SQTDDTOT

[anthony]

Why was the green libtard finally banned? I hated the green groyper because he was ‘fed’ish and had come here to demoralize but what did he do for the jannies to finally bring down the hammer?

Also: I *heart* jannies

I should probably answer this since I'm the one who banned him with no consultation or input from anybody else.

The Green Groyper was really, really annoying.

[Guest]

[…]

I should probably answer this since I'm the one who banned him with no consultation or input from anybody else.

The Green Groyper was really, really annoying.

Lmao! I thought some dramatically serious episode had prompted his banishment. To learn that it was just some arbitrary flex of power is so anti-climatic—ergo funny. 

Anthony can be funny some times.

[Guest]

[…]

I should probably answer this since I'm the one who banned him with no consultation or input from anybody else.

The Green Groyper was really, really annoying.

bix nood

[Guest]

[…]

I should probably answer this since I'm the one who banned him with no consultation or input from anybody else.

The Green Groyper was really, really annoying.

Lmao! I thought some dramatically serious episode had prompted his banishment. To learn that it was just some arbitrary flex of power is so anti-climatic—ergo funny. 

Anthony can be funny some times.

Seconding this. Long live the Green Groyper! I hope he comes back, eventually at least. I miss his nordic autism, I know he could be a little too based for some of the oldheads, but arguably this was all to his credit.

[Guest]

[…]

I should probably answer this since I'm the one who banned him with no consultation or input from anybody else.

The Green Groyper was really, really annoying.

bix nood

Ironically, this kind of non-argument is exactly what the cartoon it's referencing mocks. I still chuckled a bit, however, and it brings you the updoots you're so desperate for.

[Recent Friend]

>I still
Hello GG

[august]

>I still
Hello GG

Exactly. The Green Groyper's posts in actual threads were universally insignificant, so why would a random guest come along (shortly after guests were permitted to post again) just to ask about The Green Groyper, an account that had a shoutbox-to-thread post ratio of probably 500:1? How would a guest be able to say "he was ‘fed’ish and had come here to demoralize" without having actively been in the shoutbox? The lawlgical answer is that probably every single one of the above guest posts, starting with the first one asking about The Green Groyper, are The Green Groyper. Someone can try putting forward a good argument that anyone other than The Green Groyper would honestly type out "Long live the Green Groyper! I hope he comes back". Until then, anyone not compelled should think about another certain account that became just as active in the shoutbox almost instantly after The Green Groyper's banning and that doesn't stop talking about "nordic autism". No matter the alias that he tries to assume, The Green Groyper is at least two SDs stupider than however smart he thinks he is.

[Guest]

>I still
Hello GG

Wild conjecture…

I asked and then posted that anthony was funny. 2 posts. That’s it. I said he was “fed”ish because I’m the one who orignailly argued with him when talking about TND a few months back and if you look at all of his “insignificant” posts it was obvious he was posting to seem like he had a reason to be here so he could post more libtard points. Essentially put: he was trying too hard to fit in or was just trying to flood the forum with opinions he found from articles. Either way, no reason for him to post here.

[Recent Friend]

The Green Groyper is The Game Dude.

[august]

Why are you putting the word insignificant in quotes as if you take offense with such a label and then concluding that there was "no reason for him [you, The Green Groyper posing as a guest] to post here"?

[Recent Friend]

>I still
Hello GG

Exactly.

The thing about the "I still" tick is that GG liked giving out olive branches where it didn't really matter.

[Muskox]

Most of what passes for history wrt American music is really just the plugging of gaps with "blacks did it." The histories of jazz and rock and roll are very murky. Anywhere there is not explicit recorded history, it must be that white people stole from black people. There is a quasi-religious belief in this heuristic among "musicologists" and for this reason it is impossible to reason with them. The history of the guitar in America, for example, is not well-recorded, and it is earnestly claimed on Wikipedia that blacks introduced it to whites. This paradigm is based entirely on circular reasoning. Working from the presupposition that a given musical style was stolen from blacks, the defining characteristics of the style are classified as "African elements" and, from then on, can be pointed to as evidence of its supposed African nature. Sometimes they will be tenuously connected to some traditional music from somewhere on the continent. It's no different from any other afro-centric pseudo-history; it just escapes proper criticism due to the fake and gay nature of the field of ethnomusicology.

