The Beastie Boys - The Mix-Up

[jazzypaul]

Well, I certainly take exception to being characterized as having "the musical taste of a suburban thirteen year old," and I certainly don't think that I'm the only one who would. Nor do I think I'm being particularly agressive about it. My contention is, and always has been, that I like what I like and no one else has the right to judge me or tell me that I'm wrong to like it (which Clem does, time and time again). I certainly don't come around telling other people what they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT listen to/enjoy. I've never told anyone (to my knowledge) that they are foolish for liking what they like. I might say that they seem a bit closed-minded, but that doesn't seem (to me) to be the same thing at all. You might disagree.

this might be true, but...

You're aggressive about proclaiming your belief system.

You always tell people what they should or shouldn't believe in, when the subject comes up.

And you try to make people who believe differently than you feel that they're foolish for doing so.

Face it, you're EXACTLY the kind of asshole that you proclaim Clem to be, and you're simply getting what you deserve, IMHO.

edited for grammatical idiocy. Thanks for reading.

Edited October 2, 2007 by jazzypaul

[Achtung Dr. Freud Calling]

like a hashshashin

Oh, those 2nd rate assassin wannabees!! Those amateurs got nothing on the mustacheod Turkish infiltrator who'd slip into ze enemy camp late at night, and right into your foxhole of three to slit ze throat of the guy lying in the middle before creeping out again. These should have been standard issue for all soldiers!

[Alexander]

Well, I certainly take exception to being characterized as having "the musical taste of a suburban thirteen year old," and I certainly don't think that I'm the only one who would. Nor do I think I'm being particularly agressive about it. My contention is, and always has been, that I like what I like and no one else has the right to judge me or tell me that I'm wrong to like it (which Clem does, time and time again). I certainly don't come around telling other people what they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT listen to/enjoy. I've never told anyone (to my knowledge) that they are foolish for liking what they like. I might say that they seem a bit closed-minded, but that doesn't seem (to me) to be the same thing at all. You might disagree.

this might be true, but...

You're aggressive about proclaiming your belief system.

You always tell people what they should or shouldn't believe in, when the subject comes up.

And you try to make people who believe differently than you feel that they're foolish for doing so.

Face it, you're EXACTLY the kind of asshole that you proclaim Clem to be, and you're simply getting what you deserve, IMHO.

edited for grammatical idiocy. Thanks for reading.

I see a difference between me and Clem, but if you don't, that's your hang-up and I can't do anything about it. I don't tell people what they SHOULD believe, I just tell them what I believe. I would never presume to tell you that you cannot or should not believe in God if that is your personal choice. I can tell you that I don't agree with that choice, but that's not telling you that you or your choice is "stupid." I have no problem with Clem disagreeing with me. I have no problem when he tells me that he doesn't like the things I like. What gets under my skin is when Clem says things like: "Y'all have been DUPED" regarding Dylan's "Modern Times." Calling me a dupe is insulting. I'd never call you a dupe for believing in God (even if I believe it, I'd never say it).

[Aggie87]

I see a difference between me and Clem, but if you don't, that's your hang-up and I can't do anything about it. I don't tell people what they SHOULD believe, I just tell them what I believe. I would never presume to tell you that you cannot or should not believe in God if that is your personal choice. I can tell you that I don't agree with that choice, but that's not telling you that you or your choice is "stupid."

I don't think you're being honest with yourself. This may be how you want to see yourself, but do you think that's how you come across?

You openly mock Christians and Christianity on this board regularly. You post Piss Christ pictures, with your own admitted purpose to "tweak" Christians or something, that it should be no big deal to them.

Remember this:

If I immersed a crucifix in a jar of mayo, would that be more or less offensive than immersing it in urine? What if I immersed a banana or a toy car in urine? Would that be as offensive as "Piss Christ?" What is it that makes "Piss Christ" so offensive to so many? This piss? The Christ? If I displayed a crucifix in an empty vial and titled it "Non-Piss Christ," would that be inoffensive?

Where's your messiah now?

If that's not mocking others for their beliefs, what is?

Edited October 2, 2007 by Aggie87

[Alexander]

I see a difference between me and Clem, but if you don't, that's your hang-up and I can't do anything about it. I don't tell people what they SHOULD believe, I just tell them what I believe. I would never presume to tell you that you cannot or should not believe in God if that is your personal choice. I can tell you that I don't agree with that choice, but that's not telling you that you or your choice is "stupid."

I don't think you're being honest with yourself. This may be how you want to see yourself, but do you think that's how you come across?

You openly mock Christians and Christianity on this board regularly. You post Piss Christ pictures, with your own admitted purpose to "tweak" Christians or something, that it should be no big deal to them.

