"Counter Cuture" - Page 2

knightmare · 09-29-2006, 07:18 AM

Thus showing that society and self are inextricably linked. It is by breaking the standards of their current society that a society evolves. You wouldn't be asking the question "if", if there were no accepted, majoral society. Everything would be relative, and society and identity would not evolve. About the other comment, I meant political and religious affiliation not sexual orientation (I was half asleep). You are not inherently aware of these and other factors. But as for sexual orientation, I do agree that it is inherent.

Splintered · 09-29-2006, 09:28 AM

To first break the standards of society, you must first break your own concept. You would definitely be asking "If", if there were no accepted, majoral society. I am having a difficult time putting my faith into the relevance that a caveman, however many years ago, with no society save for his own adventures, and perhaps a small pack he travels with, did not atleast look up once, and wonder, "If."

You also assert that everything would be relative. I could contend that everything is already relative. That there is no absolute perception on what something is. Liberals versus Conservatives, Republicans versus Democrats, etc. They all have relative opinions to themselves, yet our society and identity do evolve (Depending on what you percieve as evolution).

Your political orientation and religious affliation can come from isolation as well as from a society. I believe that if you took a person from complete isolation, and showed them someone being *****, they would most certainly have an opinion on that. Or if you gave them the scenario of abortion. Or if you gave them the scenario of the Death Penalty. They would inheriently have an opinion on these issues, without previously being involved in politics. As for religion, how do you purpose the first religions came around then? The society did not previously hold a religion, so how could they have originated?

knightmare · 09-29-2006, 09:58 AM

Hi Splintered,
The term relativism in itself even implies an absolute standard. You can't have relativity without a standard to compare it with. For example, moral relativism. For example, the relative viewpoints of the morality of abortion is based on the immorality of murder. To some people the embryo is a life, while to others the embryo is not. If there was no absolute standard of morality the world would be chaotic. There has to be a standard for everything or the world as a logical order would cease to exist. Individuals are too variegated in their beliefs and experiences to try to set their own belief system. They compare their beliefs to a system that has been already created (My belief it is the moral system created by God.)
Even though are perceptions can be flawed it is the only way we can judge the issues fo the world. Also, where does a man derives his values (including moral) as seen in their opinion on abortion and other moral issues? If man is just an animal, how can he have his own moral value system (especially in relation to other human beings) without the influence of society?

Godslayer Jillian · 09-29-2006, 03:56 PM

I agree with you, knightmare, except in that for there to be a relative standard, there must be an absolute value.
There's no such thing as absolutes in society. Let me give an example of murder:
I don't remember whathisname once described why murder is looked upon as badly.
Murder is intrinsically good, in the way that it satisfies the murderer's desire for that killing.
But murder conflicts with the intrinsic goods of the victim, whose desires will not be able to be completed, for he is dead.
The goodness of murder against the goodness the victim might have experienced make Murder not convenient, and as so, bad for our standards.

At the same time, I agree with Splintered that some ideals only need the self to be decided. But, the only way to know these ideals is if we know them; and where/from whom did we learn these ideals?
Society.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 10-01-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightmare

Maybe they need some attention... And Cradle, you really sandpapered your eyes if you think they're hot.

Wow... This seems a little rude, to be completely honest. Who are you to criticize someone's personal taste? I guess you were never that kid in high school that always got asked "Why are you wearing that?". I got asked that all the time, even when I wasn't wearing anything particularly unusual. I hated it. Like, who the hell are you to ask me to a.) justify myself to you and b.) speak for an entire subculture?

knightmare · 10-02-2006, 01:14 PM

Demoness, it was just a joke related to his signature, as was seen in the following phrase "just kidding." Noone "goth" can speak for an entire subculture, as it is all relative. Also to hold on to your individuality in society is admirable, thus needing no justification.
P.S. It is great to finally meet a dark-hearted demoness with a preoccupation on manners. Who knew that they were so preoccupied with etiquette? "My good fellow demon would you please pass the tea next to the tormented soul?"

DarkHeartedDemoness · 10-02-2006, 01:36 PM

So I'm a demoness that cares about ettiquette. You're a knight with no chivalry. Just kidding.

knightmare · 10-02-2006, 01:51 PM

Yes, just kidding does imply your connotations. Noone usually writes something they don't believe. Yes, I did believe that they were not hot, but presumably every person (maybe) has a sense of humor like Cradle does. Thus instead of getting offended like you, he laughed and wrote another joke. Also, my comment on your manners was also a joke regarding your name, not a personal attack on your character. P.S. I find it quite interesting that you can judge a person's whole demeanor on one comment. You must be the best psychic ever!

knightmare · 10-02-2006, 02:02 PM

sorry to double post, but I just noticed that you edited your comment after I posted. So my bad, don't want to sound too harsh on your edited reply. But regarding your view on knights, it is true that chivalry is dead. All the kind-hearted, charming knights became the ogre's wives, while only the black knights have survived.

DarkHeartedDemoness · 10-02-2006, 02:05 PM

Look, knight. I think we got off on the wrong foot. To be completely honest with you, I've been at work all day dealing with assholes that I'm not allowed to yell at, and I took it out on you. I'm sorry.

And actually, chivalry isn't dead. I happen to be in a relationship with a True Gentleman. It saddens me that people think that chivalry is dead and use it as an excuse not to be chivalrous. In my experience, those who are chivalrous are a pleasant surprise.

knightmare · 10-02-2006, 02:18 PM

No need to be sorry, it is perfectly understandable as I feel like that sometimes too. Also, the chivalrous comment was a joke used to relate on how the kind knights became the ogres' wives (they were too nice to fight). It was intended as an allusion illustrating the importance of sticking up for yourself. Anyways, hope everything is well..

