New Mods

**Posts:** 3983 · by **ungovernable** on 12/05/2010, 05:55

I don't care how many they are, yes they are fake punk because that's not what punk is about. Remember what cras said in "punk is dead".

Anyway like a couple of famous french anarcho-punk band says, if punk isn't dead yet, let's kill it, it's not worth living.

Fuck punks who stand for nothing except selling out, anarcho-punk is the way to go.

**Posts:** 155 · by **AnarchoFem** on 12/05/2010, 06:01

ungovernable wrote:I don't care how many they are, yes they are fake punk because that's not what punk is about. Remember what cras said in "punk is dead".

Anyway like a couple of famous french anarcho-punk band says, if punk isn't dead yet, let's kill it, it's not worth living.

Fuck punks who stand for nothing except selling out, anarcho-punk is the way to go.

I'm still not sure about calling them "fake punks", what punk is about for you is going to be different for another punk. Anyways I agree with you on everything else. :good:

**Posts:** 459 · by **NGNM85** on 12/05/2010, 17:34

Again, I think this idea just so deeply, fundamentally bogus. Punk is no more undefinable than jazz, or minimalism. We don't get to declare bands un-punk simply because we dislike them. We're all entitled to ou opinions, we're not entitled to our own facts.

**Posts:** 2343 · by **Anxiety69** on 12/05/2010, 17:55

Kinda off topic but why are Epitaph so bad?? I'm not arguing the fact that they aren't, I just hadn't a clue.

The only problem i have with them is they claim to be so punk and indie and everything when they really are nothing more then a major label in indie label's clothing. They even put out a compliation a few years ago that had Primus and the Beastie Boys! (both major label bands, Beasties on Capitol and Primus on Interscope.) They also release lot of non punk (or even indie) stuff through their Anti-Label (which is an Epitaph Subsidiary) that releases stuff like Tom Waits and Nick cave (both of whom i like btw, but are also fairly corporate stars.) They basically use the punk term when they are no longer punk. (they also have distribitution deals with major labels and distributers, their bands make videos for MTV, play corporate events like warped tour and kroq weenie roast, their merchandise is sold in corporate staores like hot topic, etc.) So that is my big gripe with the label. They make millions off the punk name and style, when for anarcho punks like me, that is pathetic.

I think before the Sex Pistols there was room for debate, are the New York Dolls the birth of punk or the death of glam? What about the Velvet Underground? However, after 74-75 punk was pretty well defined. I just don't see that much fuzziness where there's room for debate, anymore. More crucially, I still haven't heard any really substantial argument to the contrary.

The sex pistols version of 'punk' is not what we at this site consider 'punk' any more. Punk is more then just dressing to stand out and shock, singing songs about authority figures dying, lyrics for pure mock value, etc. Anarchy In The UK does not properly portray our ideas of anarchsim. Yes they were influential and a gateway band, but 35+ years later thats not enough anymore. The Velvet Underground punk? HAHAHAHA with Andy Warhol Masterminding them? HAHAHAHh And the New York Dolls Were Glam, not punk, not even remotely punk.

Anxiety69 wrote: I didn't know it was written in stone anywhere that there is a certain guideline to being punk. And honestly there is very little black and white truth. there is lots of gray area truth.

On some things, perhaps. I have my doubts about what happened in Dallas in '63. However, I just don't see a lot that's particularly subjective about this.

OMFG, so basically, You are right, I am wrong, You are punk rock historian and if we disagree with you we are wrong. No gray areas at all, everything with you is absolute. You are such a tool.

I have a greater obligation to be honest and to be right than to be pleasant. I also don't mind if people disagree, but I want to hear an impressive argument, it's sort of obligatory.

But with opinions there is no clear cut honesty, and you dont seem to get that. You may beleive what you say, but that doesn't automatically make it right. You are not Master of the Universe. You are not infallible. Yet you sit on you high horse and declare everyone else as lower then you, mainly because we don't agree with you. You are constantly presented with facts from other arguing against you, and u either ignore them, shrug them off, or just say it's wrong with out counter facts.

The reason people start calling you names and getting mad is because you don't give anyone any credit, you claim yourself the victor even when evidence says otherwise, and you just easily agitate others by being so dismissive of others opinions. It is hard for me to not go off on you.