Remember this:

If I immersed a crucifix in a jar of mayo, would that be more or less offensive than immersing it in urine? What if I immersed a banana or a toy car in urine? Would that be as offensive as "Piss Christ?" What is it that makes "Piss Christ" so offensive to so many? This piss? The Christ? If I displayed a crucifix in an empty vial and titled it "Non-Piss Christ," would that be inoffensive?

Where's your messiah now?

If that's not mocking others for their beliefs, what is?

Realizing that matters of artistic taste are entirely subjective, I should point out that "Piss Christ" is a legitimate work of art that makes a valid comment on a matter of some importance. It has to do, as I believe I pointed out before, with symbols and our unfortunate tendency to conflate the symbol with the idea symbolized...in otherwords, the siginfier and the signified. I'm sure I also brought up Magritte's classic painting "The Trechery of Imagies." For those who have forgotten the painting, or have never seen it, here it is:

The French text reads, "This is not a pipe." I often show this to students and ask them to explain it to me. I've heard some very creative interpretations, but only a few have hit it on the head: It's not a pipe. It's a picture of a pipe. The same could easily be said of "Piss Christ": "This is not a Christ." It's not. It's a picture of a Christ. Or a little statue of a Christ hanging from a piece of wood. Magritte's painting warns us: "Do not confuse the thing with the idea behind it." In this modern age, I should hope that we've moved past the Platonic Ideal (the idea that somewhere, somehow, there is an ideal Pipe after which all pipes are imperfect representations). I say that a flag or a cross (or a star of David, or a crescent moon) is nothing more than a symbol. A symbol can be destroyed (or dipped in urine) but the idea is untouched. Ideas, as Alan Moore once noted, are bulletproof.

Pointing that out doesn't seem to the same as mockery, but I may be in error. The "where's your Messiah now" line was, of course, a quote from "The Ten Commandments." It was intended as a joke, and I recognize that to some it was in poor taste.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Alexander

[Alexander]

I should also note that I have ALWAYS found "Piss Christ" to be uncommonly beautiful (I love the colors). It looks like a picture taken through a golden filter. I don't see that as offensive.

[Aggie87]

You didn't post that image in an art forum or thread though. You posted it in a thread that someone else posted about their belief in God. You posted it KNOWING that the people that are Christian take the image of Christ seriously.

[Aggie87]

but the whole western concept of jesus is blasphemous and offensive. he was not in all probability mad pasty, as he is depicted so often here in the western world. what is the difference between artificially whitening or artificially (naturally) yellowing the j man?

My comments weren't to address anything about Jesus - I commented to provide an example of Alexander mocking other's beliefs, in contrast to his comment that he only tells people what he believes...not what they should or shouldn't believe.

He's offended by Clem's comments (and yet continues to bait him as you said - he mentions Clem a heckuva more than Clem mentions him). And yet he purposely tries to offend others about their personal beliefs, and later makes comments like "I recognize to some that it was in poor taste". Well, yeah.

[Free For All]

I should also note that I have ALWAYS found "Piss Christ" to be uncommonly beautiful (I love the colors). It looks like a picture taken through a golden filter. I don't see that as offensive.

I've so far avoided posting in this thread, but come on, Alexander, this is a major cop-out! You know (and we know) EXACTLY what your intent was when you posted that picture, and the text that accompanied your post eliminates any doubt! I have no problems with what you believe, but come on, man! Don't use the pretense of "but this is art" when you're trying to make another point entirely!

"Golden filter"! LMAO!

[JSngry]

When a Beastie Boys thread turns into a God thread, it's probably time to seek profesional care.

[Free For All]

The time for me to seek professional care came about long before this thread appeared!

[jazzypaul]

oh.....but if it was a john coltrane thread or something it would have been ok for it to turn into a theological discussion?

well, actually...

anyway, I didn't mean to get all theological on anyone. I was just trying to point out that Alexander has no business EVER trying to complain about someone picking on him, his tastes, beliefs or anything of the sort.

Sorry. Back to the band that jumped the shark with Hello Nasty.

[Alexander]

oh.....but if it was a john coltrane thread or something it would have been ok for it to turn into a theological discussion?

well, actually...

anyway, I didn't mean to get all theological on anyone. I was just trying to point out that Alexander has no business EVER trying to complain about someone picking on him, his tastes, beliefs or anything of the sort.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Such absolutist talk is nonsense, of course. That's like saying, "That guy is a drug dealer and a burgler. He has no business EVER complaining that someone is breaking into his house." I've been a rude jerk in the past. That doesn't give people the right to be rude jerks, even towards me. Didn't Jesus tell you that?

