The World Is Full Of Angry Young Men

[TJ]

It used to be the case that passionately held views on the less satisfactory aspects of society were associated with youth and vitality - think John Osborne, the TW3-era David Frost, John Lydon, the young Paul Weller and countless other examples. Nowadays, however, anyone expressing similar opinions is automatically derided for being 'old'. So when and why did this change?

[Purple Tentacle]

May 2nd, 1997

I genuinely believe that, even now, there is an atmosphere of "shhhh! Or you'll let them back in!"

[european son]

John Lydon

well part of the problem is there. don't get me wrong i love Johnny, but he's still whining on about the same things he was nearly thirty years ago (the class system, McLaren, Glitterbest etc.)

the same old rebels are still complaining, but nothing has changed, which leads me on to what i think the real problem is:

i think that us youth are, excuse the seeming idoicy of this, too cynical to rebel. we read history books, watch movies, lived through the thatcher years and Live Aid and time after time we see the same thing.

first. rebellion gets you nowhere. taking a concilliatory pose and negotiation is more succesful in the long run.
second. that some people who "rebel" seem to do so, not out of a desire to change things for the better, but because they enjoy their role as rebels and the sense of self-righteousness that it brings.


the miners lost, Live Aid didn't change any governments' position on feeding the world, we've still got a monarchy etc. the only major recent results from out and out  rebellion have been the abolition of the poll tax and perhaps the Civil RIghts movement. and i'd be willing to court controversy by arguing that the latter's successes were borne out of the more thoughtful, less angry fight of the likes of King and Rosa Parks, than the fury of the Panthers and Malcolm X.

i'm not saying we should all give up trying to change things, but that we should be better focused and more considered in how we do it.

[TJ]

That's a very good point actually PT.

I also did wonder if it had something to do with the fact that as the likes of Weller and Ben Elton have got older, they've traded their righteous views for boring nonsense about 'real' music and schmaltzy mainstream wank, whilst the media still persist in upholding their right-on image.

[TJ]

i think that us youth are, excuse the seeming idoicy of this, too cynical to rebel. we read history books, watch movies, lived through the thatcher years and Live Aid and time after time we see the same thing.

first. rebellion gets you nowhere. taking a concilliatory pose and negotiation is more succesful in the long run.
second. that some people who "rebel" seem to do so, not out of a desire to change things for the better, but because they enjoy their role as rebels and the sense of self-righteousness that it brings.

A fair point, but at the same time it isn't just limited to rebellion. It does seem that *any* statement of dissatisfaction gets brushed aside as old dufferdom...

[23 Daves]

I'm not sure I agree with you, TJ.  I think that there still is a lot of anger around, it's just alarmingly unfocussed now.  I've heard a lot of teenagers spout the line "I hate people" a la Slipknot, but very few ever blame the political workings or expectations of society or question it a bit more in depth.  Therefore, I think if you actually have a political viewpoint, or a very specific issue you're angry about rather than just "the world is shit", then you're deemed to be a bit old fashioned.  Anger and dissatisfaction, however, are still there.  It's just now it's become the fault of the nearest person, rather than any larger organisations as a whole.

He said, like an old duffer.  

I blame crap goth bands.

(EDIT- oh, and yes, I do realise that in your original post you were talking about the state of society or things, but I was saying that I disagree with the view that ANY form of dis-satisfaction ( as you referred to it) was to be derided).

[Still Not George]

(Obligatory note to point out that Slipknot are tosspot kiddie metal, not goth)

[european son]

all this talk about goths made me want to post this



the Goth Kids in the recent Raisins episode in South Park.

Goth 1: [with black puffy, feathery hair, streaked in red] Life is pain. Life is only pain. [his large bang falls over his right eye, he jerks his head back to put the bang in place] We're all taught to believe in happy fairytale endings. [his bang fall over his eye, he jerks his head back] But there's only blackness. Dark, depressing loneliness that [his bang fall over his eye, he jerks his head back] eats at your soul.  

Goth 2: [dressed in something like a tuxedo, sporting a curly pompadour] Who needs that kind of Barbie love, anyway? Everyone's just walking around like a bunch of conforminsts. Go ahead and wear your business suits so you can make thirty-four thousand dollars a year to buy your condominium. They're all zombies racing to their graves. Love didn't work for my mom and dad. Why should it work for me?  

