Superbowl Halftime Show - M.I.A. Flips the Bird

[JackRiddler]

Either way, 'satanic' to me is a willfully cultivated state of mind wherein the rights of the individual not only outweigh the rights of the collective but the rights of the collective and of other individuals are actively attacked with the devoted zeal of rabid dogs.

How is this not a definition, if not of capitalism itself, then of the Randian ideology common with the banksters?

'Satanist' as a state of mind produces incontinent and self-worshipping individuals who often form groups to increase the fun and who are a danger to society at large in every conceivable way they can conjure, individually and collectively.

Doesn't this depend on how harmful "the fun" is in the first place?

As for Madonna, I don't believe she's anybody's puppet. If she's in a dangerous cult, she's one of the controllers. Look at her obscene wealth! Look how she misuses it to polish her image. [or for some other child snatching-related endeavor we can only guess at. sorry PW.]

This is out of line insofar as things "we can only guess at" can be thrown at anyone. Anyone at all. Self-worship is not evidence of involvement in child-snatching endeavors, is it?

.

[kelley]

Or is she after a bigger piece of the world at the expense of some poor brown [red, tan, white] people?

yes. this is the operative agenda. how it's implemented . . . well, i guess that's what this thread is about. does this make a song like 'ray of light' into some type of coded luciferan mantra? of this, i'm not so sure.

[crikkett]

I think you are conflating several different viewpoints in this thread. I can only speak to my own,

You put yourself in my wheelhouse by using language usually confined to the areas I mentioned.

Willow, great stuff. I'm going to use that the next time I want to bludgeon someone in a debate rather than understand their point of view.


I just have to decide what vocabulary I can claim sovereignty over. I rather like it all.

[crikkett]

what is the significance of the use of the song "Like a Prayer?

that song always reminds me of a priest abusing a child.
maybe it's supposed to make me think of that, i don't know.

Yikes, what an awful image. Maybe that's why I was never able to sit through the video as a kid and why I think it's an icky song as an adult.

[JackRiddler]

.

This has taken an ugly turn where on no evidence some of you seem to be treating it as assumed (!) that Madonna, or this show, is somehow involved in or endorsing child abuse. I'm sorry to have to point out the logic seems to be out of a witchhunt. I think willow was saying, politely, that this trivializes the reality of real and known abuse. I'm disturbed by the lack of distinction and the easy move between seeing a (possible) symbol, to identifying (assuming) what its referent must be, to assuming the philosophy that must underly it, to assuming the show is meant as an advocacy or a ritual of said philosophy, to adding rumored acts that must go along with that philosophy, and finally to practically accusing anyone involved with it of endorsing or participating in the acts.

.

[sunny]

Either way, 'satanic' to me is a willfully cultivated state of mind wherein the rights of the individual not only outweigh the rights of the collective but the rights of the collective and of other individuals are actively attacked with the devoted zeal of rabid dogs.

How is this not a definition, if not of capitalism itself, then of the Randian ideology common with the banksters?

'Satanist' as a state of mind produces incontinent and self-worshipping individuals who often form groups to increase the fun and who are a danger to society at large in every conceivable way they can conjure, individually and collectively.

Doesn't this depend on how harmful "the fun" is in the first place?

As for Madonna, I don't believe she's anybody's puppet. If she's in a dangerous cult, she's one of the controllers. Look at her obscene wealth! Look how she misuses it to polish her image. [or for some other child snatching-related endeavor we can only guess at. sorry PW.]

This is out of line insofar as things "we can only guess at" can be thrown at anyone. Anyone at all. Self-worship is not evidence of involvement in child-snatching endeavors, is it?

.

My dear Dr. Spock, your arrogance is appalling.

First of all, my definition of the philosophy, mind-set, and lifestyle commonly referred to as 'satanic' is predicated on 'the fun' being harmful to others. Good old hedonistic pleasures that harm no one and where everybody is in agreement is not a concern to me, never has been never will be.

Jack, I don't know who you think I am, but let me tell you a little story about living as an openly self-identified Socialist on the Redneck Riviera. [you can find proof on my FB page if you care to look for it] I stay an out and proud Socialist in this pungent environment because I resist all attempts by arrogant self appointed preachers and 'moral' leaders to tell me who I am or who I should be. Quite casually, I ignore arbitrary rules about which words I can say and how I am allowed to say them. 'Lines' drawn by others over who I can criticize and when, whether and in which venues I am allowed to speculate or make guesses about anything, anything at all barring fires in crowded theaters and incitements to murder and mayhem, and whether I am allowed to make educated leaps in logic concerning people with huge amounts of money and power and self-evident agendas are derisively ignored. True story.