[jazzypaul]

well, Al, you're right, you have been a real jerk. And you're right that Jesus taught that we should forgive those who are, well, real jerks. However, when real jerks don't ask for forgiveness, and then whine when someone does the same stuff to them, I'm more apt to say, "pot, meet kettle!"

So, Mr. Pot, until you publicly apologize to all of the Christians on this board for all of the rude things you've said and/or posted aimed in our direction, you have no right, at all, to be complaining when someone else does it to you.

[Achtung Dr. Freud Calling]

When a Beastie Boys thread turns into a God thread, it's probably time to seek profesional care.

As soon as I've finished up with angry Rosie, there'll be plenty of quality time left for you!

Rosie's Memoir Lets It All Hang Out

By Jocelyn McClurg, USA TODAY

Posted: 2007-10-02 11:23:43

Filed Under: Rosie O'Donnell, TV News, The View

(Oct. 2) -- In her new book, Rosie O'Donnell says she and Barbara Walters are friends who have found "a way to love" each other.

But it's doubtful Walters will feel the love when she reads Celebrity Detox: The Fame Game (Grand Central, 209 pp., $23.99), due in stores Oct. 9.

Photo Gallery: Quotable Rosie Barnes and Noble / AP Rosie O'Donnell has never been one to hold back. With her new book, 'Celebrity Detox: The Fame Game,' the former "queen of nice" is expected to open up wounds from past feuds. Here are some past quotable highlights:

1 of 8

After suggesting Walters, 78, is too old to keep up with the demands of The View, O'Donnell says her co-star betrayed her during the infamous Donald Trump blowup last season.

What's Your Take?

"You're a liar," O'Donnell recalls shouting repeatedly at Walters before they went on the air.

Later, as the warring co-hosts tried to make up, O'Donnell told her mentor: "… you did not defend me. And I have been a good, loyal daughter to you. And I want you to be a good mother to me. Don't let the bad man hurt me."

Paging Dr. Freud.

Reading Celebrity Detox is like having a patient on the couch without the necessary medical degree to sort through what's insightful and what's just nutty.

[JSngry]

Rosie O'Donnell says she and Barbara Walters are friends who have found "a way to love" each other.

And what sort of prosthetic devices does this involve?

[.:.impossible]

oh.....but if it was a john coltrane thread or something it would have been ok for it to turn into a theological discussion?

well, actually...

anyway, I didn't mean to get all theological on anyone. I was just trying to point out that Alexander has no business EVER trying to complain about someone picking on him, his tastes, beliefs or anything of the sort.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Such absolutist talk is nonsense, of course. That's like saying, "That guy is a drug dealer and a burgler. He has no business EVER complaining that someone is breaking into his house." I've been a rude jerk in the past. That doesn't give people the right to be rude jerks, even towards me. Didn't Jesus tell you that?

Been a while since I logged in. Surprised to see the same old shit.

I just had to comment on the absurdity of Alexander's line, "Such absolutist talk is nonsense, of course. That's like saying, "That guy is a drug dealer and a burgler. He has no business EVER complaining that someone is breaking into his house."

What else is that like saying? Maybe you could tell your students what Duchamp's pipe means, and make sure that they understand there is no room for interpretation. Maybe you could tell the Christians here that there is no GOD, there was no SON, and there is no other way to interpret it. Unbelievable.

*I am neither overly "Christian", nor do I enjoy tobacco from a pipe. Everyone else, please feel free to do either, or both. Thank you.

[Alexander]

oh.....but if it was a john coltrane thread or something it would have been ok for it to turn into a theological discussion?

well, actually...

anyway, I didn't mean to get all theological on anyone. I was just trying to point out that Alexander has no business EVER trying to complain about someone picking on him, his tastes, beliefs or anything of the sort.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Such absolutist talk is nonsense, of course. That's like saying, "That guy is a drug dealer and a burgler. He has no business EVER complaining that someone is breaking into his house." I've been a rude jerk in the past. That doesn't give people the right to be rude jerks, even towards me. Didn't Jesus tell you that?

Been a while since I logged in. Surprised to see the same old shit.

I just had to comment on the absurdity of Alexander's line, "Such absolutist talk is nonsense, of course. That's like saying, "That guy is a drug dealer and a burgler. He has no business EVER complaining that someone is breaking into his house."

What else is that like saying? Maybe you could tell your students what Duchamp's pipe means, and make sure that they understand there is no room for interpretation. Maybe you could tell the Christians here that there is no GOD, there was no SON, and there is no other way to interpret it. Unbelievable.