Goth Girl: My dad is such an asshole. Drunken bastard doesn't even know I exist. But then he won't let me go to the Skinny Puppy concert because my heroine-addict aunt is coming over for dinner. [takes a puff] Dinner? That's a laugh. Just an excuse for my mom to bitch at me for not wearing girly clothes like all the Britney Spears wannabes at this school.  

Little Goth: They're all a bunch of Nazi conformists cheerleaders. [Stan looks stunned at the age of this youngest of Goths]  

Stan: But if life is only pain, then... what's the point of living?  

Goth 1: Just to make life more miserable for the conformists. [his bang fall over his eye, he jerks his head back]  

Stan: All right, so how do I join you?  

Goth 2: If you wanna be one of the non-conformists, all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do.  

Stan: ...'K.  

[Still Not George]

Will... not... get drawn into... defending Goth... again... Leave it for DistantAngel, NG. Yes, that's it.

TJ - another issue that's killing the AYM culture is this - what exactly is there to rebel against now? Blair? He doesn't give a toss what any of us think, the Iraq affair showed that. The huge international mess we've made? Hah - every sprog knows we can't do a damn thing about it. The environment? Well, if the constant good work by the likes of Greenpeace have done nothing, then what are we meant to do?

We're the biggest hangover of the Sixties. We've seen generation after generation of 'rebels' turn into yet more suited and booted executives, tie-dye to expense account, marches to business lunches. I mean, is there really one person on this board that really believes that we can make the slightest bit of difference to anything at all beyond our personal sphere? I strongly doubt it.

[MonkeyDrummer]

Well, if the constant good work by the likes of Greenpeace have done nothing, then what are we meant to do?

Follow suit? join in? Add weight to their voice?

I think this sums the apathy up quite well. We're all watching people try and change things that in principle we agree with, but when it comes right down to it we can't be arsed.

[Still Not George]

Hmmm. I read that and thought, "He has a point - why haven't I gotten off my arse and supported Greenpeace?"
Thing is, what would they gain from having me on board other than the ability to say 'here's another who shares our views' to those who claim that the silent apathetic masses are their supporting majority?
The thing is, they've achieved a few things... but not nearly enough to make the slightest difference to the ecological disaster we're stumbling into. They are a practically elemental example of failure in action.

So what would be the point in me joining them?

Multiply that by every cause in existence, and there we have our problem.

[Mr Flunchy]

I think one of the main reasons that charismatic rebels don't really occur anymore is because the mainstream media has co-opted that kind of expression for itself.  They've molded it, groomed it, shrinkwrapped it and sold it incredibly successfully to teenage boys.  As a result being an individual striking out against society doesn't have the weight it used to, and it seems kind of sad.

One of the main things that an organisation needs in order to promote itself is a charismatic leader.  If the leader of Greenpeace was someone articulate, funny and photogenic it would do wonders for the company. (although maybe it is, which would make my views somewhat redundant.)

[23 Daves]

In other parts of the world, governments have been overthrown by anger and dissatisfaction, you know (see recent example - Bolivia).  The thing is, the reason they go the extra nine miles and achieve their goal is because they're in such a shit state and so stricken with poverty they've got nothing to lose.  If any of us planned political activity of such a strong and purposeful nature, we'd be worried about how it might affect our future careers, or how our children would cope if we ended up in prison.

That's the bottom line, I think.  And really, it's as much a form of capitalist decadence and selfishness as any - an inability to see the the benefit of forceful action for as long as we're happy and fed, and not in the thick of trouble.

[MonkeyDrummer]

I am also in agreement with that. It's the old clichê that if everyone made a change in their lives then the domino effect would indeed "make that change". But not everyone does and in fact it's usually the minority.
What difference does it really make that that I re-use plastic bags while pollutants pump skyward out of my control. None, I suppose.

But for whatever you say, i could easily use the old but if EVERYONE who thinks like you actually did something then progress would be made. But they never do so my arguments a worthless one.

Shit, I'm depressed (again)

[Gamma Ray]

I mean, is there really one person on this board that really believes that we can make the slightest bit of difference to anything at all beyond our personal sphere? I strongly doubt it.

I do. I'll go so far as to state that we make a great deal of difference to things that are outside our 'personal sphere', but then I guess it depends on how you define 'personal sphere'. The joys and tedium of postmodernism, ¿eh?

