Yes, and in 40 years 'historians' will be telling us you couldn't walk down a street in any town without tripping over a dozen furries and full-time cosplayers.
Whats strange is your desperation to make niche subcultures mainstream.
They probably won't. Convention people keep a lot of their own histories (verbal and written). The press doesn't exactly have the best reputation of being kind to a bunch of people dressed up as animals or Star Trek characters. The comic con scene is orbited by a lot of "ha ha look at the freaks" reporting only concentrating on the worst elements, or rolling out complete fabrications.
Imagine a society that values entrepreneurship punching down on a humble artist selling prints and keychains and knitted baubles at a small table kiosk at the local convention center.
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps. No, not like that!"
Excuse them while they go to complain at the local fast food place about how burger-flipping jobs they don't respect are short-staffed.
mods/rockers, punks, new romantics, ravers, etc, were all significant enough subcultures to create national debate and controversy.
no historian is claiming that rave was 'universal' and that 'everyone spent every weekend taking drugs', but the subculture was literally discussed in parliament and thatcher's/major's governments tabled legislation to control it.
it is a part of history, literally codified legal history as well as social history, and historians talk about it.
why dilbert wants to construe that historians don't know how to do their most basic job, and can't represent parts of the past in their right proportion or measure, i don't know. he invents straw men arguments and argues from positions of absurdity. so WHAT if ska or punk or latterly rave weren't everyone's cup of tea, and didn't sweep everyone up in their respective movements? they were still majorly influential SUBCULTURES.
his best argument seems to boil down to 'you weren't there, though, were you?' which, well i'm stumped. why does he keep reading all those pop-history airport books about world war 2 written by people who ... weren't there?
dune is sci-fi. cats is a terrible movie. vaccines work. a great deal of people in the 1980s were definitely familiar with or invested in the concept of 'authenticity'.
show me a tabloid frontpage about furries. show me a parliamentary debate about comic cons. go ahead.
it's like you argue for the sake of arguing. you are boring and inane.
rave was not 'fairly niche', nor was punk or any other of these major youth cultures. they were international, decades-straddling movements. of course, it wasn't 'the mainstream': subcultures often define themselves in contradistinction or opposition to mainstream culture, hence the concept of the 'underground'. it's what gives them their energy or animating spirit. youth culture itself is all about rebellion, kicking against the pricks, upsetting the older generation, etc.
hippies and swingers in the 60s and 70s might have been limited to bougie types, or insiders. woodstock and carnaby street were not the centre of the universe in those decades, true, and everyone wasn't there partaking in the buzz. in 60s britain it was probably rather exclusive, in fact, and only for the beau monde and monied Society types. but the enduring influence, the image and idea of hippies, for example, has been massive. proper mass participation isn't really that important or necessary in these things. so a relatively small number of people from a relatively narrow band of age/experience now dominate our cultural memory and imaginations when it comes to the 1970s. sometimes a small avant-garde or even an individual/coterie can shape history. the 'idea' of the hippie, the thing which has been culturally transmitted through the generations, has a life of its own quite apart from the material reality. our dominating idea of just about every decade or century is probably based on the actions of very few; the great majority of humanity through all time have lived, died, and sank without a trace.
as i said, this is all part of how culture disseminates itself (dawkins meme, if you like, that's one useful way of thinking about it).
and we are very far from the point: authenticity was a thing in the 1980s. people thought very hard about how they defined themselves, and often based their entire identity around music and specific subcultures. authenticity is the cell membrane of that inside/outsider group formation.
I don't think this is the first time dilbert has brought up furries in a point of counterargument? Dilberts likes Cats the Musical. Is dilbert actually a furry? That is fine. There are probably much more destructive kinks out there than fursuits, itself a subset.
Need input from desertfox on this one.
What's jay's fursona? I like to imagine burnzz as one of those rabid north american badgers (or a ferret cosplaying as one).
ok, so you literally cannot show me a tabloid FRONTPAGE HEADLINE about your weird perverted niche pursuit. glad we settled that.
'acid house' hysteria and news stories about rave haunted the media and political debate for years.
simply not comparable and you know it. or so you should – you wuzz there, after all ...
"possibly the biggest youth culture of the 1980s" says an observer reporter. hmm, maybe they're wrong and Dilbert Knows Best?
hey look, there's even an hour-long BBC documentary about just this phenomenon. where's the hour-long national TV documentaries about furries? shouldn't be hard chap. you do like your google searches.
here's a world in action special on the same thing, from granada TV (remember that? you weuzz there!)
i've shown you no less than FOUR frontpages of one of the UK's highest-circulation papers. you give me a list of times some intrepid journalist wrote a 400-word article for p. 46 of vanity fair. lol ok.
in the case of punk, the media coverage was even bigger. it was an international furore ffs. are you really claiming furries have had as much cultural impact and recognisability as johnny rotten or the ramones? hahahahahha. you are one weird little fucker, i'll give you that.
where did i say the tabloids' obsessions are 'important'? the fact is that the stories were of interest to a mass circulation readership – that's why they put them on the front page, moron. take it up with the readership of the Sun, not me.
