What is "Black Lives Matter"?

[PaulF]

Modern country music sucks. It's processed soulless garbage.

I saw a thread on Reddit where someone programmed an algorithm that wrote country songs...the verses were predictably gibberish, but many of songs had solid architecture and a passable hook.

Ill try to dig up the thread...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They said the same about Jazz. And Rock-n-Roll. It's not the genre, it's the content.

ETA: Rap doesn't need a societal reason to be bad. It's bad anyway. And I'm going to make a confession that probably won't set well with many INGOers. Country music isn't all that great either.

There. I said it. Classical/Baroque. Real Jazz. Classic Rock. Those are the only genres of legitimate music. So says Jamil.

Modern country music sucks. It's processed soulless garbage.

I saw a thread on Reddit where someone programmed an algorithm that wrote country songs...the verses were predictably gibberish, but many of songs had solid architecture and a passable hook.

Ill try to dig up the thread...

I like a little bit of everything. Though I will admit there are very, very few rap/hip-hop songs I can stomach. But then again, there's some country music songs that sound like a cat sliding down a metal roof to me. Jazz--yeah, I like the stuff on the Charlie Brown cartoons .

 

[indiucky]

Modern country music sucks. It's processed soulless garbage....

George Jones once rhetorically asked, "Whose Gonna Fill Their Shoes?"

We now know the answer...No one ever did...

Sorry 'Possum....

 

[bwframe]

Hip hoppers in Blake's video:

[video=youtube;JXAgv665J14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXAgv665J14[/video]

 

[indiucky]

I like a little bit of everything. Though I will admit there are very, very few rap/hip-hop songs I can stomach.

Try this on brother....

[video=youtube;XG7Ujh0XVH0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG7Ujh0XVH0[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

Try this on brother....

[video=youtube;XG7Ujh0XVH0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG7Ujh0XVH0[/video]

REALLY like that.

But. F'n hilarious to see the different people clapping on the "wrong" beat.

 

[indiucky]

REALLY like that.

But. F'n hilarious to see the different people clapping on the "wrong" beat.

Yeah...I will go to a wedding on my Argentine wife's side of the family......They have fun playing "spot the Gringo" on the dance floor...My wife, to her credit explains it as a cultural Scots Irish thing...

"Yeah...He dances like that because his ancestors drank whiskey and the King of England outlawed them from dancing when they were in Northern Ireland...."

"Si....I can see why the King would make that illegal...Do you think you can get him to stop?"

"Barkeep!!! How many bourbons has my husband had?"

"Cinco Senora..."

"Sorry...Too late..."

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I'm old school when it comes to rap.

/sidetrack

 

[Tombs]

Empathy is being able to understand and interpret the circumstances of others from their point of view. Understanding their point of view won't necessarily change yours, but it can help inform it. We can look a other cultures and accurately point out outward symptoms of problems, but without empathy, we will tend to project our own ideas about causes.

I'll use gun control as an example. My brother-in-law has a world view where he believes people are basically good and benevolent, there is no inherent evil, and sometimes people do evil things because their circumstances drive them to drastic measures because society has oppressed them somehow. He believes that guns in citizens' hands cause them to do evil things that they wouldn't do if they didn't have guns. He thinks it is immoral for citizens to arm themselves in public, and he thinks it is immoral to use lethal force in self defense.

I have a different world view. I think humans are not different from most creatures in that we are self interested. In a populous world of self interested people, morality and some level of civic cooperation is necessary for self preservation. Some people have no sense of morality. They are inherently evil and will harm others in their own self interest. I believe people have a right to defend themselves against harm with necessary force.

Not understanding--not empathizing with--my world view, my brother-in-law thinks I am immoral for carrying a gun in public. He is projecting his world view on my behavior. Because of that lack of empathy, the solutions he would choose to solve the problems of violence is to take away my ability to protect myself with guns. Yet he feels perfectly justified in his reasoning without empathy.

I've lived parts of my life as very poor, wanting more, and I've lived parts of my life, not rich, but satisfied. I can't empathize with people living in the ghetto. I can't imagine them wanting that life. I can only look at symptoms and precursors to poverty, and believe that addressing the precursors can't hurt.

Lack of opportunities coupled with cycles of dependency, to me, seems to be the greatest enablers of poverty in the inner city. I can look at Detroit as an example that tends to prove that the logical conclusion of progressive policies ultimately leads to utter destruction of communities. And the more they fail, the more they blame it on people with different world views.

Shrouding your opinions as some sort of moral code and legally enforcing it on others through the very thing you detest is not moral and should be readily obvious to your brother-in-law. Projecting your niche senses of morality on others is how we end up with atrocities.

I've said more or less the exact same thing you have, granted you worded it more eloquently. The problems are readily apparent and sitting on the surface, the underlying causes are deeply complicated and that's where I was hoping Kut was willing to be a bit more open, for the exact same reasons you stated. I can't stand on that side of the grass and see the world from that perspective, I can't know the problems with any level of intimacy. The best I can do is ask someone who seems to have some level of understanding so that I can gain some level of understanding that is otherwise not available to me.

