Rifuarian
-
Posts
956 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Rifuarian
-
-
Sigh. I just wanted a conversation on this issue. Not an argument on the use of a word.
Mods: please either change the name of this topic to "Why Overthink It?" or lock it please. I'd love to keep it open so that discussion can be continued, but not something as pointless as this.
If you have an issue with someone's opinion try confronting it directly instead of fighting it in strawman form in a passive-aggressive thread built on a malapropism wherein you demand that other posters stop doing things that you're doing left and right.
-
2
-
-
I didn't point out specific names on purpose. That would likely get this thread locked.
As for your issue on my use of pseudo-intellectualism, call it whatever you like. That isn't the point of my post anyways.
You don't even have to call out names, just provide specific quotes that support your assertion. In other words, practice what you preach . . . if you want others to support their points then you should do so as well. Otherwise this seems like a passive-aggressive whine towards those nasty people with opinions different than yours.
And if it's not the point of your post then I'd suggest changing the title. And also the content of the post.
-
Because all of these people who have presented these overanalytic views have failed to explain how any of this matters/is relevant. They are being intellectual for intellectual sake (until they explain otherwise).
I whined to my heart's content in my build up to my questions, but I reached my main point regardless: What is the point of these changes that you propose? How many people exactly are going to even realize these changes? What evidence is there that these changes will even make a difference in scores?
Nothing you describe here amounts to pseudo-intellectualism, or even "being intellectual for intellectual sake". Again, I'd say they're the opposite . . . what might be called (a bit unfairly) philistinism. But since you provide no specifics, only a shadowy army of "theys", it's hard to say for sure.
It really just sounds like people stating opinions on a message board, and other people disagreeing with them.
-
3
-
-
Okay, I'm kind of just annoyed by this whole thing so bear with my mini rant.
This season, for whatever reason, there has been a crazy rise in the number of Pseudointellectuals on this forum (let's call then PI's). They have been incessantly trying to shove down our throats how horrible today's shows are. We've gotten everything from complaining about "skirt-like" elements in uniforms, complaints of body movement (let's make a rotating cube instead of doing the chicken dance!), to complaints about how the Cadets are doing their #### math.
They all have their own issues with current shows and the way that corps choose to exhibit their theme, but they all one thing in common: they all love to over analyze and go into obnoxious detail. You'd think, "hey, maybe they would like BD's show then!" BUT NOPE. It turns out they even have issues with the way BD is doing things. Hm. What has DCP done to deserve this? But I'm not here to wonder about the sins of committed by us crazy DCP posters.
My question is this: what is the point? Yes, I do think all of your ideas have merit. Especially the complaints about body movement. But at the same time, how does it REALLY make a difference? How many people will realistically pick up on your little nitpicks about the way a corps presents their show? How many people will actually see the Cadets Waltz section and see the French horns (aka the "one") being attacked by the "many" (the rest of the corps)? How many people will look at the colorguard uniform and think "wow! Even the boys are wearing skirts! I sure wish the corps would stop the androgeny!"
All these PI's will complain about "lazy design," but who really cares? When a majority of the audience is enjoying these shows without needing a ####### English major, what does it matter? There was a complaint about Cadets' colorful banners, oh so eloquently calling them "grade school art class bulletin board ugly." First of all, isn't that your own ####### opinion? Second, why is that bad design? Those banners are clearly helping the audience get a grasp of the theme at hand.
Please don't take this as a personal attack. Nor should anyone take this as me trying to stifle discussion. I encourage people to share their views, no matter how much hate they get for it. I do the same. I'm just so sick and tired of seeing these PI posts and I want a real explanation of WHY it actually matters. And I want to know just how many of the audience is even going to pick up on these details.
Okay, I find a lot of the stuff you're discussing annoying, but can you please explain how it amounts to pseudo-intellectualism? Because I'd say that most of the complaints you've mentioned represent the opposite of pseudo-intellectualism.
Otherwise your post sounds like another whine from someone who has made the stunning discovery that there are people out their with views that are different than yours, and that these people have the unmitigated gall to express these views in public.
-
3
-
-
Actually there's local law in Indianapolis itself:
LOCAL NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS
In Indiana, about a dozen cities, including Indianapolis, have local nondiscrimination laws that specifically protect gays and lesbians in employment, housing, education and public accommodation, which include business transactions. But in much of Indiana there is no such protection.
Not only can the new state RFRA be used to thwart any local anti-discrimination laws, it - unlike any other state RFRA - can be used by for-profit businesses to shut down any civil rights litigation brought against them in private lawsuits.
But don't worry, I'm just a clueless simpleton. I've only ever passed the Indiana bar, never could pass the bar for internet lawyering. I'm sure that some frantic googling will be able to clear up any misinformation I post.
