|  | 
        
         |  | 
        
         |  EVOL
             from a long time ago on 2007-02-03 15:46 [#02044436] Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044384
 | 
| 
     
 
 | lol mulitplied by infinity 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 15:55 [#02044438] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044432
 | 
| 
     
 
 | The point of entry is where the public are hooked, making its place pretty important. And I wouldn't call Moby a
 puppet as he deliberately whored his 'music' to the highest
 bidders, thereby helping in the hook.
 
 I understand that many people don't give a fuck about this
 issue, as evidenced in previous XLT threads on this
 subject.
 
 Money isn't infinite - one man's wealth contributes to
 another's poverty.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  fleetmouse
             from Horny for Truth on 2007-02-03 16:07 [#02044442] Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02044438
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Money isn't infinite - one man's wealth contributes to another's poverty.
 
 Money is an abstraction representing value, not a substance
 that gets pumped out of the abdomens of the working classes.
 If you write a book, grow a field of carrots or discover a
 way to turn cellulose into cheap fuel, you've created
 value-wealth-money.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Drunken Mastah
             from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-02-03 16:17 [#02044448] Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044442 | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | the problem with money is that while the amount of the value it is supposed to represent may very well stay constant, the
 amount of money will fluctuate, bringing inflation and
 deflation or whatever those two things are called in
 english: if one money was one value, and no more, no less,
 it could quite possibly work out a whole lot better, but
 then you could ask yourself why have money instead of the
 valuables?
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:20 [#02044452] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044442
 | 
| 
     
 
 | The millions being pumped into Moby's bank account, or whoever the rent-a-celebrity is that week, is money that
 could have been used in other ways: such as
 
 01:: setting up social programmes
 
 02:: paying the workforce a better wage, thereby beginning
 to break the huge gap between rich and poor and instigate a
 balance between the two.
 
 There's a difference between earning money by hard work and
 being given distorted sums of money by a corporation to use
 your 'reputation' and 'selling-value' to enhance the image
 of their products. The responsibility is not only with the
 corporations, but with the 'celebrities' who take the money,
 money created by the workforce, being channelled away from
 the workforce who are the ones who toil 8 or 9 hours per
 day, 5 or 6 days per week, for 49 or 50 weeks per year.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  dog_belch
             from Netherlands, The on 2007-02-03 16:23 [#02044456] Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Nobody's forced to buy his bloody records. 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:30 [#02044463] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to dog_belch: #02044456
 | 
| 
     
 
 | True - although, I was referring to his music on advertisements: Which I believe also contributed to the high
 volume of sales for Play, in a cyclical manner. So,
 not only did he get paid for having his garbage in
 advertisements, but he also gained free advertising for his
 music. Repetition is Truth seems to be some sort of
 modern western mantra.
 
 Some might call that 'enterprise' and commend him for it, I
 call it cynically distasteful; but hey, I'm sure I'm just
 some Commie Homo for siding with the workers and not the
 fat-cats and self-serving smugfucks who hold the wealth and
 the control.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  CS2x
             from London (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-03 16:32 [#02044466] Points: 5079 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02044463
 | 
| 
     
 
 | I can see your point, but if you were offered lots of money for your music to be shoved on adverts millions of people
 would see, would you really refuse?
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  dog_belch
             from Netherlands, The on 2007-02-03 16:33 [#02044467] Points: 15098 Status: Addict | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | But I doubt he went round large corporations saying "Hey guys, chill out, why not play my music on your
 adverts?" It was probably the licensing arm of the record
 company. To make.. money.
 
 Pop music is a commodity. We know this. Take solace in the
 fact that Moby gets pissed off that people always give him
 tea because of his stupid fucking vegan cake shop.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:35 [#02044470] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to CS2x: #02044466
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Yes. I have principles. Old-fashioned and terribly uncool, I know, but hey, that's me. I like to think I have some
 integrity.
 
 I've been asked that question more than once on Xltronic
 over the years btw. And no-one ever believes me!
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:39 [#02044474] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to dog_belch: #02044467
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Actually, if I remember rightly, he did actively pimp his music to the corporations.
 
 I take solace in the fact that he's a soulless prick who is
 derided by those who see through his fake hippie bullshit.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Drunken Mastah
             from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-02-03 16:56 [#02044486] Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02044470 | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Actually, I read a rather interesting article on something that can be seen as related to this.. A professor, I can't
 remember exactly what of, but it was economy-related, was
 taking issue with modern economical education. The thing is
 that one of the basic assumptions of capitalism and thus
 also education in management and economy, is that man is
 essentially an egotistical animal. This "myth" is
 somehow kept alive through the fact that all freshly
 educated economists are taught both strategies and theories
 based partly upon this assumption. This is why capitalism at
 times seems like the antagonist to the welfare state: "to
 each his own; you'd do the same if you could!!!"
 
