You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I have a really good and serious response to this and I think that it is important for people to here what I am going to say, but I feel like it would be violating my "do not reblog conspiracy theorists" rule.
Hmm.
Fuck it. I am refuting this. It annoys me and I am refuting it with the power of the Cyan Stag!
It's not a huge logical leap from that post to a radical "introspection is the only valid source of psychological knowledge" position. Which I think was a thing that may have been taken seriously by an actual psychologist at some point, but my history of psychology is pretty fuzzy nowadays. The values versus limits of introspection as a source of psychological knowledge is pretty important though, and despite the sort of left-wing anti-intellectualism* coating that particular post, psychologists have thought long and hard about it.
*Mao, for instance, was really into, to use a term from his political opposite, the best of the public and its superiority to expert knowledge.
Not that the DSM is exactly perfect; that "autogynephilia" asshole still had a hand in writing certain parts of even the latest version. But, you know, psychologists are still people who spent a goddamn decade learning this stuff.
^^ The introspection argument is very interesting; if I am not mistaken, that is the place from which a lot of Jung's ideas come from. But that is not the thrust of the assertion there. And even if one sees introspection as the only source of deep psychological understanding, having someone else to help you unpick it with knowledge gained through both personal experience and accumulated background information is undoubtedly important in many cases.
My leap to the introspection thing is the reference to research studies of others as "gossip", which is the sort of heavily negative opinion of observational research that seems to imply that everything should be done only by the participants, and from there, introspection.
But maybe that's just the weird way my mind works, that it makes that leap.
^^ The introspection argument is very interesting; if I am not mistaken, that is the place from which a lot of Jung's ideas come from. But that is not the thrust of the assertion there. And even if one sees introspection as the only source of deep psychological understanding, having someone else to help you unpick it with knowledge gained through both personal experience and accumulated background information is undoubtedly important in many cases.
yes, and the use of introspection was limited by james and completely rejected by the behaviorists. the "americans" as it were. wasn't very clinically used though
Did you know there was a time when psychologists who did empirical experiments and such were in philosophy departments? That's one of the reasons Husserl and Frege lambasted the influence of "psychologism" in logic.
Me neither. Probably depends on the school and the shrink. My best friend's dad is a former prison psychologist, so he might not be the perfect person to ask, but it might be worth asking about.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I like that for once my linking to a blatantly stupid post inspired actual discussion instead of just people telling me not to go all Odradek over Tumblr
Great discussion but to be fair I don't think the person who made that post was a conspiracy theorist; it was just a stupid post made by a stupid teenager just trying to get attention and figuring the best way to do so was by attacking something big and important.
I am surprised that, given that John Lennon hate seems popular now, Tumblr doesn't seem to have targeted the lyrics of Norwegian Wood, Run For Your Life, or Get Back.
There are probably other problematic Beatles songs.
I didn't know that John Lennon hate was big again, but possibly I'm not following the right stupid tumblrs.
Yeah, a lot of wannabe-radical people who think that their edginess quota is poorly filled automatically go to complaining endlessly about how terrible he is without actually doing any in-depth research or attempting any sort of contextual understanding. Like getting hysterical about the title of "Woman is the N----r of the World" and how it somehow disenfranchises black women without, you know, getting what the title actually means. Or the lyrics.
I mean, Lennon was a cad by his own admission and certainly did some very questionable things in his life, but it's not so simple as they like to pretend that it is. But most of them are teenagers...
Like getting hysterical about the title of "Woman is the N----r of the World" and how it somehow disenfranchises black women without, you know, getting what the title actually means.
While the intentions of the title were certainly not racist, the complaint about its non-intersectionality and erasure of the black female identity is an entirely legitimate one. It was, unfortunately, a common characteristic of feminist rhetoric during the period, and one that hasn't died out yet.
^^ In the former case, he basically made a complete turnaround after the collapse of his first marriage and his meeting Yoko Ono—which is part of where is later preoccupation with pacifism came from, incidentally: His visceral disgust with the cruelty of his own behaviour. Which I think is pretty admirable despite the repulsive nature of that previous behaviour.
"Imagine" is something else entirely.
^ The use of the word is semantically different there, however, which is part of my point: The word in question was used in America for a long time as a term of derogation against lower-class and especially enslaved black people by white people and, in many cases, free black people who wished to dissociate themselves from their perceived inferiors.
The point is that womankind has been treated as the world's slave and mistreated by all races and, frequently, by certain of those within it.
^^ TBF, John Lennon wrote and sung that song pretty much entirely because he thought it would please Yoko. I don't think he was really thinking about any of this then.
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.
Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
^^ In the former case, he basically made a complete turnaround after the collapse of his first marriage and his meeting Yoko Ono—which is part of where is later preoccupation with pacifism came from, incidentally: His visceral disgust with the cruelty of his own behaviour. Which I think is pretty admirable despite the repulsive nature of that previous behaviour.
"Imagine" is something else entirely.
