I REALIZE THIS IS QUITE LONG, just use the search function, control + f, and search for "mine." The goths article really isn't worth reading, just another stab at making goths look differently from the common idea of them. Hes so misunderstood :(
I was looking around the net in hopes for a new community, I would not leave ragezone for the world, and I stumpled across this. The heart of teenage angst!! I went through reading, goths like to label themselves extreme intellectuals, and I wanted to be challenged by someone(I am incredibly bored). I couldn't help but join and griev these people. So far I have about twenty articles and some odd responses to portfolios and other conjectures by goths. I still havn't found a kid worthy of my ability, seeing they only like to cuss me out and throw around the word conformist. Most of them write articles full of verbiage; substituting seemlingly average words that they do not comprehend or make any sense relating to their rant. They havn't any concept of what a real article is, so all they do is rant. I am throroughly disapointed with the goths that I have met in real life and the internet, they are pathetic kids stuck at the stipel of growth. America really isn't helping this along with their "everyone is a winner" attitude. Eh, I'm not going to turn this into an article; I don't have enough time or patience at the moment.
I thought I would sample a piece of their work and a rebut of mine.
Goths;
On [removed], it can be said that our fair amount of articles on labels and social stereotyping can be found with a significant amount of ease. Well, here's a question - why do we seek the need to continually re-assure of ourselves of what we are not, or rather, simply, what we are?
There are two major sides to this label issue, depending on where you sit on the spectrum. We have those crusading against labels, insisting on the basic unity of the fact that we are all people, all human, and we have those who label themselves, or claim to be the first and then proceed to do the exact opposite by labeling others.
Before you continue, I'd like to add that, for those of you caught in this eternal label war, this is not an effort to label you, although, by the end of this night, I'm sure I will never want to hear the word label again in my life, even if it's a medical warning.
Let's address this matter sequentially from the previous paragraph, but first, where everything is stemming from is important...
It's a pretty obvious fact, first off, that physically, you and I are human. But the concept of labeling isn't really so much a physical issue as a mental issue, and in today's constantly maddening techno-chrome world, I'm sure that the presence of humanity is easily overlooked with the gleam of our high-tech goodies and overpriced styles that, I'm sure, would probably result in our pets telling us we look ridiculous if they could talk.
The primal element is neglected for a material element. Since we're constantly being imposed to this, then it's probably a very safe bet that this is going to be a major factor in our perception - if I'm wrong, then please, correct me now. It's the basic concept of Pavlovic training. Habitually repeating the subjection to technology and fashion has made us base our lives around the evolution of these two areas.
Alternatively, because the material is emphasized over that of the primal, it is prized on the simple level of a societal basis as more important. This is reflected in our culture - get your iPod, leather trenchcoat, designer skirt, or whatever else you need and you'll receive the expected result. And so to that end, this is where labels arrive - basic association of what the material conveys to the physical.
The first camp is one that is ultimately trying to escape the materialistic world. In effect, they are escapists to the realistic fact that the basic humanity in our society has been subdued by the overpowering material presence (gotta make a million no matter who dies). But, hold that thought.
What does this mean for the second camp? That they accept reality as it comes? Perhaps they are aware of their own status, but because they try to express it through the material, it devoids them of their potential humanity in the eyes of the first. That might be a point of contention worthwhile of examining.
Another possibility might be that due to our inherrent societal training, we've come to accept at an early age our status as what we are and what we always will be - the American dream, after all, isn't lived by everyone, so why should the second camp view everyone as "just human" when everyone will become something to a separate degree.
That is a point to consider as well.
But, what I'd like to suggest, as a simple point as to why there's such an issue with labels is that we suffer from an identity crisis generated by the fact that none of us are really sure what it means to be human anymore. Common humanity is often times reflected upon as weakness today (gotta make a million, as I said). We've been educated in our society that success comes at expense, but not of yourself, but others. Some will accept this, and they apparently haven't joined our community... yet. Others refuse this idea and want to return communally. After all, we are all human. And some have accepted this as a fatalist truth, and so accept their place, even though it may be partially falsified by a misinterpreted world.
Consider it.
MINE;
This is a flawed statement. Your opening abrogates the body of your conjecture. How can you not dileniate a point from not an intention of incline? It is impossilbe! Every concepted ideal, excuse me, publically announced idealism is in sought of acceptance. The hope in a society, a relation to another person. The every interaction of another person is a reach at being accepted.
To label oneself is a sophistry. An individual in essence is pure of public "conformity;" a single interaction creates a corresponding idealism. A group of like minded people. A group, which I will allocate you, gothic(I could be wrong, this is my first impression speaking). Stereo types are there because there is an immense group of people who pertain to its congruity. Hence; gothics wear black, all women are house wives, men work jobs to support a family, and to tackle a more controversial one, black people eat chicken. There are explanations for all of these, all of which are neutral in cirumstance when thoroughly defined.
I am going to cut this rebut short, sorry but I am tired.
I have much more, if anyone asks I will put up my suicide ones, or even the furthered contents of this one with its sister rants. gothics are so misunderstood :( I need some sleep, I'll get back to whoever responds; which doubt anyone will.
