Country also seems to deal much with aging, poverty and drinking.
@Citizen R.: So, all those rural white folk over the years who have gotten welfare cadillacs, they didn't like country music?
|
Did not say it was monolithic block that all are the same, just an odd notion is all. Music tastes tend to have certain stereotypes and someone going on about being a commie being a country fan just seems odd. Imagine a death metal concert with an amish looking guy in the mosh pit. that is kinda what i see here
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, if this thread just made Andrew R realize that stereotypes aren't true, I declare Paizo.com the most effective website on the internet ever.
|
|
Dude, if this thread just made Andrew R realize that stereotypes aren't true, I declare Paizo.com the most effective website on the internet ever.Not always true but can be odd and jarring when way off.
A commie country fans seams as likely to me as a black man with corn rows, jail tats sagging his track suit being a country fan. It just feels odd.
|
|
Country singer quoting Marx
I have heard a black man (jamacan, argued he was not black) parrot the klan. still weird even if there are some.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest though, the music of the New England white proletariat is either rap or heavy metal. Among older white NE proletarians, it is disco or classic rock.
Most white NE proletarians that I know look down their noses at country music as something that dumb hicks listen to. I always wonder why they think they are in any position to be looking down their noses at anyone.
I grew up a rock kid also looking down my nose at country until I ran into Hank Williams and Johnny Cash when I was 16. Later, when I worked in a used record store, I got to really dive in and I found just as much amazing music in the country and western section of the store as any other.
But, this whole line of inquiry is bullshiznit. Whatever the professed ideologies of most country musicians, there are just as many lazy, shiftless, meth-smoking, welfare-receiving country fans as there are any other segment of the population.
And to think that I would only listen to music that agreed with my political theories is pretty asinine. [Goes to get his Wagner records]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speak for yourself, Doodlebug, I only listen to lefty songs about mooching off the hard working pawns of big government.
Well, and show-tunes.
Well, I'm glad you're glad and I'm not insulted, but more open-minded and less herd-following than who?
Commies aren't defined by their musical tastes. Do you think we all sit around listening to Shostakovich and Rage Against the Machine?
|
|
Well, I'm glad you're glad and I'm not insulted, but more open-minded and less herd-following than who?
Commies aren't defined by their musical tastes. Do you think we all sit around listening to Shostakovich and Rage Against the Machine?
More likely than classic country. it is just that subcultures and ideologies come with a stereotype and when someone really goes against it feels odd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, well, I'm a goblin who reads. Breaking stereotypes is a hobby of mine.
Actually, I'd say that there's a lot of country music that's about getting screwed by the boss, which has a lot of appeal to communists. "16 Tons" is a country song, right?
Tennesee Ernie Ford I mean seriously, it's a song about the woes of a coal miner literally being worked to death because the mining company OWNS HIM. If that isn't the tortured cry of the downtrodden proletariat I don't know what is.
This video is jarring, cuz he's almost singing it jauntily, but I mean it when I say that is one of the saddest and most haunting songs I know of.
This is another one.I want this played at my funeral. If anyone knows anything about this song they'll understand why.
More likely than classic country. it is just that subcultures and ideologies come with a stereotype and when someone really goes against it feels odd
So if I told you that I dressed vaguely goth (lazy goth, I wear all black, no makeup) and listened to a lot of glam rock and golden age hip-hop that'd blow your mind?
.
This is the stupidest question ever, because we know 100% the Earth
will one day End -- that is, be destroyed by cosmological process.
The answer is, our current model of civilization is 0% sustainable.
How do we survive?? We have to change our civilization to include
space travel.
-- Like that one guy said, "If the dinosaurs had a space program, the
would not be extinct." --
.
Did you guys study science in school, or was it too hard?
I was in advanced science courses in high school.
I performed poorly. But I basically took a crap on high school altogether, which is why I'm just now (age 31) getting into a university!
But yes, at least theoretically expanding to other planets makes an infinite growth model sustainable for the foreseeable future. I just fear the result of spreading outward before we've solved our major social problems will be a dystopic future where mining corporations own everything, and personal quadrillionaires own private planets or moons.
???
:D
Studied science. Got a degree in environmental forest biology and forest resource management, which involved an annoyingly high degree of unrelated biology and an even more annoyingly higher degree of completely unrelated subjects.
Mostly its a good long term memory. Most of this was basic 8th grade earth science.
|
|
More likely than classic country. it is just that subcultures and ideologies come with a stereotype and when someone really goes against it feels oddSo if I told you that I dressed vaguely goth (lazy goth, I wear all black, no makeup) and listened to a lot of glam rock and golden age hip-hop that'd blow your mind?
