>>158742>More adults whining about pop culture from a "it's not cool like it used to be" angle.And that's juvenile.
>You know that local cultures are not static and can be influenced by metropolitan areas even in the old days.>The problem is not "cultural appropriation", but rather that said products are oversold.Neither of these sentences is engaging with anything I said. I never once said "cultural appropriation," nor did I say anything about "local cultures being influenced by metropolitan areas."
I'm talking about payola and Bernays-style PR by millionaires connected to the corporate state, keep up.
>Umm, you know that a lot of our pop culture is due to regional scenes being recognized in Hollywood, right?Again, this isn't engaging with anything I said.
It's not a counter-point to anything I said to say that the mass-marketed media which is pushed to replace better organic cultural expressions sometimes offers inferior imitations. That doesn't contradict my argument that pop culture is a sort of cultural brood parasite, if anything it
supports it.
>It's not juveSemantic.
Grow up. ;P
>Let's be honest: art it self has no revolutionary effect.Never said it does. That's not the point. Get this delusion out of your head that art is revolutionary. Art is expression. Art is tradition. Art is culture. These are the things which "pop culture" supplants and co-opts in order to redirect energy from these things to the will of the state.
The mere act of expressing is not revolutionary, merely expressive. Even this is unacceptable to the state, so it replaces culture with its own simulated culture and art with its own simulated artists who are vassals of the state and only "express" to extents acceptable to the state's agenda.
Again, and I want you to understand this, the expression is
only expression. But even that is stifled.
>Also, there's no need to humanize all those vices you listed because humans commit them all the time.They aren't "vices" which are "committed," they're behavior patterns which are actively encouraged by the state and its corporate media. To it they are virtues. Forget all this stupid moral terminology in your head, I'm talking about a system of statecraft. You put a popstar on stage who tells everyone that it's ok to muffle your disgust, that the empire is glorious, that, at best, revolution is saying "I don't like this," and that serves a purpose
for the state, my personal view of whether that is
good or
bad is not relevant
to the state. These icons, which replace other forms of culture through aggressive astroturfed marketing campaigns informed by psychology, are purposefully utilized to embody
virtues encouraged by or acceptable to the state in order to encourage the citizenry to behave in the same way.
>People don't need a state to be told to commit such atrocities.Then why tf does the army have to pay people who enlist?
Why does the media filter out people who loudly object to what is being done? Why have mainstream news outlets like the New York Times
told their reporters to downplay the genocide in Palestine?
Because the "human nature" argument is bullshit and only goes so far to explain things in a system which deliberately imposes conditions to encourage such complicity.
>Also, pop stars are not avatars for the state.Yes they are and I've already explained why.
>If anything it's more the political pundits whom are.It's not either/or, it's both.
>That's what most "underground/indie" culture is.You have no idea what you're talking about, and you have a poor comprehension of what
I'm talking about, too.