hello all,
this is actually the first time i've posted a meaningful comment here, so - haha in true emo style ;-) - i'd appreciate some restraint if a lynching is going to ensue based on what i'm going to say (what a perfect thread to bring that issue up).
first of all i'm going to say how horrific the attack on Lancaster and Maltby was, and reading the details ("a noticeable shoe print on both of their faces") is absolutely gruesome. but i think this issue brings up specifically british concerns rather than relates directly to the emo issue.
i'm a little surprised at the spartan nature of most of the comments on this thread, its a really complex issue that deserves greater attention than for example the reductionist logic that tyro was ascribing to the aggressors, and isn't simply resolvable by saying that people should be allowed to express themselves however they like.
one of the most prevalent motivations of this emo thing is the hyper-internalising of experience, much like how the noise 'scene' speaks and sounds in terms which build a picture of interiority and (wilful?) alienation. both scenes have emerged at roundabout the same time and are dealing with similar issues (in the broad strokes rather than the minutiae), except one remains resolutely diy whereas the other is expansionist and flamboyant.
this is pretty crucial because its the very public (marketable?) nature of emo as a (sub) culture that contradicts its glorifying of ultra-personal narratives. its like someone who is so engrossed in their own misery DEMANDING that others notice that they are miserable, THEN expecting them to listen when they try to explain why their misery and pain brings them joy. i know people are going to say 'well that's just the goth ethos' but its not, goths wanted to form a culture which speaks to itself on its own terms whereas emo is trying to make a culture which speaks OF itself while using public platforms (which is where it has very questionably riffed upon queer theory and LGBT politics).
i find it very very reprehensible and warranting of serious justification if somebody i don't know personally attempts - nay, insists upon - starting a conversation with me which immediately appeals to their status as a victim, which justification emos are not willing to detail because of the reluctance to fight for their place on the soap box, rather that they think the soap box is NECESSARILY OPEN for any type of expression, regardless of how personal it is.
the points of connection between this and the current form of consumer capitalism, liberal-democratic 'inclusivity' rhetoric and the ubiquity of metrosexual identity (which transpontine touches upon) are numerous but i'm not going to go into it so that this post doesnt go on forever, but they further seem to indicate that emo is not a subculture in the sense that it has grown from the roots up, it is a variation of the 90's 'alternative lifestyle' bollox that has been condensed from a set of top-down signifiers (NIN etc being on major labels in the 90's) into a parasitic culture which attempts to appropriate all the values of punk, riot grrl zinesterism, goth, pop and queer, hand-picking and hoarding all the brightest stars of each movement without feeling any kind of responsibility to draw the constellations.
so anyway, HI - NICE TO MEET YOU ALL!!!!