Context Collapse

[padraig (u.s.)]

All knowledge may be a construct of history, but experienced knowing through participation is first hand evidence, not 2nd hand. Acid house and rave and jungle and various other occurrences were part of broader cultural milieus. They were political in nature as much as they were artistic.

Both forms of accounts provide ‘evidence’, both are susceptible to scrutiny, but one allows for first hand insight. The same things occurs if you had a bloke who stumbled into a sweat-fest in the late 80’s never to return and another who spent the next fifteen years living it.

who's arguing with any of that tho?

it's all basic and self-evident - i.e. goes without saying - to any retrospective appraisal of anything

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it's one thing to say "you can't appreciate [x thing] in the way I can because I personally experienced it"

it's another to say "you can't appreciate [x thing] because you didn't personally experience it"

do you see the difference? I'll rephrase that to sound less abrasive - am I making that difference clear?

also, do you really think a person has to have literally lived through something to appreciate its "broader cultural milieu"?

because of course that's not true

 

[Leo]

Another problem, familiar to oldtimers of chatrooms, chans, and superorganisms everywhere, is rolling admission: the young’uns showed up yesterday, and they don’t get your inside jokes, and they want to talk about and do things that, well, everyone you know got bored of in the 90s (or that don’t even register as interesting to you).

no biggie, though. it's a rite of passage, one we all went through at our own points of entry. young'uns, much like new immigrants to a country, might generate some friction but also new energy, fresh perspectives, enthusiasm. new opportunities, diversions and routes to explore.

we think yr a pain in the ass now, but will be better for it and thank you in the long run.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

properly

just means someone who has an actual official academic background in philosophy etc

which, again, compared to 10+ years ago, we have fewer of. I certainly don't have such a background.

that it implies a snooty preference for people with official academic backgrounds is 100% your inference

but, misunderstanding cleared up

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

but will be better for it and thank you in the long run

surely some sociologist somewhere has written about this, cultural turnover and the evolution of what constitutes social capital in groups, or whatever

this is where it would be handy to have a proper academic type to tell me who the relevant sociologist is

 

[WashYourHands]

just means someone who has an actual official academic background in philosophy etc

which, again, compared to 10+ years ago, we have fewer of. I certainly don't have such a background.

that it implies a snooty preference for people with official academic backgrounds is 100% your inference

but, misunderstanding cleared up

properly was your term, not mine, at least own it.

it infers what it infers - proper, in way that’s correct or appropriate, socially and morally acceptable - that’s what grates regarding canons too.

we understand each other.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

properly was your term, not mine, at least own it

you are really are determined to spin a bullshit narrative out of thin air, I see. ok.

if you want to play that stupid Webster's game, it can also be an intensifying adverb for adjectives or nouns, meaning completely or thoroughly

that usage is also a common British colloquialism i.e. "proper good". I find it hard to believe you're not aware of that.

it's something I picked up here - like "I reckon", etc - and have been using for many years, long before you showed up

it doesn't imply any value judgements about greater social or moral acceptability or quality, only about what a thing is in terms of itself

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and neither do canons, inherently.

they can if they harden into dogma, but that's very clearly not what was happening here. and it's not how I think about canons.

the construction of a canon is a starting point, not an end, and it's a living document that changes as the cultural values of its constructors change

again, that change happens around a canon's borders - the core elements don't change because they are a canon's sine qua non

i.e. there's no single "Western Canon" but everyone would agree that Shakespeare is part of "the Western Canon"

I can't think of a way to make that point any clearer

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and we clearly do not understand each other. the difference is I don't presume to any understanding I don't have.

as I have said to some of the other new people, you don't know anything about me (and vice versa)

I'm happy to disagree in general, but I'd thank you not to impart some fictitious elitism to me, academic or otherwise

that's the last I'm going to say about it

 

[WashYourHands]

you are really are determined to spin a bullshit narrative out of thin air, I see. ok.

if you want to play that stupid Webster's game

long before you showed up

and we clearly do not understand each other. the difference is I don't presume to any understanding I don't have.

as I have said to some of the other new people, you don't know anything about me (and vice versa)

I'm happy to disagree in general, but I'd thank you not to impart some fictitious elitism to me, academic or otherwise

Aye aye, captain. One expression about canons and jungle seems to have triggered you into a weird place.

For the record, I take no pleasure in winding people up and prefer to avoid projecting things onto people I don’t know. However, you have a bit of work to do on histrionics. If you’ve got to have a hissy fit, can you at least avoid pejorative language and behaviour. You’ve come across as haughty and childish in this exchange. As for presuming understanding, particularly child-like. Why not own that too and say stupid. Ah, but you did already. Apologies.

We’re both adults, let’s try and keep it that way. You were here first, as you reminded me (twice) above, which makes me a guest. Try and be a good host and a sport too, eh lad.

 

[sus]

Wow, these be some slams!! Top work

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@WashYourHands lol @ some pot calling kettle if I ever seen it. you cast the first stone, brother, through your own glass window.

the self-righteous, put upon man who takes no pleasure in the sad duty that falls to him, how truly noble you are

save that bullshit for yr kids. or on 2nd thought, probably don't since if they're savvy like most kids they'll suss it as bullshit immediately.

still waiting to hear how yr poorly thought out views on canons make any kind of sense, or how yr views on jungle are anything but condescending

not that I'm holding my breath, since paucity of argument seems to have reduced yr scope to schoolyard insults, but one never knows

Wow, these be some slams!! Top work

they ain't tho

"sorry u got triggered" is about the laziest boilerplate hackwork imaginable

I miss the old days when people had to come up with their own insults, unlike these sadly degraded times

trawl the archives and you'll find the real deal somewhere. people used to be much meaner.

 

[WashYourHands]

Read the posts. I made a reasonable statement and you “oh my god” to your hearts content from the off.

Triggered as in someone who works in psychology, not Trump Jnr. You rile easy easy and that’s not exactly my problem.

Have a word with yourself. Look at your language. Look at your emotional lubrication. Canons are ridiculous dogma in too many ways to flatter you, but proper philosophy is beneath me etc.

You’re not above being told to grow up, but swing a “you don’t know me” roundhouse. Again. Pitiful, really. I’m not going to flatter you with Scottish or Irish put downs, but google cat malogen.

If you persist with this nonsense, you’re on your own mate.

 

[sus]

I dunno I think "long before you showed up" and "Try and be a good host" are slams.

 

[version]

I think this thread should be locked. Look what you've done.

 

[WashYourHands]

Bringing someone's children into things = below the belt.

Atypical narcissistic personality. Prone to hysteria. Values meanness over meaning. I've seen better classes of cuntery at Ibrox. "But you don't know me, you're thick and new" etc

Unnecessary baiting, fuck all moderation being done either.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

whatever you say, boss

 

[luka]

We don't have moderators or moderation here really.

 

[version]

Tea's the worst staff member ever. Pootling around with his mushrooms while Rome burns.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

if it helps, I take back that bit about children, I don't have any and I forget how touchy the issue can be

the rest, well, it is what is