?

Log in

Oct. 28th, 2005 @ 11:41 pm DiB, My Reply To Yours Was Too Long, Here It Is
Current Mood: contemplativecontemplative
Current Music: Dave Matthews, Gravedigger
Says you, in comments to last entry, "[...]basically the only thing Punk was successful at changing is allowing musicians with absolutely no talent to get record labels."

You would be referring, I assume, to the modern bands that call themselves 'Punk'? Good Charlotte, Starting Line, Yellowcard, Blink-182, New Found Glory? These bands are not Punk, by any stretch. To be Punk is to be (in my interpretation; I claim to be no authority nor Goddess) very politically- based and assertive. These bands are neither; 1) the only politics that exist are very pop versions of country-music sorrows, ie losing a girl, losing a dog, losing another girl, deciding that melodrama and Emo-style despair sells long enough to write an album detailing - nothing. Words lacking intelligence and density descend from words into the thoughtful equivalent of sticking one's tongue out very near a pole in cold weather. 2) Their assertiveness toward letting people know about what is going on in the world around them is seriously lacking. Seriously, fellas. Lacking. It doesn't even exist! When was the last time you heard one of the bands above (or a similar one) say something like,
"The road is narrow, the horizon wide
And to say what’s waiting on the other side
Is so rewarding and the ultimate prize
But what good is something if you can’t have it until you die?" ---Bad Religion


If you were referring to the earlier Punk rockers, like the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, The Clash, Social Distortion, etc., I am at a loss. Honestly, there are plenty of people who think the Beatles had no talent, Elvis Presley had no talent, Beethoven and da Vinci and Raphael had no talent. Whether or not they did is for the individual to decide.

In your comments, "[...]countercultural conceit[...]". Here are the main definitions of 'conceit':
Merriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: 1con·ceit
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from conceiven
1 a (1) : a result of mental activity : THOUGHT (2) : individual opinion b : favorable opinion; especially : excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue
2 : a fancy article
3 a : a fanciful idea b : an elaborate or strained metaphor c : use or presence of such conceits in poetry d : an organizing theme or concept

Conceit, at least the definition known by the vast majority, is not a Punk attribute. To say that one is conceited conjures up images of the too-good person, whose time, contributions, and company are just too good for everyone else. Punks are about experimentation of the individual to find ways to bring about change in the world. Punks are self-involved, yes, but this doesn't make them snooty. It means that they are repairing and improving the home soil before spending all of their resources on other countries, so to speak. There is no point in running around like a headless chicken expending valuable energy on others when one doesn't even know oneself, unless the point is to get nowhere.

To be honest with you, I have been a Punk my whole life. I have dressed differently, acted differently, seen things and done things opposite to others despite the poop that I have had to put up with. I made up my own cusswords, wore mismatched socks on purpose until it caught on, did my hair in odd ways and ate pickled plum paste with my fingers (Japanese umeboshi plums; if you haven't had them you should, but they're very salty).

You say, "Punk is a capitalized word for a reason, along with Hippy and Goth and all that stuff. It is a nomenclature, express usage: to define a group of people. Even if the group's intentions are individualistic in nature (such as all countercultures expressed in this essay), providing a label for it makes it a product." This is true, it IS a product - a product of individuals who share the same discontent. Note that 'sharing' is an act of giving and receiving, because I know some people would say that sharing is conformity. Sharing is a step toward perfecting oneself by exploring differences, whereas conformity is a step toward someone else's perfection. In conformity, the person doing the migrating is giving themselves up to the masses; in sharing, the person is maintaining themselves and their position, but lending their minds to experience.

I don't hang out or associate myself with the so-called Punks, beyond acceptance of their existence. These are people who have (theory) sold out to the media's definition of Punk and signed up because their own apathy is secretly satisfied by this seeming lack of authority, which quickly translates into lack of care for others, ie disrespect, ie atrophy, completely opposite to Punk mentality.