-
1
-
-
Only booing I ever heard in 08 came from a gentleman in a BD jacket making an ### of himself as the corps were slowly meandering off the field.
I can understand why the crowd reaction to second place would have stung, but IMO it can mostly be attributed to surprise at the result. I know I was shocked. It had been decades since the semifinals winner had not also won finals night, and I honestly never expected to see any movement in the top spot at finals. Combine the surprise with the Phantom's unforgettable performance, and there you have it.
-
1
-
-
Have you read the federal RFRA? It most definitely focuses on shifting burdens.
Your second sentence makes no sense because a subsequent federal court concluded that the federal RFRA law simply does not apply to states, so there is no "invalidation" argument to consider. It is this fact that prompted Indiana, and 19 other states, to draft their own similar laws.
I suspect that DCI's lawyers recognize that they are in a no-win situation and made a non-committal statement, and I suspect, that the DCI BOD has rightly left it up to individual corps to address the law as they see fit.
Garfield, did you notice how I quoted you the US statute in which the RFRA is encoded into law? That might clue you in on whether or not I've read the act. Didn't even need to google it, got a big ol' fat book of statutes right here next to me.
And I see nothing in City of Boerne v. Flores that invalidates that exception. It would be odd if there was, of course, since that would be well outside the purview of that case.
-
You said it yourself, and then you said it doesn't exist.
What burden did the USSC see? The burden placed on the rights of religious expression by solving the aggrieved's claim. What was the compelling government interest? In maintaining the freedom of expression of differing interests. The government's "compelling interest" cannot shift the burden of discrimination from one entity to another entity. That's unconstitutional according to the highest court in the land, and now in Indiana, too.
It is true that Indiana's version is more broad in that the federal ruling dealt with private corporations and some non-profit religious organizations. The Indiana law expands that to include individuals.
As is usual, it will be up to the Indiana judiciary to craft the procedures for abiding by the law. Application of those procedures must be equally meted out, and you can be sure that the state solicitor will watch very carefully to minimize exposure to liability from discriminate application of the law.
Yes, the government's compelling interest most certainly can impose those burdens ("shift" here is questionable at best). It's right there in the language of the federal RFRA:
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.(b) ExceptionGovernment may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.There is no Supreme Court decision that I am aware which has invalidated this part of the law. Again, one of the principal issues with the Indiana law is the addition of the word "essential", which dramatically raises the burden of proof on the government even though strict scrutiny is already required in free exercise cases.
Again, while I believe the law will have limited political impact the very fact that it was signed into law is completely outrageous and concern over it by DCI and its many fans is reasonable.
-
2
-
-
The end result of the 1993 federal law and this one is that the government cannot shift the burden of one entity onto another in order to resolve the first's burden . . .
There seems to be some confusion about the use of the word "burden" in the RFRAs. The burden referred to in these laws refers to the burden that the government may impose on the free exercise of religion in order to further "compelling government interest". For example, government may determined it is in its interest to prevent for profit businesses providing public accommodations and services from refusing service to minority customers - racial, sexual, ethnic, or otherwise - for religious reasons.
The type of burden you mentioned is not a part of the language of either the federal or Indiana RFRA.
-
I'm not sure I'd give the Columbia letter as much weight as you. Their insights are obviously biased and exposed by their own statements. In their opinion, the Supremes were wrong in their interpretation of the Hobby Lobby case. That hardly makes them an unbiased panel of arbiters out of the proverbial box.
This has been a lively debate. Thanks for the civility that allowed the mods to keep it open.
Pence et al. were straight up lying about the Indiana RFRA in claiming it was the same as the earlier RFRA laws, that it didn't target LGBTs, etc. The letter exposes that lie and there's really no way around it and no refuting. The law dramatically raised the stakes by requiring the government to prove that a burden on the exercise of religion be proved "essential" to compelling government interests. That may sound like a minor change but it's significant. It could allow the RFRA to run roughshod over Indiana's state and local anti-discrimination laws (though the state law, conveniently, does not consider LGBTs to be a protected group) and opens the state to all sorts of litigation that the proponents of the law probably didn't envisage when they were try to score some cheap political points.
By the way, the professors signing the letter represent a wide range of political and legal leanings. They're not unbiased but it is unlikely you'll find an opposing viewpoint that even comes close to being that even handed.
-
Almost 30 states have similar laws.
Here is a letter signed by dozens of legal scholars - including several IU law professors I know personally - which, among other things, explains why the Indiana RFRA differs from the state and federal RFRAs of the 90s. Though I recommend reading the entire letter you can jump to page 5 for the relevant information.