Second. Yes, my definition of satanism could also apply to capitalism. Some people call capitalism a satanic cult. Who can deny it is an economic structure wholly dependent on thought manipulation? It is ritualized, exploitative, demands bloody sacrifice of others, glorifies the individual, coerces us to revere certain symbols, has regular violence orgasms, and takes a dim view of the collective. Satan himself need not apply for the job of central organizing deity of Capitalism but he can if he wants to, I suppose. And you still do not have to believe in the existence of a spirit being called Satan or Lucifer or Baphomet or Set for capitalism and satanic to mean the same thing. I'm not sure why this can't be a point of agreement between us. Yeah yeah, everybody's just trying to get paid but that's just the worker bees. The monarchs of the system have a lot of leisure time.

Third, is it not common knowledge around here that Madonna snatched a child from Malawi? You can call it whatever the hell 'appropriate' words you want to call it, but the fact is Madonna descended upon a country of poor starving black people, threw around a shit-ton of shady money, set her sights on a certain child [who the fuck knows why but Madonna has her 'reasons' you can bet your ass.] and took that kid over the protests and legal action of the child's family and the country's court system. I'm sure not all self-worshippers snatch children but anyone who snatches children is a self-worshipper, if by self-worship you mean a total lack of empathy or regard for the rights and person-hood of others.

[JackRiddler]

Jack, I don't know who you think I am, but let me tell you a little story about living as an openly self-identified Socialist on the Redneck Riviera. [you can find proof on my FB page if you care to look for it] I stay an out and proud Socialist in this pungent environment because I resist all attempts by arrogant self appointed preachers and 'moral' leaders to tell me who I am or who I should be. Quite casually, I ignore arbitrary rules about which words I can say and how I am allowed to say them. 'Lines' drawn by others over who I can criticize and when, whether and in which venues I am allowed to speculate or make guesses about anything, anything at all barring fires in crowded theaters and incitements to murder and mayhem, and whether I am allowed to make educated leaps in logic concerning people with huge amounts of money and power and self-evident agendas are derisively ignored. True story.

The comment that has you so defensive (quoted again below) didn't mention you by name and didn't speculate about who you or anyone who shares your opinion might be. But okay, you felt addressed, since you are those looking for a witch in the Superbowl show. Your hair-trigger trash talk is unnecessary. You may be all that, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. You're real tough and you won't back down, and so? Never mind if you're right or wrong? You didn't present fact or logic before declaring that the Superbowl show and/or Madonna was pro-child abuse, and when challenged on it, you resort to pretending someone's enforcing rules on you (how? because I said something was "out of line"? absent evidence, it was) and a monologue about how you will not be intimidated, rebel to the end, etc. Very stirring.

Instead of being so easily insulted you could have just cut to the Malawi story, the first factual claim (whether accurate or not I do not know) that you've made to back up your thesis.

Capitalist ideology, you say

is ritualized, exploitative, demands bloody sacrifice of others, glorifies the individual, coerces us to revere certain symbols, has regular violence orgasms, and takes a dim view of the collective.

And it doesn't need "Satan" to do any of that.

Again, the comment that prompts such offense:

.

This has taken an ugly turn where on no evidence some of you seem to be treating it as assumed (!) that Madonna, or this show, is somehow involved in or endorsing child abuse. I'm sorry to have to point out the logic seems to be out of a witchhunt. I think willow was saying, politely, that this trivializes the reality of real and known abuse. I'm disturbed by the lack of distinction and the easy move between seeing a (possible) symbol, to identifying (assuming) what its referent must be, to assuming the philosophy that must underly it, to assuming the show is meant as an advocacy or a ritual of said philosophy, to adding rumored acts that must go along with that philosophy, and finally to practically accusing anyone involved with it of endorsing or participating in the acts.

.

[sunny]

This hair-trigger trash talk and self-aggrandizement is unnecessary.

There you go again. One person's trash talk and self-aggrandizement is the other person having the gall to seize her right to express her own considered thoughts in her own way.

You may be all that, but it has nothing to do with the discussion here. You're real tough and you won't back down, and so? Never mind if you're right or wrong?

