Recently, Dynasor posted an interesting diatribe about the concept of
one man telling another man what he "should" do. It was a good post, and
you should all read it.
Anyway, I spent about ten seconds trying to reconcile Dyn's valid points
with the fact that there IS something horribly wrong with the Goth
subculture, as there is with just about ANY subculture.
First of all, I realized that I don't tell people what they should do,
except perhaps in the vaguest categories (i.e. "You SHOULD learn to
think for yourself, you SHOULD do what you want to do, etc."), and even
then I am probably using "SHOULD" in its passive, theoretical sense.
(Glodds forbid I'm ever put in a position of real power. I'll probably
just skip over individual voting altogether, so as not to put the
average Joe Sixpack in the embarassing position of having to make a
decision.)
I DO, however, think it is valid to tell people what they SHOULDN'T DO!
A-HA! The same way that a person can say, "I can't always recognize when
something is ART/LOVE/Whatever, but I can always tell when it AIN'T!", I
think that it is easier to recognize a Lack of Slack then Slack. "The
Slack that can be recognized is not the TRUE SLACK." Yup. Opo. Quotha.
What does this mean to me? It means that, although I can't tell a
Gotheaded-Us-Borer what path they SHOULD take to Salivation, I can feel
justified in reading their posts and examining their materials and media
and saying that they, at present, certainly seem to be a pack of li'l
robots.
How can I do this? Amn't I still being JUDGMENTAL? Yes and no. I dislike
the GOTH MENTATALITY and the GOTH CLOTHING and the GOTH MUSIC, et al. Am
I insulting anyone yet? No. I'm expressing my dislike for ABSTRACT
CONCEPTS! No one is there, yet. The moment, however, that someone
expresses their "self" by professing a desire to plug in to all those
concepts, and become as one with them, then they are leaving themselves
WIIIIIDE OPEN, and are practically demanding to be included as PART OF
the abstract concepts.
Someone with the hoochy coochy name of "LaceMaker... daughter of the
asterioids... builder of Lego mountains... creeper of haughtiness...
anonymous donator of moribundity" or something like that went on about
being an individual AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, without justification (I know,
they don't NEEEEEEEEEED to justify ANYTHING, but it would certainly help
us understand and probably stop yapping at 'er), claimed an affinity for
the clothes, trappings, and, obviously, stereotypical drabniss(TM) of
Gothmongerers everywhere.
So can I mock her? No. Can I mock Gothic shit? You betcha. Have I
already mocked her by making fun of her pretentious .sig? Sorta. You're
right, it's a very "if"fy topic.
However, I can not simply give up my right to argue in favor or or
against things in the name of "not restricting anyone's freedom". We are
in the wild and woooooly worlds of personal ontology and cosmology,
here: we CAN'T leave out the inevitable clashing of minds that is going
to go on, and while I agree that Slack can be, and SHOULD be, found in a
different (or at least, POTENTIALLY different) way by everyone, I feel I
have the intelligence and insight to recognize when Slack appears to be
in absence, or, in the case of LaceMaker's posts, sadly suppressed for
whatever reason.
To say we SHOULDN'T say "SHOULD" is one thing. To say we are no longer
"empowered" (god, I hate that word: it sounds like someone is handing us
something instead of getting it ourselves) to try and CONVERT people to
the way of Dobbs is a different thing altogether.
FREEDOM TO BE FREE! FREEDOM TO SHOW THE WAY TO FREEDOM! FREEDOM TO SHOW
HOW YOU DID IT! FREEDOM TO SPIT ON THE FLOWERS! WHO HAS THE FREEDOM? I
DON'T KNOW! WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME?
An admittedly cunfyoozed rant by
the Grand Clavister (who just woke up)
Send responses to: clavis@phantom.com (this post was an open call for
further baaaaabling, not any sort of bee-all and ennd-all)
Send keys to: O.L.I.N.Y.K., PO Box 2559, Grand Central Station, New
York, NY 10163-2559 Also send $1 and LOOOOOOTS of photos of
you-know-what! (Well, forget the photos.)
P.S. Is there an argument against being against Gothism? I dunno. I DO
know that almost every post I have seen in defense of Gothosity has been
an oddly uneven mixture of "call for tolerance/lemmee alone" stuff and
"My isness is a call for passionate gothfulness blah blah blah"
incomprehensibility that only served to reinforce my worries that these
people haven't a CLUE. But I'm generalizing again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)
John P. Olinyk (clavis@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Anyway, I spent about ten seconds trying to reconcile Dyn's valid points
: with the fact that there IS something horribly wrong with the Goth
: subculture, as there is with just about ANY subculture.