Of course the amount of difference that one individual makes is very little, perhaps even minute. That does not mean that it is irrelevant. If enough people start acting along the same lines as this individual, that type of behaviour will become normal.

Collectively we shape our environment and our society. If people want to take no responsibility for that, they have no right to complain.

Think about it - how sane would it be to let one person take responsibility for the direction of society at large? It may work if we had a Luther King or a Hunter Thompson at the helm, but let's face facts here, someone insane enough to want that kind of power is more likely to be a Hilter or a Stalin.

 As far as changing the world goes, that's the way I think it should be. I think that mass media (i.e. our means of communicating with each other on a large scale), like many things, have been perverted for financial gain rather than social gain. People aren't encouraged to think about their place in a global context, and so are either ignorant or feel helpless.

So you do what you can - write to your MP, join pressure groups, live the lifestyle that you believe in. It's all you can do.

And scream at people. Didn't work for Bill Hicks though, did it?

[DistantAngel]

Will... not... get drawn into... defending Goth... again... Leave it for DistantAngel, NG. Yes, that's it.

That's okay, I'm not about to defend Goth either, I can't be arsed.  If most of them won't defend themselves with a reasonable argument, why should I do it for them? :)

[imitationleather]

Blimey! When did they let you out, eh? I'd heard you'd been given 20 years without parole.

[Almost Yearly]

Shrug is the new shout.

[imitationleather]

Shut up, newbie.

[Purple Tentacle]

Bloody hell, they're all crawling out now! Did someone turn over a brick or something?

Welcome back Almost!!! How's the nipper?

[king mob]

Will... not... get drawn into... defending Goth... again... Leave it for DistantAngel, NG. Yes, that's it.

That's okay, I'm not about to defend Goth either, I can't be arsed.  If most of them won't defend themselves with a reasonable argument, why should I do it for them? :)

I love baby goths who hang about in parks drinking alcopops & crying that nobody loves them while living with their parents & being in the school choir.

Goth is thankfully something that most people grow out of & thats the point for all the old youth movements, people grew out of them & theres no real movement that can focus kids today.
Its easy to slip in & out of culture & take what you can from 50 years of youth culture & turn it into some bland carbon copy for the new millenium type bollocks.
The other problem is that theres nobody there thats the focus for any movement, the last one really was Kurt Cobain, what is there now?
The Strokes are bland & Radiohead are not the force they were.Bands or Artists now have a huge marketing budget behind them & are run like companies so its not in their interest to make them angry young men in anything but a safe bland way.
Theres some good signs with schoolkids protesting against war last year & the general knowledge they showed was very impressive so as long as theres some hope its worth it.

[monkhouse terror]

Theres some good signs with schoolkids protesting against war last year & the general knowledge they showed was very impressive so as long as theres some hope its worth it.

Most of them only did that to a) look cool b) have an excuse to break stuff or c) get out of school.

[imitationleather]

The Strokes? Radiohead? Who the fuck are they, grandad?

But yeah, I suppose I sort of see what you mean. It's just a fashion like any other, and most grow out of it. But what about those who don'the? Eh?!

[king mob]

Theres some good signs with schoolkids protesting against war last year & the general knowledge they showed was very impressive so as long as theres some hope its worth it.

Most of them only did that to a) look cool b) have an excuse to break stuff or c) get out of school.

A big chunk did but there were quite a few who knew their stuff & were easily  articulate in their views.

[Sherringford Hovis]

Hmmm. I read that and thought, "He has a point - why haven't I gotten off my arse and supported Greenpeace?"
Thing is, what would they gain from having me on board other than the ability to say 'here's another who shares our views' to those who claim that the silent apathetic masses are their supporting majority?
The thing is, they've achieved a few things... but not nearly enough to make the slightest difference to the ecological disaster we're stumbling into. They are a practically elemental example of failure in action.

So what would be the point in me joining them?

Multiply that by every cause in existence, and there we have our problem.

You've defeated your own argument - all these causes failed BECAUSE you - and thousands of other shitheel sit-on-the-fencers like you - didn't join. It's like arguing "why bother with this blood transfusion that I really need right now, I'll only die in the end anyway."

Doesn't stop me fighting though - I know I'm probably on a road to nothing, BUT AT LEAST I TRIED.