Being a Purist

[Vhite]

I'm not sure I understand the term right but Sci-fi I guess. Unless it has something truly unique and alien I don't consider it to be sci-fi, so fuck Star Wars and other galactic bore fests where guys from eighties live like everything is just like present just somewhat modernized. Over ten years has civilization changed more than over that far future they all pretend to be in.

Star Wars doesn't take place in the future; it takes place long ago (in a galaxy far, far away)...

Yeah, I know that but is suppose to be futuristic. I just dislike the cultural imprint, technology isn't all that changes with time.

Y'know, I'm not sure if I've actually seen any sci fi showing how our culture could change.

Well there is one exception: Demolition Man

Yep, that's the only example I can think of.

EDIT: Just thought the Imperium of Man in 40k might count as well.

This "cultural scifi" sounds interesting, any reccomendations?

Sadly there really isn't all that many, most of what I would call a good sci-fi was in books. As for recommendations try Time Enough For Love if you want something optimistic and 1984 if you want something negative. Also world of Bioshock Infinite seems to be interesting but I haven't played it yet.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Another thing I?m a purist with is Archery.

Basically I dislike the new type of layered wood bows that are mainly used. I really dislike any form of artificial materials used in making the bow aka Olympic bows.

I hate any form of addition that makes them easier to shoot, such as stabilizers or sights.

And when it comes to compound bows... I honestly don't see any real difference to a compound verses a crossbow. Other than when you have to pull the string back there the same thing.

To me using a compound bow is no longer archery, I don?t know what it is... but it aint archery. You are taking 90% of the skill involved in using a bow and turning it into mechanical options.


These two things are my only issues of note, but I?m sure these feeling creep in, in other areas. So the point of all this.

TL;DR Are you a purist about anything? If so why?

I'm right there with you. I absolutely hate the look and feel of compounds. I much prefer traditional styles like recurves, as I learned with them. I always found them much more satisfying to use. Although I'm not sure if that counts as purism as much as it's traditionalism.

 

[Baneat]

Archery purism is silly. Amish logic, technology to this point AND NO FARTHER.

Think of it like FPS on console VS PC, on PC there is no aim assist and people regard it as the better experience. Console FPS has aim assist of all kinds and is considered inferior.

This is kind of the same argument with archery, you have these counter balances, pullies, breaks and all kinds of crap and it takes less skill to aim, compared to just a standard bow and a bit of string.

I am a bit of a purist, "swearing" in a song is ok but when it's removed it just breaks the flow of the song. Archery is the same, although I am not really into archery. I am sure there is more but I can't think at the moment.

Spoiler: This is a bow

Spoiler: This is like bowling with the rails up

Funny you'd mention that

The problem with console FPS is that your equipment is clunky and a huge buffer between the player and the interface. A PC is more technically powerful and the laser is far more complicated than the (potentiometer?) present on a thumbstick. Purists just fetishise the past because they want to be Robin Hood. All you have to do is set the mark further out if the equipment's better, the best shooter should still win.

 

[omega 616]

Archery purism is silly. Amish logic, technology to this point AND NO FARTHER.

Think of it like FPS on console VS PC, on PC there is no aim assist and people regard it as the better experience. Console FPS has aim assist of all kinds and is considered inferior.

This is kind of the same argument with archery, you have these counter balances, pullies, breaks and all kinds of crap and it takes less skill to aim, compared to just a standard bow and a bit of string.

I am a bit of a purist, "swearing" in a song is ok but when it's removed it just breaks the flow of the song. Archery is the same, although I am not really into archery. I am sure there is more but I can't think at the moment.

Spoiler: This is a bow

Spoiler: This is like bowling with the rails up

Funny you'd mention that

The problem with console FPS is that your equipment is clunky and a huge buffer between the player and the interface. A PC is more technically powerful and the laser is far more complicated than the (potentiometer?) present on a thumbstick. Purists just fetishise the past because they want to be Robin Hood. All you have to do is set the mark further out if the equipment's better, the best shooter should still win.

How is it a huge buffer? It just isn't as accurate, which is made for by aim assisting features.... a huge buffer would be if you had to wear boxing gloves.

I don't think that's true, they like things to the most simple. Take cars for example, old school muscle cars got there power from having a carb the size of a bucket, it was just raw simple grunt that made them so powerful (they drank fuel like no other though).