 Now, there is little, if nothing, pointing to this "man's
 essence" being a truth, neither from a biological point of
 view, nor, more importantly, from a social/psychological
 point of view. Also, from a philosophical point of view, I'd
 say claiming essential properties in man is what you do when
 you're fourteen years old and you've been watching too many
 animés; it is foolish.
 
 However, it is quite possible, and also very likely, that
 since our society is permeated by capitalist thinking, we
 are also influenced by this way of thinking. Thus,
 capitalism is self-fulfilling: what it predicts of man is an
 influence on man, making man egotistical without there being
 any sort of necessary connection between being a man
 and being egotistical. This becomes more evident if you look
 at, as I said, fourteen year olds. Very rarely do you find
 fourteen year olds who have developed a good enough
 self-awareness to know that they aren't determined to be
 merely a thing, and they're also very gullible, so they
 believe what you tell them. I remember the "everything you
 do is egotistical, even when you do something for someone
 else you do it so that you yourself can feel good!" argument
 all to well from that time (strangely enough, most of the
 time it was performed by girls).
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Drunken Mastah
             from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-02-03 16:57 [#02044488] Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02044486 | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | haha, I forgot to explicitly relate it to your post: people don't believe you because they believe capitalism and the
 idea that man is egotistical, so they believe you'd do
 what's best for yourself in all situations; those few
 self-sacrificing people are exceptions to the general rule,
 some sort of genetic disorder.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 17:23 [#02044496] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02044488
 | 
| 
     
 
 | I see it as logical not to be self-serving: for mankind to progress, or even to survive beyond the next hundred years,
 what is need is not a system of enslavement and control but
 a system of co-operation and brotherhood (excuse the awful
 connotations related to that word).
 
 The way we are going, there won't be much left in a couple
 of generations' time. I know that I myself try to help other
 people whenever I can, and to promote this attitude within
 my workplace. And the atmosphere and efficiency levels are
 always higher when we are co-operating & the rapport and
 friendliness is there. It's when the occasional prick thinks
 only of themselves and what they want that things fall apart
 and I need to step in.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  shady
             from chicago (United States) on 2007-02-03 17:27 [#02044501] Points: 416 Status: Addict
 | 
| 
     
 
 | his mom ate him, thats what the FUCK happened to him! 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  EVOL
             from a long time ago on 2007-02-03 17:59 [#02044514] Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to shady: #02044501
 | 
| 
     
 
 | ... 
 
 
 | 
        |  | Attached picture | 
	
	 |  | 
   | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  fleetmouse
             from Horny for Truth on 2007-02-03 18:42 [#02044546] Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02044448
 | 
| 
     
 
 | That's great. Now do the one about the caveman who invented property by putting up the first fence.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 18:46 [#02044549] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044546
 | 
| 
     
 
 | He probably won't since property lawyers weren't about in caveman times.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  fleetmouse
             from Horny for Truth on 2007-02-03 18:47 [#02044550] Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02044452
 | 
| 
     
 
 | You're always going to have inequality in a free society. The alternative is a social order so rigid that the
 government is essentially playing whack-a-mole with anyone
 who gets ahead and dares to poke their head out of the hidey
 hole.
 
 (I'm not saying there shouldn't be a progressive tax scheme
 and social programs, medicare, good public education,
 forcing accountability for environmental damage and so on)
 
 (an aside: have you ever read The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula
 K. LeGuin?)
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  fleetmouse
             from Horny for Truth on 2007-02-03 18:48 [#02044553] Points: 18042 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #02044549
 | 
| 
     
 
 | A property laywer is a caveman with a club so big it comprises all of society.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  marlowe
             from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 18:51 [#02044554] Points: 24636 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044550
 | 
| 
     
 
 | I don't believe the alternative to one extreme is the other extreme. Like I said, we either jump off the doomed path
 we're treading as a species through co-operation &
 understanding & tolerance & enlightenment, or we plunge into
 the eternal darkness and play pat-a-cake with the
 dinosaurs.
 
 btw, I liked your gag about the caveman property lawyer :D
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  fleetmouse
             from Horny for Truth on 2007-02-03 20:24 [#02044574] Points: 18042 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | "Gentlemen, the choice is clear..." 
 *chomps cigar, leans over board room table*
 
