Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Yankees r no longer playing Kate Smith because of a song with racist lyrics she recorded back in 1930’s. It was considered satire and was written by a black artist, but yankees r still playing it safe in light of this “new” info.

GnR has comments in One in a Million that r as racist as it gets.

Should sports teams, or even radio, stop playing all gnr songs???

Do you think it will get to that point where we will no longer hear gnr songs in any public domain?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-kate-smith-god-bless-america-20190418-wfkyednrvrherh57sfmb4h7s5y-story.html%3foutputType=amp

Article for reference.

Most people seem largely unaware of One In Million now really. It could easily blow up into a scandal at any tine though for sure- that's the way things to go now, as evidenced by this story. Stuff gets jumped on, usually as a result of something going viral.

I suppose it could happen- but fuck it if it does  I could live without hearing SCOM played at shit bars and clubs ever again!

Wow, you can't even read your own linked article? There was more racism in her history than that one song.

And the defense of "it's satire" doesn't make it not racist. Satire can be racist. Are you new to Earth or something?

Also, it was not written by a black man, it was written by two white men, Ray Henderson and Lew Brown.

Oh wait, you misrepresented it on purpose because you are a pathetic and desperate ideologue seeking to score cheap political points and failing miserably. How silly of me.  ::)

As to your fallacious emotional appeal by linking this to GNR, I could care less what venues play their music. Nobody is stopping anyone from purchasing it for their own listening pleasure, whether it's One in a Million or "That's why Darkies were Born".

Now are you done embarrassing yourself with these games yet?

How will football players know when it's time to kick off if they stop playing GNR songs??    ???

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Exactly. Someone could decide to post those lyrics and if it goes viral, there could be real problems.

Axl is not racist but he defended his right to use the N-word. That shit doesn’t fly today.

I like hearing gnr on the radio. Especially with sirius playing the stuff that were released last year. For me, it would really suck if this happened. Could also kill any hope for a new album.

I accept your concession, no need to be such a sore loser, cupcake.   :-*

He absolutely was racist when he wrote that song. Luckily, he's grown up and learned from the error of his ways. Unlike you, who defends racism by claiming that saying the N-word isn't racist. Derp.  :drool:

Settle down, kid. There’s adults in the room.

Honestly, people just need to lighten the fuck up. Waaay too sensitive nowadays, and it’s not making things better. Fact

Yeah, the controversy surrounding "One in a Million" had its day in court 30 years ago, and it's all quite remote now.   Though if publicized, it could still ignite some hellfire today -- hence the reason the band decided not to include it on the recent reissues. 

Anyone could easily find the lyrics for "One in a Million" online, but I doubt many would care at this point given the band's lack of relevance to today's popular culture, who are only familiar with the hits, e.g. "Sweet Child o Mine", "Welcome to the Jungle", and "Paradise City" -- the only songs played at sporting events, radio, or anywhere else really.

Obviously you have no idea, and didn't even pay attention to all the lyrics in the song.


To answer the original question: No. That would be extremely silly. To even make the connection to what's going on with the Yankees to GN'R is far fetched and almost like you're looking for some kind of reaction.

By the way, the Flyers covered up her statue.




/jarmo

The covered statue is like really really creepy!!!!  :nervous:

(https://www.journal-news.com/rf/image_inline/Pub/p10/CmgSharedContent/2019/04/20/Images/kate%20.jpg)

Maybe I should not watch the Naked Gun movies anymore since OJ brutally sliced and diced an innocent man & woman
 :confused:

Allegedly  ;)

I never thought axl was racist. I think his actions made that obvious.

I agree it would be silly if gnr ever gets banned. But in today’s world, it would not shock me one bit.

Yes, the flyers banning kate smith and covering up her statue has been all over the news and social media for days. Its kinda pathetic they decided to do all that.

Yep

To the original question:

It is not individual teams that decide whether/which GNR songs to play, but rather the league itself.

How that process works is a mystery to me, but I know that Jungle being played at every single NFL game is not a coincidence but rather a licensing deal arranged by the powers that be in the league office.

Aww, widdle baby sounds Triggered!  :rofl:

Once again, you cannot respond because you know you're wrong and I've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You're have nothing to say. Don't be such a sore loser.


You mean "Opinion. And a dumb one."

