Ableton Forum

computo wrote:anonymouse, I agree.

what usually happens is these idiots use the freedom given to involutarily label themselves complete buggers, which I think is part of the good in it!

no offense intended - but can I get an Americanized translation on this

Are you saying that racists and their speech ultimately do themselves in?

- r

yeah, I love the zappa spot on crossfire. you've just inpired me to find it again deep down on a HD somewhere. It is amazing that '86 is already "way back then" but equally it is amazing how appropriate Zappa's confrontation with the Douchebag of Liberty still is today.

I have to admit Peaches en Regalia is as Zappafied as I've gone. Any recommendations?

I started into Zappa about 15 years ago, but got lost in Syd Barret land.

rtopia wrote:There's a big difference between censorsing what someone believes vs. making a person liable for economic damage that they actually cause.

Huh? No, the defamation laws exist primarily to protect people from emotional distress. You know, "a person has the right to his good name", that sort of thing.

Misinterpretation of history does lead to grave consequences in many cases. A lot of prolonged ethnic conflicts are sustained by large groups of people feeling historically entitled to land and power.

ilia wrote:

rtopia wrote:Misinterpretation of history does lead to grave consequences in many cases. A lot of prolonged ethnic conflicts are sustained by large groups of people feeling historically entitled to land and power.

I'm living in Tokyo. You may have seen some of the recent argy bargy with China and South Korea over certain disputed islands, fishing grounds, joining the UN security council and the re-writing of history for Japanese schoolkids history books.

Asia is liquid in terms of the interpretation of history.

anonymouse wrote: I have to admit Peaches en Regalia is as Zappafied as I've gone. Any recommendations?

Apostrophe!!!

I started into Zappa about 15 years ago, but got lost in Syd Barret land.

Check out the Radio One Sessions, came out last year on Strange Fruit. Nothing super-exciting, but a small addition to those three worn-out albums...

well defamation doesnt exist if a person is what they are labelled. For instance, if you did something in your past that you're ashamed of, you cant sue someone for revealing it, unless you can prove they are lying.

Or if your a Bush or Clinton associate, you could just kill the offending party.

oh, and yes, I was saying that racists ultimately do themselves in, in a free society. Not somewhere like Nazi Germany, or Sudan, but if they were open societies, maybe problems would have worked themselves out...i.e. the people would have seen the ridiculousness of the ideas involved.

ilia wrote:

rtopia wrote:There's a big difference between censorsing what someone believes vs. making a person liable for economic damage that they actually cause.

Huh? No, the defamation laws exist primarily to protect people from emotional distress. You know, "a person has the right to his good name", that sort of thing.

Uh no...
They exist to protect a persons pursuit of happiness/property.

There's nothing in the US constitution protecting you from getting your feelings hurt (not yet anyway).

Unless it prevents you from doing the things you want to do - who gives a shit what people think?

ilia wrote: Misinterpretation of history does lead to grave consequences in many cases. A lot of prolonged ethnic conflicts are sustained by large groups of people feeling historically entitled to land and power.

Conflicts are prolonged simply because people haven't gotten tired of "conflicting" yet. There plenty more reasons than just historical misenterpretations.

Wars always end when one side gets enough of their shit broke to make them wanna stop - or - they realize that military action isn't going to achieve what they wanted.

- r

anonymouse wrote:Asia is liquid in terms of the interpretation of history.

and a great example of what happens in totalitarian, closed societies where the government (even if it's just one guy) gets to tell you what to say.

With no censorship - all of us get to decide whether or not what we heard was true (even if some of us won't bother to verify it).

- r

computo wrote:well defamation doesnt exist if a person is what they are labelled. For instance, if you did something in your past that you're ashamed of, you cant sue someone for revealing it, unless you can prove they are lying.

Just so you know, this is not true everywhere. In some legal systems, it would be considered defamatory to reveal damaging information about someone without a well founded public interest in that information, regadrless of whether it's true or not.

oh, and yes, I was saying that racists ultimately do themselves in, in a free society. Not somewhere like Nazi Germany, or Sudan, but if they were open societies, maybe problems would have worked themselves out...i.e. the people would have seen the ridiculousness of the ideas involved.

Sounds good... can't think of too many examples of that, though.

ilia wrote:

computo wrote:oh, and yes, I was saying that racists ultimately do themselves in, in a free society. Not somewhere like Nazi Germany, or Sudan, but if they were open societies, maybe problems would have worked themselves out...i.e. the people would have seen the ridiculousness of the ideas involved.

Sounds good... can't think of too many examples of that, though.

I can...

United States

We make fun of Nazis and other fanatics to the point where we actually satirize them by dressing up pictures of the President in full brown shirt and swastika?

Was anyone around when "In Living Color" poked fun at Louis Farakhan?

Shall i continue?

- r

Yeah thats messed up, about the libel in other countries...

would you say its in the publics interest when say, a pastor or preacher is exposed as having a philandering lifestyle or a secret family?

How bout a politicians financial records?

Open society is best, and hardest to attain

well if it looks like a nazi, and its grandfather bankrolled the nazis...

computo wrote:Open society is best, and hardest to attain

Attain?
You meant maintain right?

The US already has a "relatively" open society - we're just giving it over "bit by bit" as we give the government more power to do the things that we no longer wish to be respsonsible for.

One of them being: "ignoring what we don't want to hear instead of making laws that prevent everyone else from hearing it too"

- r

Maybe the real conversation we should be having, is how did all of these direct relatives of, and even former nazis (the new pope) get into positions of power all over the world???

I mean, in the US, we have Schwarrzeneger (ic?), all the Bushes, probably TONS of others whose parents and grandparents were direct contributors financially and/or politically. then we have the new pope, who was himself in the nazi army!!!

Who else?!?

wheres the outrage!!!

computo wrote:Maybe the real conversation we should be having, is how did all of these direct relatives of, and even former nazis (the new pope) get into positions of power all over the world???

I mean, in the US, we have Schwarrzeneger (ic?), all the Bushes, probably TONS of others whose parents and grandparents were direct contributors financially and/or politically. then we have the new pope, who was himself in the nazi army!!!

Who else?!?

wheres the outrage!!!

With the exception of the new pope (I didn't know they picked one today), everyone else was voted into office. That's how these people got into power.
They wanted it bad enough to get in front of people who actually voted and they won an election.

You should be outraged at all the people who didn't show up to vote for someone else.

and before anyone brings up the 2000 US elections - you should be outraged that American politics have become so mediocre that the election was even that close.

CA should be outraged at voting for someone they thought would win vs. someone who actually had a plan (instead of "intentions").

- r