[Splintered]

People who attack other people based on something they do, and then don't actually tell them what the hell they are doing wrong, and have a basis for what they are doing wrong, bug me.

It's the whole, "I'm superior then you, and I just am" thing that really gets under my skin, and I can't accurately give you a reason why. My best guess is that it's the audacity of the situation.

Let me elaborate.


So, say person X, meets Person Y. Person X and Y decide that they are both in their own little group, and we're going to call it "Group A". They think being part of Group A is really cool, and they like Group A. Person Z, acts moderately like Group A, and shows some interests in the similiarities of Group A, but doesn't follow a majority of things, that would be required to be part of Group A. Group A get's pissed, and doesn't like Person Z, and decides to label Person Z, as a poser. Person Z, then decides to make their own group, called "Group B". Person B, then shows interest in Group B, and is friends with Person Z. They join in. Then, a few weeks later, Group A, has less members then Group B, but still has a strong following. Then, Person C, acts similiar into ways of Group A and B, but doesn't act in such a way, they'd be similiar to Group A or B. So, they are labeled posers, and go off to make their own Group C. Group A, labels both Group B and C posers, and Group B labels A as arrogant assholes, and C as posers, and Group C is just screwed. The problem is, Group A, Group B, and Group C, all call themself, themself part of Group A.

See what I'm getting at here?
So, let's use this in the context of "Emo" versus "Goth". (For this arguement, I'm going to use "Emo" to refer to the appearantly undesirable group of people who dress up in all black, listen to Hawthrone Heights/Slipknot/Marilyn Manson/Evanescence/Whatever, and acts like they hate their life. "Goth" is going to be used in the context of someone who listens to Dead Can Dance, Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and The Sisters of Mercy, dresses in Victorian Era clothes, dresses in Victorian Era or Hand-made clothes, and reads every bloody book they can find.)

Alot of Goths will use the term "Emo", to essentially describe anyone that I used in this context of the arguement. If someone demonstrates they act in such a way as I described with emo, they will generally be ridiculed.

The ridiculing will usually come down to this, and sometimes actually presents itself like this:

"Go cry emo kid, I hate you."

I would contend that obviously, this does not make for a sound arguement. It is just a general attack, with the assumation of supremacy, and really, no actual basis for why they're yelling. It's just, "Fuck you, I'm better then you, you have no legitimate point. I hate you." It doesn't explain what they think the person is doing wrong, or give them a solution.

Even when you to go to:

"Hey. We're goths. You're an emo kid, so go somewhere else."

This doesn't provide why the person should leave, what they are doing wrong, why they are Gothier (I've always wanted to use that), or really anything besides, "Piss off, this is my territory." Now, this is all fine, if it's your territory, you should be able to arbitrarily kick someone out. But this extends to concerts, to places like Hot Topic, and the like.

To mention Hot Topic, some people even use that as a negative. Basically in the sense;

"You shop at Hot Topic. You're not Goth. Go away."

This doesn't make sense. How does Hot Topic, suddenly make someone not Goth? This statement doesn't include any details just, "This store. Bad." Somewhat like a few protestors I've seen, who basically use the mantra, "Nuclear. Bad. Nuclear. Bad. Nuclear. Bad".

Now, you have this:

"Shopping at Hot Topic supports the corporization of Goth, which I resent on principle. Because of that, you're not Goth."

It appears to stand up. They presented a reason why you dislike Hot Topic, why they believe it's bad, and why it doesn't make soemone Goth. Problem. They presented a reason why they dislike Hot Topic, why they believe it's bad, and why they think it doesn't make someone Goth. (Don't you just love how italics change the context of something?) It doesn't have any real basis in arguement, or in debate. Why? The Ad Hominem Fallacy. Ad Hominem is "Against the Man", essentially the philosophy that yelling at someone, doesn't actually make your arguement true. So, yelling at someone because they support hot topic, and yelling at hot topic, doesn't make for a good arguement, because it's your opinion. Not fact.

Now, to make perfectly clear, you don't have to provide a logical arguement. You can scream at someone that they're not Goth, all you want. I have no problem with this. Just don't expect to be taken seriously. Why? You're not backing up what you say.

The accusations aren't the parts that concerns though. It's the lack of willingness to guide someone to change that makes me think about this in such a way. Even the most concrete arguement, that cite sources in MLA format, have essays and samples of information, and list history up the ying yang, doesn't really do much. Why? You're endlessly criticizing something, with no real solution to the problem. The concrete arguement, has no resolution as to what action should be taken.

And that's what gets to me. Telling someone they suck because they listen to Hawthrone Heights, just seems pointless, when instead you could be going, "Hey, I know you like Band X, maybe you should try and listen to Band Y. You might like them." Or, if someone's buying stuff from Hot Topic, you could try and persuade them to make their own clothes, or try a different store they might like.

And then it comes down to, "What is Goth?". Every major gothic band I can think of (Dead Can Dance, Christian Death, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Sex Gang Children, Bauhaus, Alien Sex Fiend, etc), can all be linked to some other genre of music. Every style of fashion (Take your pick, from do it yourself, to Victorian era clothes, to Raver gard, to Silent Film Era, to even Pirates if you want to), has links to something else. Reading some of the similiar literature (Poe, to Neitzsche, to Rice, to King, to take your pick), has, once again, links to something else. So, everything that constitutes Goth, can be individually labeled to something else.

One could then argue, "Well, it's a combonation of a good portion of those things, that defines Goth." And that's a good arguement. They can all be mutually exclusive, true, but if you put them all together, they can all be linked to have one common root. Problem: Who gets to decide what makes the cut as Gothic music? Who gets to decide whether something makes the cut as Gothic Literature, or Dress? If it's by the minority (Like the Group A), then why do they get to choose? Who said them being first, actually made it correct? Likewise, if it's by the majority (The groups B and C), what about those who were originally present? Don't they, as the originators of such a style, have the ability to get a clear say on what is what?

It just doesn't make sense to me. One groups yelling at another, and then the other yells back, everyone gets pissed about what fits into what, and who gets to decide that. It just seems illogical.