Kid Airbag

Well, this thread has taken a horrendous turn for the worst.

ravage said:

I'll listen to more Bowie if you listen to more Queen. :P

Okay.

Quast said:
Are you trying to argue against free will?

As much as I love it, mercilessly. "Free will" is a most questionable concept short of things like "the soul" and "God." And all three concepts are similarly related to our conception of what the "subject" is (the "being.") I'm all for free will as a political standard, but will is never free; it's always conditioned. Not being aware of that (or the implications in a situation) is like the closest thing to not being free.

In that we can do nothing of our own volition but are instead coerced by "media gatekeepers" and other assorted entities?

Why jump from being "free" and being "coerced"? All subjects invariably deal with the force that the main media outlets comprise, in one way or another. Since I do not "believe" in omnipotent subjects or subject absolutes, how could I think that social constructions like powerful media enterprises are omnipotent over each our "wills"? The "media gatekeepers", as you call them, do indeed do a lot of stuff that affects me in the way I receive information. Did I say everything in the media and the way I deal with it is up to "them"? Who did?

If so, how do you explain the existence of aberant behavior and thinking, like Gokuma here shows us, without lending further evidence of my original point: that people "buy" into a counter-culture.

Critical behavior can be niched, categorized, sold, whitewashed and re-fabricated or miscontextualized in a political scene where hegemonic forces exert a constant pressure to get it out of the picture, or to adapt it. If you agree with that then we agree on something, but I won't tell Gokuma to fuck off because he considers it wise to avoid mainstream media.

Note that beforehand I had dealt with this "aberrant" behavior when I mentioned how the corporate media arranges it, or tries to do so.

By your logic, no one could just decide on a whim to, for example, listen to indie music for whatever reason they use to attempt to justify it. They would have to be persuaded somehow by these very same "powers" that compel everyone else to watch mtv and buy SUVs.

If a strong wind were blowing you could go inside to avoid it. But lo and behold, now you're inside and can't go outside unless you suffer the wind again. Did you avoid the wind? Yes. Is the wind still conditioning you? Yes. Plus "a whim" always refers to factors we don't know or understand, since all action is immersed in factors of many kinds that produce it.

People should be concerned with social and political happenings thousands of miles away when most don't care about these things at home?

Were they more aware of their own scenario they'd likely know more about the former, though, as they are tied together. And again, you can't split the cultures of different nations as if they were exclusive. That starts to feel like the absolutist subject conception again, and offshore-related US politics are US politics.

myk said:

but will is never free; it's always conditioned. Not being aware of that (or the implications in a situation) is like the closest thing to not being free.

I do agree with this.

The "media gatekeepers", as you call them

I was just quoting Gokuma. :p

Did I say everything in the media and the way I deal with it is up to "them"? Who did?

No, you did not. Gokuma, seemed to be implying just that.

Critical behavior can be niched, categorized, sold, whitewashed and re-fabricated or miscontextualized in a political scene where hegemonic forces exert a constant pressure to get it out of the picture, or to adapt it. If you agree with that then we agree on something, but I won't tell Gokuma to fuck off because he considers it wise to avoid mainstream media.

I won't tell him to fuck off either. On one level I agree with him (i don't watch much tv or shop at the gap either, but I see no need to make a big statement about how "worldly" and "concerned" i percieve myself) HOWEVER...

Gokuma said:

mainstream dribble and brainwashing.

media gatekeepers censoring shit and deciding what you can and can't see/hear.

...these comments are what put me off. He is making an analogy that following or consuming mainstream-"whatever" (that you cannot avoid because they control what you see and hear through media forms) is tantamount to allowing violence in latin america and elsewhere to occur. Not that one would will it, but rather their lack of concern or knowlege of these things lets atrocities happen.

For the sake of argument, let us remove britney spears' ass and brad pitt and mtv and fox news and whatever from the equation. Let us remove these "media gatekeepers" from dictating what we see and hear. Do we all become philanthropists set on curing our world of all ills? Is that even remotely possible?