Jump to content

Recommended Posts

First of all, the glasses came about after the gig in Oslo where some girls gave Matt his first pair of glasses.

 

Second, in some interview during BDO this year, Matt said that he had been accused of doing the illuminati sign as part of his cheesy rock moves. He probably does it more for the lulz than anything else.

Matt Bellamy, IRL troll. I approve :LOL:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's not the only way it can be. It's the best way that it can be. There are alternatives, such as anarchist systems, collectivist-communist systems (which eventually or rather quickly deveolve into) and totalitarian systems. Take your pick.

 

Spot on there. Communism needs to be about choice, which is why it has always failed on a mass scale.

 

:wtf:

 

Is this thread serious? :LOL:

 

Relating to the question, It's a fun protest rock song. That's about it, as been said by many on here already.

 

The thread has moved on from the original question, as someone wanted to know who governments owed debts to and it has spiraled from there.

Edited by haze015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, he should say that he is fighting against NWO. I don't know why he didn't say that in any interview.

Probably because he, er...

 

 

...isn't.

 

Spot on there. Communism needs to be about choice, which is why it has always failed on a mass scale.

 

It also needs to be about not giving a small cadre of people power over vast numbers of human beings which would make Machiavelli's Prince blanch. But I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a discussion about serious matters. Should we all just make Muse lolz instead?

 

Oh, and make awful Muse puns. Because we should all be feeling good.

 

 

(OMG SEE WHAT I DID THERE? lolololol)

 

Lol. I thought this was a board for a band. Not one for politics. Meh, I can see your point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol. I thought this was a board for a band. Not one for politics. Meh, I can see your point though.

 

Since no one really likes Muse anymore, we just talk about random stuff instead of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with those who have said nothing is simple in a political sense. I wouldn't like to see a totalitarian government, I wouldn't want to see all choice and diversity taken away, but I don't think that means that there shouldn't be argument against the current system. In fact I think it's vital.

 

I have also noticed that the couple of people here arguing that things have to stay the same appear to have the perspective that people are by nature selfish and greedy. I wonder how they have come to that conclusion. I think it is generalisation and I think that many people aren't motivated by greed but have different motivations for what they do.

 

I also think many people would like to be part of a fairer society given the choice, even if that meant them giving up some things they have become accustomed too. There are arguments that affluence doesn't make people happy and that not only are other things in life more important to people than possessions, but that they gain more happiness out of giving to others than acquiring things for themselves. So I have more faith in human nature then some others do here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have also noticed that the couple of people here arguing that things have to stay the same appear to have the perspective that people are by nature selfish and greedy. I wonder how they have come to that conclusion. I think it is generalisation and I think that many people aren't motivated by greed but have different motivations for what they do.

 

It's a more realistic generalisation than believing people aren't selfish & greedy by nature. The fact we have law in society in itself shows that human nature is far from perfect.

 

No one is suggesting current systems are perfect, just the peace & love & everyone is equal & everyone has nice things dream isn't realistic.

 

Strangely enough, the companies that survive best are often not based on greed and actually have ethical values in how they operate and they exist within the present system. You can go join a commune and live as equals within that within this system. But with systems designed to force that way of living on everyone, including those who don't want to live like that and are greedy & selfish, do not work and have time again ended up as totalitarian states. Got to remember, everyone was equal in 1984...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a more realistic generalisation than believing people aren't selfish & greedy by nature. The fact we have law in society in itself shows that human nature is far from perfect.

 

No one is suggesting current systems are perfect, just the peace & love & everyone is equal & everyone has nice things dream isn't realistic.

 

Strangely enough, the companies that survive best are often not based on greed and actually have ethical values in how they operate and they exist within the present system. You can go join a commune and live as equals within that within this system. But with systems designed to force that way of living on everyone, including those who don't want to live like that and are greedy & selfish, do not work and have time again ended up as totalitarian states. Got to remember, everyone was equal in 1984...

 

You are over-simplifying. I never said no one was ever greedy and selfish and I wonder on what basis you can say that is a more realistic assessment of human nature. Certainly the existence of the law is a weak argument. People end up committing crime for all number of reasons, and crime has risen under the Capitalist system. Often it is people born into poor socioeconomic circumstances where there are street gang subcultures that fill our prisons, or those on drugs.

 

Also I never said anything about peace and love, but this system, as it is, creates as many problems as it solves, not to mention the problems it will continue to create if there isn't a turnaround. And have you read 1984? Different powerful group but still control and not too much equality. The whole point of Muse using 1984 as an illustration was because parallels can be drawn between that and what we have today which is control born from Capitalism.

