Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I doubt it. Real victimisation to add on to illusory victimisation compounds the victim/martyr meme, it doesn't blast it away. People made the same arguments against goths and when that girl was beaten to death last year, there was a big outcry of indignation from the goth community against acceptable bigotry, not mass realisation that they should wear shell suits all the time and stop moping lest they "get something to really be depressed about".Darth Wong wrote:Actually, I suspect that if emo kids were actually oppressed in a material way, they might gain some perspective on their imagined problems and realize how full of shit they were before.
Erm...Goths aren't necessarily heavily identified with depressed. Normally they're more angry and sometimes stoic. IIRC Goths, among with the metalheads and punks beat up emo kids; as they claim that they 'rip off their culture' (or the "whiny emo bitches" stereotypeZuul wrote:People made the same arguments against goths and when that girl was beaten to death last year, there was a big outcry of indignation from the goth community against acceptable bigotry, not mass realisation that they should wear shell suits all the time and stop moping lest they "get something to really be depressed about".
I heard that argument a lot against the 'emo is a style of life' and the 'depressed cutters'. But, IIRC there's so many definitions of what is 'emo' (Some would say music, some would say the dress, some would say how you act).Darth Wong wrote:Because they think they have such terrible problems when they generally have lives that, in every observable way, seem fine.
It's sort of like seeing certain pampered Hollywood movie stars complaining about how hard it is to be a filthy rich person who works 2 months a year but has to put up with the scourge of people taking pictures of you. They have absolutely no right to complain about their lives, and a lot of people find it infuriating.
So you're saying that they're mentally retarded and have no idea what cultural baggage comes with those clothes, then?Zac Naloen wrote:Wong, here is what I am saying. 90% of what people in this thread call Emo's AREN'T Emo's.
They are people following a fashion trend made popular by a music scene, most of them are just the modern version of punks. Hence why they are generally called Scenesters. They follow the "scene".
"Gangta's" dress like their heroes in the Gangsta rap scene and "Chavs" dress like their heroes who play football (or in the female case, their wives).
Notice the the quotations? Those are there because I'm not talking about actual Gangsta's and actual Chavs. They lead shitty lives intimidating people and shoplifting. There is a whole seperate group of people that get lumped in with these idiots who are guilty of nothing more than buying clothes from the same shops their friends do.
Yet again you demonstrate your complete idiocy. You say that the fashion gets rightfully panned, but only as a fashion. You still insist on acting as though these people honestly have no idea that there is a cultural connotation associated with their particular choices, which is complete bullshit and you know it. Or at least you should, if you're not a raving imbecile.At no point have I said you cannot judge them. In fact here : -I state the complete opposite. So fuck off.All these horrible fashions get panned and rightly so,
I think it takes more that simply getting oppressed to gain that sort of perspective. They have to take some action on their part to actually either take on the source of oppression, or come to some sort compromise with it. The experience would then give them far more perspective than just passively accepting the oppression.Zuul wrote:I doubt it. Real victimisation to add on to illusory victimisation compounds the victim/martyr meme, it doesn't blast it away. People made the same arguments against goths and when that girl was beaten to death last year, there was a big outcry of indignation from the goth community against acceptable bigotry, not mass realisation that they should wear shell suits all the time and stop moping lest they "get something to really be depressed about".Darth Wong wrote:Actually, I suspect that if emo kids were actually oppressed in a material way, they might gain some perspective on their imagined problems and realize how full of shit they were before.
Alright, I'll massively oversimplify it here, but still attempt to hit the main points:Warsie wrote:Erm...Goths aren't necessarily heavily identified with depressed. Normally they're more angry and sometimes stoic.
No.So you're saying that they're mentally retarded and have no idea what cultural baggage comes with those clothes, then?
I call bullshit. When a gangsta-wannabe dressed up like a gangsta, he knows perfectly well what cultural baggage comes along with this kind of group identification.