-
3
-
-
Garfield:
As some others have attempted to point out, this statement strikes me as disingenuous, and incorrectly conflates case law over the past decades across the country with the current law in question (and many others like it), which are trying to ride the coat-tails of prior precedent to accomplish something entirely different.
Gov. Pence signed the bill in a small private ceremony, with several invited religious personnel. But prominent among the others invitees to the ceremony were various conservative lobbyists who were behind this law, including Eric Miller, the founder and head of Advance America, whose website makes no bones about the real purpose:
Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection!Here are just three examples where SB 101 will help:Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!A Christian business should not be punished for refusing to allow a man to use the women’s restroom!A church should not be punished because they refuse to let the church be used for a homosexual wedding!It dumbfounds me than anyone could think this is in any way comparable to the 1993 Federal law, which was passed nearly unanimously by a Democratic congress. The intent here is clear even though Pence was too chicken#### to come out and say it.
-
I'm not convinced that the law was passed now because the Indiana legislature suddenly became concerned that the Amish were being forced to accept blood transfusions and Native Americans weren't being allowed to use peyote. Some of the law's advocates have been much less circumspect about its motivations than the governor has been.
While I think the law will have little, if any, practical impact anyone who attributes the motivations behind it to concern about the Amish are either ignorant or, worse, disingenuous. I'm a church going Republican and frankly this whole charade is disgusting.
-
3
-
-
Having spent 8 weeks there in USAF tech school and another month twice along my USAF career, I can tell you a hundred reasons not to return to Wichita Falls :-)
-
Exhibit A, Horn Teacher, that entitlement doesn't just exist in the so called new generation.
Whenever this topic comes up it seems like it's older fans complaining about vets being cut.
But, y'know, kids these days, moronic generational stereotyping, blah blah blah, etc.
-
1
-
-
I'm glad guard has come so far since then. That is cringe worthy.
I find most guards cringe worthy (when I bother to watch them), then and now. This guard is one of the few that caught my attention in a good way, particularly during Adagio.
To this day this remains the best show I've seen live.
-
Uh what? Replacing contras with a synth is not the equivalent of replacing cymbals on the field with actual cymbals in the pit... A synthesizer sounds nothing like the sound of an actual horn.
As for Madison 2010, I wasnt fortunate to watch it live (or 2011 for that matter which I believe had the same large contra line) but I can hear a pretty large difference in sound. Especially in the opener for both openers. THAT was a good low brass sound. Sounds like we both have very different ears.
Of course I didn't say it was the equivalent. The equivalent - which I mentioned - would be putting contras in the pit (you can put anything up there!). I said it would be better. You could replace these heavy, cumbersome, and expensive instruments with a couple of keyboards. With a nice enough sound system you could fill a stadium with a fuller, richer bass sound than a whole corps of contras could produce, right? Even Madison with its 20 contras knew this. I could kind of hear the tubas in 2010, but what I heard most of all was a deeply satisfying WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM emanating from the pit.
-
I guess it's all about the type of person you are (brass/guard/pit/percussion). I'd notice the difference in adding 5 more powerful contras than 5 cymbals. Cymbals are background noise to me. Can't the pit use crash cymbals anyways? Wouldn't that have basically the same effect? (forgive me for my percussion ignorance)
Can't the pit also use contras? Or better yet, can't the pit just use synthesizers and save the corps tens of thousands dollars? I guarantee you that within the next decade that some corps will use this logic as a justification for dumping synths (unlike dumping cymbals it makes a lot of financial, if not musical, sense).
I remember in 2010 when Madison introduced its vaunted 20 man contra line (incidentally this is the year they cut their cymbal line). I didn't notice any real difference between their sound and the sounds of smaller contra lines. Of course I am a mere percussionist, but I know many brass players who made a similar complaint in 2010. Is it time that drum corps started cutting these ruinously expensive instruments?
-
the show design is not about what interests "you". no one designs a show for "you". you're the one trying to place your opinion above anyone else's.
"i watch the pit. what's wrong with that?"
ROFL. this isn't about whether it's ok for you do that. the point was (and is) that the show designers probably don't intend for you to watch the pit. so while it's perfectly ok for "you" to watch the FE the whole show, it should occur to you -- just possibly -- that it is NOT the designer's intent.
You misunderstand me. Never did I maintain that shows are designed for me personally, and I certainly did not place my opinion above anyone elses. Nor did I ask what's wrong with watching the pit as that would be a moronic question to ask. I watch what I want to watch and couldn't really give two ####s what anyone thinks. Live and let live. You seem determined to respond to what you wish I had written rather than what I actually said.