My friends are nothing like me on the outside. They're Nerds, Goths, Homeschoolers, Jocks, Cheerleaders, Preps, Geeks, Skaters, Mods, and those Foreign Kids. But they're all kindred to and respected by me because they are capable of seeing what others miss and being what most others will never be: aware. They care about the world around them and cry when the world cries, not because everyone else is crying but because they can feel that pain when a bomb falls or prejudice occurs or someone is murdered or unjustly condemned.

I call myself Punk (and proudly) because I had possessed nearly all of the ideals before I even knew that the Punk movement HAD ideals. I have researched it and given it much thought, modifying my own interpretation based on what I read and then reflect on within myself. What you said about how some people say "Punk is dead" made me think about a Dave Matthews song, Gravedigger (that's right, I listen to whatever I want, not just Punk/Punk Rock; insight is not contained within just one genre of music), where some kids have a grandfather that lives to be 103, and how "103 is forever when you're just a kid, so [he] lived forever." As long as there are people in the world with even some Punk ideals, Punk will never be dead, similarly to Hippie beliefs and Mod beliefs, etc. There are still people who think Nazis were admirable, even though technically there can no longer be any Nazis. People still talk about Dodo birds.

One final insight:

Wolves may run in packs for support, but they always hunt alone.
About this Entry
[User Picture Icon]
From:polarisdib
Date:October 29th, 2005 08:53 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"You would be referring, I assume, to the modern bands that call themselves 'Punk'? Good Charlotte, Starting Line, Yellowcard, Blink-182, New Found Glory?"

Because of this line, I'm going to reply as I read, so as to test my knowledge and not cheat. Okay, ready?

No. I'm refering to the Sex Pistols and The Clash. A little later on, I guess I can add in The Ramones, Bad Religion, and all those "Flags": Black Flag, Antiflag, Down with the Flag (?), whatever the hell they talk about.

Okay, those you've listed? Mostly just "alternative" except of course Blink-182, which is just Pure Pansy.

"plenty of people who think the Beatles had no talent" Not no talent, they're just overrated. They released how many albums? And seriously, how many can you remember off the top of your head? For me, four. The Beatles had four good albums (which is, sadly, more than most bands in existence).

"Conceit: excessive appreciation of one's own worth or virtue"

Countercultural conceit: Excessive value of counterculture, wherein they lose track of the productive side of counterculture (ie, changing culture towards improvement) and decide that culture as a whole is something that should be reacted against (when it's not, not really).

"Punks are self-involved, yes, but this doesn't make them snooty."
-->"You would be referring, I assume, to the modern bands that call themselves 'Punk'? Good Charlotte, Starting Line, Yellowcard, Blink-182, New Found Glory? These bands are not Punk, by any stretch."

"a product of individuals who share the same discontent." My case will be stated below, after I'm done reading...

"because I had possessed nearly all of the ideals before I even knew that the Punk movement HAD ideals" doom doom doom...

"that's right, I listen to whatever I want, not just Punk/Punk Rock" --Nor do I expect you to. I am not here to criticize you (though no matter what I do I understand you'll feel criticized). I'm here to criticize Punk.

[User Picture Icon]
From:polarisdib
Date:October 29th, 2005 08:53 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Okay, so, final point (s?) before it's your turn to react again.

You state that you were a Punk before you knew what Punk was. I too made that same argument with Goth. The difference, you eventually begin to learn, is that connotations and definitions of words are entirely arbitrary, and thus based on societal agreements from which form the vernacular of the times. This is called Structuralism, and is only connected to this argument very loosely, but has one distinct, important part: what's in a word? Punk is arbitrary. As the ideal you express, it is a medium through which one can express--so to speak--individuality, but that medium already exists in a different, noncontextualized (and thus more infinite) form: communication. It's called verbal intercourse (or discourse to quote the semiotics) for a reason, which is this: the transition or trade (you said the word sharing) of ideas. No need for Punk, if you're an individual and you want to express yourself as one, then do it. Lose the medium ground (nice pun, huh?), for whereas media "connect", they also "separate." Think of a television. You see an event you wouldn't normally see, so you're connected to it now, but between you and that event (instead of actual space) is glass and electronics and faces and opinions and encodings and static electricity.