I wore nothing but black for many years, so did cash. If you were full on goth the hiphop would seem a bit odd. of course im constantly told people are surprised by what i listen to.
Except all the goths (and rivetheads) I know are into hip-hop.
Prepare to have your mind blown.
What do you listen to that would be surprising? Boy bands? Jam bands? Raffi?
We are going to have to think, if we manage to find a way to travel, or at least move supplies, at faster than light speeds, which will be neccisary to have a system of transfering energy between planets, some other race would have technology simmilar to ours. While I do not think that an alien invasion will be the end of life on earth, if we were to expand to a multi-planetary level, the chanses of contact or detection would be greatly raised.
I for one welcome our new alien overlords.
|
|
Except all the goths (and rivetheads) I know are into hip-hop.
Prepare to have your mind blown.What do you listen to that would be surprising? Boy bands? Jam bands? Raffi?
A lot of things, about every flavor of rock and country, classical symphony/orchestra, opera, funk, motown. Any time some one hear that i listen to any of them they respond that they are surprised i listen to that
|
Money was created so that people could trade for things without having to make change for a cow. It's worked amazingly well for it's purpose since then.What really makes the world go round is the creation, distribution, redistribution, and consumption of resources. Money is just a substitute resource so we can pay debts without giving away the things needed to survive or the things that have sentimental value, and truthfully, money is no longer backed by anything of value, and thus no longer represents anything other then debt
That kinda follows what I said, and yes money is useful and works, but when looking for a better system you can't assume that money is the base from which everything else springs. Money is important, but it is still a construct with limits.
We need to adjust our lifestyle in order to adjust what we get out of life.
I want a system where personal achievement can be recognized in many ways, and not just with how much money I make. I also don't want a system where people are born at the top and born at the bottem. People should earn their place in life, not have it granted to them, and earning their place shouldn't be at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism works at the expense of the masses.
In capitalism, people get rich by screwing others out of their money, and since money is required for mere survival, it also means screwing people out of life.
It is illegal for doctors in the US to inform patients of dietary or nutritional solutions to their problems, why? Because the pharmecutical industry is the largest industry right now and the rich people have the power to make the rules and they use that power to make sure people keep giving the rich more money. This is the essence of manmade economic systems.
Look at power gamers, ever notice how the more complicated the rules the more problems you have with power gamers getting OP? Because the more complex and defined the system the easier it is to game it to your own advantage. In the case of money, it literally pays to cheat people.
Is it right that we should have a system, which is required for survival, be of the design to reward people for cheating others out of that which they need to survive? Economics are that way, since we require money to survive in most if not all modern economic systems, cheating others gets us more money and makes it easier to survive, and improves our social standing, power, prestige, and political clout.
I don't think money should be gotten rid of, but I do think money shouldn't be required for survival, at least for the individual.
|
|
Money was created so that people could trade for things without having to make change for a cow. It's worked amazingly well for it's purpose since then.What really makes the world go round is the creation, distribution, redistribution, and consumption of resources. Money is just a substitute resource so we can pay debts without giving away the things needed to survive or the things that have sentimental value, and truthfully, money is no longer backed by anything of value, and thus no longer represents anything other then debt
That kinda follows what I said, and yes money is useful and works, but when looking for a better system you can't assume that money is the base from which everything else springs. Money is important, but it is still a construct with limits.
We need to adjust our lifestyle in order to adjust what we get out of life.
I want a system where personal achievement can be recognized in many ways, and not just with how much money I make. I also don't want a system where people are born at the top and born at the bottem. People should earn their place in life, not have it granted to them, and earning their place shouldn't be at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism works at the expense of the masses.
In capitalism, people get rich by screwing others out of their money, and since money is required for mere survival, it also means screwing people out of life.
It is illegal for doctors in the US to inform patients of dietary or nutritional solutions to their problems, why? Because the pharmecutical industry is the largest industry right now and the rich people have the power to make the rules and they use that power to make sure people keep giving the rich more money. This is the essence of manmade economic systems.
Look at power gamers, ever notice how the more complicated the rules the more problems you have with power gamers getting OP? Because the more complex and defined the system the easier it is to game...
I don't think you can escape the born top/bottom without either forcing all people to the bottom via communism or lab created children raised by the state and no families exist to inherit from. neither sound too good to me
Traditional Chinese Opera?