 

Awareness of that control is necessary if it is to be reduced.

Edited by CarrieB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are over-simplifying. I never said no one was ever greedy and selfish and I wonder on what basis you can say that is a more realistic assessment of human nature. Certainly the existence of the law is a very weak argument. People end up committing crime for all number of reasons, and crime has risen under the Capitalist system. Often it is people born into poor socioeconomic circumstances that fill our prisons or those on drugs.

 

Also I never said anything about peace and love, but this system, as it is, creates as many problems as it solves, not to mention the problems it will continue to create if there isn't a turnaround. And have you read 1984? Different powerful group but still control and not too much equality. The whole point of Muse using 1984 as an illustration was because parallels can be drawn between that and what we have today which is control born from Capitalism.

 

Awareness of that control is necessary if it is to be reduced.

 

You're twisting everything now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viva Uprising! Nobody can say what I must like. I love UD, FG, CE, Sunburn, Cave....Everything!!!!:musesign:Nobody (even :eek:B**** :eek:) can make me dislike MUSE!!!!:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a more realistic generalisation than believing people aren't selfish & greedy by nature. The fact we have law in society in itself shows that human nature is far from perfect.

 

No one is suggesting current systems are perfect, just the peace & love & everyone is equal & everyone has nice things dream isn't realistic.

 

Strangely enough, the companies that survive best are often not based on greed and actually have ethical values in how they operate and they exist within the present system. You can go join a commune and live as equals within that within this system. But with systems designed to force that way of living on everyone, including those who don't want to live like that and are greedy & selfish, do not work and have time again ended up as totalitarian states. Got to remember, everyone was equal in 1984...

 

Well, technically, no. The proles of 1984 were completely free - just too stupid to use their freedom.

 

Viva Uprising! Nobody can say what I must like. I love UD, FG, CE, Sunburn, Cave....Everything!!!!:musesign:Nobody (even :eek:B**** :eek:) can make me dislike MUSE!!!!:p

 

wat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viva Uprising! Nobody can say what I must like. I love UD, FG, CE, Sunburn, Cave....Everything!!!!:musesign:Nobody (even :eek:B**** :eek:) can make me dislike MUSE!!!!:p

You go girl!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viva Uprising! Nobody can say what I must like. I love UD, FG, CE, Sunburn, Cave....Everything!!!!:musesign:Nobody (even :eek:B**** :eek:) can make me dislike MUSE!!!!:p

 

Matt slept with your cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shouldn't think he meant them to be inaccessible or wrote them to gain attention, other than what would be expected towards Muse in general. The majority of his lyrics are a little cryptic, I think. Otherwise I think they would be too boring.

 

I genuinely think the lyrics were motivated by what was concerning him at the time and personally I continue to find them relevant, particularly at this time of cuts.

 

There is a bit of an Uprising going at the moment, though it seems a bit lack lustre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Esoteric Lyrics to attrack attention; can't be taken seriously...

How are they esoteric? They're pretty cut-and-dry. "They will not force us!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I missed this post.

 

I do agree with those who have said nothing is simple in a political sense. I wouldn't like to see a totalitarian government, I wouldn't want to see all choice and diversity taken away, but I don't think that means that there shouldn't be argument against the current system. In fact I think it's vital.

 

But you can't do that without presenting an alternative. Here, I'll list some for you.

 

Capitalism - private ownership and private production

Communism - state ownership and state-owned production

Anarchism - ownership?

Totalitarianism - same as communism, but not fooling itself

 

Again... you want an alternative? Name it.

 

I have also noticed that the couple of people here arguing that things have to stay the same appear to have the perspective that people are by nature selfish and greedy.
I think you will find that humans are much nastier creatures than you account for. And I'm confused that you say "people want money" to automatically equal selfishness and greed. They just want to live their lives.

 

I wonder how they have come to that conclusion. I think it is generalisation and I think that many people aren't motivated by greed but have different motivations for what they do.
I'm still confused by this. Does providing for your family automatically make you a greedy pig?

 

I also think many people would like to be part of a fairer society given the choice, even if that meant them giving up some things they have become accustomed too.
Hmmm... so you want an equal results, but not an equal opportunity society? Men are not born precisely equal, you know.

 

There are arguments that affluence doesn't make people happy and that not only are other things in life more important to people than possessions, but that they gain more happiness out of giving to others than acquiring things for themselves. So I have more faith in human nature then some others do here.
I still don't understand this. How does giving people the choice to do what they like automatically make them selfish, hollow souls?

 

Again, the society you seem to want to impose can only come in one way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what I want is co-operation as opposed to competition. I think we have been brainwashed by the failures of communism. It was never true communism. It has been described as state capitalism. The people were exploited by the powerful. It was barely different from fascist regimes in that aspect.

