EPTPeople who like clubbing - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
| ||
|
MavivaM
1535 Posts
On July 23 2013 12:23 spkim1 wrote: So, recently, in between my endless strings of SCII games and LoL matches that usually last well into the night (making me wonder if I should get myself checked for insomnia), I have been hitting the club dance floors again as my friends have lured me back into that large loud room exploding with drunk peoples. And somehow, it felt like I'm enjoying it more than I used to back when I was a freshman/sophomore. And so I took a moment to reflect back. And I came to the conclusion that there are certain things that makes people get clubbing to grow in them. Premise 1: Some people like clubbing, while others do not (here I am not differentiating the people who go clubbing whether they like it or not due to "peer pressure" or other external influences) Premise 2: There must be something different between the two groups of people mentioned above, whether it be nature (born shy/quiet vs outgoing/loud personality, genes, etc.) or nurture (growing new sets of interests associated with clubbing e.g. style/fashion, alcohol, exercise/workout, attraction to opposite (or same) gender, house/electro/R&B music genres, socializing with people with interests similar to those mentioned above) Inference and conclusion: People who do not like going to clubs have few to no interests in its associating factors i.e. music genre, alcohol, attraction, dance etc. This may be due to their personality or gene, making them avoid the above interests and people associated with such interests. Or, they may simply not have had the opportunity or chance to mingle with such groups (which would make sense because many clubbers are really social and friendly, so no reason to avoid them when approached, really). People who have grown to like clubbing over time have been having growing interest in its associative factors, or have had friends as such and have been slowly or quickly integrated in clubbing community. People who fall in love with clubbing the first time they go are just born that way and are directly comfortable with enjoying its music, atmosphere, people, and related activities. Thoughts ? Does my logic have flaws ? (Well, I'm sure you could poke holes in it, like for every argument, but what I really mean is, does it make no sense at all and have I wasted my time trying to make a cognitive model that makes no sense) Could someone who absolutely despises nightclubs down to their very bones suddenly wake up one morning and realize how much they've missed in life ? Or will they continue living thinking how stupid and a waste of time and money it is to dress up late at night, go to a gigantic hall blasting music to our ear temples packed with drunk people and mindlessly moving their bodies to some monotonic beat? Or will they realize the magic of drowning the mind and body to the effects of massive house/electro drops of Knife Party and Afrojack, dancing to its beat with a cute lady, body up close and smelling her perfume, with perhaps a chance of continuing into a prolonged adventure with her throughout the night ? PS: If you want to share some awesome venues/events near your places, it would be nice  Also, feel free to share house/electro/r&b music you like, and raves and other events you know are upcoming and are planning to attendNever considered that, you may be right. If it can be of help, I'm one of those guys who "hates" clubs (where hate stands for "I went a couple of times, got bored rather quickly and never went again") and I fall into your second premise: I'm not shy, nor have any problems with people... rather the opposite. The thing is: the very few times I've been to a club I simply couldn't have fun with others, basically since it looked like people weren't there to really meet people but rather just to fuck/be blasted/dance. Guys? All too busy to look cool or impress girls, almost impossible to speak with someone especially since the ones who didn't look like mental cases (50 yo, alone and with a creepy look) were already in groups and weren't clearly interested in talking with someone else who hadn't boobies. Girls? Completely wasted or completely under siege from a dozen horny males. Hanging with my group? Well, we cannot even talk decently... If I go to the pub with some friends I may be able to get the same thing (be completely wasted) but at least I get to speak with people and eventually learn something new or meet someone funny. Probably if I happened to grow up with a sort of club culture it would be different, but for the time being I generally consider clubs like some place made for guys who want to fuck or girls who want to have a blast. Dunno, it feels like the music is a pretext rather than the main purpose of the night. Not that it's a bad thing, but I believe that pubs or concerts let you have cool/fun/whatever experiences while being at the same time cheaper and more interaction-friendly. Edit for clarification: italian here, no idea how clubbing may be in other countries. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
