The beat is great, his flow is good, but even without the contact lenses he still just seems ... cheesy and I can't shake that feeling.
it's definitely cheesy, but I can do cheesy - I had a huge nerdcore-stint in highschool that I look back on fondly. It's his preachiness that gets me. And his backpacker fanbase. "Hopsin is the only one that does real hiphop, not hiphop about money and drugs and women!" But this was cheesy, while also being introspective and not shoving his values down my throat. Like Ill Hopsin 5...gah, never again.
I hadn't heard of Hopsin before at all and I liked this. Clearly cheesy as hell and trying to get more attention from being hammy, but it seemed authentic, like an actual introspective conversation he had with himself. So I'm glad I saw your comment at least to know not to look into him further hahaha
For what its worth, I disagree with eightbit. If you liked this song, I think his album Raw is worth looking into. He is phenomenally talented and I always look for what he's doing. Unfortunately, he slipped into fundamentalist Christianity two years ago and started to lose his musical focus. But if this song is any indication, he's back for real now!
Me too, I had never heard anything from him. I dig this though and I agree that it seems genuine.
Wow, that was really powerful. Being raised fundamentalist, I really relate to this. It's hard for me to understand how anyone can be raised fundamentalist and go through a STEM education, or otherwise learn to think critically, and not have these questions. But on the other side of the coin, I haven't rejected theism outright. I consider myself a Progressive Christian these days, and I probably believe in some sort of religious pluralism. I don't think Skepticism is the only valid philosophy. The question I've been puzzling over lately is the "nuclear weapons" analogy. Nuclear weapons are only useful for killing large numbers of people, and as a deterrent against other nuclear weapons. They are only bad. It would be better if no nuclear weapons existed. Does the same apply to religion? Intelligence² held a debate a few years ago, Is the Catholic Church a force for good? So, as a non-fundamentalist, I've been asking myself, "is religion a force for good?" Or, like nuclear weapons, does it produce significantly more harm than good? If so, ought religion exist? I mean, assume God exists, and lets "good" people into heaven rather than "pious" people. If religion is primarily harmful, even if it's "true," ought it exist? The Crusades, the Inquisition, modern Israel, ISIS. How does one even balance these things against Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Mother Theresa? How does one measure the good Buddhism has done over the millenia? Of course, the greater question is whether these people would have done their good and evil anyway, or if religion swayed them. Does religion or religious upbringing affect the goodness of a person? Maybe religion is more of a gun, than a nuclear weapon? Something that can arguably be good and bad; a tool. If that's true, it might explain why the same people tend to support both fundamentalism and gun freedom. Maybe the same deeper imperative drives people to both. That would be interesting.
I really miss Christopher Hitchen's, he was fun to watch/read. Have you seen his debate with Tony Blair along the same topic? I'm in the process of putting together a podcast ( #tngpodcast ) that asks the question, "what is the difference between spirituality and religion?" I'm still in the process of putting it together, any chance you'd be interested in participating? If so, PM me and I'll fill you in.So, as a non-fundamentalist, I've been asking myself, "is religion a force for good?" Or, like nuclear weapons, does it produce significantly more harm than good? If so, ought religion exist?
-I think that many religious people would tell you that without religion, there would be no impetus for the kind of outreach and charity they provide. I think this is complete hogwash, but that seems to be a driving factor for Blair in that debate. I think that a world without religion is a far more peaceful one. But I think a world in which we deny our spiritual natures would be a dangerous one too.
I hadn't seen that debate. It was worth watching, but there was a great deal of cherry-picking on both sides. To be fair, it's hard to assess the "goodness" of anything. Suppose you eschew the cherry-picking and exclusively use statistics. Is that any better? Strict Universalism leads to some dark places.
I completely agree, there can be no conclusive decision with such a objective. Still, the whole debate makes for some good theater. Hitchen's is always good for that.o be fair, it's hard to assess the "goodness" of anything.