Expecting someone to have empathy for something that is so foreign to themselves and their understanding of the world is unreasonable. That empathy comes after gaining an understanding, not before it.

For example, what drives BLM to latch onto so many police shootings that were legally justified, and continue to defend them even in the face of overwhelming evidence? Why are 100% cut and dry cases of police abuse and wrong doing completely ignored in favor of these cases? I was just discussing last night about one of the worst cases I've ever seen, yet never hear it brought up. LiveLeak.com - SC State Trooper Shoots Unarmed Man - Officer Fired from Job (comments)

Why did "Hands up, don't shoot" become their marching chant when it's based entirely on a lie?

Why is blocking interstates and preventing emergency medical services from being able to get to the ill an acceptable means of protest?

There certainly does seem to be an empathy problem, but it's a 2 way street. And the resolution to that comes with willingness to communicate with an open mind, not be talked at, not have banter shoved in people's faces, but discuss what's going on and the grievances and misconceptions from both sides.

 

[jamil]

I like a little bit of everything. Though I will admit there are very, very few rap/hip-hop songs I can stomach. But then again, there's some country music songs that sound like a cat sliding down a metal roof to me. Jazz--yeah, I like the stuff on the Charlie Brown cartoons .

Charlie Brown Jazz is pretty good. Better watch out, it's a gateway drug. You don't start straight up with Coltrane. That's an acquired taste. Start out with Miles Davis' So What from his album Kind of Blue. Then try out Dave Brubeck Quartet with Take 5 from Time Out. Listen to a little more of Brubeck and Davis work. Then maybe progress to Herbie Handcock's early stuff. Then Freddie Hubbard. Then maybe Charlie Parker, Coletrane. And if you're into it, Charles Mingus.

REALLY like that.

But. F'n hilarious to see the different people clapping on the "wrong" beat.

Actually, I did too. And I'm surprised that I liked it. It combines two genres I really don't care for all that well.

 

[PaulF]

Charlie Brown Jazz is pretty good. Better watch out, it's a gateway drug. You don't start straight up with Coltrane. That's an acquired taste. Start out with Miles Davis' So What from his album Kind of Blue. Then try out Dave Brubeck Quartet with Take 5 from Time Out. Listen to a little more of Brubeck and Davis work. Then maybe progress to Herbie Handcock's early stuff. Then Freddie Hubbard. Then maybe Charlie Parker, Coletrane. And if you're into it, Charles Mingus.



Actually, I did too. And I'm surprised that I liked it. It combines two genres I really don't care for all that well.

Take Five was pivotal for me. Opened my eyes to jazz. A year later I was trying Coltrane and Thelonius Monk. I never developed a full-grown taste for jazz, but I learned in those couple of years that there was more to it that I was giving credit.

It was around this time I gave up playing fretted bass entirely.

 

[jbombelli]

Don't forget Kenny Burrell, Wes Montgomery, Lou Donaldson, or Grant Green. Each are outstanding.

 

[Tombs]

This should be required watching for all BLM protesters, so maybe they understand the life that police officers live:

[video=youtube;0K2-NEo3NVU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2-NEo3NVU[/video]

 

[jamil]

Shrouding your opinions as some sort of moral code and legally enforcing it on others through the very thing you detest is not moral and should be readily obvious to your brother-in-law. Projecting your niche senses of morality on others is how we end up with atrocities.

I've said more or less the exact same thing you have, granted you worded it more eloquently. The problems are readily apparent and sitting on the surface, the underlying causes are deeply complicated and that's where I was hoping Kut was willing to be a bit more open, for the exact same reasons you stated. I can't stand on that side of the grass and see the world from that perspective, I can't know the problems with any level of intimacy. The best I can do is ask someone who seems to have some level of understanding so that I can gain some level of understanding that is otherwise not available to me.

Expecting someone to have empathy for something that is so foreign to themselves and their understanding of the world is unreasonable. That empathy comes after gaining an understanding, not before it.

For example, what drives BLM to latch onto so many police shootings that were legally justified, and continue to defend them even in the face of overwhelming evidence? Why are 100% cut and dry cases of police abuse and wrong doing completely ignored in favor of these cases? I was just discussing last night about one of the worst cases I've ever seen, yet never hear it brought up. LiveLeak.com - SC State Trooper Shoots Unarmed Man - Officer Fired from Job (comments)

Why did "Hands up, don't shoot" become their marching chant when it's based entirely on a lie?

Why is blocking interstates and preventing emergency medical services from being able to get to the ill an acceptable means of protest?

There certainly does seem to be an empathy problem, but it's a 2 way street. And the resolution to that comes with willingness to communicate with an open mind, not be talked at, not have banter shoved in people's faces, but discuss what's going on and the grievances and misconceptions from both sides.