The fact of the matter is that African musical culture in America was practically annihilated. All of the so-called African elements of jazz and rock were already present in the Anglo-American musical tradition. Blue notes, pentatonic scales, call and response, etc. But do I really have to tell you that black people didn't invent call and response? It's obvious. Ethnomusicologists claim that black people invented the work song and the shanty. Of course there is no evidence for this, and much to the contrary, but is it really worth losing your job over? Anyone with half a brain can tell that black musical styles in America (blues, ragtime, etc) are just black styles of European music. African musical culture was so thoroughly exterminated in America that actual African influence comes almost invariably from the Caribbean (the banjo is probably the singular exception to this, although it bears very little resemblance to its African predecessors). Cuban musicians were integral to the creation of jazz. Even the Bo Diddley beat was taken from Caribbean music.

Musicians have always drawn inspiration from diverse sources. When Brahms composed his Hungarian Dances, was he making Hungarian music (or gypsy music, considering the gypsy stylistic influences), rather than making classical music? Of course not. He refined and elevated the raw folk material. This is what artists do; it's part of what artistry is. Country music (which is the actual direct antecedent to rock and roll, not blues) isn't black music just because it uses the banjo. It's also not Hawaiian music just because it uses the lap steel. All American popular music, with the partial exception of hip hop (which was invented by... Caribbeans), is firmly situated in the Anglo-American musical tradition, with some stylistic influences from a variety of sources. Any impartial observer would recognize that, and be puzzled by the constant and deafening assertions to the contrary.

I'm sympathetic to the blacks who attempt to claim every aspect of American culture for their own. They sense that their entire culture is a mildly Africanized knockoff of white culture. Who can blame them for resenting that fact? I am not sympathetic to their white toadies. The scourge of the communist ethnomusicologist/folklorist/music historian (such as Alan Lomax) has done far more damage than people realize. Maybe I'll make a thread about the New-Deal-coalition-resentment-fueled joke that is the American folk music revival sometime.

Here is a nice song which really encapsulates this whole discussion:

The song is a bit of a mystery. It has often been found in tradition in Britain and USA but always as a sailor shanty, usually sung while working at the pumps. Two distinct sets of words accompany the tune: one text tells the present story of the dead lover who returns; the other text concerns the work and pay of cotton-lumbers in the port of Mobile, Alabama. Deceived by the latter version, some specialists declare it to be a Negro song. More likely, it’s a fragment of an Anglo-Scots ballad, full form forgotten, that lived on among British seamen who passed it on to longshoremen in the Gulf ports. The “Lowlands” refrain may be an echo from the old ballad of The Golden Vanity. Captain Whall, best of the pioneer shanty collectors, says that in Liverpool in the old days a crew of merchant seaman was often spoken of as “the Johns” so the term “my John” in the ballad is no more personal than “my lad”...

It often happens that long ballads become whittled down into short lyrical songs. The dwindling of Captain Wedderburn’s Courtship into I Gave My Love a Cherry is a case in point. So too some forgotten narrative ballad of the return of a ghostly lover has survived as a lyrical fragment that sometimes turns up as a windlass or capstan shanty. No doubt the original ballad is old; the tune has an antique grandeur; yet in the form in which it is sung here it probably does not pre-date the nineteenth century. Negro cotton lumpers in the southern ports of USA had a special affection for this very English tune.

[isotope]

[...]

Appreciating your post as a European with little knowledge of American music, but you should have made a new thread instead of posting here.

[capgras]

Most of what passes for history wrt American music is really just the plugging of gaps with "blacks did it." The histories of jazz and rock and roll are very murky. Anywhere there is not explicit recorded history, it must be that white people stole from black people. There is a quasi-religious belief in this heuristic among "musicologists" and for this reason it is impossible to reason with them. The history of the guitar in America, for example, is not well-recorded, and it is earnestly claimed on Wikipedia that blacks introduced it to whites. This paradigm is based entirely on circular reasoning. Working from the presupposition that a given musical style was stolen from blacks, the defining characteristics of the style are classified as "African elements" and, from then on, can be pointed to as evidence of its supposed African nature. Sometimes they will be tenuously connected to some traditional music from somewhere on the continent. It's no different from any other afro-centric pseudo-history; it just escapes proper criticism due to the fake and gay nature of the field of ethnomusicology.