I didn't realize you'd been elevated to Final Arbiter of Who is Right or Wrong. I must have missed the election. What other words besides "IF" and "I believe" do you recommended I use to signal that I am offering an opinion on the theoretical activities of insulated rich people who could not care less and will not be harmed in any way if I speculate or make guesses, labeled as such, about them? Did I miss the referendum?

You can call my personal comments blowing my own horn if you wish, but I can call it a general protest against what I perceive as a toxic atmosphere being created by a semantics police mentality. There isn't much you can do about these thoughts of mine or the expression of them unless someone invests you with the power to arrest me or you can care enough to persuade me otherwise. You can be as arrogant and insulting as you like in expressing your opinions but it's kind of ridiculous on it's face to barely stop short of implying I have no right to be insulted or to express the feeling of being insulted or to push back against it.

Instead of being so easily insulted you could have just cut to the Malawi story, the first factual claim (whether accurate or not I do not know) that you've made to back up your thesis.

In case my horn wasn't loud enough, I am tougher than that. I wasn't actually expressing feelings of personal insult from your collection of words or the arrangement of them, but I reserve the right to do so should I feel inclined in the future. I was offended by yet another of your attempts, conscious or no, to make someone feel intimidated for the crime of not communicating in the Jack Riddler approved fashion.

And hey, now that I think about it, why is it by your lights comments are not allowed if they push back by sharing of personal experience? Can I find that in the section under the sub-heading 'Skip the Small Talk and Jump To Your Thesis, Dumbass'? in the chapter on 'Are You Credible and Worthy Enough to Offer Personal Insight Within Eyesight of Jack Riddler?'

You can receive my words to you however you like because I do not presume the right to dictate your opinion of me, but I can share with you the spirit in which my words were given: You are trying to force people to communicate their own thoughts and feelings using your criteria, and I have seen you accusing others of doing this to you. I believe some people here feel shamed and intimidated by you because you shame and intimidate people when they use language and have thoughts and feelings that are not up to your high standards and exacting specifications. You are not just implying that some people here are shitty human beings because of our failure to communicate under your criteria, you come right out and say we are. I don't know why you do it but I don't have to accept it. Others can disagree with me and say so however they like, but we can actually get somewhere if everybody can agree that no one person or group owns the rights to human communication.

[JackRiddler]

You can receive my words to you however you like because I do not presume the right to dictate your opinion of me, but I can share with you the spirit in which my words were given: You are trying to force people to communicate their own thoughts and feelings using your criteria, and I have seen you accusing others of doing this to you. I believe some people here feel shamed and intimidated by you because you shame and intimidate people when they use language and have thoughts and feelings that are not up to your high standards and exacting specifications. You are not just implying that some people here are shitty human beings because of our failure to communicate under your criteria, you come right out and say we are. I don't know why you do it but I don't have to accept it. Others can disagree with me and say so however they like, but we can actually get somewhere if everybody can agree that no one person or group owns the rights to human communication.

More of the same. You presented a thesis. I rejected it. I didn't say how you should feel or what words you should use. This isn't about semantics. I spoke in a general way that communicated my view of your idea that the Superbowl show was "Satanic" and that Madonna supports child abuse. I didn't even address the last comment to you directly, precisely because I feared you would react in this highly insulted fashion. (Who's intimidating whom?) I certainly didn't call you a shitty human being, either by implying it or coming right out and saying it, as you claim. That's what you read into the fact that I disagree with you. It is apparent that you feel intimidated by disagreement. Perhaps you hate the way I disagree because I am usually systematic and effective at it. Too bad. You project on to me the role of the intimidator. I can't help it when I write something like, "your view on the Superbowl show is bullshit unless you can demonstrate otherwise with evidence" and you read that as an accusation that you personally are stupid, shitty, worthless, etc. and must submit to my cruel (if non-existent) dictatorship over the RI discourse. This is a very sorry reaction, and the opposite of secure.

.

[Saurian Tail]

I usually pass on these sorts of confrontations but since I started the thread, I thought I would make a few observations.

It is important for thinking types to understand that, however unintentionally, they can sometimes come off as arrogant know-it-alls. Many times, people are simply sharing observations and intuitive thoughts, not presenting a thesis. Not everyone feels obligated (nor should they) to present their entire train of thought before posting.