**Posts:** 459 · by **NGNM85** on 12/05/2010, 18:37

Anxiety69 wrote:The sex pistols version of 'punk' is not what we at this site consider 'punk' any more.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. History is not multiple choice. You need to be more precise and careful with language. An honest, and correct statement would be, 'The Sex Pistols, or the Offspring are not the kind of punk band that appeals to me.', and stop there. I think that's actually what you mean, but there's no need to go this extra step further and rewrite history.

Anxiety69 wrote: Punk is more then just dressing to stand out and shock, singing songs about authority figures dying, lyrics for pure mock value, etc. Anarchy In The UK does not properly portray our ideas of anarchsim. Yes they were influential and a gateway band, but 35+ years later thats not enough anymore. The Velvet Underground punk? HAHAHAHA with Andy Warhol Masterminding them? HAHAHAHh And the New York Dolls Were Glam, not punk, not even remotely punk.

Anarchism is absolutely irrelevent to this issue. Punk is not inherently anarchist, nor is it supposed to be. They have several complimentary tendencies, that's it.

Anxiety69 wrote:OMFG, so basically, You are right, I am wrong, You are punk rock historian and if we disagree with you we are wrong. No gray areas at all, everything with you is absolute.

Not everything, but this is, essentially. I don't give a damn if you disagree, but I'm not obligated to accept that especially if it's not so.

Anxiety69 wrote:You are such a tool.

I'm not going to honor that with a response.

Anxiety69 wrote:But with opinions there is no clear cut honesty, and you dont seem to get that.

Ohhh christ. Where do I start? What you're essentially asserting is that there is no such thing as truth, which carries very powerful implications I don't think you've fully considered, and I don't think you actually believe that. This idea, that it's too complex or nebulous to have even a tenuous consensus as to what it means... Apply that to anything else and it sounds totally ridiculous. Except perhaps postmodernism, but I say that in jest. We can look at jazz, cubism, surrealism, disco, whatever, and identify it's essential features and know what each of us means when we say them. This idea that punk somehow resists definition is dubious at best.

Anxiety69 wrote:You may beleive what you say, but that doesn't automatically make it right.

Of course. It's right because it's borne out by facts and logic.

Anxiety69 wrote: You are not Master of the Universe. You are not infallible. Yet you sit on you high horse and declare everyone else as lower then you, mainly because we don't agree with you. You are constantly presented with facts from other arguing against you, and u either ignore them, shrug them off, or just say it's wrong with out counter facts.

That's completely inapplicable to this conversation. There haven't been any relevant counter-facts. Again, the principle indictments for the Offspring are they are successful, they eventually signed to a major, they sound too good, and they don't sing enough political songs. None of this is in any way contrary to the fundamentals of punk rock. The Offspring are as punk as the Ramones, and if you're genuinely trying to argue the Ramones aren't punk I'm not the one with the problem.

Thankfully, Crass didn't invent punk, and they don't exemplify it any more than the Buzzcocks, or X, or Screeching Weasal.
I take great offense to this Stalinist project to comandeer punk rock and turn it into something else. Not only is it wrong, both ethically and factually, it degrades punk rock by stamping out it's most appealing feature, it's diversity, it's creativity, it's dynamism, and forcing it into a static rigid format.

Anxiety69 wrote:The reason people start calling you names and getting mad is because you don't give anyone any credit, you claim yourself the victor even when evidence says otherwise, and you just easily agitate others by being so dismissive of others opinions. It is hard for me to not go off on you.

[/quote]

This reminds me of an argument I had a few years ago, I stopped and asked the other person; "Are you disagreeing with me because you think the facts or logic of my argument are wrong, or because you simply don't like what I'm saying?" She said it was the latter, and that was the end of the discussion.

**Posts:** 719 · by **Vegetarian Barbarian** on 12/05/2010, 20:14

NGNM85 wrote:
This reminds me of an argument I had a few years ago, I stopped and asked the other person; "Are you disagreeing with me because you think the facts or logic of my argument are wrong, or because you simply don't like what I'm saying?" She said it was the latter, and that was the end of the discussion.

Did you guys make out afterwards?

**Posts:** 3983 · by **ungovernable** on 12/05/2010, 20:43

NGNM85 is acting like a fascist again and hw ignore my reply to his bullshit arguments

This is exactly what I'm talking about. History is not multiple choice. You need to be more precise and careful with language. An honest, and correct statement would be, 'The Sex Pistols, or the Offspring are not the kind of punk band that appeals to me.', and stop there. I think that's actually what you mean, but there's no need to go this extra step further and rewrite history.