Today's muscle cars are filled to the fucking brim of computers, analyzing every detail the car is going through, thousands of times a second. They check power distribution, fuel consumption, inlet pressure, exhaust pressure, they alter the suspension blah blah blah and in fact a lot of cars today are slower than older cars.

Motoring purists love the old, simple, raw muscle cars and others love the peak efficiency ones.

 

[Coppernerves]

I'm not sure I understand the term right but Sci-fi I guess. Unless it has something truly unique and alien I don't consider it to be sci-fi, so fuck Star Wars and other galactic bore fests where guys from eighties live like everything is just like present just somewhat modernized. Over ten years has civilization changed more than over that far future they all pretend to be in.

Star Wars doesn't take place in the future; it takes place long ago (in a galaxy far, far away)...

Yeah, I know that but is suppose to be futuristic. I just dislike the cultural imprint, technology isn't all that changes with time.

Y'know, I'm not sure if I've actually seen any sci fi showing how our culture could change.

Well there is one exception: Demolition Man

Yep, that's the only example I can think of.

EDIT: Just thought the Imperium of Man in 40k might count as well.

This "cultural scifi" sounds interesting, any reccomendations?

Sadly there really isn't all that many, most of what I would call a good sci-fi was in books. As for recommendations try Time Enough For Love if you want something optimistic and 1984 if you want something negative. Also world of Bioshock Infinite seems to be interesting but I haven't played it yet.

Well, I loved the parts in Ba Sing Se in The Last Airbender, and the dystopian elements of Battle Royale (haven't seen book or film), so I might check out 1984 some time, even though I'm not usually into the "forbidden love" genre.

No promises though, I only get interested in books when I like the writers, um...

I guess you might call it rhythm, or voice, or something.

For example when I tried Agatha Christie, her writing sounded like a list of the situations features, it was very clear, laying out all the details real sharp and defined for people to deduce stuff from, it was dull as all heck.

Anyway, I can pick up on the attribute in a couple of pages.

 

[You Can't Take the Sky From Me]

Now, I speak as a (former) compound archer when I say that cams, the wall, release aids etc have indeed created a new field of play for archery, but you're very sadly mistaken if you think it's any easier. Flatter trajectories combined with natural drop makes any movement of the bowhand so much more unforgiving in compound archery than other disciplines and back-tension techniques need to be spot on or you can have variations in wall-strength that have a telling effect on the result. We can legitimately have a 58pt end at 70m and be pissed off because only one shot was 'perfect' (the 8, usually).

And please don't compare compound bows with crossbows, it's demeaning...

And insulting, and just plain wrong.

I was an archer for years, before being forced to give it up due to failing health, and I have shot all types of bows. Saying that shooting a compound is no different from shooting a crossbow makes me wonder about the persons experience with these weapons.

On Topic: I am a purist when it comes to whiskey. No ice, no mix, just give to me neat in a glass.

 

[Vhite]

...even though I'm not usually into the "forbidden love" genre.

Love? What love? Oh that little romance, I almost forgot. I was too busy reading all the swag about the Big Brother and the Ingsoc, even when I rewatch the movie I usually skip that part. Still, one of the best ending for love story I've seen so far.

 

[SckizoBoy]

And insulting, and just plain wrong.

Believe me, I had originally written something a lot less kosher than 'it's demeaning'...

Hell, shooting compound for me was difficult to the point that I found reverting to recurve a breeze! *grrr* However, to be fair, shooting a bow that had an idiotically spongey full-draw didn't help. >_> ...

OT: Anyway, something I'm a purist about: violins & harpsichords. In the old days (Glenn Gould), baroque was played on the piano with a massive orchestra, but thank god for historically informed performances with ensembles and harpsichords. They sound so much better. That's not to say the piano is bad per se, but in baroque music, it just lacks the austerity and traditional elegance of the harpsichord. It brings the wrong kind of flare to the music. As for violins: electric violins aren't the equivalent of electric guitars. The sound is no better than an 'acoustic' violin and there's no 'rough around the edges' that gives much more personality to a violin performance.