Please do explain. I read all of Axl's lengthy "justifications" if you could even call them that on that Rolling Stone article and he did nothing but dig himself deeper. If by "all the lyrics", you're referring to the "radicals and racists" line, that does not negate the rest of the lyrics. In fact, it's deliberately trying to distance himself from the image of racism while clearly engaging in it. It's like Trump hiring Mike Pence and yet claiming he "loves the LGBT" at that one rally. Claiming you're not racist means nothing when your own words show you to be one.

Exactly. In the lyrics themselves he points out that he's not what you claim him to be.

I'm still not convinced you know a person based on a few lines in a song and reading some interviews.

Sorry.





/jarmo

First off, I don't think Axl is a racist. He WAS discriminating against gays, blacks and foreigners in One In A Million, though. There's no denying that. However, he was also a young 26 year old with NO IDEA how the world really works. He has obviously changed a lot.

I think it would be hypocritical if a shit storm would ensue over this song. It is a fact that pretty much ALL male hip hop is full of hate towards gay people. As a gay man (a major minority within the GnR landscape unfortunately) One In A Million never bothered me, since it's just a young man's barely adult reflections on first time life experiences. I actually love the song cause it's so brutally honest and has a good hook.

Knowing that Axl doesn't hate gay people (proved by his love for Elton John and Freddie Mercury and by his own statements) is enough for me. Most black rappers (and white 'hey Eminem') hate for gay people is very real, and I am more worried about their songs than a song GnR has already retracted from future releases. It would however be best if they take it off all streaming services, to prove the point it is indeed a thing of the past. Otherwise, I am pretty sure within the next few years a shit storm will start over this song.

Great points by FreddieJames.

One thing people tend to forget is that Axl apologizes and explains his lyrics on the album cover that statement was written before the song was even released.

Like he says the song is simple and written from a point view of someone who has has those experiences, that dont mean that the teller is right. Its a song about real life. Racism is real, and the song is looking at life from the point of view of someone racist. And some of the reasons why someone like you and me could have racist/homophobic thoughts. Those thoughts are wrong of course, and we all know it. Understanding those thoughts is a positive thing, for me atleast cause i can see the issue from a more rational side while understanding that those views are not right. (for example, a victim of sexual abuse from a gay man can cause homophobia, but its wrong cause sexual abuse is not a gay thing it happens in every sexual orientation)

The good news is that you're both mistaken so you can watch the Naked Gun movies if you so choose because OJ was actually found NOT GUILTY by a jury of his peers!!!  :-X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rurKd569xRw

The bad news is that our judicial system is extremely flawed and the families of those two innocent people did not receive the justice they deserved.
 :no:



P.S.  The Kate Smith statue outside the Flyers arena has been removed.

CORRECTION:  Was found not guilty (criminally) but was found civilly liable (hence why he owes the victims families millions of dollars that he will likely never repay).  Either way, I'm still watching the Naked Gun.

Love that film, wouldn't go anywhere near OJ or give him anything approaching respect. Those two feelings can exist at the same time.

The biggest shame to me about One in a Million is I think it happens to be a great song musically. I have no problem with the words I look at it as this could be someone's own personal experience coming to the big city and coming from a more rural area the culture shock is actually understandable. It is really unfortunate people just can't look at it as what it is a song.

AMEN

I think the issue here is the definition of the word "racism". You are taking it (as many do) as a judgement of a person that is absolute. As in, if you are a racist, that defines you and it will never change. This is not true. Prejudice is common in almost all people to some degree. A person can be prejudiced or racist without that defining who they are. Maybe I should have worded it this way, "Axl engaged in racism or made racist statements". And obviously, as I said, Axl grew up and learned from his mistake. So I don't think that those statements define his character in any way. But it would be an injustice to the people affected by racism to claim that the statements themselves were not racist, because it lowers the bar for racism, which I hope we could all understand is a dangerous thing to do. After all, saying the n-word is such a low bar for racism that it was a scandal back in 1989. I would hope that 30 years later we have made progress.

But again, claiming that you are not racist does not make you not a racist. Even open white supremacists will deny they are racist.


In keeping with my above statements, I think you are misunderstanding the use of the word "racist". Also, "discrimination", but I won't get into that because I agree with what you're trying to say there.

But this use of rap as a whataboutism needs to stop. Pointing to somebody else doing something wrong is not a defense for your (genre's) behavior.