Such is Punk. Free thought is so much simpler than the Punk Manifesto states. Punk is a medium because it's meant to connect those who cannot think for themselves to those who can, only in the process it separates them from free thought by producing it for them instead of letting them produce it themselves.

But that is all the philosophical notions of Punk. The actual and historical functions of it are much, much more depressing: Punk is a trend, a product not of sharing, but of the 70s. It is an obvious and measured sequence. Have you ever noticed how strange it is that these countercultures seem to divide themselves so easily decade by decade? There's some leeway ("late this decade, early that decade") but in general they seem to construct themselves within specifically defined brackets of time because the consciousness of the population is aware of those brackets. A new decade comes, and inevitably someone says, "Hm, isn't it time for a new order?"

Right now you are using Punk in one of the few positive ways it CAN be used: as a springboard for your own intellect. You said it yourself (not in these exact words): you take the terminology and you apply it to yourself, editing in your own experiences and out the parts you don't agree with. Eventually, you'll most likely have developed your own insights and terminologies enough that the ones you used to begin will become archaic and separable, and then you will not relate as much. However, in the meantime, calling on the banner of Punk for societal change will only serve to create the outward appearance of what society has already agreed Punk is: angst-ridden discontents looking for an excuse to be rude to their parents. I'm not saying this is fair or good or right, it's simply what is. The harsh criticisms of an overbearing world has twisted the precious subculture, and now it's useless as a foundation for organizing change. It will only attract the very degradation of your ideals you have already expressed hatred of.

THAT is why I say I support you and your efforts, but not while invoking Punks, because it WILL attract the wrong people and it WILL make it all the easier for people who should listen to ignore you.

--DiB
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:24 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"You see an event you wouldn't normally see, so you're connected to it now, but between you and that event (instead of actual space) is glass and electronics and faces and opinions and encodings and static electricity."

What you're saying is contradictory. You're saying that there isn't actual space between an event and a person who wouldn't normally connect to that event, and yet there are physical and created things instead. Matter (electronics, faces, static electricity) is anything which has mass and takes up space. The space between a person at the end of a line and a person at the beginning is still space; space is a conserved thing. The space is filled instead with things such as one's own and others': ideas, world views, egos, fashions, big feet. My relationship with Punk is somewhat similar. One of my biggest attractions to Punk (as I see it, filtered through what I believe, take in, and have experienced through myself) is that they are people who are parting the people in that line to create pure, uninterrupted space between where they are and where they want to be. And it isn't just a Punk who is capable of this; anyone can do it. "So why Punk?" you're probably thinking, "Why anything? Just be yourself." Because of the same major reason why I am not a part of any religion: I don't think that a human being can truly become enlightened of the world around them until they have experienced many different things, lifestyles, etc. To me, to assume that one can is saying that there is nothing we can learn from the world around us, or from the different ways we interact with that world. For example, before I was drinking far too much vodka over the summer, I didn't know what it was to be trying, with everything I had, to keep the room from spinning. I didn't know how funny everything can be, and I didn't know my alcoholic limits.

Even though I had many of the Punk ideals within me already, the difference is my world view, based on my expansion of those ideals through the Punk movement and through other people. Through the different ways I am treated, through long philosophical musings with friends, through my recharged determination to experience the world as if for the first time. Because I am, in a way. Similar to how a child goes through stages to reach adulthood, I am going through stages to reach enlightenment. With every new stage comes a new set of senses because of new ideas.

"Free thought is so much simpler than the Punk Manifesto states."

