Lyrical Analysis (Or: Why are pop fans so dumb?)

So let's look at billboard for a sec here...

Katy Perry is in the number one spot. I'm not surprised. She's generally liked. Party Rock is sitting strong at #2 and I have no qualms with this.

Looking down the list. Wait... Britney Spears is still in the top ten? Are we still in the 90s? What is this? I thought we were done with her after the multiple children and the shitty falling out of her marriage. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that a pop star can have kids, but I still can't respect Britney.

Oh gosh, Lady Gaga is still up there. Does anyone remember her last big hit, Born this way? It's so bad. I guess once you prove that you can sing about wanting anal sex without any of your fan base noticing, you no longer have to care what you're singing about.


Born this way is a badly written song. So let's start at the beginning. How many just decided that they believe in g-d the moment that heard this song? It's very un-subtle about this topic. Things that it is subtle about:
- People from Asia are "Orients"
- "Chola" is the new word for Latina descent
- Gay guys who dress up as women are a "drag" and should stop being so
- Lesbian is separate and different from gay
- There is nothing wrong with you and you should never stride to improve!

Some of these are arguable, but I'm going to start with what I find the most offensive. "Chola." This is the term for a Latina gang member. This is not an endearing term. This is not something that any woman should want to be called. (also, subtext here is that if you're a man you don't matter, but since Lady Gaga's audience is mostly female this point is less important.) Basically, why is she using this terrible terminology for something that could have been much less offensive with one more syllable?

You could argue that calling Asians "Orient" instead of "Oriental" is not as bad, but that's akin to saying that you're calling me a turd instead of a shit, when I'd rather you call me neither.

The point that she's calling people who dress in drag is a little less enforceable, but I do find it funny that she says, "Don't be a drag - Just be a queen." 3 times and then says, "Don't be!" Really, she should have left out this last line. Even if it isn't telling people not to be drag queens by resoundingly saying "Don't be" it's very easy to misinterpret it as such, and therefore should have been avoided.

Then there's the overarching theme that you should not try to improve. "We are all born superstars," so why even put in the effort to improve your skills? I rage at this so hard that I don't even know how to put it into words. Hard work is often more times more important than innate skill. But this song spins it in an entirely different way.

Lastly, to address the less subtle idea in the song, g-d has made us all the way we are. Good job making an entire decade of preteens and teens into bible-thumpers. I never thought I would hear a pop fan tell me that I was made in g-d's image and that I was disgracing him by not believing in myself. Also, why is Gaga advocating the idea of a male g-d? This idea seems like it is against one of her central ideological pillars.

So, to be strictly clear, I don't think Lady Gaga is a bad singer. In fact, she brought herself into stardom from relatively little. I respect this. However, she can't say that a lot of hard work and a little bit of luck didn't also contribute. Also, don't have an unnatural hair color when telling your fans that you were born this way. Hair dye is completely artificial. I have nothing against hair dye. Actually, I like hair dye. I was planning on bleaching my hair again this coming school year, but I'm very unmotivated. The point is, I think you should recognize the unnatural aspects and address them in order to not sound like a hypocrite.

And now to bash a song that I actually really like. The Cave is probably one of the better songs out right now, but lyricists seem to give less and less of a shit daily. This isn't a nostalgia rant, because Sage Francis is very recent, but his lyrics are incredible. Instead, this is a rant aimed at pop and pop rock lyrics. The Cave upset me because I listened to it and thought it was a song about empowerment. Then I looked up the lyrics and saw "And I won't let you choke; On the noose around your neck." For those who were slow to pick up on what I'm talking about, when I first heard the song I thought it said that I will let you choke on the noose around your neck. This changed the song from being about empowerment to being about kindness. It took one word to change the message of the song. I will continue to sing the song the way I hear it, because I like my message more. At least, it's more unique in this industry than one about kindness and acceptance. Also, it fits the rest of the song better.

