Talk:What exactly is a "Scene Kid" anyway?/@comment-67.243.90.208-20180403023813/@comment-2A00:23C0:AC81:8900:61EC:A4F3:FD41:7B70-20180513191944

To identify with humanity, to the extend of aligning oneself with "virtue" and "wisdom" are ill-defined concepts, whose only goal is to repress human freedom, and to opress those who wish to deviate from that mould. It is ironic, but also disturbing, that you can criticise these "Scene Kids" for their unjustified conformity, whilst also acceding to a pressure born from exactly the same motivations, and yet one that is at once less self aware, more insidous, and more damaging, on both a personal and social level. It has been established since Socrates that the pursuit of either wisdom or virtue is one that is incomprihensible to the human - and it has later become even more repugnant an ideology, when one can so directly connect those self same notions with major societal repression - abstract moral virtues were critical in the virtual slavery which women endure, and the pursuit of wisdom only exacerbates the divide between the proletariat and the literati.

Futhermore, your suggestion that: "You belong with your friends, your family, or possibly a significant other" is equally contemptible, and symptomatic of exacty the same conformist that you abhor, exept manifesting itself in a different manner. Initially, you seem to suggest that these children have other friends who, by dint of not being "Scene Kids" are more worthwhile friends, despite lacking similar taste in music - music which was lauded by many of the most individualistic philosohpers - Schopenhaur and Nietzche - as being one of the truest pleasures. In addition, the assertion that one desires mating couples to be happy is also an argument from biology that holds no weight - a dispersed group of friends with similar tastes is just as valid as a (or many) significant others. Family, are, as one comes to realised, linked to one only by superfluous genetics. Your argument here also comes from some plea to biological history, which is not only incoherent, but also dramatically undermines your purported point - if it is the case that human experience derives from biology, and that that is "natural" is right, then you must accept that there are many animals who use similar colouration (clothes) and similar sounds (slang) to attain hemogony, and that these large groups are perfectly natural - lions and multiple apes indulge in the practice.

Whilst your argument of biology might be superficially satisfying: "chiefly adolescent natural inclination", it is ultimatly reductive, and leads logically to an assertion of deterministic processes, presenting the human as simply a 100 year chemical reaction. Whilst hormones might affect the process of conciousness, it is both above this, and separate from it.

To conclue, most of your argument is reductive, specious, and circular. Your work is riddled with implicit assumptions that aren't outright stated simply because that would reveal the contridictions that riddle it. However, if I were forced to sum up your arguments main flaw, it would be that you appeal to a greater human conformity, whilst condemning others for exactly the same behavior - which is, most cuttingly, well documented behaviour of those who subscribe to such a societal order.

Yours, Summer Glau