Oh piss of Mike. here's the quote immediately preceding that line, seeing as you clearly can't be bothered to read properly.Yet again you demonstrate your complete idiocy. You say that the fashion gets rightfully panned, but only as a fashion. You still insist on acting as though these people honestly have no idea that there is a cultural connotation associated with their particular choices, which is complete bullshit and you know it. Or at least you should, if you're not a raving imbecile.At no point have I said you cannot judge them. In fact here : -I state the complete opposite. So fuck off.All these horrible fashions get panned and rightly so,
I then state that these horrible fashions get panned, and rightly so. To anyone with a functioning brain that quite clearly includes the behaviours I'm talking about in the previous line.actually what i am saying is that fashion is more than just your clothing choices and that certain behaviours can become fashionable as well.
Emos may be bullshit, but they don't carry the cultural baggage that 'gangstas' or 'chavs' do WRT violence towards others.What's more I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that i'm saying you can't judge people on anything let alone their clothing. I said Emo is no less Bullshit than Chav's or Gangsta's for fucks sake, I.e they are all as bad as each other in their ridiculousness. That's a judgement itself.
That's fair enough, I was merely pointing out that I'm guilty of some judgements in my opening post. Which is why it baffles me that Wong assumes I'm talking about not judging anyone.. about anythingUnfair?
Perhaps, but when someone chooses to self identify with a subculture that has known criminal tendencies, I have no sympathy when they bitch about 'being judged by appearance'.
Again fair enough, what I'm saying though is that most of them probably don't want to assault you. You aren't of the ones the internet tough guy post was aimed at btw. Fair enough defend yourself if they do assault you, but for someone to state they want to harm a person they don't even know based on their clothing choices is pretty damned low.As you say, they may only be kidding themselves.
The real problem for the kids succumbing to peer pressure to dress and act like 'gangstas' is that someone like me won't give a damn about their motivations if assaulted by them*.
Exactly it.Glocksman wrote:Then the problem is keeping the chav 'wannabe' from following the example of the real chavs and harming innocents.
I guess it boils down to making 'would-be' chavs aware of the negative consequences of their actions.
If the choose to act on them after than and are killed by their would be victims, then it's no great loss to society.
Hopefully.Say to someone, "you can dress how you want, but just remember" .... and you'll have a totally different, much improved, response.
who's taking about sugar coating and white lies? The way a person dresses for a job interview or for their job, if it's a professional one, is and should be a completely seperate dynamic to a social situation and at no point have i suggested otherwise.brianeyci wrote:Here's the problem Zac. They can't dress how they want. Teenagers don't like being lied to, and if they find out you've been sugar coating or see white lies there's hell to pay.
Better to tell them, no they can't dress how they want, not if they want a career and a future. If they whine, bring up sports uniforms.
The teenage brain is not good with nuiances. They see in black and white. If you say "you can dress what you want" and add caveats, then all they will remember is you saying to them they can dress how they want and not the extra, then run crying home when they fail a job interview.
You do them no favors by telling them they can dress how they want. Employers will not be impressed at all by a teenage snot dressed like utter shit. A guy at my first work was fired for hanging his pants low like a gangster. He went around to take pictures with his cell phone of other people doing it, to prove some kind of discrimination, then sheepishly realized everybody wore their belt at the waist like they're supposed to.
Have you ever actually worked with teenagers? Almost all of them are perfectly capable of grapsing the "nuance" of "You can wear what you want sometimes, but not others". When a kid dresses inapproppriately for a job interview, almost always one of these:brianeyci wrote:Here's the problem Zac. They can't dress how they want. Teenagers don't like being lied to, and if they find out you've been sugar coating or see white lies there's hell to pay.
Better to tell them, no they can't dress how they want, not if they want a career and a future. If they whine, bring up sports uniforms.
The teenage brain is not good with nuiances. They see in black and white. If you say "you can dress what you want" and add caveats, then all they will remember is you saying to them they can dress how they want and not the extra, then run crying home when they fail a job interview.
