Assume for the purpose of this thread that Hip-Hop was the old post-irony. Because there is nothing less ironic than hip-hop.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841016)

The thing is, I don't necessary even parse out in my own mind to what extent I'm being ironic (in so far as someone who is fairly well educated vis-a-vis the liberal canon calling someone a "whore" for no reason is ironic) and to what extent I'm being serious. I don't even know exactly how what I typed would inflect if I spoke it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841088)

"Sleep, that's where I'm a viking!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841059)

down in Santa Rosa over the bay

across the grapevine to L.A.

we've got desert, we've got trees

we've got the hills of Beverly

let's burn the hills of Beverly!!

walk with your credit card in the air!!

swing your nachos just like you just don't care!!

this is the slow sick sucking part of me

this is the slow sick sucking part of me

and when i suck in kisses, it's ours...

up to the top of the shasta gulch

and to the bottom of the tahoe lakes

manmade deltas and concrete rivers

the south takes what the north delivers

you film hack, i don't use your...fade...

lost in the foothills of my pride

Trocadero, say good night

to the LAST PSYCHEDELIC BAND

FROM sac' to, northern cal.

FROM sac' to northern cal.

take it; neighbor; cuz you're my neighbor;

and i need favors; you're my neighbor;

you've done me favors; cuz i'm your neighbor;

i'm not your neighbor, you bakersfield trash.

traaaaaash! traaaaaash!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841102)

2) Pavement rules.

3) Irony is the most overused word of the modern day.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6891649)

given that malkmus made this shit up on the spot, i think it's perfectly understandishable there would be debate on this issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6891682)

OH NOES!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6891707)

Perhaps TSiteIWWOCatchprases?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6891710)

http://lyrics.duble.com/lyrics/P/pavement-lyrics/pavement-unfair-lyrics.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6891681)

I have neither. I mean, I suppose I have a job in the parlance of this board. But circa now (the name of an album by a band whose name I forget, but who was definitely not universally regard as important by music critics), my primiary responsibilities consist of watching sports on TV and binge drinking.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841139)

EDIT: Rocket from the Crypt fan?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841160)

Heavy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841243)

I mean, is crocodile rock ironic? I think the answer is "maybe."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6846345)

Not cool.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841316)

xo sometimes enters into irony unintentionally, i.e. "don shall see the jewess tonight!" which often yields better results than jew bitches in auschwitz irony.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841476)

In the sense the post-modernism wasn't adverse to the ideas of modernism (i.e. post-modernism wasn't about reverting to romanticism or whatever) but was simply abstracted from the ideas of modernism (i.e. it didn't feel they were germane or relevant anymore, at least not as originally articulated), post-irony isn't about not being ironic. Its about an indifference to irony. Irony is necessarily integrated into the nature of the language because irony "happened," but it isn't a reason for the language to exist in and of itself anymore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6841550)

But Colbert is something new and different entirely (apart from maybe Tek Jansen, although arguably not even then), and TDS, while grounded in that 90s background, made the shift pretty seemlessly to taking on a point of view that was simultaneously detached and snide but also a source of considerably more meaning (and they don't have it fully resolved either, I would argue). Do you guys remember the first promos with Jon Stewart where he was trying to get people on the red carpet to talk to him? I guess it was as much a circumstance of the times as anything else, but it's still weird that there were two weeks where a former male prostitute was outed as a fake reporter lobbing softballs at the White House fracking Press Secretary, and TDS were the only people who would talk about it. It's weird to see irony be so serious and angry. Part of me feels like it justifies the 90s, like "see it is all bullshit and we are right to mock it and distrust it." But then you have to take that a step further, right? I mean if everything is that fucked, we need more than jokes, so it also makes me feel lazy for continuing to enjoy irony for its own sake so much. Part of the deal in the 90s was that irony didn't take itself and its own arguments seriously, and was as much about finding an excuse to be lazy as anything else, which was fine as long as times were good and the world didn't seem like it was ready to blow any minute now. Colbert at least goes that extra step of deconstructing the arguments of the bad guys and/or disconnecting the message of the bad guys' propaganda from the packaging and looking at what's left. TDS, Jon will talk about what a douche Ashcroft is, and then have him on to hawk his book the next day, and all the problems are glossed over by a few self-depricating quips.

