) but you feel me

What I wanted to tell you is that communicating on the internet is HARD. The reason is two-fold

1. you may think people aren't hearing you, but you don't write to convine anyone..people convince themselves and youI just provide a little push "help" here and there. This can lead to a real frustration and fatalism that is not productive. If you find that happening, gotta take a step back. Remember, if you know a little something, you have an obligation to pass that along. The more you know, the more you owe

2. Most of the questions people want to talk about, depend upon discipline, cooperation and above all agreement on method. But establishing that method -- which is a precondition to real agreement and is the only way to enforce self-discipline -- is exactly what is at issue.

Makes things like "philosophy" impossible to talk about..anybody can just toss any screwy idea into the mix and then what? Every opinion has validity and deserves a hearing..doesn't it? (my answer is an emphatic FUCK NO if anyone is unclear)
Report  
dlangl4 (August 9, 2009)
I know your post is speaking generally, but I'm guessing it was also specifically addressing my habit as of late on punknews to interject into other peoples' arguments to try to tell one of the party's to just give up arguing with the other party because the other party isn't going to listen/be open minded/isn't willing to be proved wrong/etc.

Most of the time, this is just a tactic I use to try to get that party that is being hard headed to open up. I don't know if you read the discussion on here about a month ago betwen me, angiepants, and acris, but basically I used this exact same tactic, and it worked against angiepants but not against acris. Meaning, after using the tactic, angiepants opened up and tried to have a real discussion, whereas acris just folded her cards and started making fun of me. The strategy is really kind of a last ditch strategy. It us

show rest of commentI know your post is speaking generally, but I'm guessing it was also specifically addressing my habit as of late on punknews to interject into other peoples' arguments to try to tell one of the party's to just give up arguing with the other party because the other party isn't going to listen/be open minded/isn't willing to be proved wrong/etc.

Most of the time, this is just a tactic I use to try to get that party that is being hard headed to open up. I don't know if you read the discussion on here about a month ago betwen me, angiepants, and acris, but basically I used this exact same tactic, and it worked against angiepants but not against acris. Meaning, after using the tactic, angiepants opened up and tried to have a real discussion, whereas acris just folded her cards and started making fun of me. The strategy is really kind of a last ditch strategy. It usually only works about half of the time on the internet. I NORMALLY only use when I can tell the argument is about to end otherwise.

That being said, the last couple of weeks on punknews, I have been using the tactic way prematurely. This is, as you say, due to frustration. The reason I like to talk to people on punknews (and the internet I guess) so much is because I hate talking to people in real life, and I hate talking to most people in real life because I hate how people argue/debate/have discussions in real life. I mean I hate their methods and tactics and so on. There's so little social debate on punknews that it's easy for me to avoid having to witness stupid arguing. But when it happens here, it's more than frustrating to try to witness it.

I mentioned to you the other day that the structure and logic and outline of an arguement/discussion interests me JUST as much as the subject matter of the discussion itself. Meaning, if we're talking about abortion, then HOW we go about discussing the subject of abortion is just as interesting to me as the subject matter of abortion itself.

I completely understand that I can never convince anyone outright on my own. I never expect anyone to say to me "Yeah, you're right, I was wrong." This is even more true in a real life discussion. I've had arguments with people where both myself and the other person knew that I was right by the end of the argument, but instead of admitting it, he just choose to never bring up the subject again, even months later.

What I do expect is that, if I can successfully guide the discussion well to stay within the logical structure and outline, then by the end of the discussion, even if we (both parties) still disagree, I will have left that person with a few nuggest of thought to take away with them. From those pieces of knowledge, I hope (maybe even expect) that the person will think about them on their own over the next couple of months. And, I hope further, that maybe that will help that person to convince themself that maybe they might actually be missing the target on a few things. Maybe that person will figure it out on their own.

From that point, I never expect anyone to tell me anything. I couldn't give a fuck less to hear someone admit to me that I was right. It's not ME that's ever right. Truth is just the truth. All that matters to me is that they walk away with enough new insight to later think about it on their own and come to their own (more) correct conclusions).

My problem on punknews lately is that I've been using that specific tactic prematurely like I said earlier. You're right that it's fatal. Your post was me taking a few steps back. Thanks. This shit can be frustrating.
Report  
victim (August 9, 2009)
What was Socrates contribution really? Wasn't it basically a way of asking questions?

See, the ancients had this thing called dialectic. It pops up again in a different form with GWF Hegel and gets worked over pretty hard in Marxism but none of that is germane.