The fact of the matter is that African musical culture in America was practically annihilated. All of the so-called African elements of jazz and rock were already present in the Anglo-American musical tradition. Blue notes, pentatonic scales, call and response, etc. But do I really have to tell you that black people didn't invent call and response? It's obvious. Ethnomusicologists claim that black people invented the work song and the shanty. Of course there is no evidence for this, and much to the contrary, but is it really worth losing your job over? Anyone with half a brain can tell that black musical styles in America (blues, ragtime, etc) are just black styles of European music. African musical culture was so thoroughly exterminated in America that actual African influence comes almost invariably from the Caribbean (the banjo is probably the singular exception to this, although it bears very little resemblance to its African predecessors). Cuban musicians were integral to the creation of jazz. Even the Bo Diddley beat was taken from Caribbean music.

Musicians have always drawn inspiration from diverse sources. When Brahms composed his Hungarian Dances, was he making Hungarian music (or gypsy music, considering the gypsy stylistic influences), rather than making classical music? Of course not. He refined and elevated the raw folk material. This is what artists do; it's part of what artistry is. Country music (which is the actual direct antecedent to rock and roll, not blues) isn't black music just because it uses the banjo. It's also not Hawaiian music just because it uses the lap steel. All American popular music, with the partial exception of hip hop (which was invented by... Caribbeans), is firmly situated in the Anglo-American musical tradition, with some stylistic influences from a variety of sources. Any impartial observer would recognize that, and be puzzled by the constant and deafening assertions to the contrary.

I'm sympathetic to the blacks who attempt to claim every aspect of American culture for their own. They sense that their entire culture is a mildly Africanized knockoff of white culture. Who can blame them for resenting that fact? I am not sympathetic to their white toadies. The scourge of the communist ethnomusicologist/folklorist/music historian (such as Alan Lomax) has done far more damage than people realize. Maybe I'll make a thread about the New-Deal-coalition-resentment-fueled joke that is the American folk music revival sometime.

Pop music (including rock) is folk music, and it has become increasingly degenerate as we've degenerated. In this sense blacks (along with jews) were/are pioneers and do hold a unique place in rock's etiology.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Why do Westerners who were abused at a young age so commonly grow up into malformed adults? Lots of women pretend to have been raped, but the ones (and men too) that were actually raped seem to suffer a lot, for reasons that I don't understand. Through what mechanism is rape harmful in these cases? Rape is more common in third world countries, but as far as I know they don't have this issue. I can't make sense of it, but maybe there's a simple explanation I haven't considered.

[BillyONare]

“Why does being damaged damage things?”

And you don’t think third worlders are malformed?

[Guest]

Is intelligence/IQ inherited from the mother?

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

“Why does being damaged damage things?”

And you don’t think third worlders are malformed?

My question is more "Why does rape damage people?" Breaking a bone at a young age doesn't cause someone to grow up crippled for life, they heal from it. I find the mainstream explanation of handwaving towards "trauma" unconvincing.

I assume that molestation is Lindy for less developed cultures, but I could be wrong. Historically, the constructs of rape and consent were not the same as they are today, so it's hard to see why modern rape is harmful.

Is intelligence/IQ inherited from the mother?

Yes. But since women are less variable, she will usually appear more average than her genetic potential suggests. I've seen it suggested that you should look to a woman's male family members to judge the quality of her genes.

[Unformed Golem]

Why do Westerners who were abused at a young age so commonly grow up into malformed adults? Lots of women pretend to have been raped, but the ones (and men too) that were actually raped seem to suffer a lot, for reasons that I don't understand. Through what mechanism is rape harmful in these cases? Rape is more common in third world countries, but as far as I know they don't have this issue. I can't make sense of it, but maybe there's a simple explanation I haven't considered.

They're incentivized with money and attention.

[BillyONare]

Again because if it didn’t damage people it wouldn’t be rape. You’re just asking “why does bad thing have negative outcomes”? It’s a truism. Child abuse is not a good thing, even for third worlders.