You might have fun, but the reality is that clubs are about men approaching women, not the other way around. It's a fact of zoology that this leads to competition and results essentially in peacock tails being grown. What is your definition of health? Is all competition unhealthy, or just this kind? Why or why not? Men approach women more than vice versa in pretty much every social context I can think of. It's not particularly fair, IMO, but I'd argue that most of it is fairly benignly ingrained due to a long, long history of men approaching women rather than any actual unhealthy thoughts or malice. Some are not. GreenGringo is talking about the generic club you can find in most major cities (current pop-music only, gold-diggers, women with no clothing standing in line during snow so they can still be 'sexy', douchebags with visors and sock/sandal combos, Usually in the news about the latest rape/gun-fire/alcohol abuse incidents). Maybe it is you who hasn't experienced those? Let me get this straight: GreenGringo is not talking about "most clubs" that, as you say, are "pretty damn cool." Instead he's talking about the "generic club you can find in most major cities." How does that even make any sense? If "most" of these music-related events are "pretty damn cool," then how can the generic club that you can apparently find all over the place be the terrible kind? Your first assertion seems to say that most of these place are cool, but then you go on to say that the most common kind in major cities sucks? That seems pretty contradictory to me. There's also the notion that you're literally arguing against a stereotype that nobody is or was defending, and which has nothing to do with why people were raising eyebrows against GreenGringo's rather harsh judgments on clubs as a measure of the depravity of the entire civilization. It also doesn't make any sense to talk about "club culture" when what you really mean is something that exists mostly on reality TV/isn't all that common and isn't at all common to the average 18-24 year-old, which is the group GreenGringo pointed out. Unless you're defending the notion that the average 18-24 year-old is basically forced to engage in these kinds of socialization (i.e. the "bad" kinds of clubs like the constructed stereotype you mentioned) which is what GreenGringo is arguing, then you're talking about different things. I was arguing about if from the perspective of music as art. Of course the club-owners will put on the music that most of the people that go there will want. There is no consensus on what art is, and there never has been. Are we talking about "clubs" that are basically pick-up joints were the only music you will hear is the same as what is on MTV? Are we talking about rave-like bars that mainly adhere to DJs that create original content via mixes and other means? These aren't the only options. That's the problem with your line of reasoning. You sneak in the idea that clubs playing popular music are pick-up joints whereas those with "original content" are more normal. Aside from the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, it's a dishonest form of argumentation. We're talking about clubs that aren't the gigantic Jersey Shore stereotype you mentioned; we're talking about the kind that 18-24 year olds tend to go to en masse, no only the guidos among them. The music played is neither here nor there, and your inserting of musical tendencies into your premises is a construction of a false dichotomy, because playing popular music doesn't imply that a club is a pick-up joint, or anything else. The pick-up joints where everyone is dressed in whatever tarded trend is the coolest these days. The place where a self-respecting woman has to keep her drink in her hand to avoid being roofied. The place where the girl's bathroom is synonymous to a cocaine mirror. The place where you see the same 40+ year old man trying to pick up girls just out of highschool every single week. I'm not sure what clubs you go to, but most of the average university students I know (i.e. the ones in the 18-24 demographic who are going out on Friday nights) don't attend satisfying all of these properties. Again, you try to link properties together that don't need to be together. Just because people at clubs dress trendily (actually, I'd say people dress trendily whenever they go anywhere remotely social, but whatever) doesn't have anything to do with getting roofied or doing coke in the girl's bathroom. You're being ridiculously hyperbolic and painting a picture that damns completely harmless things like dressing trendily by associating them with doing coke in a bathroom stall. People in clubs will generally be more materialistic than most other places you go. That's because people in clubs are generally quite young. People in the 18-24 year-old demographic usually don't have spouses and children yet, so their love of family is limited to their parents & siblings. While many youth value family, they are also materialistic in general (in my experience) because they want to prove themselves and have something to show for their identity. Some youth represent attach their self-worth to wealth, some to sexual partners, some to grades, some to friends, and so on. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to go to any university and not find a large number of materialistic people. It's not like all the family-loving angels stay in their dorms while the depraved neanderthals go to the clubs. Introverts aren't necessarily less materialistic than extroverts; they just show it in different ways. Yes, it's complete baloney. The 1970s wasn't as materialistic as the 1980s. It's a fact. Of course, they had clubbing in the 70s. I have to wonder whether that would be more down my street. Judging by stories of my parents, clubbing in the 70s seemed to be entirely about getting smashed and relieving your baser instincts...and no lame excuses about it being about "socializing" and "meeting people" and whatnot. These days it seems to be more akin to competition in trendiness (and even a competition in wealth in many cases). Lol. Somehow getting smashed and relieving your baser instincts is totally fine, but horrifying things like asserting your fashion sense or showing off are deplorable. You do realize that both of those things are