Also, it's funny you mentioned Eminem in particular because he did the exact same thing Axl did by using Elton John as a shield from criticism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM74R9z7W4A

However, much like rock, rap has come a long way since its early days in the '90s. To say "pretty much ALL rap is homophobic" is just simple not true. But it was absolutely a problem with the genre for some time, and still is, which is also still true for rock to some extent, if we're being honest.

Exactly. A majority of people don't think calling someone a racist, means that the person was a little bit racist before breakfast, but normal the rest of the day.




And idiots believe they're not idiots.



/jarmo

You dont have to agree with a song or literary work ( or whatever else it is) to see it for what it is, a product of the time period.

Maybe you're even offended by it and rightly so. But take a step back and consider it was a product of its time. If it wasn't considered racist when it was created that should be considered.   

Yes we have progressed as a society but doesn't mean we need to whitewash the past. How do you learn from something that gets erased?

Philosophical rant over.

I suggest certain people stop with the name calling.

If you can't get your point across without it, try again.

In regard to racism, unfortunately, most people use the term wrong.


Except that there was backlash in the very time period it came out...

And nobody is erasing history, enough of this same strawman that gets trotted out to defend confederate statues. History books are where you learn history, not songs or statues that idolize reprehensible people. Getting rid of things that promote/display racism is not erasing racism from history. Try again.

If you're trying to use my words against me, you failed. Nothing in my post was aimed at you personally.

Unless you're an idiot who believes otherwise. In that case, sorry!




/jarmo

 
A statue of Robert E Lee or Thomas Jefferson does not promote or display racism.  The statues were not erected because they owned slaves, the recognition was based on their achievements and you can go read about them in the history books ( or Wikipedia) .  Looking back at historical figures with a one dimensional mindset is too simplistic.  We all know slavery was a bad chapter in our nations history.

But my point in my previous post is  that  attitudes change over time as we progress as a society  and there isn't a need to be puritanical over the past.

Perhaps I should have clarified that One in a Million was not the same case, it was controversial when it came out if that was what you were focusing on.

I know the difference between racism and discrimination, thanks. Axl was considered a racist (discrimination based on color of the skin or ethnicity) for his use of the word nigger(s), but seeing in the song One In A Million he is also discriminating against foreign people (which can be white, so not racism but yes discrimination based on origin) and gays (again, can be white so not racism but discrimination based on sexual preference) I used the word discrimination. So yeah, I know the difference and conciously used both since they're both applicable. Axl was considered a racist and was discriminating.

And regarding Eminem: you need to catch up. Yeah, he did the Axl thing with Elton John. But that's old news I wasn't referring to. In 2018 he called Tyler The Creator a 'faggot' based on rumours that Tyler was coming out on his latest album. For a 46 year old like Eminem that's a little pathetic, and he should know better especially after his thing with Elton John and since he is an icon to so many young people. He received so much criticism for that issue with Tyler that he issued an actual apology. Backtracked in interviews. In 2018.

I think your argument about me pointing to rap is BS and you seem to be a bit full of yourself. If you can read you should have read that I did not defend One In A Million as I said they should also take it off of streaming services. However, OIAM is one of the last songs in rock that's by a well known band that's full of blatant discrimination against gays. Rap music is still very full of discrimination against gays. To this day. That was and still is my point. I'm pointing to where it's most prevelant, cause it would be hypocritical to have a shitstorm over an old song when popular music by current artists is still full of it. That's a fight that should be fought. If you feel that's unfair cause "it also happens in rock" then follow your own advice: "But this use of rap rock as a whataboutism needs to stop. Pointing to somebody else doing something wrong is not a defense for your (genre's) behavior." : ok:

Apparently not; using the n-word is not discrimination. Discrimination is treating one person differently than another, like refusing to serve gay people. Using a slur is bigotry but not discrimination. Axl did not refuse service or refuse to work with any of those people, he used slurs against them. These are not the same thing. You even go on to explicitly define racism as discrimination in your second sentence. Discrimination is an example of racism, but not the entirety of what constitutes racism. They are different words with very different meanings. But I can tell these nuances are being lost on you...

