Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a commission on everything you buy.

hide menu

parttimepunk    

no avatar Level -59 Content: disliked
Offline
Send mail to parttimepunk Block parttimepunk Invite parttimepunk to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/18/2013
Last Login:8/07/2013
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Thumbs: 59 total,  59 ,  118
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -159 Comment: starting to be hated → Level -158 Comment: starting to be hated
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:44
FJ Points:-58

latest user's comments

#94 - i hate the Beatles because they're mindless commercial unorigi…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... -1
User avatar #99 - xmonke (08/05/2013) [-]
"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."
Exactly. That's why they are the greatest. Music isn't about money, difficulty, or innovation. You don't like them, but even you admit that they were somewhat catchy. That's what they were aiming for. The amount of money musicians make is only relevant when they're trying to expand their audience. Innovation is relative in music. Difficulty is just impressive, but has nothing to do with the music. Beethoven's symphonies aren't great because their difficulty; they're great because people happen to like them more than other composers' symphonies for their difficulty.
#90 - “Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejo…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... -1
User avatar #98 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
and it does not suffice to say that no one... anything at all. virtually any absolute phrase is inherently false, and it generally denotes a lack of understanding of the subject. so no, it does not suffice to say that no one self identifies as hipster. quite a few people do. theyre called hipsters. just because you do not walk around proclaiming yourself to be human does not mean that you do not identify that way.
User avatar #97 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
Pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. it is a term commonly used to describe people like you, who think that carpet bombing SAT words denotes a win in an argument. however, in a battle of wits, big fancy words do not prove a point. secondly, there is a difference between a contention that offers a definition and a psychological analysis designed to reflect the previous point, and a contention that delivers thought, substance, and relevance to the actual points.
In your "contention" you employed in the use of absolute phrasing, as well as the following fallacies: Ad hominem, which is an attack on me because you dont like the point i made; appeal to belief, because you claim that the points i put forward are wrong based on a sense of common misconception; negative appeal to common practice, because you assumed that because most people dont understand/mislabel hipsters, then i too must not understand and must mislabel/misuse a blanket term; appeal to ridicule, through the idea that i must be projecting; bandwagon, because you assume that i have "joined an anti-hipster bandwagon"
i dont give a shit what your technical definition of the word/term/meaningless pejorative "hipster" means. what it means someone who is counter-culture for the sake of counter-culturalism, which you most certainly appear to be. now you can attempt to psychoanalyze me, and try to determine that based on my labelling you as a hipster, that i must therefore be inherently uncomfortable with my sense of self, and that i lash out at others based on severe insecurities. you claim that i use hipster as a blanket term, and its true, but i use it as a term to define people who try to argue against/swim against the natural flow of pop culture just because they can. as for projection? there isnt much to project when i address the situation in front of me, and make a statement based on what ive seen/read/heard.
#87 - how about you check out some real music, buddy, maybe you coul…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... -1
User avatar #93 - xmonke (08/05/2013) [-]
You know, the Beatles aren't my favorite band, but I can realize their greatness. Sure, that's all good music, but they haven't impacted as many people as The Beatles did. Whatever they did, they did it just right so that it appealed to numerous types of people. Close to no one hates a Beatles song. Even if there were a man who completely hated all music, I'm sure there'd be at least one Beatles song that he'd be alright with hearing even if he didn't like it.
#94 - parttimepunk (08/05/2013) [-]
i hate the Beatles because they're mindless commercial unoriginal drivel
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.
User avatar #99 - xmonke (08/05/2013) [-]
"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."
Exactly. That's why they are the greatest. Music isn't about money, difficulty, or innovation. You don't like them, but even you admit that they were somewhat catchy. That's what they were aiming for. The amount of money musicians make is only relevant when they're trying to expand their audience. Innovation is relative in music. Difficulty is just impressive, but has nothing to do with the music. Beethoven's symphonies aren't great because their difficulty; they're great because people happen to like them more than other composers' symphonies for their difficulty.
#86 - i just did buddy if you want some REAL music, not commeria…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... -1
#89 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
ok, heres what you are going to do.
first, youre going to learn that sarcasm doesnt need a response. sarcastic responses to sarcastic comments make you sound really immature. second, youre going to get off the hipster "i dont like commercialized music because its too mainstream (i am uncomfortable with my utter lack of substance, and will therefore go put on a mask of depth by liking weird shit that people havent heard of so i can sound edgy and more sophisticated than them)." then, youre going to go ahead and appreciate the fact that the beatles did some shit and the shit they did, whether you like it or not, was absolutely revolutionary, whether because of what they sang or the affect they had. come back, class up, then we can talk.
#90 - parttimepunk (08/05/2013) [-]
“Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself.

It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker.

Meanwhile, a market myth has sprung up around the term, as well as a cultural bogeyman consisting of elusive white 20-somethings who wear certain clothes (but no one will agree on what), listen to certain music (no one can agree on this either), and act a certain way (you’ve probably sensed the pattern on your own).