The idea is simple: whenever you make a statement that is not trivial (and sometimes even then) its on you to define all of your squishy terms. If you can't do that, you have to reboot. Every criticism needs to start with SELF-criticism

So, in "debate" it works like this: you make a statement or proposition. Then someone else (or even yourself) points out a contradiction -- in two words it is contra diction which means it goes against what was said. Doesn't mean you have to abandon what you started with, instead you use the contradiction as a way of refining the orgin

show rest of commentWhat was Socrates contribution really? Wasn't it basically a way of asking questions?

See, the ancients had this thing called dialectic. It pops up again in a different form with GWF Hegel and gets worked over pretty hard in Marxism but none of that is germane.

The idea is simple: whenever you make a statement that is not trivial (and sometimes even then) its on you to define all of your squishy terms. If you can't do that, you have to reboot. Every criticism needs to start with SELF-criticism

So, in "debate" it works like this: you make a statement or proposition. Then someone else (or even yourself) points out a contradiction -- in two words it is contra diction which means it goes against what was said. Doesn't mean you have to abandon what you started with, instead you use the contradiction as a way of refining the orginal idea. In this way you furnish a new proposition that incorporates both your original statement AND the contradiction. Repeat again and again, without sentimentality, attachment, or mercy

This is how thinking "moves". And, incidentally, if you get the above you pretty much understand the Hegelian dialectic. The only caveat is that Hegel by himself sans Marx is trash, so it is kind of a dubious accomplishment. Or well, you actually only half understand the Hegelian dialectic, but its a big step. But this is neither here nor there.

Point is, the Greeks raised the stakes for serious dialogue. It is not entirely true to attribute all of this to antiquity because there were similar ideas elsewhere, especially in the Arab world. I don't know as much about them however.

Raise yourself to raise the debate (not a criticism, but an imperative)

Report  
dlangl4 (August 10, 2009)
I'm going to reply to both comments since they concern a different subject.

I have to admit, and I'm sure you hear this a lot in these sorts of discussion, that I'm mostly uneducated when it comes to established philosophy and philosophical theory. What I mean by "uneducated" is that I don't know who most of the major players have been in history, I haven't read their works, I don't know most of the vocabulary words, and I certainly don't know how their ideas have developed over time or where their ideas stand today.

That being said, on my own (as far as I can tell), I've come to understand the entire process you just described in the comment above (about having to define terms).

The process of having to define words is super important to me. In fact, the reason I'm sitting in front of a computer all day is because I'm in the process

show rest of commentI'm going to reply to both comments since they concern a different subject.

I have to admit, and I'm sure you hear this a lot in these sorts of discussion, that I'm mostly uneducated when it comes to established philosophy and philosophical theory. What I mean by "uneducated" is that I don't know who most of the major players have been in history, I haven't read their works, I don't know most of the vocabulary words, and I certainly don't know how their ideas have developed over time or where their ideas stand today.

That being said, on my own (as far as I can tell), I've come to understand the entire process you just described in the comment above (about having to define terms).

The process of having to define words is super important to me. In fact, the reason I'm sitting in front of a computer all day is because I'm in the process of writing 2 books. One of those books is going to be called The Connotation Dictionary. It's not really a dictionary cataloguing the connotation of every word in the English language. Rather, it's going to be a manual/guide that if two individuals sit down with the book, they should be able to use the process of discussion/debate I lay out in the book in order to appropriately reach (hopefully) a natural and logical conclusion. (I could talk all day about this subject, but I think we both already know so much about it that it would likely be fruitless right now).

I've described the process on here a couple of times. I'm sure the idea isn't novel. I know that I'm extremely unlikely to think of anything "new" when it comes to philosophy. Maybe I really should do some reading by other philosophers to see if everything I want to write has already been written. And if so, it's likely that they were better authors than me.

That being said, as you mentioned, this form of discussion is imperative. Because The Connotation Dictionary is just one of a pair of books I’m writing (the other concerning political ideology as a result of using the process), I'll probably write it anyway. Even though I know other people have probably thought of and written about this same idea before, I'm hoping to cover all of the angles (something I doubt which has been done before, but maybe). By "cover all of the angles" I mean that, in such a discussion, a tons of things could go wrong…

Basically I want to lay out the entire groundwork for how to have a discussion, plus lay out ALL of the auxiliary rules and issues and problems that may or may not come up, and then how to deal with them appropriately. This book is going to be huge.

Basically, this is how to have a discussion that results in both parties walking away more knowledgeable.