You do them no favors by telling them they can dress how they want. Employers will not be impressed at all by a teenage snot dressed like utter shit. A guy at my first work was fired for hanging his pants low like a gangster. He went around to take pictures with his cell phone of other people doing it, to prove some kind of discrimination, then sheepishly realized everybody wore their belt at the waist like they're supposed to.
You seem to prove my case for me. If teenagers see on TV they can dress how they want, but only in certain situations, there's no point in telling them that like Zac wants to. Meanwhile, you can say, no you can't dress how you want, not all the time. How is that a lie?RedImperator wrote:Have you ever actually worked with teenagers? Almost all of them are perfectly capable of grapsing the "nuance" of "You can wear what you want sometimes, but not others". When a kid dresses inapproppriately for a job interview, almost always one of these:
1. He was never taught what constitutes approppriate dress at a job interview.
2. He was taught, but doesn't believe it actually matters.
3. He was taught, but he refuses to because "it's not fair", "I have a Constitutional right etc.", "Fuck you", or whatever other justification he's come up with for attempting to push at his boundaries (which is what every teenager who doesn't grow up into a hopelessly dependent mama's boy does; some are just better than others at figuring out which boundaries to push).
Of course a teenager can dress however he wants, within the limits of the law and what his parents allow, on his own time, and he's going to figure out the first half in about 20 minutes if he owns a television. What you have to teach is the second part, which really isn't that difficult, and even those that fall under 2 and 3 will get it after a few blown job interviews. If he really is so dumb you need to lie about this, what he needs to wear is a helmet.
hehehe. I've been reading ishkur's site. Electronica=winOni Koneko Damien wrote:Of course I'm skipping over a dozen or so related minor subcultures such as ravers, who can be pretty much summed up as "Glowsticks, wheeee!"
There's nothing wrong with that, which is probably why I said the exact same thing, you idiot. If you had as well, then I wouldn't have even replied. But you didn't.brianeyci wrote:You seem to prove my case for me. If teenagers see on TV they can dress how they want, but only in certain situations, there's no point in telling them that like Zac wants to. Meanwhile, you can say, no you can't dress how you want, not all the time. How is that a lie?RedImperator wrote:Have you ever actually worked with teenagers? Almost all of them are perfectly capable of grapsing the "nuance" of "You can wear what you want sometimes, but not others". When a kid dresses inapproppriately for a job interview, almost always one of these:
1. He was never taught what constitutes approppriate dress at a job interview.
2. He was taught, but doesn't believe it actually matters.
3. He was taught, but he refuses to because "it's not fair", "I have a Constitutional right etc.", "Fuck you", or whatever other justification he's come up with for attempting to push at his boundaries (which is what every teenager who doesn't grow up into a hopelessly dependent mama's boy does; some are just better than others at figuring out which boundaries to push).
Of course a teenager can dress however he wants, within the limits of the law and what his parents allow, on his own time, and he's going to figure out the first half in about 20 minutes if he owns a television. What you have to teach is the second part, which really isn't that difficult, and even those that fall under 2 and 3 will get it after a few blown job interviews. If he really is so dumb you need to lie about this, what he needs to wear is a helmet.
They can't dress how they want, full stop. Different from what I said (in a post you've quoted, for Christ's sake), which is "You can wear whatever you want sometimes, but not others". Different from Zac's, too, which was functionally identical to mine.you wrote:Here's the problem Zac. They can't dress how they want. Teenagers don't like being lied to, and if they find out you've been sugar coating or see white lies there's hell to pay.
Better to tell them, no they can't dress how they want, not if they want a career and a future. If they whine, bring up sports uniforms.
It's a lot more complicated than you think.
Yeah, you're right, as a professional adult who has worked with teenagers, I don't understand the value of dressing professionally or teenage psychology. Good think I have you to set me straight, or I might start telling teenagers to wear gimp suits to presidential debates.You see, this is why every one of my long posts takes hours to compose and contains compound-complex sentences and paragraph-length parenthetical asides exhaustively listing every concievable circumstances--because when I don't, there's always somebody who brings up some pointless nitpick and thinks he's scored a point.Mike has said when teenagers go to his company to hand in a resume, if they're dressing like shit going there they don't even take a second look and quietly file it away. That's not even an interview. Meanwhile there are stories on this forum of college girls dressing like they're going clubbing to a dentist's office, then the dentist phoning the school and telling them he'll never take another student again. There's also the whole issue of ponytails, nose rings, tattoos, purple hair, pink hair etc. etc.