People are intuitives, thinkers, feelers and sensors. People see the world differently. They communicate their thoughts and experiences differently. What seems perfectly natural to one person will cause another person to grind their teeth. It is vitally important that people be allowed to be themselves. Make every attempt to be aware of your own triggers.

In my view, the only rational way to proceed given the wide range of communication styles and personal experiences is to always give comments the most positive possible interpretation before responding. Assume the very best case scenario and the very best intentions on the behalf of the poster. Assume that your interpretation is probably lacking in completeness.

As for this thread, my hope was to get as many perspectives as possible. Madonna is an interesting character to say the least. If someone has an intuitive insight to share, I want them to feel absolutely free to share it. This is not a topic that can possibly have any sort of definitive right answer, so I don't see the need for anyone to be too insistent that their own particular view is the correct one.

[Nordic]

Yeah. What ST said ^^^

We're talking about the superbowl halftime show.

I'd say a great deal of speculation and stream of consciousness type ramblings should be accepted here. My 2 cents anyway.

And if we're talking about the PTB being "satanic" or "demonic" or living off the energy of death, human sacrifice, and child abuse, I think a fair amount of chatting as to the ritual aspect of the superbowl is in order. I mean, Madonna is a classic case for an RI thread, and so is the militaristic takeover of the NFL PR branding.

the superbowl hype, and especially the halftime shows, have given me the serious creeps for years now. I'm glad I missed this one, actually. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised at satanic connections to madonna. I believe she destroyed the feminist movement almopst singlehandedly, and was a majoe force which led the world into 80's "risky business" type Reaganesque materialism where the ends justify the means. She's a coarse and vulgar person, with absolutely no talent EXCEPT this.

[Project Willow]

Oh, I don't like to see such contention between two of my favorite people.
.........................

I would like to address the rhetoric issue.

I think it is incredibly important to reserve a term or phrase for ritual activity involving torture, gang rape, mutilation, and murder. In my experience, satanic ritual has served as inclusive descriptor. It would feel minimizing to me to see it used to describe Madonna's theater act. I am also concerned that spending a great amount of time speculating about the meaning of a bit of entertainment, in the absence of testimony of direct harm, or testimony or evidence of intended harm, can contribute to trivializing real acts of abuse. My general concern, as always, is that these heinous criminal rituals be further disappeared by an over broadening of language and focus. I do not think this is trivial.

Thinking and saying so doesn't make me some kind of language censor.

Thinking and saying so doesn't make it okay for crikkett (or anyone) to call me an asshole.

Rhetoric has always been an issue for the RA problem. Former RI member Mr. Salter wrote a great chapter on it for the Noblitt's last book. Perhaps it is time to consider some new terminology so we all can be precise and understand one another, use language to reveal rather than minimize and confuse.

That our society has banished knowledge of RA and refuses to provide victims any visibility or recourse is an intolerable situation, not just for victims but for bystanders too. I share JR's concern that Madonna may serve as convenient vessel for a whole lot of suppressed fury.

[Simulist]

Jeez Louise. I don't mind a good fight, but I hate seeing people I think of as friends fighting.

To me, this sort of sums up where I'm at with this:

I am also concerned that spending a great amount of time speculating about the meaning of a bit of entertainment, in the absence of testimony of direct harm, or testimony or evidence of intended harm, can contribute to trivializing real acts of abuse.

The key words of course being, "in the absence of testimony of direct harm."

Those of you who are seeing this half-time show as dangerous may well be right — and I'm just too dull to see it (which has happened before!) — but "in the absence of testimony of direct harm," yes: I do worry about "trivializing real acts of abuse." I sincerely do.

[sunny]

More of the same. You presented a thesis. I rejected it. I didn't say how you should feel or what words you should use. This isn't about semantics. I spoke in a general way that communicated my view of your idea that the Superbowl show was "Satanic" and that Madonna supports child abuse. I didn't even address the last comment to you directly, precisely because I feared you would react in this highly insulted fashion. (Who's intimidating whom?) I certainly didn't call you a shitty human being, either by implying it or coming right out and saying it, as you claim. That's what you read into the fact that I disagree with you. It is apparent that you feel intimidated by disagreement. Perhaps you hate the way I disagree because I am usually systematic and effective at it. Too bad. You project on to me the role of the intimidator. I can't help it when I write something like, "your view on the Superbowl show is bullshit unless you can demonstrate otherwise with evidence" and you read that as an accusation that you personally are stupid, shitty, worthless, etc. and must submit to my cruel (if non-existent) dictatorship over the RI discourse. This is a very sorry reaction, and the opposite of secure.