I know I've typed a lot that wasn't directly in response to what you said, but my main point is that I'm doing this on my own, all from my own brain, all from what I’ve figured out by myself. You obviously have the education to point me in the direction of people much greater than myself who have already written about this or can help me to refine the process in any way possible. Let me know if so. You are not excluded, obviously.


Report  
victim (August 9, 2009)
you said "truth is truth"

This is tricky and indicative of my comments on method. Without an agreed upon methodology for determing what is true in what other situations does "truth" not devolve into "being right" vs "being wrong"?

Every sentence starts with "Here's what I think.." or "It seems to me"

Politics is the exact same way. Whats the divding line between Left and Right? Simple question with a simple answer, but not one that the "Left" tends to have a ready answer for.

The answer is that the Left holds private property and class to be the central issue of politics. Liberals deny this and claim it is about anything and everything BUT property and class. What they advance are right wing ideology and right wing programs.

But its hard to talk about that in the United States because "everybody knows" that Democra

show rest of commentyou said "truth is truth"

This is tricky and indicative of my comments on method. Without an agreed upon methodology for determing what is true in what other situations does "truth" not devolve into "being right" vs "being wrong"?

Every sentence starts with "Here's what I think.." or "It seems to me"

Politics is the exact same way. Whats the divding line between Left and Right? Simple question with a simple answer, but not one that the "Left" tends to have a ready answer for.

The answer is that the Left holds private property and class to be the central issue of politics. Liberals deny this and claim it is about anything and everything BUT property and class. What they advance are right wing ideology and right wing programs.

But its hard to talk about that in the United States because "everybody knows" that Democrats are the Left. Gotta strip away all of the surface truth, and work out a common method of agreeing as to what is and isn't true. If you think about it, this involves hitting the RESET button on the entirety of modern discourse. Literally EVERYBODY is a philistine and all talk is across-the-board without content.

Thats gotta change, and it will. Thats why not just Marx is important -- establishing a basis for analysis and talk -- but also those who came before Marx..early materialists (akin to Leibniz who Voltaire mocked so mercillessly), classical economists (Adam Smith/David Ricardo) , radical democrats (Jacobins) and early socialists and communists (Gracchus Babeuf being the latter, Robert Owen, Fourier, and St Simon the former). Mix in some dead Russians -- narodniks and nihilists, the people Tolstoy said believe in NOTHING -- and you've got a recipe for stirring shit up. Thats what its all about right now -- but that is not a "Truth" in the sense of Plato's Ideals.

(Oh, you know that "idealism" and "materialism" aren't being used in the vernacular, right?)
Report  
dlangl4 (August 10, 2009)

Hey I'll reply to both of these in the morning aka the early to mid afternoon.

Report  
victim (August 10, 2009)

posting to make sure this thread stays in the top 10 in my account..once they fall off I tend to forget which thread it was

Report  
dlangl4 (August 10, 2009)
Not to intentionally ignore your entire post, but it would have been much more accurate for me to "non truth is non truth" as opposed to me saying "truth is truth."

"Gotta strip away all of the surface truth, and work out a common method of agreeing as to what is and isn't true. If you think about it, this involves hitting the RESET button on the entirety of modern discourse. Literally EVERYBODY is a philistine and all talk is across-the-board without content."

This is basically where I start every discussion: by hitting the reset button. In other words, I start a discussion with the conclusion that there is no truth, then work from there. The result is that there is very little TRUTH, and mostly non truth.

To hit upon the politicial aspect of your comment, "The answer is that the Left holds private property and class to be the central

show rest of commentNot to intentionally ignore your entire post, but it would have been much more accurate for me to "non truth is non truth" as opposed to me saying "truth is truth."

"Gotta strip away all of the surface truth, and work out a common method of agreeing as to what is and isn't true. If you think about it, this involves hitting the RESET button on the entirety of modern discourse. Literally EVERYBODY is a philistine and all talk is across-the-board without content."

This is basically where I start every discussion: by hitting the reset button. In other words, I start a discussion with the conclusion that there is no truth, then work from there. The result is that there is very little TRUTH, and mostly non truth.

To hit upon the politicial aspect of your comment, "The answer is that the Left holds private property and class to be the central issue of politics..."

If you hit the reset button, of course these are the first two issues you run into WELL before you even get to political issues such as healthcare. I haven't been convinced that private property and class are NOT the problems. In other words, I don't personally feel at this point that those two things are not the central issues of the world. But as you said, everybody ignores this, the result of which is that 99% of Americans skip both of the issues of private property and class, and they go straight to auxillary issues such as healthcare. It's really quite wacky.

Anyways, I'm with you on this if I haven't made it apparent.

