• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

anyone here straight edge?

#141
soulgeezer said:
You're implying they weren't? Oh, my... :rolleyes:

I wish I was young enough to believe in altruism again! :p :D

Dude, we're all in it for the money. Money is what feeds you, clothes you, and puts a roof over your head. Anybody who says they're not "in it for the money" is either a liar or insane.

Mackaye wrote a 45-second song about someone who died. He didn't want to start a movement. But, when the movement started, he wasn't above making money off of it. Then, when the movement got out of hand, he disavowed it and claimed he never meant to start it in the first place.

Geez! With moves like that, maybe he should become a politician! ;) :p :D
Click to expand...

So I guess we should all look past the DIY ethics, the politically and socially conscious lyrics, and the fact that there was no money to be made in hardcore in the 1980s, and still assume they were in it only for the money? Tell me how he made money of it? Because I really don't see it.
 
#142
BassManPatsFan said:
I did not say that...I don't know them personally or the band very well, but considering that they were semi-successful, I assume that playing in the band eventually became their jobs, which would entail that they wrote songs in order to make money, even if they didn't write songs ONLY in order to make money.
Don't put words in my mouth (fingers???).
-Alex
Click to expand...

Minor Threat did not gain notariety until years after they broke up. It was the bands that they influenced that got them attention.

I seriously suggest checking out the American Hardcore documentary.
 
#148
Embryodead said:
::insert random offensive image about religion::

see i'm following the rules, now feed the troll :)
Click to expand...

Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg
 
#152
Your body doesn't know the difference between legal or illegal drugs. It doesn't care if it comes in a syringe, a paper tube, or a bottle. It doesn't care if it was purchased over the counter, with a prescription, or in a back alley in the middle of the night. It's all the same thing. Semantics.

What is the reasoning behind someone actively proclaiming one thing while doing the opposite?
 
#153
soulgeezer said:
The Ramones, coming close on the heels of the NY Dolls, invented punk. It doesn't matter who was better -- They were first! (And, they were more fun than any other punk band, ever!)
Click to expand...

Errr, get your facts straight. Malcom McLaren invented punk rock with the Sex Pistols as far as I'm concerned. They may have made the Sex Pistols 1 year after The Ramones, but McLaren still created punk rock before that IMHO.
 
#154
Sundogue said:
Your body doesn't know the difference between legal or illegal drugs. It doesn't care if it comes in a syringe, a paper tube, or a bottle. It doesn't care if it was purchased over the counter, with a prescription, or in a back alley in the middle of the night. It's all the same thing. Semantics.

What is the reasoning behind someone actively proclaiming one thing while doing the opposite?
Click to expand...

+ 1000

I never understood the "I don't do drugs, and I never will. But I will occasionally have a few drinks" mentality. The hypocracy level is quite high.
 
#156
vindy500 said:
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

drugs = illegal, alcohol=not illegal.
Click to expand...

Drugs = drugs, alcohol = A drug. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

If you're against drugs, then you must also be against alcohol.

Despite what "the law" says, alcohol is just as enjoyable, addictive, and dangerous as most of the so called "hard drugs". It's nothing more than a load of hypocracy that alcohol happens to be accepted for whatever reason.
 
#157
Bad Brains said:
+ 1000

I never understood the "I don't do drugs, and I never will. But I will occasionally have a few drinks" mentality. The hypocracy level is quite high.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why that's hypocritical...it all depends on your definition of drugs. Most people regard drugs as an illegal substance, which alcohol is not. Coffee is also a "drug", shall we regard all coffee drinkers as substance abusers? Or those who have ever taken paracetamol?

It's hardly hypocrisy to say "I won't do illegal substances [because their effect on my health is unknown] but I drink occasionally [because I know exactly what it's doing to me]".

I don't do drugs, no will I. I enjoy a cup of tea in the morning, a coffee later on and maybe a drink in the evening. I don't consider that drug taking and nor does the majority of the population (and more importantly the government). Therefore by popular definition I am not taking drugs.

I don't get what's hard to understand about that. Or perhaps you're just being persnickety.
 
#158
Bad Brains said:
Drugs = drugs, alcohol = A drug. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

If you're against drugs, then you must also be against alcohol.

Despite what "the law" says, alcohol is just as enjoyable, addictive, and dangerous as most of the so called "hard drugs". It's nothing more than a load of hypocracy that alcohol happens to be accepted for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Would this be easier for you to grasp if we all preceded the word "drugs" with the word "illegal"? :rolleyes:
 
#159
Bad Brains said:
Drugs = drugs, alcohol = A drug. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

If you're against drugs, then you must also be against alcohol.

Despite what "the law" says, alcohol is just as enjoyable, addictive, and dangerous as most of the so called "hard drugs". It's nothing more than a load of hypocracy that alcohol happens to be accepted for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

i have nothing against someone smoking a joint in the netherlands.
 
#160
Komakino said:
I fail to see why that's hypocritical...it all depends on your definition of drugs. Most people regard drugs as an illegal substance, which alcohol is not. Coffee is also a "drug", shall we regard all coffee drinkers as substance abusers? Or those who have ever taken paracetamol?

It's hardly hypocrisy to say "I won't do illegal substances [because their effect on my health is unknown] but I drink occasionally [because I know exactly what it's doing to me]".

I don't do drugs, no will I. I enjoy a cup of tea in the morning, a coffee later on and maybe a drink in the evening. I don't consider that drug taking and nor does the majority of the population (and more importantly the government). Therefore by popular definition I am not taking drugs.

I don't get what's hard to understand about that. Or perhaps you're just being persnickety.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

A narcodic is an illegal drug.
Alcohol use is drug use.
And someone who drinks alcohol while demonizing "narcodics" is still a hypocrite.

"It's ok to get completly ****ed up on that substance, but not that substance over there, because the government says it's bad"
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back