Thats called a point of view. We think that those bands are not following the punk principles.

Same thing with skinheads. We think that boneheads are fake skinheads,

Are you going to say that we need to be more precise and careful with language ? Are you going to say that an honest and corect statement would be "the nazi skinheads are real skinheads but it doesnt appeals to me" ??

you are being stupid again. and i know you will argument during 120 pages to try to prove us wrong because you always think you can't be wrong and you refuse to question yourself.

Anarchism is absolutely irrelevent to this issue. Punk is not inherently anarchist, nor is it supposed to be. They have several complimentary tendencies, that's it.

Wow everytime you don't like an argument you keep saying that's "irrevelent", you always use this fucking word. when you don't know what to answer.

Yes anarchism is revellent, read my other post i already answered this question. It is as revelent as when crass used anarchism to critize the sex pistols and the clash

Not everything, but this is, essentially. I don't give a damn if you disagree, but I'm not obligated to accept that especially if it's not so.

Now YOU are the one who act like a fascist and an authoritarian !!!

No you are definatly WRONG, you are the first anarcho-punk i see who defend capitalist bands... But oh yeah, i almost forgot you are a fake anarchist..

That's completely inapplicable to this conversation. There haven't been any relevant counter-facts. Again, the principle indictments for the Offspring are they are successful, they eventually signed to a major, they sound too good, and they don't sing enough political songs. None of this is in any way contrary to the fundamentals of punk rock. The Offspring are as punk as the Ramones, and if you're genuinely trying to argue the Ramones aren't punk I'm not the one with the problem.

Oh my god... everything we tell you is irrevelent, what a good way to dodge the arguments like a fascist.

Again, i answered this in my other post which you ignored because you are acting like a fascist.

It's not about success, it's about COMMERCIAL SUCCESS, and all the other things i talked about previously.

Go back listening to green day dude, you are a poser

Thankfully, Crass didn't invent punk, and they don't exemplify it any more than the Buzzcocks, or X, or Screeching Weasal.
I take great offense to this Stalinist project to comandeer punk rock and turn it into something else. Not only is it wrong, both ethically and factually, it degrades punk rock by stamping out it's most appealing feature, it's diversity, it's creativity, it's dynamism, and forcing it into a static rigid format.

lol again you are being stupid and you see stalinism everywhere.

Trying to turn punk rock into something else started since CRASS appeared. it's called taking the rebellion and radicalising it into something more productive, in an anarchist point of view thats very productive and has nothing to do with stalinism.

You are a dumbass, what degrades punk rock is the shitty sellout capitalist bands like green day, and what degrades punk rock is also the posers like you.

This reminds me of an argument I had a few years ago, I stopped and asked the other person; "Are you disagreeing with me because you think the facts or logic of my argument are wrong, or because you simply don't like what I'm saying?" She said it was the latter, and that was the end of the discussion.

Fucking hypocrite, you are ignoring my posts because you don't like what i say.

If you think you are going to silence me with this fascist attitude you are wrong, i will never stop answering your shitty posts as long as you keep saying stupid bullshit everywhere. I will always keep pointing out the idiocy in your posts.

Poser punk. Go back listening to green day. You are the shame of the punk scene.

**Posts:** 3983 · by **ungovernable** on 13/05/2010, 06:22

Back to the topic. I think we really need new mods soon, there's a lot of topics in the download section that need to be moved to other categories (some bands that are not anarcho shouldnt be in the anarchopunk section)

**Posts:** 694 · by **Probe** on 13/05/2010, 07:30

I think Anom, Rathryn or Vegetarian barbarian should be the next mod....
or maybe ASA but does he come on anymore?

**Posts:** 229 · by **Lunadimae** on 13/05/2010, 09:17

I'd go with Rathryn and Punkmar77.

**Posts:** 459 · by **NGNM85** on 13/05/2010, 22:11

Anxiety, while I see little hope for any meaningful reconciliation on this issue (This isn't even the right thread for it, anyhow.) I sincerely hope you aren't letting Ungovernable argue on your behalf. In that case, perhaps against my self interest, I would strongly advise you to seek better representation.