For some reason, posting country links has lost its savor.
I was in advanced science courses in high school.
I performed poorly. But I basically took a crap on high school altogether, which is why I'm just now (age 31) getting into a university!
But yes, at least theoretically expanding to other planets makes an infinite growth model sustainable for the foreseeable future. I just fear the result of spreading outward before we've solved our major social problems will be a dystopic future where mining corporations own everything, and personal quadrillionaires own private planets or moons.
.
Do you realize you have answered the question with this post?
.
Apparently science wasn't the hard part, it was manners.
.
Do you realize you have answered the question with this post?
.
I agree with Citizen Magus. Our current model of civilization is 0% sustainable.
I never studied science in school, though.
Money was created so that people could trade for things without having to make change for a cow. It's worked amazingly well for it's purpose since then.
.
No. Money was created to make it easy for people to SAVE money.
For simple economies, barter works just fine.
So, I pose to you a pure economics question why do sophisticated
economies need it to be 'easy' for people to SAVE money???
I'll even throw in >a book< to help you.
.
Do you realize you have answered the question with this post?Do you realize answers can encompass multiple items?
.
Nope. Please enumerate.
.
[spoiler=yaaaay!]
I quoted Harry Dresden !!!!!
I love Harry Dresden.
[/spoiler
|
|
...Money was created so that people could trade for things without having to make change for a cow. It's worked amazingly well for it's purpose since then.What really makes the world go round is the creation, distribution, redistribution, and consumption of resources. Money is just a substitute resource so we can pay debts without giving away the things needed to survive or the things that have sentimental value, and truthfully, money is no longer backed by anything of value, and thus no longer represents anything other then debt
That kinda follows what I said, and yes money is useful and works, but when looking for a better system you can't assume that money is the base from which everything else springs. Money is important, but it is still a construct with limits.
We need to adjust our lifestyle in order to adjust what we get out of life.
I want a system where personal achievement can be recognized in many ways, and not just with how much money I make. I also don't want a system where people are born at the top and born at the bottem. People should earn their place in life, not have it granted to them, and earning their place shouldn't be at the expense of everyone else. Capitalism works at the expense of the masses.
In capitalism, people get rich by screwing others out of their money, and since money is required for mere survival, it also means screwing people out of life.
It is illegal for doctors in the US to inform patients of dietary or nutritional solutions to their problems, why? Because the pharmecutical industry is the largest industry right now and the rich people have the power to make the rules and they use that power to make sure people keep giving the rich more money. This is the essence of manmade economic systems.
Look at power gamers, ever notice how the more complicated the rules the more problems you have with power gamers getting OP? Because the more complex and defined
Actually, my suggestion included communally raising the children. They all start with the same education and need to earn their way to the top.
Of course this is suggestion isn't intended to be taken alone, current system isn't good for it.
Everything is tied together, you can't just add a system here, and make a small change there and expect the standard of living to go up and stay up.
|
|
People are prevented from quackery and selling pseudo and fraudulent medicine as medicine because it kills people. Doctor tell people about nutritional solutions to health issues all the time if they actually help those health issues. My physician gave me dietary recommendations for my cholesterol and gout. It's called evidence based medicine and its why people aren't being sold sold sulfuric acid to cure everything or radium as a general pick me up. I just wish the FDA could toss the homeopath quacks in jail too.
It is illegal for doctors in the US to inform patients of dietary or nutritional solutions to their problems, why? Because the pharmecutical industry is the largest industry right now and the rich people have the power to make the rules and they use that power to make sure people keep giving the rich more money. This is the essence of manmade economic systems.Thanks. I was going to question that, but I haven't been to the doctor in years and couldn't be bothered to look the laws up.
Legal: Eat less fat and salt to help reduce your cholesterol and blood pressure. Drinking more water will help with the hypertension too. Limit these foods the lessen gout attacks. Eat fewer carbs to help control your diabetes. Or in the case of a friend of mine, eat more salt to help with the borderline hypotension.
Illegal: This wheat grass and peach pit smoothie will cure your cancer.
Fat does less to your waistline then sugars do, and starches are a type of sugar as is fructose.
Diet fixes aren't so simple as "less fat, less salt" it is a large and complex thing. And most processing techniques for making food keep, such as pasturization, actually kill many of the enzymes and things that are good for you, meaning you get only a trace amount from processed foods that you would from fresh food.