 

[You Can't Take the Sky From Me]

OT: Anyway, something I'm a purist about: violins & harpsichords. In the old days (Glenn Gould), baroque was played on the piano with a massive orchestra, but thank god for historically informed performances with ensembles and harpsichords. They sound so much better. That's not to say the piano is bad per se, but in baroque music, it just lacks the austerity and traditional elegance of the harpsichord. It brings the wrong kind of flare to the music. As for violins: electric violins aren't the equivalent of electric guitars. The sound is no better than an 'acoustic' violin and there's no 'rough around the edges' that gives much more personality to a violin performance.

That is a damn fine point. Baroque on a piano sounds wrong. There is no other way to put it. The piano is too smooth and completely takes away the "baroqueness" (I am aware that that is not a word) of the piece.

On an unrelated note: Are you sure you're not some parallel universe version of me? We seem to have an awful lot in common.

 

[SckizoBoy]

That is a damn fine point. Baroque on a piano sounds wrong. There is no other way to put it. The piano is too smooth and completely takes away the "baroqueness" (I am aware that that is not a word) of the piece.

Right?! Right?! It's a good sound the instrument makes, but doesn't quite fit the baroque mould.

On an unrelated note: Are you sure you're not some parallel universe version of me? We seem to have an awful lot in common.

LOL, we could be...(!) I had to give up archery for health reasons as well, though IIRC, yours is... leg-related, is it? I have rather bad spinal curvature, so I can still shoot, but only if it's a puny sub-20lb bow... :'(

 

[craftomega]

snip

Please dont call using a compound bow archery, its degrading.

I compare the two becuase they have more in common then a classic bow vs a compound one.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Please dont call using a compound bow archery, its degrading.

I compare the two becuase they have more in common then a classic bow vs a compound one.

OK, I've explained why compound archery is as much a challenge as 'classic archery'.[footnote]Though how you define 'classic' has not been specified: a la Crete? Welsh longbowmen? Mongol/Parthian horse archers? kyudo? Native American Indians? What's your 'standard'?[/footnote]

I'd be grateful if you extended me the same courtesy...

Now, I don't have anything against the other disciplines in archery, and yet technology has impacted on it like every other broad sporting-concept to varying degrees, though you haven't explained why, as far as technical rationalisation of their usage, you are so averse to it and consider their practitioners as pariahs, merely stated how you feel about it.

 

[craftomega]

Please dont call using a compound bow archery, its degrading.

I compare the two becuase they have more in common then a classic bow vs a compound one.

OK, I've explained why compound archery is as much a challenge as 'classic archery'.[footnote]Though how you define 'classic' has not been specified: a la Crete? Welsh longbowmen? Mongol/Parthian horse archers? kyudo? Native American Indians? What's your 'standard'?[/footnote]

I'd be grateful if you extended me the same courtesy...

Now, I don't have anything against the other disciplines in archery, and yet technology has impacted on it like every other broad sporting-concept to varying degrees, though you haven't explained why, as far as technical rationalisation of their usage, you are so averse to it and consider their practitioners as pariahs, merely stated how you feel about it.

I would also be grateful if you extended me some courtesy, and not derail other poeple threads.

 

[Snotnarok]

Censorship, pretty much on the same page with that. I get angry when people go out of their way to get something censored when they have no reason to, they should just move on to something else instead of ruining it for everyone.

I disagree with the archery thing however, technology has moved on but we should stick with old methods of using wood and string? I agree some of it goes too far but each to their own.

 

[Schadrach]

Today I just got called a purist by my dad. I am 22, and it never even occurred to me. So I looked it up on Wiki, and to a point it was right.

I loathe censorship of music EX, the original contains swear words and the radio version takes them out. One of the best examples would be "This Is The New Shit"

Censored


vs. Uncensored


Needlessly censoring music like this, to me is basically a crime, you minors just try and paint over the mona lisa.

Another thing I?m a purist with is Archery.

Basically I dislike the new type of layered wood bows that are mainly used. I really dislike any form of artificial materials used in making the bow aka Olympic bows.

I hate any form of addition that makes them easier to shoot, such as stabilizers or sights.

And when it comes to compound bows... I honestly don't see any real difference to a compound verses a crossbow. Other than when you have to pull the string back there the same thing.

To me using a compound bow is no longer archery, I don?t know what it is... but it aint archery. You are taking 90% of the skill involved in using a bow and turning it into mechanical options.


These two things are my only issues of note, but I?m sure these feeling creep in, in other areas. So the point of all this.

TL;DR Are you a purist about anything? If so why?