Of course it is! Human beings complicate things. They can't help it; it's in their nature. In a portion of the Punk Manifesto, Graffin talks about the limbic system (system of movement/motor abilities in a living thing) and how humans use 95% of their brains for reasoning, asking questions, and thinking, while only 5% is used for limbic operations. This is exactly opposite a mouse, who uses only 5% for thinking and 95% for limbic movement. Biologically, we were made to question, although many people have no idea that 95% of their brains is at their disposal when it comes to wondering why. Punks are people who are aware of what makes humans different from other animals and who utilize that difference in an attempt to learn more about and change the world around them.
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:24 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"THAT is why I say I support you and your efforts, but not while invoking Punks, because it WILL attract the wrong people and it WILL make it all the easier for people who should listen to ignore you."

I am not conceited enough to assume that people NEED to listen to my ideas. I am interested in laying my ideas out so that they can decide, for themselves and as individuals, whether or not to listen. Maybe some people will think it is arrogant to have a desire to change the world. It is true that some people will turn away and others will fill their places, but who is one person to say whether the "right" people will be driven away and the "wrong" people attracted? Are you saying that you consider yourself so important that you are not open to my ideas, no matter through what vessel they are presented to you? I am choosing to evolve into a different person, one with a desire to separate myself from my perceptions of past experiences to feel them through new skin. But if what you are supporting are me and my efforts, why are you then saying you won't support me if I want to recreate my world? Within my world are the same ideas, just under reconstruction because they are not complete. And I am willing and brave enough to choose to complete them, despite the fact that I know there are many who will turn me away. If acceptance were the most important thing to me, I would not be in the process of getting my SBO (Senior Body Officer) impeached because he is arrogant enough to believe that homosexual people are less deserving of his tolerance than his friends. I would not make up my own T-shirt slogans, I wouldn't have cut my hair all off, and I wouldn't work at a natural foods store. Further, if the "people who should listen" are REALLY the "people who should listen", how I choose to experience the world would be of no consequence to them; it is what I glean from that experience that they are drawn to.

I value you very much because you also dare to question, and you care enough about yourself and your views to write long entries and replies stating exactly what you are. But I do not appreciate you (as a person who portrays themselves as above things like image and counterculture) judging me or my ideas differently because I have chosen to express my passions more radically. You are not above me on the path to enlightenment, because you are skeptical of everyone outside yourself; rather, you will miss out on a lot of valuable insight and evolution of spirit because you refuse to view the world from the eyes of anyone but Devil's Advocate. One man (or woman) did not build the Great Pyramid of Giza; it took many with the same goal but different contributions to get there.
[User Picture Icon]
From:polarisdib
Date:October 29th, 2005 10:00 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"I am not conceited enough to assume that people NEED to listen to my ideas."

But you intone frustration about people NOT listening to your ideas because "they think you're too young". While I don't think you're too young, I'm thinking one of the main things that helps contribute to them thinking so is your need to express yourself through a subcultural banner.

"Maybe some people will think it is arrogant to have a desire to change the world."

About them I say, "Don't bother with 'em."

"who is one person to say whether the "right" people will be driven away and the "wrong" people attracted?"

A concerned citizen. Maybe wrong, but a concerned one.

"Are you saying that you consider yourself so important that you are not open to my ideas, no matter through what vessel they are presented to you?"

Obviously not, else I wouldn't even be talking to you, much less having this discussion. I'm saying, specifically, that I want change and am glad you want change too, but one of the changes I specifically want is for people to be able to think for themselves without guidance, media, or instruction booklets (beyond typical languistics), and so I'm starting with you. Arrogant? Yeah, probably. Talking down to you? Unfortunately,even though it's unintentional and I'm giving you a whole hell of a lot more credit than most people (and you're holding yourself up better than any of them did, too. Regardless of anything said in these debates, you are good people).

"But if what you are supporting are me and my efforts, why are you then saying you won't support me if I want to recreate my world?"

I don't understand. I'm saying recreating your world will not be successful through Punk so I'm supporting you by, in theory, breaking out of a mold I believe a hindrance (but not a threat. That's giving it way too much credit).

