What makes you happy?
 

Well?

Apologies if this has been done before.

Music, football (soccer), cute girls, and beer.

This & spending time with my family. Appreciate it more as I get older. They have helped me a lot I don't know where I would be without them tbh.

Sitting with my cat, he is cool and just sleeps all the time, sometimes sit with him and he will come over and make purring noises it's quite therapeutic when you're stressed.

Thundercunting it from 30 yards out and the technique is so crispy >>>

This one sounds like a bomb has gone off when he hits it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scNr13TLYLY

Music, good food, Olivia, being in the city at night, walking in the woods, going on long walks with no direction, making cool **** (graphics, audio, film, whatev), travel, learning about **** I wanna learn about, laughing, living, feeling strong positive emotions, viewing good art (film and visual), sel-teaching, and when things work out in my favor.

Edit: and dogs.

I miss cooking.

This one came up in my recommended videos while watching that.



Was too young to see it at the time, but it's still one of the best International goals I've ever seen.


And I can definitely say that ever since I've left home for university, I've started to appreciate family a lot more. Going home on breaks is always something I look forward to.

Edit again: and Qwertyy

;)

Right I definitely look forward to talking to you lot.

Nothing makes me happy. Things only distract me from the depression.

Fall weather make me happy.

.

Crunching the autumn leaves is great until you step in dog shit.

Pet owners who allow their dogs to foul on the pavement <<<

Nice skies
Good drugs/booze
Blowjobs
The Beatloads
Accomplishing something
Music
Not picking up my dogs ****

Confucius?

killing

Mass murder & dead bodies.

Music, beautiful women, friends, art, flowers, drugs, soda pop, candy, good food, horror ****, hate sometimes.

a nice serotonin blast to the dome, ain't nothin like it except everything

Scarves.

http://i.imgur.com/cEgxMxXl.jpg

>Sees thread
>Looks at OP

Something isn't right here.

I'm not saying it was a good reference, but it did not go unnoticed.

As a staunch anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist I feel I should post a more serious response to the OP.

The melodic murmur of coffeehouse patrons on a Saturday evening... diving into my research with a whole night of discovery ahead... the sensation of a hot cup of coffee or tea in hand... the moment of inspiration when an article theme comes to mind... invigorating and thoughtful discussions shared with an intellectual peer... letters of gratitude I receive from my readers... challenges waiting to be resolved... the excitement of embarking upon new projects of independent study... new learning gleaned from interviews with mentors and veterans of the socio-cultural and political spheres... the sound of the fireplace... the chill of the air in autumn... the surprise of crate-digging discoveries... a warm bed... used book smell... wandering antique malls and overcrowded dusty used bookshops for long-forgotten treasures... finding them... the sound of a properly-calibrated quality hi-fi... the monumental potential of lossless audio compression... the empowerment of free culture and the Creative Commons... kopimism... anarchism... and workers seizing control of the means of production.

25 cent burritos

https://scontent.fsan1-2.fna.fbcdn.n...c1&oe=588C511E

Where??

Like, any Taco Bell.

^

I got it down too. Unfortunately the burrito was just disgusting.

For a quarter??? How does this magic work?

Oh, wait. I see the context now. I had forgotten about that thing.

Yes same here but I'd like to include Winter weather in that as well.

buuut....

:confused:

You can be anti-consumerist and still really, really obsessed with acquiring and owning stuff. As long as it's hipstery stuff.

It just seems like a strange philosophy to be part of when you still need to consume things and purchase things necessary to live and especially when you have large record collections like this guy. Unless he doesn't actually buy any of them and just barters for them or sells his body in exchange for records.

I understand how my near-constant influx of rare and elusive vinyl might lead one to question my self-proclaimed anti-consumerist stance.

Please permit me to clarify:

I abstain from purchasing anything new unless absolutely necessary, including wardrobe, accessories, silver and brass items, media, electronics, appliances, home goods, etc. This decision is born both of both environmental concern and of my general distaste for contemporary goods.

My purchases are the result of careful research and a well-informed evaluation of an item's utilitarian usefulness, entertainment value (where applicable), its potential for intellectual enrichment, and its uniqueness to reflect my own personal character.

These purchases are almost always sourced from independent vendors as I will not support the corporate sales model if ever I can avoid it. I much prefer artisanal craftsmanship and antiquarian treasure over mass-produced goods.

I find very little influence following any sort of consumer trends, (just one of numerous reasons I am vehemently opposed to Apple products), and I reject all of Bernays' notions of social consumer conditioning.

I've effectively eliminated nearly all commercial advertising from my life by way of browser add-ons, my total rejection of mass media transmissions, and by not visiting or supporting websites which employ adverts, (and... frankly... by never leaving the house.)

Together, these practices and value sets are in direct opposition to the traditional, passive consumer behaviors of the hoi polloi. And by not purchasing anything new, I greatly minimize my consumer footprint on the economy.

And a side note with regard to digital goods - never pay for anything in the post-scarcity economy of the web.

Everything is free.

He's like some bizarro world survivalist.

So it's okay to pay someone for "artisinal" goods, but people who sell digital goods can go fuck themselves?

Dude, JUST BUY A ****ING DYSON VACUUM AND RELISH IN YOUR DECISION.

I'd happily purchase physical recordings of Luigi Russolo if he were alive and offering anything for sale. The same goes for Stockhausen, Cage, and everyone else. But how is one to survey their catalogs of recorded works without downloading a lossless discography uniformly sorted by catalog number and date of issue? How else would you make an informed decision on which pressings, which masters, etc you'd prefer for your library? A fella needs to perform comprehensive comparative analyses to make a proper decision!

