>>12558
Well yes, there's a fine and often blurred line between respect and contempt. At least, my attitude is the same in both cases. Saves a lot of mental effort. Being needy of someone, and also pursuing someone out of a grudge, or even wanting people to need you, I view to be immature and feminine behaviors. It's how women act.

I don't see how somebody not caring about you is a problem at all. Their care or lack of it is their own problem/business. Imagine a stranger walks up to you on the street and says "I don't care about you". Great, the feeling is mutual, so there's no problem.

In general, I don't like to patronize/validate someone as if he was my property or something. Whether he wants to be validated/patronized, well, that's his own problem, innit. I don't see why I owe anyone attention, and furthermore, feeling entitled to other peoples' attention in the first place seems selfish to me.

In general, I trust others to be independent, proud individuals who don't need no authority or crutch or validation or whatever from other people. If they aren't such people, well, that's their problem again, huh.

(Probably why I don't have friends or gf, since I have no need of anybody, others having need of me seems like a burden)

t. edgy schizoid cunt

>>9182
I looked at his channel before and was not particularly impressed. It seems to me that he gets all his information from rate your music, wikipedia, /mu/ charts, and Scaruffi.
I don't think he is anything special; he just capitalized on a untapped market for a specific niche in an effective way. For me to watch/listen a music reviewer/recommender they need to offer me something that is not just a guy's cursory opinion or a summary off rym. Very little that he has talked about was new to me. If I've already listened to many of the albums and genres that he recommends, he has nothing to offer me except his personal opinion, which I care little about anyways as he tends to follow rym trends and not be original or unique in his perspective. I am not saying that he is a no effort hack or talentless or stupid; he just does not really offer anything new to anyone that has already gotten "into" music.

Examples of music channels that I like (that aren't about teaching instruments or music theory):

Samuel Andreyev
-A Canadian composer that both analyzes music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77OL5ekPnk8
and gives interviews with seldom interviewed artists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWgfVVbK4bA

MrLtia1234
-Two British Blokes that have delved deep into the 70s prog scene (they've read many books, biographies, and testimonies from that scene),
and so give a very unique and detailed perspective on prog music (including a greater than 1 hour long review of The Wall and a Frank Zappa mini-series were they cover many of his material throughout the years): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmCC9KdfcEA&list=PLMoEsgm9rdqYVmcJVkqM-VHZ8x8KsBxgV

Jon Whitney
-I talked about him before ITT. He is the owner of brainwashed.com, I'll let the wikipedia article give a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashed_(website)
He hosts material for dozens of obscure independent artists, as well interviews key players of various scenes throughout time (with a focus on industrial and neofolk):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anjor7F2P7g

Classical Music/ /Reference Recording
-Not an explicit recommender/reviewer per se, but has many interesting classical records on their channel (also features remasters exclusive to the channel as some of the people that are part of the channel team are audio engineers). Here is an interesting rendition of The Goldberg variations from Helmut Walcha -a blind pianist on harpsichord (a far cry from Gould, Richter, Schiff, Hewitt, etc): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCAb5ig90rA&list=PL3UZpQL9LIxOLRwxl1dEfDrH3c8mX5UB1&index=7

I usually have a distaste for Gould, but this Brahms performance changed my mind about him as I now see his more delicate and less eccentric side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az9c8Skylhk&list=PL3UZpQL9LIxOfigsjIfHNN6AuqZVVmfGR&index=9
Some other renditions that I particularly enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6JGv4QVGr4&index=6&list=PL3UZpQL9LIxOfigsjIfHNN6AuqZVVmfGR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc3bS2E7GME&index=3&list=PL3UZpQL9LIxOLRwxl1dEfDrH3c8mX5UB1

>>12070

>Economy about which I talking about is not something that far byound

Tell me, where do you see the ability to make enough of everything for billions of people and give it all away for nothing? You move the goalposts from how you say that the 1st world can only do it because they exploit everybody else, but somehow it's just around the corner that everybody can do it without exploiting anybody? Make up your mind.

>Maybe eleminate all taxes and go back to absolute no any kind of social servises

Unironically sounds great. You don't touch my stuff and I don't touch yours. If you don't understand why someone might desire liberty more than comfort then there is no point trying to explain freedom to you because the concept will just be alien. But let's have you imagine that you roll into a town and start redistributing the goods so everybody gets their 'free stuff'. What if the residents tell you to leave and not come back? What happens to the enemies of socialism in this supposed 'transitional period'? The fact you keep dancing around it makes me think your answer is gulag.

>I not saying about "happy utopia to whole world" I trying to describe current trends and evolution of economics in 1st world countries.

You're talking about how nobody will have to do any work and everthing will be free and how no country will be 'exploited' and that this can't happen in a single state because that doesn't work. If that's not describing some kind of world utopia, I don't know what is.

>>12074

>just around the corner

Yes, in matter of recent centuries in current tecnological advantage - maybe 200, maybe 400 years, I will not play a gypsy and try to predict certain dates.

>and give it all away for nothing?

To some degree. There was already experements recently in some european states. With current economy level... how much Finland tested thier "base income"? 800 euros or something?

>because the concept will just be alien

I sometimes want become survialist in post-apocalypse but I like to place such things just in video games where they belong nowdays.

>The fact you keep dancing around it makes me think your answer is gulag.

How much anarhists for example get on modern european elections? Which general trends in enconomy modern 1st world people is most popular in recent half centuary?
Of cource there always political opposition, current agruings between "right" and "left" but I will not say that general trends shifted that much from their original path. And I don't see many people in EUROPEAN UNION GULAGS.

>You're talking about how nobody will have to do any work and everthing will be free and how no country will be 'exploited' and that this can't happen in a single state because that doesn't work. If that's not describing some kind of world utopia, I don't know what is.

I don't said any of this, you described in this post "commuism utopia" which of cource if happen, will become possible after hundreds of years from now, but it make me wonder if you even reading mine posts.
I said directly that this transitial system started to happen in dedicated states basing on their ability to exploit other states. This states have opportunity to give all of it's citizens "amount of capital (not neccecery in actual money)" to make certain level of life quality avalible without any work. Further evolving of this system depend on increacing this amount of capital. - So this is basicly opposite of what you described in this sentence.

>>11642
since b) contains an absolute statement

>Only the written form is failproof, exact and to the point.

i cannot agree to it, but it contains some other true sub-statements.
same goes for a).

since you formulated it as a binary true/false question, i would answer "neither".
would the question only contain the first statements

> a) Communicating in written form is flawed.
> b) Communicating face to face is flawed.

i would answer "both are true".

in general, i would share the hypothesis of >>11651

i agree with most (all?) posters here stating, that written communication is better for fact based communication, e.g. math thesis, while verbal communication is better suited for emotional communication.

i would want to add another questions: what about forms of communications outside the written/verbal spectrum? (like music, paintings... or "art" in general. you know, the kind of stuff people create because they lack the words to convey what they feel.)

would you agree that those things try to break the bounds of established language to add further things the mind can think about to it?