Well, I got distracted from the top 100 list. Nothing else pops out at me. Maybe Cobra Starship and Black Eyed Peas. I don't recognize most of these names. How out of touch with current culture am I? Or maybe I'm just more critical of it... Oh, ET by Katy Perry at 32. A friend recently pointed out that this song romanticizes rape, but that's not my rant, it's her's. And then the Lazy song at 34. I like Bruno Mars. Avril Lavigne is still relevant? She's at #73.

Where's Aloe Blacc? Well, even though Billboard doesn't have it, I can still leave you with good music.

Thoughts on 3AM

Not thoughts at 3AM, but rather thoughts on the idea of 3AM. Well, I'll get to that in a sec. First thing's first.

I didn't realize that the last two articles I commented on were written by the same person. They were found through different means on different days. Putting them together makes me sad. It paints a story of complaining about guys she dates and why she dumped them, while complaining also that other guys she has dated have dumped her. And in both situations feeling that the other party is at fault.

So, back to the topic at hand, 3AM. I don't like it. It's the time I realize that I'm in for a terrible morning. Either I'm not going to go to sleep until 5AM, or I'm not going to sleep. Before 3AM I have the choice of sleeping at any point I wish, but once 3AM rolls around I get a second wind. I'm sure the time varies for everyone, but it's at 3AM that I realize I'm not going to get a full night's sleep. Some people like the fact that they can feel awake a second time. I, on the other hand, wish that my body would say, "NO! Fuck you! Go the fuck to sleep! Right now!" Unfortunately, it says, "Well, you've made it this far. Just take another 2 hours while you're at it..." It's almost as spiteful as I am. Stupid body... Stop acting like me.

Haha! Writing things at stupid hours of the days makes me realize things about myself I'd rather not know. I would really like my body to act like something sensible, rather than like me. 3AM should just be taken off of the clock. There should be 2AM, and then just have 5AM 3 hours later, with nothing in between. Mostly because that's how it feels to me. 2AM should have 180 minutes packed into it. It wouldn't really change anything anyways. Everyone else who's even awake at that time would be just like me, in that they also wish they weren't so. And by "so" I mean "awake," not "like me." Everyone should wish to be like me, because I'm awesome.

Anyways, yes Specter, we should trade FF Dissidia friend cards. I've already beaten about 8 stories. Actually, I could even do one of my fancy reviews on Dissidia. Especially since it's a game that I like, and is rather unique in its execution, like most other games I talk about. Expect that eventually. Like after the next 6 month break from this blog.

Lose All of Your Faith in Humanity

Wow... This is unsettling.

So, what's the best thing you could do for young impressionable people? I think that the best thing you could do would be to tell people that dating nice people is a bad thing. /sarcasm

How could anyone accept this piece. It seems like it is written in seriousness. This makes me sad.

You feel like a terrible person because you shat on someone nice. Your solution is to not date nice people. This is the wrong solution. You will not enjoy your life if you date not nice people. If you are a nice person, getting shit on by others won't make you love your life.

The solution should be to date nice people and not shit on them! How is this hard to figure out? You can like that nice person. You can like him and even have him like you back. You can find him spineless and try to help him with decisions. It may not even be that he's indecisive. It just looks like that to you because he wants you to make whatever decisions make you happy. So you're indecisive too? That doesn't give you a right to criticize him. In fact, that gives you even less reason to criticize him. You should understand that he suffers from something you yourself have failed to overcome.

Or, you can be a dickhead. Surround yourself with terrible people. That way, no one will ever be better than you. Then you can be proud of being the best... of a group in which no one should ever be proud of themselves. Great job. Just never associate yourself with me.

You Should Stop Being so Snobby

This link is snotty, supercilious, and pretentious. Read it if you want to feel like shit for not having done anything wrong.