**Posts:** 4673 · by **punkmar77** on 13/05/2010, 22:26

Sorry NGNM but the horrible drivel that I've had to endure out of the Offspring that plays on the radio in my work truck is an exact rip off riff from Nirvana and I mean off of their newest crap....really original and great sounding 'punk'....thank beelzebubba my son gave me one of those contraptions that plug into an mp3 player and can be heard through a non assigned radio station cuz now its D-clone and Crucifix and Indigesti blasting through my speakers instead of that mindless pap you so enjoy..... :rofl:

and my apologies for continueing the off topic thread

**Posts:** 465 · by **Protspecd** on 13/05/2010, 22:37

punkmar77 wrote:Sorry NGNM but the horrible drivel that I've had to endure out of the Offspring that plays on the radio in my work truck is an exact rip off riff from Nirvana and I mean off of their newest crap....really original and great sounding 'punk'....thank beelzebubba my son gave me one of those contraptions that plug into an mp3 player and can be heard through a non assigned radio station cuz now its D-clone and Crucifix and Indigesti blasting through my speakers instead of that mindless pap you so enjoy.....

and my apologies for continueing the off topic thread

Unfortunately, I do agree. Their newer stuff is just, yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Though a lot of their older stuff I love, had some great memories with it, however 'mindless' you want to call it. Their music is very nostalgic to me.

On topic, I think I should be a mod, I think EVERYONE looks up to me. Don't deny it, deep down you are all like, I love this guy. Yes I am joking but I shall go into serious mode now. *puts on serious face, >=(* I vote for Rathryn, if he is up to being a mod, I would choose him. He is fairly polite when posting and seems to fit the Who are we thingy.

**Posts:** 2343 · by **Anxiety69** on 13/05/2010, 23:05

Anxiety, while I see little hope for any meaningful reconciliation on this issue

If you want to start a thread to debate this issue further, be my guest, i just felt it had run it's course here, back to new mod discussion. as far as Ungovernable's arguing... i respect him, don't always agree with him, but a lot of his arguements on this subject i agreed with. Again, though, start a new thread and i'd be happy to continue debating.

**Posts:** 2343 · by **Anxiety69** on 13/05/2010, 23:06

sorry protspectd, but at this time Punkmar77, Rathryn, and Veg Barb are the forerunners.

**Posts:** 92 · by **GFSM** on 14/05/2010, 01:52

what he said.

**Posts:** 3983 · by **ungovernable** on 14/05/2010, 02:48

NGNM85 wrote:Anxiety, while I see little hope for any meaningful reconciliation on this issue (This isn't even the right thread for it, anyhow.) I sincerely hope you aren't letting Ungovernable argue on your behalf. In that case, perhaps against my self interest, I would strongly advise you to seek better representation.

blah blah blah.... shut up already

sorry protspectd, but at this time Punkmar77, Rathryn, and Veg Barb are the forerunners.

Anom also, even if she is planning to go inactive soon.

Maybe we should start another thread with a vote to officialize the elections of those new moderators ? this thread has been polluated a lot by the fashion punks who defend capitalist and commercial punk bands on an anarcho punk forum, so...

**Posts:** 465 · by **Protspecd** on 14/05/2010, 02:53

ungovernable wrote:
NGNM85 wrote:Anxiety, while I see little hope for any meaningful reconciliation on this issue (This isn't even the right thread for it, anyhow.) I sincerely hope you aren't letting Ungovernable argue on your behalf. In that case, perhaps against my self interest, I would strongly advise you to seek better representation.

blah blah blah.... shut up already

sorry protspectd, but at this time Punkmar77, Rathryn, and Veg Barb are the forerunners.

Anom also, even if she is planning to go inactive soon.

Maybe we should start another thread with a vote to officialize the elections of those new moderators ? this thread has been polluated a lot by the fashion punks who defend capitalist and commercial punk bands on an anarcho punk forum, so...

Make a poll if you can, even put it on the front page rather than just a thread.

**Posts:** 2343 · by **Anxiety69** on 14/05/2010, 04:17

should we have the candidates make campaign speeches? j/k :rofl:

**Posts:** 465 · by **Protspecd** on 14/05/2010, 04:21

Anxiety69 wrote:should we have the candidates make campaign speeches? j/k

Hahahah

We could have people driving around billboards with [Name] For Anarcho-punk.net Moderator 2010!

We could have people yelling stuff through mega phones and everything!

Forum home

General Discussion

Politics & Serious debates

Music forum

Misc forums

International forums

Anarcho-punk downloads

International downloads

Non-punk anarcho music

Other downloads

Top posters

Seen recently

New members

Moderators

New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Re: New Mods

Similar topics

Who is online