also about relieving base instincts, right? People love to feel good about themselves, especially at that age when everything is so uncertain. Whether they do this by dressing up in a way that they like (you shouldn't assume that people dressing up are necessarily doing so dishonestly; lots of people actually like trends, hence why they're trends) or by drinking tonnes of alcohol, or by having copious amounts of sex is neither here nor there, and it amuses me that, of these three things, the latter two of which are probably about a hundred times more dangerous/serious than the former, you take offense to the former as some grand indictment of civilization's moral character. But getting completely smashed and relieving your instincts is fine. Gotcha. This isn't an appropriate place to play the race card. Of course it was horrible that racism was so rife, but guess what? Race relations aren't the be all and end all of life. It's entirely possible for cultures to be primitive on race relations and more advanced than us in various other ways. I wasn't playing the race card. I was giving an example (one among dozens and dozens of possible examples) of a sense in which the 1950's was much more shallow than the present day, and was so in a far more sinister way than mere trendy fashion. I'm of the mind that your disdain for this competitive trendiness is probably really biased and not nearly as much of a big deal as you make it out to be. I also think that you're drastically underestimating the extent to which previous generations valued fashion. I don't know why, but every once in awhile someone comes along who thinks that the 1950's were a wholesome time of family values and everything was really swell and homely. Except that's only really true if your understanding of a 1950's -era family comes from movies rather than actual history. I notice you didn't touch no-fault divorce, either. Maybe I can help you understand why your appeal to the 1950's is silly: the reason that the 1950's was "less materialistic" has nothing to do with its values being any better; they weren't all generous people who cared little for material wealth and placed emphasis on the great worth of the human person. First off, I'd argue that the 1950's wasn't particularly "less materialistic" as it was more "family-values" oriented in that very American/Christianized sense. In fact, a lot of 1950's values that everyone likes to praise were based on a very outmoded, sexist, and unjust model of a nuclear family with a husband at its head, a loving, devoted wife who tended the house/raised the children, and obedient kids who never talked back to their parents and always said please & thankyou. Sounds idyllic, right? Too bad this religiously founded model of the family pretty much meant that any deviation from the norm was met with social ostracizing or even legal action (e.g. people used to actually be prosecuted for fucking adultery). You can't just say "oh the 1950's were so much less materialistic; we should do more of that" because the 1950's-era family-centric value system is inseparable from this lack of materialism. I wish we lived in a less materialistic society; I really do (I'm an ardent socialist). But if we become less materialistic, it shouldn't be the way it was in the 1950's, where our lack of (overt) materialism was driven by religious fear, gender roles, strict social guidelines, and a generally lesser amount of extra money. In my first year, I wasn't so lucky, and there was simply no common activity in the dorm except clubbing. Everyone I know who wasn't into clubbing reports a similar experience: either they made friends based on common interests, or they became isolated. This isn't clubbing's fault. This isn't anyone's fault. Sometimes you just don't have the same interests as the vast majority of people. I've never particularly cared for "dances" in general, and yet during high school those were the primary "social" events that existed. It wasn't a slight against me that they had dances; most people loved them. Neither did it make me a social reject, and, besides, any friends I lost by merely my dislike of dances weren't worth being friends with to begin with. Also, in general, I've noticed that both of you guys seem to be paint a very negative, very hyperbolic picture of clubs. I don't just mean a little bit extreme, either. You're acting like almost everyone in the 18-24 demographic is doing coke every Friday, faking London banker accents (???) to get laid, and spiking girls' drinks... | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
I blame DJ Kentaro for making most other DJ's shit. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
I'm on the side of the introvert / "antisocial" / fuck clubbing side of the fence. The things communicated and shared in a club environment aren't things I'm interested in and while I can appreciate that other people are all for the things shared in that environment, for me it is a small slice of hell. ...that said, that's in large part because my life so far has better suited an introvert's style. I moved a fuckton of times as a kid and was raised religious (in a manner that applied negative stigmas to drugs/sex/booze/'heathens') that stuck around long enough to phase me past the age where it was easy to get inundated into club culture, and leave me afterwards not looking for or associating often with people who participate in that lifestyle anymore. On one hand, it feels like something I missed out on... but on the other hand, I don't think I'm any worse off for it. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
