thumpd
it never ceases to amaze me the thing thats we choose to remember, the things that we respond to, the things we are stimulated by. what's the process of 'hey, i think this is interesting'? the things that impact me, i have this huge urge to take a step back and consider 'why?'. many times it's conditioning, but equally many times i have just no fucking idea. just no fucking idea. we all are saturated with so much media in our daily lives, why do the things that do pop out from the deluge pop out in the first place? i guess what i'm trying to do with this blog is articulate the why's that i do find. i see it as a challenge. often in writing you'll see 'this is something that words can not describe'. that's just laziness.

(not to say that reading text about something is the same as experiencing it. of course not. but to say 'this is something that words can not describe', is to say 'i cant find the words to describe this". it's evading fault.)

a common liberal standpoint
is "don't legislate morality". it is always pointed at conservative lawmakers. my teacher even said this in class about gay marriage laws. but... when the fuck is legislation NOT morally-defined? it's ridiculous to think that liberal lawmakers are completely unbiased and not guided by a sense of what's right and what's wrong. it's more like saying hey, "don't legislate YOUR morality. mine's ok though". just plain hypocritical.

relating it to music...
"dont legislate morality" is like saying "dance music sucks". music has different functions, and when people say things like "dance music sucks" they are invalidating the type of music. their music can serve a function for themselves, but if music that serves a different function for others, then it sucks. like "dont legislate morality", it's speaks of more than just personal preference. it's saying what i listen to is more legitimate than what you listen to, or in the case of 'legislating morality', what i legislate is more legitimate than what you legislate.