I've intentionally not spoken much about my personal solutions to the issues of private property and class. The reason is that I don't think I could do it in a comment on pn. Not to mention, I'm still figuring most of this out as I'm new to this branch of thought. Not to mention, my book #2 I mentioned concerns this exact same subject, and it would be hard to break everything I'm writing there into a couple of paragraphs for here.

Suffice it to say that the "result" of this train of thought should be quite obvious. My main issue is, and always has been, how do we get there, from here.
Report  
victim (August 10, 2009)

You wrote a book? Seriously?

Anyway, just one tiny thing: health care isn't auxillary. Property and Class are the platform. Health care for all, hell SHOES for all, is definitely part of the political program.

You come together based on the platform and work to advance a common program based on the platform. Thats what politics is honestly.

Report  
victim (August 10, 2009)

Let me add: not making fun of you writing a book, Just that I thought I read somewhere that you were like 18 or something. What do you write about? (In all sincerely)

Report  
dlangl4 (August 10, 2009)

It's actually two books, but I haven't started on the second one, and I'm only about a third way through with the first one. The first one is a description and "how to" manual/guide on discussion, and also all of the ways NOT to have a discussion.

The second book is political, but based on my recent conversations with you, I'll probably hold off on this one for another 5-10 years or longer, however long it takes for me to have a firm grasp on all of the subjects.

I'm 25.

Report  
victim (August 10, 2009)

Ah, that makes more sense. I'm 28 in less than an hour

yeah it's down for me too for some reason but apparently not for everyone. I'm gonna switch hosts over the next week or so and hopefully fix that problem

ive been listening to board of rejection by gunmoll nonstop lately.

Report  
abracadaver (August 9, 2009)

Honestly one of the best records I've ever heard.

Youth Brigade - Sink With Kalifornia & YB/Swingin Utters Split
7 Seconds - Walk Together, Rock Together
Snuff - Demmamussabebonk

I don't know abut the others

Report  
Tahoejeff (August 9, 2009)

Actually, Snuff has a greatest hits CD that would probably be good if you're just getting into them.

http://www.fatwreck.com/record/detail/688

Hey buddy.

Samiam's "Astray" is one of my favorite records of all time. Seriously. Of all fucking time.
Get into it, man. You'll dig it for sure.

Report  
Scarysmurf (August 9, 2009)

I second this comment to the fullest extent.

Report  
carnivoroustree (August 9, 2009)

Thanks to Scarysmurf...I third this comment. so awesome.

7 Seconds - Scream Real Loud (live album)
Youth Brigade - Sink with Kalifornija
Samiam - Astray or Clumsy
Gunmoll - Board of Rejection and their split with Fifth Hour Hero
Snuff - Demmamussabebonk or Tweet Tweet My Lovely

My favourite album of all time is "You Are Freaking Me Out" by Samiam. But yeah, as dude said above, "Astray" is pretty solid. I can see it being favourite album of all time material.

Snuff--Tweet Tweet My Lovely or 6 of One, Half Dozen of the Other (its the singles collection). Also, there's Guns n' Wankers, which is the best Snuff album that Snuff never recorded (the singer is the same)

7 Seconds--The Crew.
Youth Brigade--Everyone will say Sink With Kalifornia, but Happy Hour is also pretty great.

7 Seconds-The Crew is their classic one but I don't know how much you're into the early 80s hardcore sound so the live album "Scream Real Loud" actually isn't a bad place to start

Youth Brigade-Sink with Kalifornija is all you need

don't know about the others

I asked Jon Snodgrass about it a few months ago, and I guess Chad is more focused on DTR and his other stuff.

Report  
14theroad (August 9, 2009)

It must suck when you have two singers and neither of them want to do it.

Report  
Tahoejeff (August 9, 2009)

3 if you want to count Milo...

Report  
14theroad (August 9, 2009)

Oh yea, I forgot the other ALL guy.

Report  
Tahoejeff (August 9, 2009)

I wasn't talking about Dave Smalley, but yeah, him too. Why the fuck doesn't anybody wanna sing for Bill, Karl, and Steve!?

NO. ALL!

From what I hear about dry sockets, you absolutely do not want one.

Report  
Scarysmurf (August 9, 2009)

I shall have to wait till Wed then.
Its so far away though, ugh.

loosen up the filter and smoke through your nose ;)

Report  
Scarysmurf (August 9, 2009)

Hahaha.
Thank you for that. I got a nice lol.

I've had teeth pulled by two different dentists and both of them told me to wait at least 24 hours to smoke. I think you'll be okay if it's been four days.

13

That Damion Suomi guy has a decent sound