Besides, multiple studies have concluded that the ‘worst’ file-sharing pirates spend significantly more on physical media content than ‘honest’ consumers. Torrentfreak published an article about this subject in May of 2013.
Of course, I can only speak for myself, but my purchasing habits align directly with the findings of the Columbia 2012 and OfCom 2013 studies. My non-legal collection comprises several hundred thousand recordings, many of which are not available for purchase at any price from any commercial service, streaming, physical media, or otherwise, so I couldn't purchase them even if I wanted to. Still, my downloads directly result in significant media investments.

So far in 2016 my downloading resulted in over $1,600 in purchases of 45 albums and box sets. Statista reports that average US consumer music purchases in 2016 total $13 for CDs and $5 for vinyl. By these numbers, my piracy-inspired purchases total more than that of the next 90 consumers combined. And this is common among the ‘worst’ file-sharers.

While unfortunately, the other 99% of filesharers don't do their part, the 1%-ers statistically compensate for their slack. And total media spending is proportionally influenced by the amount of content you seize. So take it all! Educate yourself! Develop a discerning ear for the most exquisite recordings the world has to offer!

Then buy the finest specimens for your own library.

mmm... Dyson.

But dude, you didn't say that people should download Luigi Russolo's music, or discography lists, or any of the other specific things you can arguably justify, you straight up said that nobody should pay for anything digital. Not just things created by people who are now deceased, or sound files of varying quality, or archival aids, but anything. You can try to justify it from a moral high ground, flexing your big-dick spending habits (which by the way are irrelevant since you yourself admitted that the majority of the entertainment you buy is on the used physical market, and therefore doesn't support the original creator, many of which are still very much alive), but in the end by sticking to that absolute even if only %1 of the artists you like are living and would like compensation, then there are at least a few people getting screwed out of hard-earned money.

Art for art's sake is great and beautiful, but many artists even in the age of independent music spend a lot of money and time on the production, and reasonably want to at least break even. If they can't, then many artists are discouraged from making future projects. After a certain point, it just becomes unfeasible for them. True, in your time you've exposed many people to music that might have otherwise gone under the radar, but how many potential albums have been jettisoned due to lack of support? How much music has the world been robbed of 'cause people are too greedy to throw a buck or two at the artists they like? I can understand you using whatever means necessary to track down elusive albums, or downloading songs made by people who are now deceased, or using pirating as a way of sampling things in depth before buying them, but would you seriously never even think about just sometimes legitimately paying for something digital that you really really like? Not even if the artist said pretty please?

Unless, that is, you don't stick to that absolute (that all digital products should be free), and I simply misinterpreted you. I mean, if I, a person who is very much alive and in need of money, made a comic series and released it digitally only, and gave you a preview of a few pages that you enjoyed enough to want the whole thing, would you pay me for it or would you steal it? Would the price and ease of access affect your decision, or would you just steal it on the principle that it should be free simply by virtue of being digital?

Don't take this as an insult. I myself love both digital and physical media, and many of the bands I love wouldn't have ever received my support had I not used dubious means to be initially exposed to their music, and the same goes for movies. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, 'cause it sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy hidden behind flowery words. If you like consuming things, owning things, being greedy for things, that's completely understandable. It's human fucking nature. I just kind of find it strange that a guy as worldly and passionate as you is willing to pay for physical things, but not digital things, as if digital-only artists aren't worth spending money on for some reason.

You raise several critically important points. The media marketplace in the digital post-scarcity economy is far from a black-and-white issue. It really shakes me up when people remind me that there are still some people out there who pay for non-physical goods. I really can't understand it and I often forget those people are still out there somewhere.

But what I find more confusing is your description of artists who sell exclusively digital content. How does that exist? How does anyone control valued digital goods? It would require the suppression of their inherent and fundamental qualities of being infinitetly replicable and being distributed at zero-cost. I ask this as an honest question because it defies any reasonable understanding of digital goods.

Does Apple still sell music? If so, how have they maintained that preposterous platform? It is absolutely impossible to capitalize on digital goods. This was effectively demonstrated with the complete failure of streaming services to generate a positive cashflow for over 90% of the artists whose content they streamed. This was further demonstrated by the end of the software industry. Adobe adapted to this realization by switching to subscription-based software which a small percentage of lesser-informed individuals still pay for on a monthly basis. (Much like we've seen with cable subscriptions.) It really makes no sense at all.

But do not misinterpret my intention. Artists deserve to be compensated for their works. They contribute a vital asset to the cultural economy. I don't know of any digital-only artists but you've expressed that they exist and they too would deserve compensation. As there is no way to control the distribution of digital goods, many have opted for the PWYW model which has worked well for many artists.

The fact that everyone needs to face is that currency and copyright have absolutely no relevance in the digital market. It makes no sense to charge for an infinitely replicable and distributable good. In that world, ownership is collective and universally simultaneous.

How does the capitalist philosophy reconcile itself with that fact?

.

Okay so I get all of that but two things.

Acquiring any good is still consumerism regardless of the condition that it is bought in.

Two, you didn't address the fact that you need to purchase things that are necessary to live such a groceries.

People who work only to buy food are the last people that I'd say have a consumerist mindest. Consumerism is frivolity. Consumerism is when buying something becomes your meaning in life, not that buying anything destroys all meaning life once had.