On July 24 2013 08:06 FallDownMarigold wrote: Ah interesting. I think what you're referring to when you have been talking about clubs is what in the US we call "college bars" aka big wet loud cheap smelly shitshows. Fun, but only if you're blackout. Totally understandable when people hate this environment. If you go to a legit club, say, Hakkasan in Vegas for Eric Prydz live with 10 friends and bottle service, you're looking at an entirely different feel and experience. Incomparable to a college bar mess goddamn. what world have i lived in all these years T_T but i think generally 'clubbing' is just like that in everywhere in europe, i have only heard about opening table etc in asia (and US, from the previous post of yours). | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
But as I've gotten older I think I've just kind of stopped "hating" things so much and learned to just not really care so much about what other people do, and to just let it go and have fun. So in general I enjoy clubbing/going to bars these days. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
| ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On July 24 2013 06:42 GreenGringo wrote: I've been to clubs more like 20 times. Not a lot compared with you, I'm sure, but still enough for me to reach a few conclusions. Be assured that I approached them as an objective anthropologist most times I went there. You sound like a fun person. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On July 24 2013 08:24 Shiori wrote: We've established that we were "divided by a common language" and there was a disconnect between British interpretation of "clubbing" and that of Americans. So unfortunately most of your post is irrelevant.I don't know why, but every once in awhile someone comes along who thinks that the 1950's were a wholesome time of family values and everything was really swell and homely. Except that's only really true if your understanding of a 1950's -era family comes from movies rather than actual history. However, I must respond to this part. You try to prove that the 1950s were backward by appealing to one form of political correctness after another. Of course we're ahead of the 50s in sensitivity to women and minorities. But that's one of the defining features of the age in which we live, so it would be very surprising indeed if that weren't the case. There's all kinds of quantifiable, objective ways in which the 50s was better than today. Crime and wealth inequality were lower, and there was virtually full employment back then. There was nowhere near the same culture of marketing and advertising and "manufactured needs". When you went to buy groceries, you got to establish a relationship with the vendor. People were in general closer knit. FYI, I don't just watch movies from the 50s, but have studied this at a deep level, e.g. history of science and scientific papers from the 50s. And in this field I note all kinds of ways in which their way of doing things was better. Contrary to popular belief, it's not just because it's harder to make progress now that there were more breakthroughs in the 50s. They were far more theoretically inclined. As one example, the Hodgkin–Huxley model mathematical theory of neurons from the 50s makes today's climate of merely quoting the results of MRI scans look pretty childish. I could go on. You're not talking about a bunch of Troglodyte bigots who think women should be punched, but a highly advanced society that invented the transistor (based on the relativistic quantum mechanics of semiconductors) and with it modern electronics, developed computers, and made all kinds of groundbreaking discoveries. Yes, today we're better with women and minorities. But that's by no means the be all and end all of life. Judging a society by its conformity to political correctness feels a lot like a 16th century Christian tarring millions of people as heathens. The Christians might have had a point about human sacrifice, just like you have a point about race relations. Doesn't matter: judging people by one narrow standard is pretty downright crude, misleading, and yes, that's right, shallow. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On July 23 2013 12:32 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I absolutely despise clubbing, but it's the place with the highest percentage of young single women in one place so needs must. Seconded. If it weren't for the abundant amount of attractive, single, drunk tail available, I'm convinced most men would forgo the whole experience. | ||
|
DDie
Brazil2369 Posts
Anyway, it's tomorrowland weekend, bitches! Also you guys may want to check a festival in the dead sea (Ukraine) called Kazantip, it starts at the end of the month and goes for 4 weeks, that's my next ''go before get married'' on the list. | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
On July 24 2013 10:05 Kimaker wrote: Seconded. If it weren't for the abundant amount of attractive, single, drunk tail available, I'm convinced most men would forgo the whole experience. Oh, such modern, non-misogynistic values... do you perhaps attend the wildly non-puke-inducing discussions in the "dating" thread as well? | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