About my brother-in-law, we do get along, even though we have completely different world views. We mostly have to agree to disagree. And he does like to play the morally superior game. He actually, "I would NEVER take someone else's life, even if it meant saving mine. If someone wants what I have enough that they feel they need to take my life to get it, I guess they need it more than I do." I asked what about if it were to save your kids? There was a pause. Then continued with the same shtick. I think he hasn't really thought out his morality to its logical conclusion, and didn't want to make it that obvious, so he stayed with it.

Thing is, he's not just projecting a niche sense of morality. He's projecting an ever growing sentiment of morality. If we don't find a way to stop that trend, freedom will be a thing of the past. We've already heard people push the idea that Americans have too much freedom, and that it's actually a problem that needs solved.

Empathy, yeah, definitely a two-way street. I think I have empathy for my BIL. He has explained his position pretty well through many conversations, that I think I do understand where he's coming from. I can think of no bridge wide enough to span that gap. We have a fundamental disagreement on the most basic concept of human nature. He thinks humans have evolved into civil beings and that society is now beyond the need for violence. I think Human nature is and always has been that of self interest. We act civilly because we believe that is beneficial to our own sense of well being. Society has only evolved in that it has concocted more sophisticated ways to make people's self interest be the thing that benefits societies.

As for BLM, that's the problem I have with it. I try to understand their point of view. But it's obvious they're not trying to understand any other point of view. If they had, probably they'd have chosen a different name. And they'd have used different strategies.

But I really suspect that at the very top, the people who are funding and really running BLM behind the scenes, aren't doing it to help that cause. It think there are other political goals being sought.

 

[jamil]

Don't forget Kenny Burrell, Wes Montgomery, Lou Donaldson, or Grant Green. Each are outstanding.

Oh yeah. The list of Jazz greats is seemingly endless. Just not enough room to list all the ones I like.

 

[Tombs]

About my brother-in-law, we do get along, even though we have completely different world views. We mostly have to agree to disagree. And he does like to play the morally superior game. He actually, "I would NEVER take someone else's life, even if it meant saving mine. If someone wants what I have enough that they feel they need to take my life to get it, I guess they need it more than I do." I asked what about if it were to save your kids? There was a pause. Then continued with the same shtick. I think he hasn't really thought out his morality to its logical conclusion, and didn't want to make it that obvious, so he stayed with it.

Thing is, he's not just projecting a niche sense of morality. He's projecting an ever growing sentiment of morality. If we don't find a way to stop that trend, freedom will be a thing of the past. We've already heard people push the idea that Americans have too much freedom, and that it's actually a problem that needs solved.

Empathy, yeah, definitely a two-way street. I think I have empathy for my BIL. He has explained his position pretty well through many conversations, that I think I do understand where he's coming from. I can think of no bridge wide enough to span that gap. We have a fundamental disagreement on the most basic concept of human nature. He thinks humans have evolved into civil beings and that society is now beyond the need for violence. I think Human nature is and always has been that of self interest. We act civilly because we believe that is beneficial to our own sense of well being. Society has only evolved in that it has concocted more sophisticated ways to make people's self interest be the thing that benefits societies.

As for BLM, that's the problem I have with it. I try to understand their point of view. But it's obvious they're not trying to understand any other point of view. If they had, probably they'd have chosen a different name. And they'd have used different strategies.

But I really suspect that at the very top, the people who are funding and really running BLM behind the scenes, aren't doing it to help that cause. It think there are other political goals being sought.

I suppose I shouldn't have said niche.

But it doesn't take long to look at the world and realize dogmatic views of morality are how we end up with mass bloodshed and human rights violations. That kind of thinking is dangerous.

Understanding that there's always an exception to your views and everything you've ever known is a powerful and useful tool that allows your views to be tested to see if they make any rational sense.

Your BIL needs to understand that to enact what he wishes will require the deaths of those who disagree. If he believes he holds the moral superiority to force others to give their life for his views, he needs to re-evaluate life in general.

And yes with people like Soros pouring money into dangerous and violent protesting, it's clear that the truth and the message is irrelevant. Division for political power grabs is the desired result.

 

[Dead Duck]

This should be required watching for all BLM protesters, so maybe they understand the life that police officers live:

[video=youtube;0K2-NEo3NVU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2-NEo3NVU[/video]

Now I Sad...

 

[KG1]

The best way I can describe rap, is like wine. If you don't like wine, you haven't tasted enough of it. Jazz fans tend to like the jazz infused hip hop instrumentals, with no, or very little vocals.

You mean I have to get drunk on wine to like rap?

 

[BugI02]

They said the same about Jazz. And Rock-n-Roll. It's not the genre, it's the content.

ETA: Rap doesn't need a societal reason to be bad. It's bad anyway. And I'm going to make a confession that probably won't set well with many INGOers. Country music isn't all that great either.

There. I said it. Classical/Baroque. Real Jazz. Classic Rock. Those are the only genres of legitimate music. So says Jamil.

Jazz needs to be put in a freezer somewhere until they find a cure. Baseball too

 

[Kutnupe14]

Jazz needs to be put in a freezer somewhere until they find a cure. Baseball too

Baseball? That is possibly the most offensive thing you've posted on this site. That should be worth a ban.