FYI, I usually go by Dyna (or Liz, from lizard). The female sounding names
put in context of my rather large and menacing presence and my explosively
juvinile personality make for an extremely disorienting experience and/or
good joke designed right into my lifestyle. It's both psychological warfare
and twisted humor.
: I DO, however, think it is valid to tell people what they SHOULDN'T DO!
: A-HA! The same way that a person can say, "I can't always recognize when
: something is ART/LOVE/Whatever, but I can always tell when it AIN'T!", I
: think that it is easier to recognize a Lack of Slack then Slack. "The
: Slack that can be recognized is not the TRUE SLACK." Yup. Opo. Quotha.
That is precisely the point, or rather antithetical to it.
If the point behind the philosophy is exercise of abnormality, but there's
proscription of abnormal behavior, there's hypocrisy.
When I see something off the wall, the measurement of whether it personally
wrenches my nuts is irrelevant. I may think it's fully enlightened along
the Eightfold Way of Bogousity, but that doesn't matter. If it pushes out
the envelope of behavior and attitude into irrationality and abnormality, I
climb up on the chair and cheer it on. If it enforces standards of behavior,
particularly those which restrict freedom of thought or action, then to my
mind it deserves to be eviscerated and humiliated publically. If it merely
presents a set of restricted behaviors which someone voluntarily adheres to,
like Goth, it damn sure isn't abnormality they're after, but it's still
their choice of action.
And if whatever it is doesn't lead the adherent to Slack, big fucking deal.
They're responsible for their own. They can't be led to it, and leading them
to your idea of it by restricting their other behavior strikes me as
singularly oppressive.
Fuck 'should' and 'shouldn't'. Borrow from kibo -- they're allowed.
If you want to save the dimwit dupe who has no clue they've been sucked in,
that's one thing. To use goth simply as an example again, I doubt any of
them were hoodwinked into it.
If the point were to smooth over the bumps in the social norms, there'd have
never been a 'High Weirdness by Mail'.
--
dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ricky@usenet.nerdc.ufl.edu (Captain Midnight)
Ok, how about:
We SHOULDN'T say SHOULD but we SHOULD say SHOULDN'T.
First, it's a Dobbs-Compatible dictum becuase it's self contradictory.
Second, it's a way of saying that SubG's subscribe to a NEGATIVE
CONFESSION of "faith." You shouldn't do the following things:
Tell other people what's "right" or "wrong" and
how to live their lives.
Leave it at that. No other SHOULDN'T. If these Goths are having
fun then what's the problem? Just as long as they don't tell me
that there's something "wrong" with me because I'm not a Goth.
I'm suspicious of any group who uses external appearance to identify
themselves to the world and each other. But I don't condemn the
practice of "branding" oneself as a kind of "product quality
assurance mark." Conformity is bad in any group large or small.
On the other hand I don't say you have to be some sort of unique
non-conformist. It's really your life. Get whatever joy and
happyness and satisfaction and pleasure you can out of it.
You'll probably learn that conformity to a group standard deminishes
your joy. Or maybe it doesn't. I wouldn't know because I don't
think I'm conforming to ANYONE'S standards.
If you're happy, then what's wrong with you? (nothing)
.......................TEAR.ALONG.THE.DOTTED.LINE.......................
Epopt of the Exploding Head of JFK Licensed to blaspheme the Gods!
My skull is bigger on the inside than the outside!
Send $1 to SubGenius Foundation, P.O. Box 140306, Dallas TX 75214
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: eraserhead@iglou.iglou.com (David Lynch)
r 1995 18:12:18 GMT
Lines: 20
You know, it sticks in my craw to have to admit you're right, that
singling out morons won't solve anything, and in fact is detrimental to
shutting them up. In fact, it really ruins my day. So I won't. And the
next time you have philosophical questions about the nature of flaming,
keep them to yourself, OK?
: P.S. Is there an argument against being against Gothism? I dunno. I DO
: know that almost every post I have seen in defense of Gothosity has been
: an oddly uneven mixture of "call for tolerance/lemmee alone" stuff and
: "My isness is a call for passionate gothfulness blah blah blah"
: incomprehensibility that only served to reinforce my worries that these
: people haven't a CLUE. But I'm generalizing again.
Ahhh, that's more like it. To answer your question, no. I've seen plenty
of defensible goths, but gothism is as hopeless as any clique.
--
eraserhead@iglou.com
"Scientology is my business and business is good"
Member, 1st Church of the Overinflated Head of L. Ron Hubbard
Send $1 to: PO Box 140306 Dallas, TX 75214
Original file name: You SHOULD read this-Flames 2
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.