Brian, are we going to have to have another long, unpleasant conversation where you distort my arguments and I get angry and call you names? Because I'm game. You can maybe start by identifying where in my post, or any previous post I've ever made on this board or any other board anywhere on the Internet, where I've said or implied that I think it's wrong to tell teenagers "no".You seem to think telling them no is wrong. What's wrong with saying no?
That's apparent.For the record, I have not worked with teenagers, but I was a teenager just a few years ago.
When grownups debate, they make points with empirical evidence, not impassioned diatribes, Brian. Quit wasting my time with this horse shit.There are way too many people saying you can do whatever the fuck you want, and not enough people saying no, due to self-esteem teaching bullshit methodology.
No, actually, you can't, and if you'd done more than scan my post, you'd know that (congratulations on successfully counting to three, though). Let's examine them again.You create those three categories, but you don't want to acknowledge the fourth: they've been told, but they're too fucking dumb to get it. In fact, you could even dump all three categories into that.
"Never taught" is not the same as "too dumb to get it" in my universe, Brian.1. He was never taught what constitutes approppriate dress at a job interview.
This one's close, and in fact could concievably be too dumb to get it--or maybe it's his first time and he's about to learn the hard way. I guess it's fair, though, since I never mentioned that someone in this category could learn his lesson...2. He was taught, but doesn't believe it actually matters.
.I, in the post you evidently didn't read, wrote:even those that fall under 2 and 3 will get it after a few blown job interviews
This is not blind stupidity, Brian, this is rebellion, something teenagers have been known to do from time to time.3. He was taught, but he refuses to because "it's not fair", "I have a Constitutional right etc.", "Fuck you", or whatever other justification he's come up with for attempting to push at his boundaries (which is what every teenager who doesn't grow up into a hopelessly dependent mama's boy does; some are just better than others at figuring out which boundaries to push).
Quit trying to hitch your stupid ideas to other people's intelligent arguments. You're not fooling anybody.Anyway, let's get to the heart of the matter: what does it mean "you can wear what you want?"
Mike seems to think that means, you can wear whatever you want without consequences.
You're going to point out where I said that (Zac too, for that matter), or you're going to retract it, and you're going to do it in your very next post in this thread.Same as me. RI and Zac seem to want to divorce the consequences of clothing with the choice.
Wait a minute. I thought teenagers were too stupid to grasp the nuance in "You can wear what you want" and would take that to mean "Go ahead and wear a clown suit to school if you want." Now it's "teenagers understand they have to dress a certain way to succede in their own social circles, but they're somehow blind to the idea they have to do the same to fit in other social circles"? Can you go 10 minutes without contradicting yourself, or is that like asking a cat to do trigonometry?Under a microscope, no, you can very rarely wear what you want. You've mentioned RI that your female teacher colleagues dress conservatively, so their teenage charges won't hit on them. In high school, most cannot wear what they want, not if they want to fit in. School is an inevitable fashion show, with people dressing to impress others. That's the whole point of dress: to convey a message to other people. Teenagers, especially poor teenagers can immediately relate to that point of view.
First, I'll repeat that neither I nor Zac actually said "you can wear what you want" full-stop, no qualifications. This is a strawman distortion--whether it's because you're too incompetent to read our actual arguments or too incompetent to address them, I don't know.From this point of view, the point "you can wear what you want" only makes sense from a limited, legalistic view and not in the big picture.
Blow me, you shrill, pompous, self-righteous, stupid, illiterate, worthless waste of electrons. Then when you're done, you can point out where I said fashion choices don't have consequences, or you can retract this, too.If the purpose of dress is to convey a message to others, as me and Mike think, then there are very limited circumstances where you can wear what you want. Fashion choices have consequences.