Your right to order your own perceptions of reality and express them accordingly stands inviolate as far as I'm concerned.

People are intuitives, thinkers, feelers and sensors. People see the world differently. They communicate their thoughts and experiences differently. What seems perfectly natural to one person will cause another person to grind their teeth. It is vitally important that people be allowed to be themselves. Make every attempt to be aware of your own triggers.

Thank you Saurian. Despite the meaning JR tried to impose on my words, my intent was only to express my own reaction to the spectacle, and to talk with people here who were expressing their own perceptions. I never claimed to be the bringer of inarguable truth concerning Madonna's position in an inarguable cult. There does exist a set of facts, including a legally sanctioned child-snatching, a certain pattern of behavior with Madonna quite apart from the Superbowl halftime show, that leads me to intuitively speculate on her state of mind and the intent of her actions. Do I believe she literally sacrifices children to Satan or some other deity? Hell, I doubt it very much but I reserve the right to 'go there' should I perceive an urge to wonder about it, with her or anyone else.

I am also concerned that spending a great amount of time speculating about the meaning of a bit of entertainment, in the absence of testimony of direct harm, or testimony or evidence of intended harm, can contribute to trivializing real acts of abuse.

The last thing I want to do is trivialize acts of abuse, but don't acts of abuse often come in the form of ritualized 'entertainment'? Can we agree that some individual acts of entertainment are created, even organized around ritual, with the express intent to cause harm, psychic and otherwise? Shoot, I include most Christian church revivals in that definition of occult entertainment.

My general concern, as always, is that these heinous criminal rituals be further disappeared by an over broadening of language and focus. I do not think this is trivial.

I do not think it's trivial either, I understand and respect your concern with lack of precision in the language of abuse, and I do not deny the power of words to cause harm. But sometimes a personal perception of issues that concern a person is just that, and initially in an effort to obtain a deeper understanding the person may reach for and grab the wrong words, according to one criteria or another, to describe their feelings on the broader implications in play without meaning to cause harm to any individual or breach anyone's rightful boundaries.

I'm not sure there is anything we can do to fix the human tendency to not always say exactly what we mean in exactly the spirit in which we intend, or to not always receive the words of others in the spirit in which they were intended. That is not to say we shouldn't strive for perfect communication of thoughts, feelings, and ideas but I believe this begins and ends when each party is accorded at least the initial presumption that they are communicating with a modicum of integrity and good faith.

[Mx32]

Would we class entertainers such as Madonnas as "normal" (in the psychological sense) and their fans as "normal"?

Becuase if I look at what Madonna is/does it strikes me she's un-normal enough to be the kiNd of person I'd expect to belong to a weird cult that did crazy rituals.

I have always found much of pop music culture pretty weird and it's fans often strike me as being incredibly stupid people.

I come from a British Acid House background myself so I understand the appeal of dance, machine made music and drugs - what I could never really "get" is the status to which pop music and pop musicians are elevated to in British culture.

I could never understand why my friends would spend money on what are, ultimatley, really terrible ryhmes on a limited number of subjects (love and shagging, mostly). How many 3 minute songs on the theme of "i love you - please don't leave me" or "I'm glad you've gone" can one human actually own?

In the UK we even had the novelty records phenomenon - people literally going to the shops (pre-internets) to spend their money on records everyone agreed were utter shit.

I find the entire industry pointless - if LadyGaGa or Britney release a new tune tomorrow with a new video to go with it I've no idea why anyone would be interested. What is it people are interested in? There's no script to follow, no unfolding plot, no surprises or twists (unless you count a dress made from meat as some kind of plot twist?).

Books, comics, films, games - I get these things, they actually "last" and develop (a typical book might require 7 days to get from beginning to end, for example) Pop Music though - it's just 3 mintes of some right old shit.

Not all pop music is bad in the sense I can't listen to it but, really, why would anyone on Earth feel the need to own Madonna's or Britney's next 3 minute song about absolutely nothing and watch a video in which some stupid, plotless stuff happens ("Cool! At 2 mins 45 seconds Britney is dressed up like a giant panda - and she rides a motorbike - OMG!! OMG!! YOU MUST WATCH THIS - I LUV BRITNEY.")