"Further, if the "people who should listen" are REALLY the "people who should listen", how I choose to experience the world would be of no consequence to them; it is what I glean from that experience that they are drawn to."

Alas, that is not the case. How you choose to experience the world SHOULD be of no consequence to them; unfortunately, it is of consequence to them. Remember that Bill Clinton was impeached over a blowjob and yet nobody's talking about impeaching Bush despite the war, the hurricane situation, the Miers nomination, the fact that at least three high-level aides in his office are now under investigation, and his opinion rating dropping faster than gas prices are rising. Why is this? The exact same reason why he was elected and re-elected: "I promote moral values!" That's "how he's chosen to experience the world."

"I do not appreciate you (as a person who portrays themselves as above things like image and counterculture) judging me or my ideas differently because I have chosen to express my passions more radically."

This is the Punk talking. You are not "expressing your passions more radically", you're distilling them through popular discontent. I'm not saying your passions aren't more radical than mine, I'm saying your approach is distilling them. Yet you throw in that wonderful quote about "above things like image and counterculture". First of all, please, counterculture only. Not only do I not claim anything about my or your personal image (only the image of subculture, though in that context "image" means a whole different thing than what you're arguing), I think image is a very, very important thing. However, my ideas about that are irregardless of this argument and talking about them as I do here is only to illustrate that it's relative juxtaposition in that argument smacks fully of pop culture and not your own personal ideals.

[User Picture Icon]
From:polarisdib
Date:October 29th, 2005 10:01 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"You are not above me on the path to enlightenment,"

I care little for enlightenment.

"you will miss out on a lot of valuable insight and evolution of spirit because you refuse to view the world from the eyes of anyone but Devil's Advocate."

Technically the terms you are applying to me (enlightenment, Devil's Advocate) make me the perfect Buddhist. But enough of that. I do tend to play the role of Devil's Advocate excessively, but no longer do I do it as an approach to all discourse, rather anything I truly feel I disagree with. If I was playing Devil's Advocate to everything, I'd be one of those people previously alluded to that says you're just being arrogant thinking you can change the world.

I'm not anti-counterculture to the core way people think I am. I think countercultures are cute, and they do give you something to do on Saturdays. I'm saying (for the umpteenth time) that the promotion of social change is inadequately mediated through the terms of popular countercultures. One man (or woman) did not build the Great pyramid of Giza by telling a bunch of people that it made them individuals and opened up their heart chakras, he did it because he had a plan or idea. And those other people may well have been slaves, but that's neither here nor there for now.

--DiB
[User Picture Icon]
From:polarisdib
Date:October 29th, 2005 09:17 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"You're saying that there isn't actual space between an event and a person who wouldn't normally connect to that event, and yet there are physical and created things instead. Matter (electronics, faces, static electricity) is anything which has mass and takes up space. The space between a person at the end of a line and a person at the beginning is still space; space is a conserved thing. The..."

Let me restate this. Space is between something, but is not a medium. The more space is between the person and the object, the more the object is distorted by space as details begin disappearing. An artist is often taught to make depth in his pictures and paintings by making less details on the farther elements.

However, when it comes to space and subject, the only encodings (most important term there) is your own subjectivity. If you see an object far away and don't care, you won't approach it, it won't matter to you. If it's too far away to even notice, it doesn't exist. Such is space and subjectivity.

With a medium, however, something in space is brought to you whether you like it or not. A tree you didn't care about is now shot in close-up, with you looking at it. A car crash you drove past and ignored is now intimately personal with the crying person right in front of you.