Actually, "puto" is, strictly speaking, the male version of "puta" which means "whore". The meaning in practice, when used as an insult, is something like a combination of "bitch" and "fag" with overtones of uncleanness.Glocksman wrote:Among them, 'puto' (faggot) is the worst thing they can call someone.
Most "Emo's" aren't even depressed.
They are just following a fashion trend.
It's no more bullshit than any other fashion trend, like acting "gangsta" or being a "chav".
And frankly anyone who gets angered by someone for the way they dress needs to grow the fuck up.
I'm going to walk through this yet again, Brian. I'll try to use small words, but you're going to have to keep up.brianeyci wrote:Qualifications my ass. If you are looking for a legalistic discussion about whether teenagers can wear what they want, then there is nothing to talk about RI.
Brian, if I was on a crusade to defend the dumb, my entire waking life would be spent following you around explaining to the normals that it's really not your fault.As usual you go on your moral crusade to defend the dumb, and I usually agree with you, starting with the kids who stared at the sun until they were blind, and when I was wrong about blaming people for sucking at math. But not this time.
Brian, I once called you the worst debater on the board. I regret that--because plainly, it doesn't do justice to the full Brianeyci experience. I've encountered AIMbots who could debate better than you; at least an AIMbot could repeat my own statements back at me.How about this asshole: You were replying to me so I assume you disagreed with me, and my entire point is, say No. Strawman my ass. See, this is how a counter-example works. All I have to do is list one instance of teenagers not being able to dress how they want, and I win. It has nothing to do with me being a semantic whore, or me misreading Zac's sentence, and everything to do with logic. The same logic that says to disprove A => B all I have to do is list one instance of A not implying B, and the statement is false.
If you had any ability whatsoever, you could have at least accused me of changing my argument. I still would have whipped your ass, but at least that wouldn't be as staggering a fuckup as claiming I said something I explicitly denied and then declaring victory.First, I'll repeat that neither I nor Zac actually said "you can wear what you want" full-stop, no qualifications. This is a strawman distortion--whether it's because you're too incompetent to read our actual arguments or too incompetent to address them, I don't know.
And even if that was what we actually said, do you really think that me or Zac or anyone who isn't from the pocket universe where you can actually win a debate actually means that in the strictest, most literal sense? For fuck's sake, when this started, I thought we were talking about teenagers wearing their "teenager clothes"--i.e., the clothes they wear to fit in with their peers--in inapproppriate situations. Apparently, you actually think I meant it as "Go ahead and wear anything you feel like in any situation--you won't suffer any consequences for it".
Jesus Christ, if I ever had a teenager in my apartment, and I said, "Go ahead and have whatever you like from the refrigerator", would you think I meant he should go ahead and eat the door?
DR5, Brian.I wrote:"You can wear what you want sometimes, but not others"
The most infuriating thing is that you've managed to be so incompetent I don't know how to properly insult you. I can't think of a single thing to say to you that would make you look worse than your own post.Does it infuriate you, how that works?
And just what the fuck does that have to do with the line to which you responded, and to which I counter-responded? Nothing. Just more handwaving and smokescreens from you, because Christ knows you can't argue anything straight-up. The entire debate between Zac and Mike isn't relevant, because I'm not involved in that. If Zac really does think there should be no consequences for how one dresses (a position I doubt anyone, let alone him, reasonably holds), then that's his problem. I do notice you went ahead and conflated my entire position with that, even though I said nothing at all on that topic.You apparently haven't been following the argument RI, you douche. I'm sorry to say about Zac, but from his very first post he made the claim that yes, people can wear whatever they want without consequences, which is what spawned the flames with Mike. Maybe you should read this again:
Most "Emo's" aren't even depressed.
They are just following a fashion trend.
It's no more bullshit than any other fashion trend, like acting "gangsta" or being a "chav".
And frankly anyone who gets angered by someone for the way they dress needs to grow the fuck up.