 

The fact is that we are dominated by a regime which is all about profit and competition. Think of all the wastage. So much money spent on advertising, and creating the endless desires which could be better spent on providing social provision. I'm not saying that people should go without but that the focus should be on providing for what is really needed and really beneficial.

 

Also it is important to have a democracy but that should be a real democracy, not just an illusion as it is at present.

 

Of course it is unlikely that we will ever get a perfect system, but that doesn't mean it's not worth striving for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what I want is co-operation as opposed to competition.

 

What's wrong with competition? Please don't give me this weak "oh how terrible that people don't always work together". Competition is the key to success, and many market failings can be ascribed to a lack of it.

 

I think we have been brainwashed by the failures of communism. It was never true communism. It has been described as state capitalism.

 

Certainly China is. But Cuba and the USSR did hold to communist principles reasonable well.

 

The people were exploited by the powerful. It was barely different from fascist regimes in that aspect.

 

Precisely.

 

The fact is that we are dominated by a regime which is all about profit and competition.

 

So when you want to stop spouting out idealisms and actually give some concrete arguments let me know.

 

Think of all the wastage.

 

Yes, and government is such a practical, efficient instrument.

 

So much money spent on advertising,

 

How much?

 

and creating the endless desires which could be better spent on providing social provision.

 

Do you realise how much money is spent on welfare programs already? It's astonishing. Hint: governments don't spend money on advertising, companies do. You can choose whether you want to buy from a company, but you can't choose if you want to pay tax.

 

I'm not saying that people should go without but that the focus should be on providing for what is really needed and really beneficial.

 

But who are you to tell me or anyone else what is best for them?

 

Also it is important to have a democracy but that should be a real democracy, not just an illusion as it is at present.

 

What, and it's not a real democracy now? Are you saying that you are so easily swayed by political advertising that you feel you are being controlled somehow? Self-fulfilling prophecy, that.

 

Unless you mean direct democracy in which case...

 

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter4.html

 

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

 

It's a terrible idea. In some way they are worse than dictatorships as they are much harder to escape.

 

Example? California. Whose brilliant idea was it to give the public the vote on individual matters of policy? You now have the wonderful scenario where the state is bankrupt yet people keep voting themselves more benefits AND tax cuts simultaneously. Yeah, that's really gonna end well.

 

Of course it is unlikely that we will ever get a perfect system, but that doesn't mean it's not worth striving for.

 

So your perfect system involves the homogenization of opinion and outlook? Hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, and it's not a real democracy now? So your perfect system involves the homogenization of opinion and outlook? Hmm.

 

What's the point in saying how much, when it comes to advertising? How am I going to answer that? Extortionate amounts I should imagine.

 

The point is that many of these businesses who spend extortionate amounts trying to get people to buy this and that, are also so rich that they have power over governments. That is one of the reasons why it is not a democracy, that and the FPTP system, and the government whips.

 

And it's the businesses that want homogenization of opinion and outlook. It's rather ironic that you've quoted that piece because what about McDonaldisation, and all our towns looking the same. Is that individual? Think about fashion for instance. They want to mass produce the same thing and everyone buy it. But because profit margins are their central concern, they need to continuously create new desires. It's also in their interests that products don't last long as they want people to go out and buy again. You think consumers are in control, but it's not as simple as that.

 

What I'm advocating is first of all PR, which means that different political outlooks can be representated. At the moment it's mainly a neoliberal outlook. We have little control as citizens and that is where we need it imo at the ballot box rather than in the shops. Whether I buy from this shop or that shop is not going to mean that I have adequate health provision, or adequate support if I lose my job.

 

I think I prefer Social Democratic to Neoliberal if you push me on it, but as a first step the people need more power. I was interested that the Trade Unions seemed to be the only ones sticking up for social values at the announcement of cuts. They are the only ones saying there is an alternative. They've had such a bad press but they have done a lot for the people of this country.

 

BTW did you look at the link regarding the Robin Hood tax? Don't you think it would be better if the banks paid a little bit rather than the poorest in society be hit by these cuts?

 

The point of democratic government is that the government are meant to be representatives of the people. The point of the state is that it is meant to be the people. And the point about taxes is that they are for provision of services.

 

Do you know what they're proposing now, to sell our forrests to business concerns? That goes back to the land ownership argument. How can a natural thing that should be shared by all be sold for profit.

 

Everything shouldn't be about the market.

 

Of course democracy isn't perfect, but I think it is preferable to power of the rich.

Edited by CarrieB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...