More, type 2 diabetes is completely curable and reversable 100% through diet. Your doctor tell you that? There are american doctors you have left the country to practice elsewhere because of all the things they aren't allowed to tell you.
You honestly believe that less fat is some major diet change?
You could replace almost all medicines for chronic problems with diet. My grandfather has the doctors telling him that his high blood pressure can only be dealt with by taking a pill for the rest of his life, but the truth is he can fix it with diet.
Medicine is really only needed for acute sicknesses, diseases and such. Take scurvy for example, we have known that scurvy is nothing more then a vitamin C deficiency for over a hundred years, so why do we still have scurvy?
If everyone knew all the diet tricks and we could actually get all the proper foods, people would only ever get medicine once or twice in their entire life-times, but that is bad for business, the pharmacutical companies (the largest industry and almost every millionaire recommends investment in the industry) make money from sick people, not healthy people, not dead people, but sick people.
How many people die from too many vitamins? How many people die from the side effects of medicines?
Almost everything you buy these days is heavily processed and loaded with one form or another of sugar (which has many forms, some addictive, some not, though the not addictive types still feed the addiction if you have, and in any first world country, you almost certainly do) glucose, sucrose, fructose, etc are all sugars in different forms, even my so-called vitamins have both sucrose and glucose.
And do you know what they put in your heavily processed foods? Did you know that low fat ice cream and yogurt uses wood as filler? Wood! Broken down to the cellular level perhaps, but wood is the most inert thing you eat, and so they use it, those so called calories from those products? Shouldn't be counted as calories, they are empty calories, calories that don't give you anything.
Tell your doctor you want a dietary solution to every problem you have, and see what he says. I dare you to ask him about type 2 diabetes and see if you tells you it's reversable before mentioning you heard it was, then tell him that you discovered that it is actually reversable with diet and you just wanted to know more. I'm curious what he says.
|
|
Money was created so that people could trade for things without having to make change for a cow. It's worked amazingly well for it's purpose since then..
No. Money was created to make it easy for people to SAVE money.
For simple economies, barter works just fine.So, I pose to you a pure economics question why do sophisticated
economies need it to be 'easy' for people to SAVE money???I'll even throw in >a book< to help you.
.
There is a difference between resources, and money. Money is often used to represent resources, until it stopped being backed, then it came to represent debt.
The truly wealthy don't own money, they control the flow of money.
Saving money is a losing proposition, money, particularly in today's world, is constantly losing value (it's not backed so there is nothing to sustain it's value), so you can throw in $100 into your savings, but you ever pull that much value out of your savings because when you pull it out, inflation has made worth less then it did when you tossed it in.
Saving money is worthless. Saving resources is a different story. Most wealthy people buy land to store their wealth because there is only so much to go around, and so while land might lose value over a short term, it will generally rise in the long term and is much more stable then money or any other investment (and you can buy a lot more then what money you have).
Economics needs it to be easy for people to save money because that is the illusion that gives the rich the upper hand. Think for a moment, the rich are only rich because there is inequality in the system. If you took all the money in the world and evenly divided it up among all the people, no one would be very rich, even by today's standards.
A company with a million employees, that makes a billion dollars profit a year, if those profits were divided up equally for all employees, that would be a mere $1000 each per year, assuming their wages stayed the same. That isn't very much is it.
So those in power want to stay in power and to gain that power by making and exaggerating the inequalities, this is done by making money the prime resource, it's perfect, it doesn't fade or tarnish, it doesn't require food as livestock would, and it is very portable. And an economic system centered on money is extremely easy to manipulate for those in the right position.
So they want the common people to think that saving money is the way to go, it only makes it easier for the rich to become richer by making the poor become poorer.
Yeah, money has some great uses, but that doesn't make the inequalities of using it as a base for a system go away.
Frankly, such inequality will always exist, I would rather see such inequality have limits and be based on merit rather then be limitless and ever increasingly more dependent on birth. Also should be based on group success rather then individual success, the later does nothing but encourage screwing people. My idea is designed to encourage helping people, if only one's own community.
Or do you think encouraging a dog eat dog mindset that promotes the poor getting poorer, is the right way to live?
Starches are not a type of sugar.
I stopped reading there due to being gobsmacked.
|
|
Starches turn into sugar in your blood, no it isn't cane sugar, but it amounts to very much the same end. You still need to have proteins in the same meal to bind with the sugars it becomes in order to produce long-lasting and less harmfull energy.
Besides, being that I have never been good with the whole communication thing, you should read the rest just to get a clearer image of what I'm trying to say.