So I have no idea what to make of any of this, but I'm pretty sure we're nowhere close to figuring it out, and xoxo is in no way any kind of lasting answer. Except that it's on the internet, which makes a difference, but I have no specific, good reason as to how.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#6891984)

While our decriers missed this point altogether, our defenders fumbled with their words trying to articulate it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#7819507)

http://www.phespirit.info/momus/19980109.htm

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#7819518)

If one examines textual discourse, one is faced with a choice: either reject neodialectic Marxism or conclude that narrativity has intrinsic meaning, but only if truth is interchangeable with narrativity; otherwise, Foucault’s model of textual discourse is one of “textual neocultural theory”, and hence responsible for class divisions. Derridaist reading holds that truth serves to oppress the proletariat. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Madonna is the role of the participant as poet.

“Society is fundamentally meaningless,” says Lacan; however, according to McElwaine[4] , it is not so much society that is fundamentally meaningless, but rather the futility, and some would say the dialectic, of society. Foucault suggests the use of textual discourse to challenge sexism. But Buxton[5] suggests that the works of Madonna are empowering.

If one examines the modern paradigm of discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept constructivism or conclude that the purpose of the participant is significant form, given that Debord’s essay on neodialectic Marxism is valid. The subject is contextualised into a textual discourse that includes narrativity as a reality. Therefore, Lyotard promotes the use of constructivism to analyse and deconstruct sexual identity.

In the works of Madonna, a predominant concept is the distinction between feminine and masculine. The subject is interpolated into a neodialectic Marxism that includes culture as a totality. It could be said that the primary theme of Hamburger’s[6] critique of neodialectic capitalism is a self-fulfilling whole.

The premise of constructivism implies that truth may be used to reinforce the status quo. However, the example of neodialectic Marxism depicted in Madonna’s Sex emerges again in Material Girl, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

Constructivism states that sexuality is capable of truth, but only if art is distinct from culture. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a neodialectic Marxism that includes truth as a reality.

Foucault suggests the use of constructivism to attack outmoded perceptions of class. Therefore, Sartre uses the term ‘textual discourse’ to denote the role of the writer as poet.

Debord promotes the use of the textual paradigm of consensus to analyse society. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a constructivism that includes art as a totality.

Bataille suggests the use of neodialectic Marxism to challenge the status quo. It could be said that if constructivism holds, the works of Madonna are modernistic.

A number of deconstructions concerning not sublimation, but postsublimation may be discovered. However, Lyotard uses the term ‘textual discourse’ to denote a self-sufficient reality.

The rubicon, and eventually the fatal flaw, of neodialectic Marxism prevalent in Madonna’s Erotica is also evident in Sex. But d’Erlette[7] holds that we have to choose between constructivism and semioticist subcultural theory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#7819768)

The subject is interpolated into a dialectic appropriation that includes narrativity as a reality. But Sartre uses the term ‘precapitalist dematerialism’ to denote the role of the writer as observer.

If dialectic appropriation holds, we have to choose between precapitalist dematerialism and textual narrative. Thus, Derrida uses the term ‘dialectic precultural theory’ to denote not discourse, as Sontag would have it, but prediscourse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#7819789)

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of cultural consciousness. Neomodernist narrative states that narrative must come from the collective unconscious. But Derrida suggests the use of the neotextual paradigm of discourse to attack archaic perceptions of sexual identity.

Sontag’s analysis of neomodernist narrative implies that the law is part of the stasis of culture. It could be said that Tilton holds that we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and precultural capitalism.

The subject is contextualised into a semioticist precultural theory that includes language as a whole. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Gaiman is the collapse of dialectic class.

Many discourses concerning the role of the observer as artist exist. It could be said that the premise of neomodernist narrative implies that consciousness is capable of truth.

In Death: The High Cost of Living, Gaiman examines semioticist precultural theory; in Stardust he affirms subcultural dialectic theory. But Bataille’s essay on neomodernist narrative suggests that the collective is unattainable, but only if postcultural Marxism is invalid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#7819815)

actor qua actor, symbol qua symbol...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=511467&forum_id=2#7819819)