Ironicwarcriminal posted:statickinetics posted:
im reading projectiles for the people, history of the RAF. it owns.
until i realized you were talking about the red army faction and not the royal air force that title was weirding me out
hahahahahahahaahahha
jeffery posted:itsa Chirst Chirsty Christmas!
Crow posted:downloading thbis *does a red salute lol*
what really impresses me is the clarity and accuracy of their theoretical writing. the polemics are some of the best ive ever read too
littlegreenpills posted:who was the idiot who wrote transparent lies about everyone including family members banging each other in the trobriand islands
i dunno, i don't really know much about anthropology as a field. malinowski wrote "the sexual life of savages" and its on trobriand sexual whatever, but I don't remember anything particularly libidinally noteworthy leaping out at me (like for there's incest, but not really ridiculous incest in the context of a field ethnography, at least as I half remember). maybe there's a different book you're thinking of?
or maybe you just GOT WEAK PIPE GAME BRO
STEP YO FUK GAME UP
animedad posted:thx bruh. im pretty uneducated about anthropology & such things. i actually plan on visiting southern mexico and central america next fall, should be cool
that's cool, are you doing the tourist-ezln thing?
statickinetics posted:im reading projectiles for the people, history of the RAF. it owns.
high fünf
cleanhands posted:i had an idea to write a post about jimmy savile and jerry sandusky and their implications for western culture but, lets be honest, i wont actually do it
is the gist of it that western culture is so frayed and insecure they have to tear down their heroes for a few indiscretions?
the significance of his posthumous reassessment is the precedent it sets. while i guess it would be important to some people to clarify that a lot of children wanted to fuck mick jagger while few of them wanted to fuck savile, the principle stands that savile was way, way down the food chain, sexually and culturally. we can stand to throw savile's effigy on the pyre because everyone was already happy to admit they thought he was a bit of a weirdo. but what do we do about the rest of our heroes? what do we do with our cherished collective memories of the rolling stones, or the beatles, or the who, or anyone else who made a name in swinging london? it's long been tacitly accepted that these men in their twenties had regular sex with girls as young as 13 as a matter of course, almost as of right, and nobody mentioned it and no tales were told. things were different then, you know?
except, it became clear as soon as savile's good name hit the pavement outside television centre, that the (now) women involved don't agree that things were different. the bottle thus rubbed, we await the genie, with terrible fury and inescapable wrath, with the power to dispel the myths upon which the british cultural establishment relies for its relevancy and legitimacy in a world which has otherwise moved on (bar the embarrassing reactionary binge that was 'britpop' in the early 90s). a cynical conspiracy theorist might suppose it was more than good fortune that the savile scandal stayed quiet until the London Olympics was wound up, reliant as it was on stretching 1960s musical goodwill to cover all aspects of the image we projected worldwide, our statement that we're still here and we still matter.
had this information come out 6 months earlier, it would have carried a different meaning: people of the world, behold, all these men fucked kids and didn't think anything was wrong, and neither do we. maybe the great rock n roll swindle will stay under wraps for good, but if it does it's because it needs to. britain needs to be Great, and must be kept that way by any means necessary. if that means knowingly lionising child rapists (as opposed to the status quo ante, which in theory was 'unknowingly' doing so) then that is just what we'll have to do. but if savile's memory isn't safe, as well protected as he was, then it'll be interesting to find out who is.
i was gonna add some stuff about sandusky but i havent followed that as much and would need to do actual reading but im outta time. that was longer than i planned, pretend i posted it on my blog and filled it full of lacanian gobbledegook i guess
cleanhands posted:the gist is that savile wasnt special in his tastes for underage girls, access to whom was a huge part of the overall compensation package for everyone involved in rock n roll. to be clear, everyone who was anyone in the music industry at the time was either fucking little girls or trying to.
the significance of his posthumous reassessment is the precedent it sets. while i guess it would be important to some people to clarify that a lot of children wanted to fuck mick jagger while few of them wanted to fuck savile, the principle stands that savile was way, way down the food chain, sexually and culturally. we can stand to throw savile's effigy on the pyre because everyone was already happy to admit they thought he was a bit of a weirdo. but what do we do about the rest of our heroes? what do we do with our cherished collective memories of the rolling stones, or the beatles, or the who, or anyone else who made a name in swinging london? it's long been tacitly accepted that these men in their twenties had regular sex with girls as young as 13 as a matter of course, almost as of right, and nobody mentioned it and no tales were told. things were different then, you know?
except, it became clear as soon as savile's good name hit the pavement outside television centre, that the (now) women involved don't agree that things were different. the bottle thus rubbed, we await the genie, with terrible fury and inescapable wrath, with the power to dispel the myths upon which the british cultural establishment relies for its relevancy and legitimacy in a world which has otherwise moved on (bar the embarrassing reactionary binge that was 'britpop' in the early 90s). a cynical conspiracy theorist might suppose it was more than good fortune that the savile scandal stayed quiet until the London Olympics was wound up, reliant as it was on stretching 1960s musical goodwill to cover all aspects of the image we projected worldwide, our statement that we're still here and we still matter.
had this information come out 6 months earlier, it would have carried a different meaning: people of the world, behold, all these men fucked kids and didn't think anything was wrong, and neither do we. maybe the great rock n roll swindle will stay under wraps for good, but if it does it's because it needs to. britain needs to be Great, and must be kept that way by any means necessary. if that means knowingly lionising child rapists (as opposed to the status quo ante, which in theory was 'unknowingly' doing so) then that is just what we'll have to do. but if savile's memory isn't safe, as well protected as he was, then it'll be interesting to find out who is.
i was gonna add some stuff about sandusky but i havent followed that as much and would need to do actual reading but im outta time. that was longer than i planned, pretend i posted it on my blog and filled it full of lacanian gobbledegook i guess
PLEASE expand and post for frontpage please
anyway, it's finally put me in the mood to start reading hollow land, it's cool so far
Edited by Ironicwarcriminal ()
cleanhands posted:post that twitter dude
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:they are
dirty room, confused mind
MadMedico posted:
this is great if u haven't seen it
http://vimeo.com/29589320
gyrofry posted:il ike that one song by pulp about the stuck up bitch
That song was the height of boozy misogynistic northern laddism covered up with lame social commentary