You can’t define what “that kind of behavior or fashion or lifestyle” actually is, nor will you ever be able to. That’s because you don’t use “hipster” to describe an actual group of people, but to describe a fictional stereotype that is an outlet for literally anything that annoys you.

The twist, of course, is that if it weren’t for your own insecurities, nothing that a “hipster” could do or wear would ever affect you emotionally. But you are insecure about your own authenticity - “Do I wear what I wear because I want to? Do I listen to my music because I truly like it? I’m certainly not like those filthy hipsters!” - so you project those feelings.

Suffice it to say, no one self-identifies as a hipster; the term is always applied to an Other, to separate the authentic Us from the inauthentic, “ironic” Them.
User avatar #98 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
and it does not suffice to say that no one... anything at all. virtually any absolute phrase is inherently false, and it generally denotes a lack of understanding of the subject. so no, it does not suffice to say that no one self identifies as hipster. quite a few people do. theyre called hipsters. just because you do not walk around proclaiming yourself to be human does not mean that you do not identify that way.
User avatar #97 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
Pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. it is a term commonly used to describe people like you, who think that carpet bombing SAT words denotes a win in an argument. however, in a battle of wits, big fancy words do not prove a point. secondly, there is a difference between a contention that offers a definition and a psychological analysis designed to reflect the previous point, and a contention that delivers thought, substance, and relevance to the actual points.
In your "contention" you employed in the use of absolute phrasing, as well as the following fallacies: Ad hominem, which is an attack on me because you dont like the point i made; appeal to belief, because you claim that the points i put forward are wrong based on a sense of common misconception; negative appeal to common practice, because you assumed that because most people dont understand/mislabel hipsters, then i too must not understand and must mislabel/misuse a blanket term; appeal to ridicule, through the idea that i must be projecting; bandwagon, because you assume that i have "joined an anti-hipster bandwagon"
i dont give a shit what your technical definition of the word/term/meaningless pejorative "hipster" means. what it means someone who is counter-culture for the sake of counter-culturalism, which you most certainly appear to be. now you can attempt to psychoanalyze me, and try to determine that based on my labelling you as a hipster, that i must therefore be inherently uncomfortable with my sense of self, and that i lash out at others based on severe insecurities. you claim that i use hipster as a blanket term, and its true, but i use it as a term to define people who try to argue against/swim against the natural flow of pop culture just because they can. as for projection? there isnt much to project when i address the situation in front of me, and make a statement based on what ive seen/read/heard.
#35 - a study was done recently that proved that there is a 96% corr… 08/05/2013 on Modesty is a virtue -5
#158 - game of thrones more like game of bones 08/05/2013 on More than a Kids Show -2
#83 - The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the g…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... -1
#85 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
why dont you tell us how you really feel?
jazz greatness is derived through standing out. classical greatness is derived through revolutionary techniques. rock greatness is derived through longevity, popularity, and measurable impact in following groups. therefore, i respect your opinion, but you dont really seem to understand the genre or music in general nearly as well as you think you do. the beatles are great because they finished paving what elvis presley started: a revolution in "pop" music, the acceptance of sex in pop culture, the rise of drugs as an american and global pasttime, and the allowance of teenage rebellion.
#86 - parttimepunk (08/05/2013) [-]
i just did buddy
if you want some REAL music, not commerial crap, try these albums:
Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band- Trout Mask Replica
Robert Wyatt- Rock Bottom
Faust- Faust
the Velvet Underground- the Velvet Underground & Nico
the Doors- the Doors
Popol Vuh- Hosianna Mantra
Pere Ubu- the Modern Dance
Royal Trux- Twin Infinitives
John Fahey- Fare Forward Voyagers
Nico- Desertshore
#89 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
ok, heres what you are going to do.
first, youre going to learn that sarcasm doesnt need a response. sarcastic responses to sarcastic comments make you sound really immature. second, youre going to get off the hipster "i dont like commercialized music because its too mainstream (i am uncomfortable with my utter lack of substance, and will therefore go put on a mask of depth by liking weird shit that people havent heard of so i can sound edgy and more sophisticated than them)." then, youre going to go ahead and appreciate the fact that the beatles did some shit and the shit they did, whether you like it or not, was absolutely revolutionary, whether because of what they sang or the affect they had. come back, class up, then we can talk.
#90 - parttimepunk (08/05/2013) [-]
“Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself.

It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker.

Meanwhile, a market myth has sprung up around the term, as well as a cultural bogeyman consisting of elusive white 20-somethings who wear certain clothes (but no one will agree on what), listen to certain music (no one can agree on this either), and act a certain way (you’ve probably sensed the pattern on your own).

You can’t define what “that kind of behavior or fashion or lifestyle” actually is, nor will you ever be able to. That’s because you don’t use “hipster” to describe an actual group of people, but to describe a fictional stereotype that is an outlet for literally anything that annoys you.