^ The use of the word is semantically different there, however, which is part of my point: The word in question was used in America for a long time as a term of derogation against lower-class and especially enslaved black people by white people and, in many cases, free black people who wished to dissociate themselves from their perceived inferiors.
The point is that womankind has been treated as the world's slave and mistreated by all races and, frequently, by certain of those within it.
none of that really changes the fact that he was a white dude putting the n-word in a song title.
Artists sometimes lack common sense and sensitivity, and I think that's a great showcase of both.
I never said that it wasn't in bad taste or a good idea. I'm just saying that most of the criticisms I've seen miss the point of the title (and the point of its bluntness).
i don't like or agree with that review, which you've posted here before, unless i'm very much mistaken.
The Beatles were a highly inventive band, particularly in their later years, and and are rightly regarded as significant given their wide-reaching influence on subsequent pop, whether or not you think their influence was a good thing. i also must protest the suggestion that the Beatles were merely white boys commercializing American music; their sound is a very distinctly English take on an American genre.
i do prefer both the Kinks and the Who, but that's by-the-bye. i find that appraisal irritatingly dismissive.
i don't like or agree with that review, which you've posted here before, unless i'm very much mistaken.
The Beatles were a highly inventive band, particularly in their later years, and and are rightly regarded as significant given their wide-reaching influence on subsequent pop, whether or not you think their influence was a good thing. i also must protest the suggestion that the Beatles were merely white boys commercializing American music; their sound is a very distinctly English take on an American genre.
i do prefer both the Kinks and the Who, but that's by-the-bye. i find that appraisal irritatingly dismissive.
Oh, this is some hilarious jape which i am not in on, of course.
First rule of Heapers' Hangout: if someone copypasted something more than once, they probably think it's dumb.
that reminds me
Including Soulja on "We Made It" turned out to be one of the savviest tricks Drake has ever pulled. The song is a testament to overcoming and unabashedly flaunting your success much to the chagrin of nonbelievers. Rub that shit in the naysayers faces like apricot scrub—it's good for them. Soulja Boy is the main reason this song is so delightful. The chorus and beat are anthemic, sure, but, the highlight is Soulja interrupting Drake's verse to inform us, "Damn, Soulja Boy stunt on them haters."
He sounds taken aback by his own actions, as if he can't believe the ferocity and malice with which is he able to stunt on them h8rz. But, much like Whitney Houston, Soulja Boy simply doesn't know his own strength, for he has stunted on them h8rz for so long that at this point it basically happens subconsciously. Stunting pulses through Soulja's body—it lives deep within his sinew.
We aren't here to argue Soulja's talent (limitless and diverse) or his place in the current landscape of rap (he is a legend). We're not saying Soulja Boy is a better rapper than Pimp C because he has crashed two Bentleys, while Pimp C has only crashed one, however compelling that evidence may be. We are here to document DeAndre Way's steadfast commitment to stunting on them h8rz through his actions and laboriously put together outfits. Perhaps, we could all learn a thing or two from the master.
^^ In the former case, he basically made a complete turnaround after the collapse of his first marriage and his meeting Yoko Ono—which is part of where is later preoccupation with pacifism came from, incidentally: His visceral disgust with the cruelty of his own behaviour. Which I think is pretty admirable despite the repulsive nature of that previous behaviour.
"Imagine" is something else entirely.
^ The use of the word is semantically different there, however, which is part of my point: The word in question was used in America for a long time as a term of derogation against lower-class and especially enslaved black people by white people and, in many cases, free black people who wished to dissociate themselves from their perceived inferiors.
The point is that womankind has been treated as the world's slave and mistreated by all races and, frequently, by certain of those within it.
none of that really changes the fact that he was a white dude putting the n-word in a song title.
Artists sometimes lack common sense and sensitivity, and I think that's a great showcase of both.
might also be worth noting that Yoko was the one who came up with the title first
anyways I've aleays felt John's overty political stuff was a tad weaker than his more introspective songs
Comments
http://effyeahsexychinbutts.tumblr.com/
Apparently, some people really, really like chin butts.
other than that my introspection is often faulty due to my Brain Problems, but that's not methodological, obviously
There are probably other problematic Beatles songs.
yntkt
While the intentions of the title were certainly not racist, the complaint about its non-intersectionality and erasure of the black female identity is an entirely legitimate one. It was, unfortunately, a common characteristic of feminist rhetoric during the period, and one that hasn't died out yet.
Artists sometimes lack common sense and sensitivity, and I think that's a great showcase of both.
The Beatles were a highly inventive band, particularly in their later years, and and are rightly regarded as significant given their wide-reaching influence on subsequent pop, whether or not you think their influence was a good thing. i also must protest the suggestion that the Beatles were merely white boys commercializing American music; their sound is a very distinctly English take on an American genre.
i do prefer both the Kinks and the Who, but that's by-the-bye. i find that appraisal irritatingly dismissive.
the first rule of heapers' hangout is probably actually like, "don't send death threats to people" or something.