Delkaetre · 10-04-2006, 09:07 PM

In relation to the original topic, I offer my views based on the logic that seems most functional to me (British Goth living near London)- if a large percentage of goths like a band or style, then it's probably either gothic or on the verge of it.
The differentiation between goth and emo has happened for a reason- the music, appearance and behaviour of the two subcultures is entirely different, and goth is rather older than emo.
Clothing? 'Real goth' is eighties, when the first real goths appeared, if it must be anything. Victoriana and Renfaire are just styles that goths have adopted over the years, just like many other things. If you wish to define the traditional goth look, then look at Siouxie, look at Peter Murphy, look at Andrew Eldritch. However! Goth incorporates many distinct looks,which should not be ignored in favour of pure original goth, and a healthy blend of which creates an extremely attractive and versatile wardrobe for any goth. The subculture has evolved to the point that 'real' is relative. To a cyber, PVC with UV-reactive panels is 'real goth', whereas to a trad, tight black jeans with winklepicker boots and a shredded black shirt is 'real goth'.

If I sound snappish, eccentric, rantish, or otherwise odd it's because it's 5.10am and I've had 8 hours sleep of the last seventy-two. I have proof that chivalry lives, though. The fellow that I've spent a fair amount of my waking hours in the company of is very courteous, well-behaved and gentlemanly, but does all this out of his common nature rather than any desire to see my flesh. Manners, decency and chivalry in a cyber/geek/goth with a poi fascination. Also my boyfriend is a well-trained and courteous young male, even to the 'defending the honour' thing of olden days. Quite sweet how his temper rises when people bitch about me.

knightmare · 10-10-2006, 08:19 AM

So counterculture and the goth movement are solely based upon literature and style, right? Because several people go against culture including the nudists (who says we need clothes), and the altruistic criminals (who says we need to follow the laws of society and the educational establishment). Technically, a naked, uneducated, crazy criminal would be the ultimate goth if it wasn't based soley on literature and music. Tarzan would probably be an elder goth, jk.

Godslayer Jillian · 10-10-2006, 03:32 PM

Well, I don't know if I've already said this, but Goth is a subculture, not a counterculture.
That's what's so wrong with those "non-conformists" and "anarchists" (the stupid ones. real anarchists are awesome)
They think going against culture is "cool" or have a similarly simple ideology.
A subculture is not a subculture, because a subculture shares the same major values as the main culture, only with different norms.

darkness-creepshow · 10-10-2006, 05:43 PM

can we drop these topics its stupid...your goth if your goth ok...if you really really bealive. Blue blood sucks also everyones ugly on there, and that makes the Irony or despair or pain makup look bad!!! they should shut down there website and many others.

Godslayer Jillian · 10-10-2006, 06:54 PM

If you don't like this topic, then why do you open your mouth?
I like how the guys in the BlueBlood banner look. I would bet they put a lot more effort in aesthetics than you do.
And no, you're not a fucking goth if you say you are one.

Godslayer Jillian · 10-10-2006, 07:11 PM

EDIT: "You're not a goth just because you say/think you are one.

RobinGreenwood · 10-10-2006, 09:38 PM

Couldn't we say that you're a goth if other people say you are? If you identify with goths and they accept you as a goth, wouldn't that make you a goth? Like what someone said about emo's. They wouldn't necessarily call themselves that, but that's what they are. Wouldn't it be similar for goths?

Godslayer Jillian · 10-10-2006, 10:06 PM

Or similar to Eldritch.

Solaris Noir · 10-11-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkness-creepshow

can we drop these topics its stupid...your goth if your goth ok...if you really really bealive. Blue blood sucks also everyones ugly on there, and that makes the Irony or despair or pain makup look bad!!! they should shut down there website and many others.

How old are you? I'm guessing 15.. maybe 14.. Let's reconsider your post. You suggest we drop topics which essentually correspond with the general theme of the forum as it stands... this makes sense to you?

You also suggest, "you are goth, if you really really be alive." Heh... I mean "believe".
Perhaps you should focus on your english studies, posting here isn't really constructive use of your time.

As for the remainder of the post.. *sigh* I imagine you're boring most of the members here through sheer stupidity, age a bit...read alittle...anything... just stop pretending you understand much beyond hair dye and Hot Topic.

knightmare · 10-11-2006, 12:39 PM

Wow, Solaris Noir, that's about the dumbest post I've seen today. Exploring your identity and the perception of goths in society is not a waste of time. I think you can benefit from this conversation since you obviously still have the same stereotypes of Goths (hot topic, hair dye) as my little sister.

Godslayer Jillian · 10-11-2006, 05:07 PM

She meant the hair dye and Hot Topic statement as mockery.

knightmare · 10-11-2006, 06:20 PM

Yes, but in all statements there are bits of truth. For example, just kidding is just a way of saying your views without offending people. Noone usually writes something in which their bias or views is not expressed. Just the fact that she mentioned the hair dye and hot topic in mockery as gothic implies her stereotypes.

Godslayer Jillian · 10-11-2006, 06:22 PM

But he said to Creepshow to stop pretending he knows anything beyond those two things.
I, and many here, say that Goth is about eating babies. There's not a bit of truth in there.

knightmare · 10-11-2006, 06:30 PM

Yes, but Creepshow did not mention either of those things, she implied those characteristics to him, thus it must be her stereotype of stupid goths. Also, there is an interesting school of thought which says that there is a bit of truth in any belief that is expressed since noone would consider a ludicrous fact and take time to negate it. The mood or way of stating things also affects credibility, and the fact that you jokingly associated Goths with eating babies is evidence enough that there is some sort of reality, since you cannot negate anything that is ludricous enough, Where did the idea of eating babies come from? From the fact, that Gothics are popularly seen as violent.