Many things are at work here, probably too many to state, so I'll just try to make it as simple as I can. First of all, the "eye" of the camera is pointing at something you're not pointing it to. It's no longer your subjective eye, it's the camera's. Secondly, something in space is brought close to you through airwaves and the like, but it has a 4:3 border (which the human eye doesn't have) and it's pan is controlled by someone else. Thirdly, you may have passed that car crash and not seen it as interesting, but now there's a crying subject and it becomes a human drama piece. The subjective eye would not look at the crying woman, but the burning wreckage. The medial eye surveys the wreckage (a wide-shot) and then adds the humanistic element of the crying woman (a close-up). If there's a new twist (say there's cocaine in the car), if you saw the cocaine it would be smaller and indefinite (whether you knew what it was or not), but when the camera finds it it's in a tight close-up (so that nothing else, really, is in the screen).

Thus, this lack of subjectivity connects you to an event (by taking you from a room, say, and placing your face five inches away from a bag of cocaine), and yet you are even more disconnected from the event than just by distance: borders (framing), opinions (newsanchor), encodings (signs, symbols, biased media, airwaves), glass (the television itself), distortion (actual entropy working on the energetic spectrum of airwaves), and I haven't even gotten into editing yet (why are we focusing close-up on the cocaine? Why aren't we focusing, say, on the crying woman's terrible third world life? Or is that even important? Or do we have enough time to talk about it and still include something about Michael Jackson raping a kid?)

Such is Punk. It is a medium of individuality. A true individual thinks on his own. A Punk has someone else focus on what it's like to think on his own. For instance, by focusing on the limbic system or whatever crap that's all about.
[User Picture Icon]
From:polarisdib
Date:October 29th, 2005 09:25 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Oops, forgot this in previous post: Originally, the Hebrews provided no word for God. This was because they didn't want the word to become a medium between the actual which is not worldly and the worldly. When asked who he was, God said YHWH ("I am what I am"). YHWH was eventually given syllables and became Yahweh. Yahweh transitioned more and became Yahowah. Yahowah was translated into Latin as Jahovah. Now there was a word for God, and once Latin had ahold of God, he was no longer the same God, he was that asshole people call to as an excuse to kill people. Individualism has a word: individualism. It needn't a subculture to define it anymore, the subculture will only twist it.

"Of course it is! Human beings complicate things. They can't help it; it's in their nature. In a portion of the Punk Manifesto, Graffin talks about the limbic system (system of movement/motor abilities in a living thing) and how humans use 95% of their brains for reasoning, asking questions, and thinking, while only 5% is used for limbic operations. This is exactly opposite a mouse, who uses only 5% for thinking and 95% for limbic movement. Biologically, we were made to question, although many people have no idea that 95% of their brains is at their disposal when it comes to wondering why. Punks are people who are aware of what makes humans different from other animals and who utilize that difference in an attempt to learn more about and change the world around them."

...and this is all merely philosophy. I know ALL of what we're talking about is basically philosophy, but this is specifically "merely" philosophy. It is of no import to social or political change where you focus your mind and how it relates to other creatures. politicos will tell you elsewise: "We need good moral values" or whatever that crap is. I personally can state I'd rather them focus on critical thinking. And for you, I'd rather you focus your energies on yourself and others than on Punk or focusing on yourself and others through Punk.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pookie__bear
Date:October 29th, 2005 03:28 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
In the dicitionary, book not internet, one of the meanings for PUNK is, and I quote, "A Whore" another one is "A Passive Homosexual".