rave culture created an hysteria for most of the tail-end of the 1980s/early 90s. the subculture was huge. it's as simple as that. similar to the 'satanic panic' and metal music in the united states. you don't have to find the media stories credible; that's not the point doofus. the fact is that it created a cultural firestorm and debate. it was a 'craze'. not 'a niche pursuit taken up by a few people in london'.
i notice you don't say anything about the multiple national television documentaries/reportage on the topic. it was on tabloid frontpages and on people's TV sets during prime-time programming. when has furrydom ever had anything like that coverage?
again, you just like to argue for the sake of it. you seem like a very bored and frustrated person. i'm very sorry that your weird and aberrent hobby never had a popular appeal to, erm, well anyone who has their head screwed on properly and normal psychosexual development.
isn't the best thing to be said about furrydom that it gives an identity-fluid and accepting space for autistic people? it all makes so much sense, reading your posts.
i don't care about furries or have any hard feelings towards them. as i said above, it looks like a great way for introspective or autistic individuals to explore their identity in a way that feels safe and secure to them. more power to them.
there is a subset of 'furrydom' who are basically shut-in maladapts though, and who trash hotels and convention centres. anti-social behaviour, tch tch, not big and not clever. and the extremist fringe who are actually sexually attracted to animals or their pets need their heads looking at. animals can't consent to sex, just for the record. it's a crime and a sin (in the bible no less!)
what is funny and what is objectionable is your weird and persistent need to make furries seem way more important, more prominent, and more popular than it ever really is. you seriously claimed that shamanic practices or animist beliefs in the stone-age were 'evidence of furries'. now you're saying that furries are as popular and influential as the main subcultures of the last 30 years, you know, like punk/hippies/ravers, etc, huge movements which still determine popular culture to this day to a significant degree. all of those statements make you look certifiably fucking INSANE
there is a subset of 'furrydom' who are basically shut-in maladapts though, and who trash hotels and convention centres.
Ravers never do that of course.
what is funny and what is objectionable is your weird and persistent need to make furries seem way more important, more prominent, and more popular than it ever really is. you seriously claimed that shamanic practices or animist beliefs in the stone-age were 'evidence of furries'. now you're saying that furries are as popular and influential as the main subcultures of the last 30 years, you know, like punk/hippies/ravers, etc, huge movements which still determine popular culture to this day to a significant degree. all of those statements make you look certifiably fucking INSANE
Punks, hippies, ravers have never been more than fringe-dwellers - you like to take drugs so you feel a need to normalise it and make it mainstream.
I'm sure in the future people will look back and not give a shit about furrydom any more than they ever gave a shit about people going to industrial estates to jump around with their heads full of chemicals.
That's what it was! Furry fandom's long, celebrated history all the way back to ancient man, I'd forgotten. But stuff like Bast-worship and modern furryism are still two very different things. I think I even posted something from wikifur (a site you linked to a few hours ago) to that effect.
Also you elsewhere, dilbs: "religion and spirituality and history are a waste of time." also you: "religion especially, a waste of time, source of conflict, and a net negative for human civilization." also you: "forget about invoking other cat gods, egypt has the true cat gods."
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2021-11-25 05:15:39)
raving is notable as an extremely open, inclusive community. it is not about anti-social behaviour or destroying property. how clueless are you? the rave craze in 1989 was called the summer of love. people host their own parties, bring their own soundsystems, organize their own catering, etc.
the drug of choice for ravers is MDMA. do you have any idea what people on MDMA are like? they want to hug everything. it is the least anti-social drug imaginable.
i don't need to talk about the cultural significance of rave to 'justify my drug use'. all parts of society take drugs. i haven't even been to a rave or nightclub in about 3 years ffs. i'm moving out of the age range where i want to spend 10 hours dancing and 24 hours awake. 'fringe activity', LMAO. haven't you yourself said recently that you like EDM? how incredibly niche all that dance music and taking drugs at festivals stuff is! its been practically the biggest corporate music cash-in of the last 5 years. you can watch a DJ and rave in las vegas every week of the year now. soooo underground!
do you ever step back from the shit you write here and really just ask yourself what you're doing? it's honestly like you're from another planet mate. it's astonishing.
Reddit thread was talking about how country music and rap are very similar thematically. Working class music about different versions of the same thing. Sports car/truck, whisky-beer/Hennessey, small rural towns/ghetto, country girls/hoes, guns/guns.
I checked youtube to see if anyone made a video going deeper into it. Found this guy. He is a clearly repressed homosexual who is gatekeeping shitty music. That said he did get a good collection of modern country songs at the start of the video that sound like they could find play on the pop music and R&B stations of NYC.
So yeah they really are two sides of the same coin it seems. That said, it is pretty cool. Pretty cool seeing different parts of the country and different genres using the same sort of sound just in different ways. This made me appreciate modern country music rather than hate it like this clearly repressed gay man intended.
country music has consciously become a lot more like hip-hop/rap in recent years, or at least the sort that's played on the big radio stations, anyway (scenes like nashville will forever do their own thing, i guess).
the country music industry's appropriation of rap production is kind of shitty but, whatever, that's the music business i guess. elvis and first-gen rock'n'roll obviously stole from black musics like the blues too.
it is a bit weird how lots of the top-charting country music thesedays is essentially 40-something dads half-rapping over trap beats with a guitar or fiddle in the mix somewhere.
