what happened to theo himself | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 172 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614087
Today 0
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
what happened to theo himself
 

offline 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


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 15:55 [#02044438]
Points: 24588 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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?


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:20 [#02044452]
Points: 24588 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.


 

offline 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.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:30 [#02044463]
Points: 24588 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.


 

offline 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?


 

offline 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.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:35 [#02044470]
Points: 24588 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!


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 16:39 [#02044474]
Points: 24588 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.


 

offline 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).


 

offline 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.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 17:23 [#02044496]
Points: 24588 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.


 

offline 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!


 

offline EVOL from a long time ago on 2007-02-03 17:59 [#02044514]
Points: 4921 Status: Lurker | Followup to shady: #02044501



...


Attached picture

 

offline 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.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 18:46 [#02044549]
Points: 24588 Status: Lurker | Followup to fleetmouse: #02044546



He probably won't since property lawyers weren't about in
caveman times.


 

offline 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?)


 

offline 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.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2007-02-03 18:51 [#02044554]
Points: 24588 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


 

offline 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."


 

offline 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.


 

offline 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".


 

offline Indeksical from Phobiazero Damage Control (United Kingdom) on 2007-02-03 23:13 [#02044707]
Points: 10671 Status: Regular | Followup to CS2x: #02044689 | Show recordbag



concurred


 

offline goDel from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-02-04 00:46 [#02044780]
Points: 10225 Status: Lurker | 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.


 

offline goDel from ɐpʎǝx (Seychelles) on 2007-02-04 00:55 [#02044787]
Points: 10225 Status: Lurker | Followup to goDel: #02044780



ok, got carried away there

but if you happen to know some PAPERS, i'd love to hear


 

offline 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.


 

offline optimus prime on 2007-03-15 22:56 [#02062798]
Points: 6447 Status: Lurker



hey theo.


 

offline 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

 

offline 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.


 

offline 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


 

offline giginger from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2007-03-16 08:16 [#02062942]
Points: 26326 Status: Lurker | Followup to Fah: #02062907 | Show recordbag



What the fuck does that mean?


 


Messageboard index