On July 24 2013 08:06 FallDownMarigold wrote: Ah interesting. I think what you're referring to when you have been talking about clubs is what in the US we call "college bars" aka big wet loud cheap smelly shitshows. Fun, but only if you're blackout. Totally understandable when people hate this environment. If you go to a legit club, say, Hakkasan in Vegas for Eric Prydz live with 10 friends and bottle service, you're looking at an entirely different feel and experience. Incomparable to a college bar mess I've been to clubs with quite popular DJs hitting the decks several times and even in highschool I was able to afford these nights. Sure I'm not talking bottle service, but that's not what I'm going for anyway. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On July 24 2013 10:04 GreenGringo wrote: Contrary to popular belief, it's not just because it's harder to make progress now that there were more breakthroughs in the 50s. They were far more theoretically inclined. As one example, the Hodgkin–Huxley model mathematical theory of neurons from the 50s makes today's climate of merely quoting the results of MRI scans look pretty childish. I could go on. hate to take the off topic bait, but really, it is pretty absurd to suggest that current science progress is less "theoretically inclined" (whatever that means) vs. science progress in the 50s. Hodgkin, Huxley, Cajal, etc., definitely did cool and really important things for neuroscience -- but they weren't the last ones. Since the days of those guys neuroscience research has expanded so much that it now actually produces more papers annually than biochem, molecular bio, or cell bio. There are still incredible findings being made today, that go beyond "reporting MRI results". You definitely should not use science progress/thinking as a way to illustrate how the 50s was better. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On July 24 2013 10:42 FallDownMarigold wrote: Give a single piece of work that was remotely as groundbreaking as the Hodgkin-Huxley model.hate to take the off topic bait, but really, it is pretty absurd to suggest that current science progress is less "theoretically inclined" (whatever that means) vs. science progress in the 50s. Hodgkin, Huxley, Cajal, etc., definitely did cool and really important things for neuroscience -- but they weren't the last ones. Since the days of those guys neuroscience research has expanded so much that it now actually produces more papers annually than biochem, molecular bio, or cell bio. There are still incredible findings being made today, that go beyond "reporting MRI results". You definitely should not use science progress/thinking as a way to illustrate how the 50s was better. For that matter...give a single theoretical piece of work in neuroscience from the last two decades. You'll either get some verbal handwaving or a neural net that's so specific that it can't possibly be fundamental in the field. As I said, I've studied this and plenty of scientists and historians of science would agree. To wave it off as "absurd" before you even have time to dignify it is pretty insulting. | ||
|
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
On July 24 2013 10:49 GreenGringo wrote: Give a single piece of work that was remotely as groundbreaking as the Hodgkin-Huxley model. For that matter...give a single theoretical piece of work in neuroscience from the last two decades. You'll either get some verbal handwaving or a neural net that's so specific that it can't possibly be fundamental in the field. As I said, I've studied this and plenty of scientists and historians of science would agree. To wave it off as "absurd" before you even have time to dignify it is pretty insulting. To be fair, the "groundbreaking" aspect just means that pre 1950 neuroscience was so crappy that you still could do these huge breakthroughs. It doesn't mean moderns scientists are less theoretical or that things haven't progressed. | ||
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 24 2013 01:58 farvacola wrote: Methinks you haven't met the right "high" people then  On July 24 2013 02:13 docvoc wrote: While I'm not necessarily this way, my girlfriend is; I can empathize some. One thing I've noticed about clubbing is that it really isn't for everyone. The emphasis on getting drunk or high with friends feels like a return to peer-pressure situations, and not a fun time. If I don't drink or do drugs because I don't think those two are good for me as a person, then I'm pretty much sunk in a club since I'm not going to be drinking or doing MDMA with anyone in there; they might as well just not talk to me lol. Also, I find that when people become high/drunk they find themselves (what they say and do) much more funny than it actually is, and another person has to be similarly drunk/high to appreciate it and laugh. That is part of it. I don't like using drugs or alcohol to have fun, or make a situation better. If enough people around me are doing it, it becomes a prerequisite to having a "good time" to an extent, and that's just not my thing. I've been around drunk/high people that weren't a pain-in-the-ass to deal with while I was sober, but I don't think the drunk/high difference ever made my experience better. On some level, it sucks because I miss out on a lot of shows I want to go to, but I don't lose sleep over it. | ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
Also I have a big problem with enjoying what "clubbing" is, help me understand. I am in no way some anti-social rebel but I can't help but feel like some pathetic comformist bozo hopping around with a ton of other people in like this ritual to force myself to have fun. Like maybe if I hop around in sink with everyone else I will have as much fun as them? Its like when people have those conversations "Dude I got sooooo drunk last night man, blah blah" and everyone else chips in how HOW DRUNK they were the previous night as well. I just feel fucking weird participating in those things where everyone just kind of goes a along with the "this is awesome!" vibe just because everyone else is doing it. And yes I am bitter that I have trouble enjoying it, because clearly a lot of people do. I don't know what to do about it though other than block it out my perspective so I don't feel left out. | ||
| ||