What's even better, since you used Marilyn Manson for an example is that he has one song that got it's language edited without using profanity (The Nobodies), another whose video MTV refused to show entirely when it was released (Coma White), and another that MM funded with his own money which the US label banned and in Japan and Germany had some heavy blurring done ( (s)AINT, which is on YouTube despite not meeting their standards, and would be suspendable to link here).

Nine Inch Nails however I think holds the record for censored music videos with the TV edit vrsion of Closer, which in addition to the obvious lyrical edit had entire shots replaced with "Scene Missing" signs, one shot under a full screen blur, and the monkey being in a tiny visible circle in an otherwise blacked out screen.

Or the best case of it ever, the South Park episode that got censored that people who didn't know any better would have thought the censorship was part of the joke.

 

[Verlander]

I get the music thing, but the archery thing seems less purist and more traditionalist. The bows that you dislike are all expansions of the same thing, rather than imitations. You don't like them, and that's totally cool, but your preference doesn't seem any more "pure" than the alternative.

Given that, I'd say that I'm occasionally a purist, but very wary of traditionalism. Things that have gone through an evolution of some kind are enjoyable to revisit at a simpler time, but evolved for a reason. Put it this way, I'd be interested to drive a Model T, or to fix one up, or so play with one at all, but I wouldn't use one to replace my everyday mobility.

 

[Fellstorm]

Today I just got called a purist by my dad. I am 22, and it never even occurred to me. So I looked it up on Wiki, and to a point it was right.

I loathe censorship of music EX, the original contains swear words and the radio version takes them out. One of the best examples would be "This Is The New Shit"

Censored


vs. Uncensored


Needlessly censoring music like this, to me is basically a crime, you minors just try and paint over the mona lisa.

Another thing I?m a purist with is Archery.

Basically I dislike the new type of layered wood bows that are mainly used. I really dislike any form of artificial materials used in making the bow aka Olympic bows.

I hate any form of addition that makes them easier to shoot, such as stabilizers or sights.

And when it comes to compound bows... I honestly don't see any real difference to a compound verses a crossbow. Other than when you have to pull the string back there the same thing.

To me using a compound bow is no longer archery, I don?t know what it is... but it aint archery. You are taking 90% of the skill involved in using a bow and turning it into mechanical options.


These two things are my only issues of note, but I?m sure these feeling creep in, in other areas. So the point of all this.

TL;DR Are you a purist about anything? If so why?

I'll agree with your partially on the archery front. I'm president of my universitie's archery club, and we have people shooting all sorts of bows, from longbows to compound. Personally I shoot a recurve barebow. I agree that adding sights, stabilisers, shock absorbers etc... takes away from what archery is, and what its about. And I regularly out score most sighted archers anyway!

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I'm actually with you on the 2 you mentioned.

Censorship is ALWAYS terrible and while I'm not quite so passionate about it, I absolutely feel tricked out compound bows take far less skill.

Between the lack of strength needed, those circular brush-like rests, multi-range aim-finders and those little clip things that release the arrow, there isn't much skill left. I don't really care about materials used and I think SOME form of arrow rest is acceptable. I haven't noticed much of a difference with or without one of the little spring loaded ones. Just minor convenience.

Other than that purists mostly annoy me.

Fallout purists, Doctor Who purists and tabletop 40k purists need to all start shutting the fuck up.

This statement may seem hypocritical, but I feel there's a drastic difference between whining about something because it removes skill and whinging about something just because it's different.

 

[Something Amyss]

I won't buy a censored album, but I don't give a "fufufufufufufu" (or whatever that was supposed to be in the Manson video) if things are censored as long as I can get the real version.

Beeps and clips are more annoying than the actual words, anyway.

Some make no sense to me, either. If you can't say "This is the new shit" or "Starfuckers Inc," don't make a single out of that song.

 

[Something Amyss]

I get the music thing, but the archery thing seems less purist and more traditionalist. The bows that you dislike are all expansions of the same thing, rather than imitations. You don't like them, and that's totally cool, but your preference doesn't seem any more "pure" than the alternative.

"Purist" and "traditionalist" often get used interchangeably.

You'll also notice that "purists" often latch on to whatever version of the sport or media was popular at their time. They don't care if it's tradition so much as whatever they first experienced.

In that sense, I'm a borderline musical purist, but I don't give enough of a damn to foist my exposure to classic rock or pre-78 punk on anyone.