*I am neither overly "Christian", nor do I enjoy tobacco from a pipe. Everyone else, please feel free to do either, or both. Thank you.

While I appreciate your comments, I have to say that the meaning of the second part here escapes me. Are you saying that I've been an absolutist? I don't consider myself to be an absolutist. In fact, I'm very much a subjectivist (or existentialist, if you want to be percise) which is part of the point here. I'm not a big fan of "objective reality." Since reality, from our human perspective, consists solely of our subjective perception of said reality (and we need only look to Heisenberg to see how our presence as perceivers can effect that which we hope to objectively observe), it's really impossible to make broad statements on the nature of what we perceive. Is the sky really blue? It looks blue, but that's really just because our eyes interpret the visible spectrum in a particular way. What color is the sky to someone who's perceptions are not determined by light bouncing off of objects? The very concept of "light" and "dark" only has meaning to us because our eyes depend on light to see. What if your perception did not depend on light? What are we NOT seeing because our level of perception does not exceed the visible spectrum? What do things REALLY look like? How do I know for certain that any of you are really out there? That all of the responses I read on the screen are not generated by a computer program? How do I know that ANYTHING is really happening? If I were a brain in a jar being subjected to electronic stimuli, might I not see, hear, smell and taste the same things that I do now? If they weren't really happening, but I THOUGHT they were happening, would it really make a difference?

When you realize how uncertain your perceptions are, doesn't faith seem kind of irrational and, well, absurd?

[jazzypaul]

all of that to say that when you're a dick to others, it's fine and dandy, but no one else can be a dick to you.

Make up your mind Alexander. Either you're a dick to others, and you expect it in return, or you're nice to everyone, and you expect it in return. That's what it comes down to. You can call this a conversation about symbols, subjective reality or whatever you want. But it all started because you got sad that someone pulled your own shit on you. So, be nice or don't be nice. But don't get all up in arms when people call you on your shit because you're complaining that you just got shit on.

Your call.

[JSngry]

Either you're a dick to others, and you expect it in return, or you're nice to everyone, and you expect it in return.

I say be the black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks.

Right on.

[Jim Alfredson]

Shut yo' mouth!

[JSngry]

We can dig it.

[Alexander]

all of that to say that when you're a dick to others, it's fine and dandy, but no one else can be a dick to you.

Make up your mind Alexander. Either you're a dick to others, and you expect it in return, or you're nice to everyone, and you expect it in return. That's what it comes down to. You can call this a conversation about symbols, subjective reality or whatever you want. But it all started because you got sad that someone pulled your own shit on you. So, be nice or don't be nice. But don't get all up in arms when people call you on your shit because you're complaining that you just got shit on.

Your call.

I notice that you continue to harp on this and fail to address any of my other points. So I'll try to settle this once and for all. I will not stop being a "dick," as you put it, on the subject of religion in that I will not stop pointing out the irrationality of faith whenever I see it. I will also continue to take offense when people do or say things that I find offensive. This is my right just as it is your right to take offense by the things that I say or do and to voice your opinion. I never said that Clem "cannot" be a dick. Clem can be a dick. He will be a dick, because he IS a dick. And I can say, "Clem is a dick" if that's how his behavior seems to me, just as you can say "Alexander is a dick" if that's how I seem to you. I will close with every Christian's favorite quotable author, Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

So, Paul, Clem, everybody...do what thou wilt.

[Patrick]

...cue the MG's for the outtro...

[Aggie87]

I will not stop being a "dick," as you put it, on the subject of religion in that I will not stop pointing out the irrationality of faith whenever I see it.

Why? Why can't you adopt a "to each their own" mentality and accept that others get comfort from their faith? It's not your business whether they choose this path or not anyway. Faith (or non-faith) is a personal thing, not something that needs to be trumpeted out constantly. And I don't see anyone continually challenging you because you're an atheist - it's you that seems to have some deep-seeded need to challenge them regularly. In other words, you're the provoker. I could care less whether you're a believer or an atheist.

For instance - why even comment in a thread that asks for people to pray for someone - like George Cables? If that person receives comfort in any way knowing that others pray for him (whether the prayers themselves do anything or not), why do you have to make comments proclaiming your beliefs yet again?

I don't care for fanatical evangelists on either side of the aisle - believers or non-believers. Faith is a personal thing.

(NOTE - I could have sworn you said "I don't tell people what they SHOULD believe, I just tell them what I believe. I would never presume to tell you that you cannot or should not believe in God if that is your personal choice" earlier in this thread - doesn't that contradict what you're now saying again?)

Edited October 3, 2007 by Aggie87