So really the bands could fit perfectly in the PUNK catagory by association with either of the two meanings. :P
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 06:12 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
=D Definitely! I think one of the reasons why Punks were called Punks (of all words) to begin with is that they are more aware of things, thus more aware of their sexuality as well, and it scares mainstream society because they spend their lives hiding sex, even though everyone knows it's already there. Another reason could be their attire, as seen over the years: they have a propensity towards fishnet, studded belts, and piercings, not to mention the wild hair and chains.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pookie__bear
Date:October 29th, 2005 06:44 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well there you go.
[User Picture Icon]
From:opheliaspirit
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:56 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
doss is good?
[User Picture Icon]
From:pookie__bear
Date:October 29th, 2005 09:34 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Yah, dass good.
[User Picture Icon]
From:avatar_of_spike
Date:October 29th, 2005 06:50 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Why the obsession with punk? If you try to actively fit into any label, or call yourself any label, you're a dumbass. If you like punk music, great. If you like the punk mentality, great. However, its pompous and ridiculous to try to claim you're punk. You may dress, act, and think like a punk, but the people who started punk were individuals just like you. Not all punks had the same ideals, clothes, or music. Labels like punk were formed by steriotypes. Don't be a copy cat of a stupid label. Sure you may be similar to some of the punk steriotypes, but in the end you aren't anything but yourself. Be yourself, however close to punk or far from it you may be.
[User Picture Icon]
From:illfixanthony
Date:October 29th, 2005 06:58 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
GO ERIC!
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:30 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
It's only a label to someone who is selling it. It's a lifestyle a moi because I'm living it.

Individuality can never be a stereotype, so don't worry about me. Punk was started by individuals and maintained by them in a mutating individualistic form, until it became a label and was mass marketed to people who have minimal or no knowledge as to its mentality. I am interested in preserving it and myself, by choosing to experience life through the shoes of an individual often forcedly stereotyped by people who are afraid to open and change their minds.

This is Punk a moi, therefore I am Punk.
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:34 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
And yes, it's true they didn't all have the same ideals, clothes, or musical preferences, but they did all have the same goal: to reach their own truth, to reach enlightenment. This is still individuality because the various ways (different ideals, clothes or musical preferences, also political ideas and propensities, and artistic expressions of self) were and are not the same.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:October 29th, 2005 06:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"To be honest with you, I have been a Punk my whole life." Thats impossible...You cant be something if you don't know its meaning. Also, It sounds as if you think your self as "special" or "different". Its rather hard to be unique with a world population of something like 6,450,000,000. Anyways, "I call myself Punk (and proudly) because I had possessed nearly all of the ideals before I even knew that the Punk movement HAD ideals." It's not that hard...
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:54 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"You cant be something if you don't know its meaning." Babies are born different colors which they don't have names for every single day, and yet they are still black and white and Asian. Children who have homosexual thoughts and experiences don't know what they are until they are older, and able to think back upon how they were and how it has carried into their future.

It's true that I'm "special" and "different". The odds are nearly impossible that one will meet someone exactly the same in genetic makeup, and in the end, no matter how you look at it, that's at the base of who we are. Other things develop off of this, based on experience, environment, and the influence of others, as theorized by psychologists. But the top of the Sears Tower would not exist where it is without its foundation and the many bottom floors. This is what I said: "To be honest with you, I have been a Punk my whole life. I have dressed differently, acted differently, seen things and done things opposite to others." Am I supposed to lie and pretend I've known people a lot like me? I used to wear tight flower-printed exercise pants and baggy sweatshirts year-round when I was 12, and have never known someone to be the same or even similar, aside from kids dressing up to be someone from the '80s on Halloween.

"I call myself Punk (and proudly) because I had possessed nearly all of the ideals before I even knew that the Punk movement HAD ideals." Refer back to the part about the homosexually-inclined children at the beginning. This is only a testament as to my intentions regarding Punk. I am not signing up for a parade, I am choosing to give myself a definition to my beliefs based on the amount of similarity those beliefs have to the Punk mentality. When you say, "It's not that hard...", you're contradicting your first statement in which you say, "You cant be something if you don't know its meaning." So what is it? Easy or impossible? Either way, what difference does it make? Easy and impossible are only personal perceptions.
[User Picture Icon]
From:eternalone
Date:October 29th, 2005 07:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
For example, to me, impossibility doesn't exist, and easy is what you did when you posted anonymously.
[User Picture Icon]
From:illfixanthony
Date:October 29th, 2005 11:14 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Sorry, the anonymous post was from me. LJ decided not to let me sign in earlier. When I say "special" or "different" I just mean the way you think/act. Not the way you look.