The twist, of course, is that if it weren’t for your own insecurities, nothing that a “hipster” could do or wear would ever affect you emotionally. But you are insecure about your own authenticity - “Do I wear what I wear because I want to? Do I listen to my music because I truly like it? I’m certainly not like those filthy hipsters!” - so you project those feelings.

Suffice it to say, no one self-identifies as a hipster; the term is always applied to an Other, to separate the authentic Us from the inauthentic, “ironic” Them.
User avatar #98 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
and it does not suffice to say that no one... anything at all. virtually any absolute phrase is inherently false, and it generally denotes a lack of understanding of the subject. so no, it does not suffice to say that no one self identifies as hipster. quite a few people do. theyre called hipsters. just because you do not walk around proclaiming yourself to be human does not mean that you do not identify that way.
User avatar #97 - phtholognyrrh (08/05/2013) [-]
Pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. it is a term commonly used to describe people like you, who think that carpet bombing SAT words denotes a win in an argument. however, in a battle of wits, big fancy words do not prove a point. secondly, there is a difference between a contention that offers a definition and a psychological analysis designed to reflect the previous point, and a contention that delivers thought, substance, and relevance to the actual points.
In your "contention" you employed in the use of absolute phrasing, as well as the following fallacies: Ad hominem, which is an attack on me because you dont like the point i made; appeal to belief, because you claim that the points i put forward are wrong based on a sense of common misconception; negative appeal to common practice, because you assumed that because most people dont understand/mislabel hipsters, then i too must not understand and must mislabel/misuse a blanket term; appeal to ridicule, through the idea that i must be projecting; bandwagon, because you assume that i have "joined an anti-hipster bandwagon"
i dont give a shit what your technical definition of the word/term/meaningless pejorative "hipster" means. what it means someone who is counter-culture for the sake of counter-culturalism, which you most certainly appear to be. now you can attempt to psychoanalyze me, and try to determine that based on my labelling you as a hipster, that i must therefore be inherently uncomfortable with my sense of self, and that i lash out at others based on severe insecurities. you claim that i use hipster as a blanket term, and its true, but i use it as a term to define people who try to argue against/swim against the natural flow of pop culture just because they can. as for projection? there isnt much to project when i address the situation in front of me, and make a statement based on what ive seen/read/heard.
#82 - The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the g…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... +1
User avatar #101 - ferrettamer (08/05/2013) [-]
Le Scaruffi face
User avatar #84 - xmonke (08/05/2013) [-]
Being the greatest band isn't just about being the most popular, it's about being the most popular and the reason why. They're great because the amount of people who love them for their music outweighs the people who love them for any other reasons, and that amount of people who love them for their music outweighs the amount of people who love other bands for their music.
#87 - parttimepunk (08/05/2013) [-]
how about you check out some real music, buddy, maybe you could learn something
here's some albums for you:
Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band- Trout Mask Replica
Robert Wyatt- Rock Bottom
Faust- Faust
the Velvet Underground- the Velvet Underground & Nico
the Doors- the Doors
Popol Vuh- Hosianna Mantra
Pere Ubu- the Modern Dance
Royal Trux- Twin Infinitives
John Fahey- Fare Forward Voyagers
Nico- Desertshore
maybe if you tried these you wouldn't be so blinded by commercial success.
User avatar #93 - xmonke (08/05/2013) [-]
You know, the Beatles aren't my favorite band, but I can realize their greatness. Sure, that's all good music, but they haven't impacted as many people as The Beatles did. Whatever they did, they did it just right so that it appealed to numerous types of people. Close to no one hates a Beatles song. Even if there were a man who completely hated all music, I'm sure there'd be at least one Beatles song that he'd be alright with hearing even if he didn't like it.
#94 - parttimepunk (08/05/2013) [-]
i hate the Beatles because they're mindless commercial unoriginal drivel
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.
User avatar #99 - xmonke (08/05/2013) [-]
"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."
Exactly. That's why they are the greatest. Music isn't about money, difficulty, or innovation. You don't like them, but even you admit that they were somewhat catchy. That's what they were aiming for. The amount of money musicians make is only relevant when they're trying to expand their audience. Innovation is relative in music. Difficulty is just impressive, but has nothing to do with the music. Beethoven's symphonies aren't great because their difficulty; they're great because people happen to like them more than other composers' symphonies for their difficulty.
#81 - that's because Queen only recorded one song worth listening to…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/05/2013 on A camera? Quick! Be more... -1
User avatar #92 - fuzzyballs (08/05/2013) [-]
they have a few
don't stop me now is one, I want to break free is two
and that's about it... bohemian rhapsody is annoying because it constantly changes
#900 - the fact that you think this someone is related to feminism ma…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/05/2013 on Take that feminists (read... +2
#901 - kimmustonen has deleted their comment.
[ 44 Total ]

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)