Of course "the designers" (it's not clear who you mean when you say this, there are several designers that have input into the visual program and they do not always have the same goals) do not mean for me to watch the pit the whole show. Who said otherwise, other than you. The point is that there are any number of things on the field that can draw your eye away from what "the designers" want you to see, whatever that may be - and it may be multiple things. I've listed some of these things above. Cymbals are just another one of these, and I personally don't find them any more distracting than anything else. You disagree, and that's fine. But do not generalize your opinion. And all this is based on the ridiculous assumption that "the designers", including apparently the percussion designer, intend for you to never look at the cymbals, when of course they do intend so. If a corps didn't want you to look at something it wouldn't put that thing on the field.
and why do you keep trying to turn the discussion into a personal issue and not about the facts?The point is that you're universalizing your personal opinions and declaring them "facts". You made it personal from the start. And let's not forgot your dismissive "Obviously a percussionist". Who's making things personal again?
sorry for stepping on your toes. i'll leave you alone now.I rather feel like I stepped on your toes when I had the temerity to disagree with your dearly held opinion. And this is the second time you've unilaterally declared the discussion over. Will you resist temptation or will you cave once again? I await with bated breath.
-
lol you find the visual elements your SUPPOSED to look at distracting and vice versa. obviously a percussionist. end of discussion.
And if cymbals are on the field then they are also a visual element that's supposed to be looked at. If they don't interest you, then don't look at them. Just like I don't look at all the other visual elements that might not interest me. You've run yourself into the ground here. And yes, I'm a percussionist. So what? You are very plainly not a percussionist yet I don't consider this a handicap when it comes to having an opinion on the matter. But what does this have to do with discussion - though it's less a discussion and more you universalizing your opinions and getting called on it - and why does me being a percussionist mean "end of discussion"?
If those awful cymbals really are so distracting, then go get a hot dog when a cymbal line is on the field. That would be a shame though. If you skip SCV you'll be missing one of the finest percussion sections to ever grace the field . . . and their cymbal line is an integral part of that.
-
2
-
-
It's simply the nature of the instrument. If there were members of the hornline waving around two mellophone bells -- one in each hand, you'd agree it's a visual distraction. But shiny plates waving all over the place -- that's just fine :-)
No, I wouldn't really find it distracting. Drum corps is full of shiny, sparkly, colorful, big, potentially distracting things. Spit polished bells that reflect stadium lights. Sequins and mirrors on uniforms. Brightly colored flags and bright white rifles being tossed about. Massive vibraphones and marimbas in the pit. And those oh so distracting white circles that we call "bass drums". Yet in spite of all that I find myself more than capable of paying attention to whatever it is I want to pay attention to. I'm sorry that you can't, but please do not generalize your personal problem.
-
3
-
-
Here comes the ad hominem :-)
Long before you my child. And I think you're misreading my opinion (and instead reading Rifuarian's attempts to marginalize them).
My opinion is...I actually enjoy a plate line. It just doesn't make any sense at all in today's drum corps.
I'm not marginalizing your opinion. You're universalizing yours.
And there's room in "modern" drum corps for all sorts of things. Including plates. Not every corps wants them, that's cool. Not every corps wants flugels or euphs either, but it's cool when they're used (even though most people can't hear the difference). Not everyone uses rifles (talk about dated!) but there's still room for them in modern corps. Vive la difference, down with homogeneity.
-
1
-
-
Obviously. This is why every corps still marches a plate line.
One lemming jumps and the rest will follow, regardless of whether jumping is a good or bad idea. It's all about what's fashionable. When tubas and tenor drums are next on the chopping block (and this will happen in the next couple of decades, it's already happening in band) I wonder if those who are so dismissive of cymbal lines will be singing the same tune?
-
When the line is playing they're a traveling strobe light. Difficult for me to ignore and always catching my eye.
The designers of the show are thinking about the judges eyes ALL THE TIME. If you are not a judge then obviously the distracting element doesn't apply to you.
And the sound may be there. But I don't hear it. Sorry.
Adjusted your post slightly to better reflect reality.
-
1
-
The Rise of Pseudointellectuals on DCP
in DCI World Class Corps Discussions
Posted
They usually aren't, no.
If you want an on-topic question (dunno how discussing the crux of your argument is off-topic, but that's fine), why do you have such an issue with people using this board as it's intended to be used? It's an outlet for opinions on drum corps, good or bad. Posts don't have to make a difference. No one has to care. All they have to do is follow the community guidelines and that's that. If you disagree with a post, you can ignore or you can debate it (with your post I'm taking the latter option). No one is under any obligation to demonstrate the relevance of their views. Now in that vein you're free to complain about people expressing views that you consider unimportant or irrelevant (which I take to mean you disagree with them but that's just supposition). And likewise I can point out why I think your complaint is ridiculous.