Barbelith Underground > Radio & Music > Hip-pop 2: Misogyny, politics, the 'underground' and the bling bling

This escapist pseudo-populism doesn't convince me in the slightest.

i dont think ANYTHING would.
i think that's one issue.
i think you might have to define escapist pseudo-populism for me as well.
also, i am not taking any of this personally, bruno, and i think your rewriting of my motives does you and i both no good.
it also suggests, rather strongly(and supported by other things you say), that you see this as a clash of egos rather than a disagreement.

see:
Except the fundamental and unquestionable de facto wrongness of Bruno's wicked and evil elitist arguments.

your 'arguments' qualify for wrongness, where they do, by being wrong. there is no assumption here on my part other than that explicitly stated as such, and i fear your characterising of any disagreement as personal issues only adds to the conception of your barbelith persona as someone who is fighting a battle against people rather than ideas.

i may be wrong, but you did attack me for taking it personally.
please to show where that arose, if not in your own self-described-as-sick mind.

anyway.

Point by point:

a I take it for granted that the vast majority of people are politically reactionary

Can you contest that one?

yes, of course.
you don't seem able to prove it anything like others can contest it, and the burden of proof is, quite clearly, with you anyway.
if it is so, show us.
if you do, we can discuss your position.

b uncritical in their thinking

If you accept the first one, then this one also stands.

i dont, and i dont feel that the two are necessarily linked as you say they are.
you would need to demonstrate, clearly and without appeals to 'common sense' or similar, how they are linked.
again, the burden of proof is, i think, quite heavily yours.

show us. dont tell us.

c unaware of their needs or desires

This one needs more unpacking, but for starters
it is reasonable to assume that most consumer choices are made on an irrational basis and people are often tricked into thinking they want something that they don't. I can verify this from personal experience as well as observation.

this doesnt just need unpacking, it needs gone over by a team of forensic specialists to make sure it wont just blow up in your face when you try to.
it is not, at any point, reasonable to assume anything that paints your fellow human beings as 'unaware'. it is, in fact, completely unreasonable to expect us to assume anything of the kind.
to expect me or anyone else to engage with your wild assumptions without them having ANY basis in reality outside your own reported experience is, in my humble opinion, equally unreasonable.

to say your assumptions have been verified also suggest some confusion as to the nature of the concepts of verification and assumption, but that may be for another arena.

d and generally estranged from life, including music and 'art' in general...

This is harder to explain in brief but I think a lot of fairly important thinkers have put this view forward in the past and it can't be dismissed off hand.

i think this is harder to explain because, well, it makes no sense.
if life is what folks live, how on earth can they be said to be estranged from it? is a businessman less alive? who are you to say so? is a suicide bomber less alive? who are you to say so? is a rapper more or less alive depending on his lyrics? who are you to say so? am i alive enough to count? who the heck are you to say so?
it reminds me of the nonsensical position that 'most people are of below average intelligence'.

if other important thinkers have said it before, perhaps you could tell us your favourite five?
if you could tell me where to read up on it i would be grateful. i read a lot of books(i take a lot of buses) and, as i enjoy challenging my own perspective, would love to read something that backs up what you say. currently it seems to me like a nonsensical position, designed only to make the person espousing it feel clever and interesting.

Really I am quite amazed at the way everyone has responded, you all act like what I said is WRONG and this should be taken for granted but I am willing to discuss, and noone has put forward a serious argument yet.

i havent suggested that you are wrong by default.
i havent suggested that your wrongness should be taken for granted.
you say you are willing to discuss, but you seem to spend an awful lot of your time being shocked that discussion of your posts is necessary.
how should i have responded, assuming you accept that i may disagree with you?

please bear one thing in mind above all else.
you are not being misunderstood as much as you are being disagreed with, and it would help you immensely to be aware of that.

help me to talk to you, because right now i find it very difficult.