So apparently, if you don't read, you are stupid. I know there's a trend, but I wouldn't call myself a reader. On the other hand, I do appreciate a good plot and have a rather extensive vocabulary. I'm even decent at spelling. I wouldn't call my self a genius, but I am educated to an extent.

So I read this piece. I wouldn't call it an article, but piece suits it well. It's a piece geared towards men and written in a very Johnathon Swift air. How many of you read books? If I know my audience (all two of you) I would say there isn't one among you that doesn't. However, how many of you had to Google Johnathon Swift before you remember what he wrote? How many of you remembered what A Modest Proposal is once you saw the title as the Google result. I would like to posit, that perhaps you aren't necessarily smarter than a non-reader, just because you read.

I am not saying that trends don't exist, but this is stereotyping, as much as it is to say that Jews are good with money. Only, this stereotype is insulting to people who don't find books to be their medium of choice. Worse yet, if you say things about race or religion you will be reprimanded, while if you say things about choice of medium you will be encouraged. One of the best examples is how current media has no respect for video games. Yes, there are brutally violent video games, but there are also brutally violent movies, TV shows, radio broadcasts, and even books. There are in fact piece of literature that are far more disgusting than any game I've ever played. I play games continuously. I have dreams, pleasant subconscious symphonies, about Tetris or Mario (and sometimes both together). When I have nightmares, it's about books. One vivid memory is that caused by a line from Battle Royale. This piece of literature is disgusting. I see no redeeming value in it. Yet, I would be ridiculed for enjoying the plot of Bioshock while anyone who read this piece of trash called a book would be seen as better than me for improving themselves by reading. This is an infuriating double standard.

Finally the Government accepts video games as an art form, and the response we get is that they're using tax payer dollars (which they aren't because the art grants are privately funding) to enforce Call of Duty (which they aren't because only artful projects will be eligible for grants). The public response to banned books is to read them because "books shouldn't be censored."

The current stigma needs to be fixed. I say fixed because I think it's currently broken. Terribly grotesque books should be called out. Video games should be recognized as beneficial. Where is the justice in the current system? Oh wait, I'm once again assuming that people are smart. Well, they must be, since so many people read books. At least, this is what I'm led to believe if this piece is to be believed.

Tacit Knowledge

In class today there was a discussion about tacit knowledge. In case you don't want to Google search it or look it up on Wikipedia, tacit knowledge is basically a synonym for experience. The discussion we had in class was on tacit knowledge was really necessary. Basically, we asked if everything needs to be learned through experience, or if we could possibly do anything right the first time we try by using a rule set. We consensus was that, while it may be possible write down an all encompassing rule set, it wouldn't be terribly easy.

Now, the conclusion wasn't as interesting to me as the way that some of my classmates argued it was. The discussion was based on whether or not tacit knowledge was necessary. I said it wouldn't, because robots can't be built on tacit knowledge. They always work on rule sets. However, they can learn rule sets strong enough to walk over rough and uneven terrain. Why wouldn't they be able to use genetic algorithms to create rule sets for any given task? My classmates said that this would be tacit knowledge.

I want to clarify this for a second here. We had a definition for what a term is. Then I made a claim that we don't need anything by that definition. Then, the classmate said that his definition actually included the attributes that I said lied outside of the definition. He cited the change in rule set as it still being tacit knowledge. However, tacit only means that it is knowledge that can't be shown as a rule set, and not that the rule set it can be shown as cannot change. If the rule set cannot change, then all knowledge would have to be tacit. We are always finding new smaller additions and changes to the sets of rules that we hold dear. Yet, these changes don't invalidate the old rules. The only justify them. Isaac Asimov wrote an incredible read on "The Relativity of Wrong." Really, everyone should go read it. However, it's only tangentially related to this discussion, so I won't go off on another rant about that.