 "...either we wallow in false dichotomies, or we stop using
 them FOREVER."
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  shady
             from chicago (United States) on 2007-02-03 20:39 [#02044591] Points: 416 Status: Addict
 | 
| 
     
 
 | you should have seen they way EVOL reacted when i called him a fag, he got so pissed off, i think hes got gay blood in
 him.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  CS2x
             from London (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-03 23:06 [#02044689] Points: 5079 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | It is actually quite sad, what happened with Moby. I don't like his old albums that much, but they did have a certain
 energy, a certain passion. I can't believe the man we see
 today was once responsible for "Animal Rights".
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Indeksical
             from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-03 23:13 [#02044707] Points: 10672 Status: Lurker | Followup to CS2x: #02044689 | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | concurred 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  goDel
             from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-02-04 00:46 [#02044780] Points: 10240 Status: Regular | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #02044486
 | 
| 
     
 
 | Thus, capitalism is self-fulfilling: what it predicts of man is an
 
 influence on man, making man egotistical without there being
 
 any sort of necessary connection between being a man
 and being egotistical. This becomes more evident if you look
 
 at, as I said, fourteen year olds. Very rarely do you find
 fourteen year olds who have developed a good enough
 self-awareness to know that they aren't determined to be
 merely a thing, and they're also very gullible, so they
 believe what you tell them.
 
 Although I agree on capitalism being self-fulfilling, to a
 certain extent, I disagree on the example of egotistical 14
 year olds. At that age people aren't fully developed yet.
 Especially emotionally. With their egotistical tendencies as
 a consequence.
 It'd be interesting to compare 14 year olds from
 non-capitalistic societies. But even if they are less
 egotistical than their capitalistic counter parts, the
 conclusion that capitalism is to blame is very crude.
 Perhaps people develop differently in a capitalistic
 society. Like it takes more time to become an adult, for
 instance. That -possible- fact that capitalistic 14 year
 olds are more egotistical than their non-capitalistic
 counter parts, doesn't imply that adults of both societies
 show the same differences.
 Regardless of the above, my point would be that
 egocentricity is a part of childhood in all societies. And
 in some societies children can develop faster in this aspect
 than in others. It would be an interesting to find a way to
 measure egocentricity and to compare different societies. I
 wouldn't be surprised if this has been done a long time ago.
 If you happen to know some, I'd like to hear.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  goDel
             from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-02-04 00:55 [#02044787] Points: 10240 Status: Regular | Followup to goDel: #02044780
 | 
| 
     
 
 | ok, got carried away there 
 but if you happen to know some PAPERS, i'd love to hear
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Drunken Mastah
             from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2007-02-04 03:15 [#02044840] Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to goDel: #02044780 | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | oh, I weren't saying 14year olds were egotistical, I just remember those years as the period in which people performed
 the argument that even acts of self-sacrifice or kindness
 was somehow motivated by egoism, by the egoistical desire to
 feel happy or something. This is precisely because they
 aren't fully developed; they aren't aware of the fact that
 they aren't essentially egoists.
 
 Oh! I just found out there's a difference between the word
 egoistical and egotistical! I just thought english people
 spelled egoistical egotistical, but there's a fine
 difference there.. I'll have to look into how one properly
 applies these words.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  optimus prime
             on 2007-03-15 22:56 [#02062798] Points: 6447 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | hey theo. 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  EVOL
             from a long time ago on 2007-03-15 23:17 [#02062804] Points: 4921 Status: Lurker
 | 
| 
     
 
 | apparently he's the headliner in the main room... 
 
 
 | 
        |  | Attached picture | 
	
	 |  | 
   | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Ceri JC
             from Jefferson City (United States) on 2007-03-16 02:54 [#02062839] Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | That's one of the most impressive thread derailments I've seen in a long time, Drunken Mastah/Fleetmouse/Marlowe.
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  Fah
             from Netherlands, The on 2007-03-16 06:52 [#02062907] Points: 6428 Status: Regular
 | 
| 
     
 
 | while you were all discussion shit here, theo himself has been hoarding the board behind yer backs and took your bones
 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         |  giginger
             from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2007-03-16 08:16 [#02062942] Points: 26335 Status: Regular | Followup to Fah: #02062907 | Show recordbag
 | 
| 
     
 
 | What the fuck does that mean? 
 
 
 | 
        
         |   | 
        
         | Messageboard index
 
 
        
 |