I just want to know how often this tactic is used in arguments. Do classmates always attack the definitions in order to prove the points that they like? It seems like a bad practice. I suppose if it was more prevalent, then I would have noticed it before now. I'm just rather upset that my classmate believed he had pulled off his argument sufficiently. In fact, I believe that he may have convinced part of the class. This really upsets me. Also, it upsets me that I'm not sure if I won. Even if my logic followed much more soundly than his, I haven't actually achieved anything if no one has changed their mind.

I don't believe that it was my job to change his mind. However, I want him to follow logical conclusions. I believe that rule sets can compensate for experience. We can give robots the capacity to learn and write rule sets. We can take those rule sets and put them in other robots. And the most important point is that those robots, having had no experience, we perform just as well as the primary robot. I believe all knowledge is recordable, and can be re-written. Just because us humans are bad at projecting knowledge, does not mean that the knowledge we possess, or knowledge in general, cannot be projected. The world can be changed by us. We only have to step back and realize that we may not be able to use personal abilities to do so.

Though I suppose we can't really know that unless we experience it. According to my fellow classmates we will need tacit knowledge of creatures smarter than we are, in order to truly understand that not only things that humans can do are possible actions.

Falling Out

I'm confused. I never thought that losing a friend would feel bad. I thought it would just be a little missed opportunity that could be picked up again later. But what if I actually messed up? No. This isn't a what if. I messed up.

The difference though, is that a SO relationship only has a limited number of tries. Friendship is not quite the same. Since so many people can share it with so many other people, you can try it as much as both parties are willing to. However, that means that this shot depends on if the other person is willing to be my friend.

Usually this wouldn't be an issue. I'm super awesome, I make friends easily. It's just that when you hurt a person, they have to think for a second before they give you that chance again. I think it shows patience, and if they accept, exactly the kind of person that you should never hurt again.

So anyways. I feel like I shouldn't get so sentimental about a friendship, but that's kind of the person that I am. So anyways... I'm gonna go back to working out those relationship fuck ups I've gotten myself into... Hopefully it'll all turn out for the better.

Sexual Psychology

Why do people always get so angry with me when I say that sexual orientation is a nurture thing? It wouldn't make sense for it to be a hard genetic trait, or homosexuals would die off, and they would do so even more quickly if more homosexuals are open and less likely to have a child with a cover-up spouse. This means that homosexual rights activists who believe that this trait is nature and advocate more openness are actively diminishing the homosexual population.

Okay. Homosexuality could also be a harder to define trait. It could be less like blue eyes and more like what kind of job or career a person would want to do when they grow up. This still means that being homosexual would thin out the more that people are sexually open. It wouldn't completely kill off homosexuals, but advocating open homosexuality would be akin, in my mind, to telling people of a certain race that they are no longer allowed to reproduce.

This is why I feel that I have to believe that homosexuality is nurture. Maybe it is just to satisfy myself, but I want homosexuals to be as open as they want to be, without any chance that this could be killing a community.

Also, I would like to clarify that nurture does not mean that something is a choice. It doesn't even mean that it can be prevented. What it does mean is that gender roles aren't taught as strongly as they used to be and people are more likely to accept whatever a person shows the world, so whatever you are attracted to is much easier to accept.

I want you to think about every trait that defines who you are. How many of these traits are nature and how many are nurture? Dyed hair is nurture. Tattoos are nurture. Piercings, even ears, is nurture. Nurture is anything that you weren't born with. In my opinion, people aren't born with sexuality. Children don't choose their friends based on physical attraction. Hormone supplements are easy for anyone to take, regardless of their age, so I don't think that hormones should take as much of the blame for sexuality as they used to.

I feel like it would be just as difficult to describe why you find someone attractive as it would be to explain why your favorite color is your favorite. I really doubt that favorite colors are a nature trait.

Just because something is nurture, rather than nature, does not mean that it is a choice. I don't believe there is a gene that makes you gay. There could surely be genes that predispose a person towards a certain lifestyle, but personality and behavior are nurture traits. And homosexuality is a behavior.