I don't follow Eminem anymore since I feel he's lost his flow and sense of humor after Relapse. But he did make an apology, something he never did back in the '90s/'00s. That alone is progress. But let's stop for a second and think, why did he call Tyler that? Because Tyler, one of the biggest modern rappers in the game, has been pushing the boundaries of the genre's acceptance of gay people by flirting with homosexuality/bisexuality himself (I don't follow too closely, he may have since confirmed it). That's a huge thing that would have been unthinkable in 1997. So rap has absolutely made progress. The fact that a rapper who grew out of the '90s and was most famous then is still making homophobic insults is not a surprise and not really reflective of the modern crop of rappers. Now, to that I'm sure you'll go find a new rapper being homophobic and again, I never said it's been eradicated. But neither has it been from rock entirely.

If my argument is "BS", then tear it apart with logic. You are making a whataboutism fallacy, it's as plain as day. Somebody criticizes rock and you shift attention to rap instead of addressing the problem. It's a cheap dodge.

I never said you were defending OIAM. I said you were misusing the term "discrimination" and making a whataboutism fallacy. It seems you are projecting about reading comprehension...

OIAM is not at all "one of the last homophobic songs in rock", are you friggin' kidding me? The guys in Dragonforce were previously from a band called "Kill all the F----ts". You have tone-deaf comments from Kid Rock, who still uses ‘gay’ in interviews as a synonym for "shit", the same way a nine-year-old schoolkid does. Velvet Revolver wrote Get Out The Door almost 20 years after OIAM came out. Prince became anti-gay after being born-again later in his life. Some Christian Metal band called For Today said some homophobic stuff... I mean, you have to be kidding me acting like rock has no homophobia anymore.

https://www.spin.com/2011/10/special-report-homophobia-haunts-indie-rock/

And of course, Country music has some very serious issues with bigotry, but for some reason, it's always rap that gets scapegoated... hmm, I wonder why...

I am all for calling out rap artists for bigotry of any kind. You seem to be assuming that everyone is as fond of diversions as you are... if you actually care about fighting injustice or even just doing the right thing, you don't defend someone just because you like them.

Yeah Get Out The Door is quite transphobic  :-[ Not sure about Prince being anti gay, but he was a Jehovas witness so wouldnt be surprising.

I think rap music gets called out more cause its more blatant and the lyrics are often more aggressive anyway than lets say Princes music.

In my book using the n word is racist cause its putting down black people.  In Axls case the song is told by the eyes of a racist.

^ That is a good point regarding One in a Million.

Here is another way to look at it. Should we condemn a song if the lyrics are from the point of view of a character the artist creates? That would be akin to judging an actor personally for a role he played in a movie.

Here's a new article that brings up "One in a Million."

https://www.delcotimes.com/arts_and_entertainment/rock-music-menu-why-the-exile-of-kate-smith-is/article_b651513a-6765-11e9-9968-2be1a903b548.html (https://www.delcotimes.com/arts_and_entertainment/rock-music-menu-why-the-exile-of-kate-smith-is/article_b651513a-6765-11e9-9968-2be1a903b548.html)

here we go.

I feel like we are dangerously close to a collective ban of GnR. i'm thinking if they release new music and end up on the radio or in the press, this will become a big issue. and when people realize that this happened in 1988, and not 1948, they will be shocked.

I think GnR and the record label need to be prepared to address this quickly if it comes up. I think they would have a chance to overcome any backlash, but they would need to speak out about head on.

Stones and Led Zep will get away with it. have the "different time" thing going for them, and they are 2 of the biggest bands of all time. they are sorta on a different planet, and they are a bit older. GnR could have a tougher time. 

It’s an interesting topic for 2019 for sure.  I don’t think there is any danger of a collective ban on GNR for a few reasons.  First off they are way too popular and established.  They are all pushing 60 and have been around for a couple generations at this point.  In other words their legacy is set in stone.  If the subject matter of their songs haven’t turned off people in the last 34 years why would it start now?  Michael Jackson for example, is still being played in heavy rotation and I can’t think of anything GNR have done that rivals the allegations against him.  There is such a thing as too big to fail.

Minus a few lyrics in some songs which are up to interpretation, GNR has no track record of being a band that promotes discrimination, that’s not what they are about.  If it was, why would any of us be here ?

I never thought “One in a Million” was written and intended as a supremist anthem people nod and sing along to.  My interpretation since I was a kid was that it was about a small minded character from a small Midwest  town who is being exposed to the big city and new cultures and ideas for the first time .  I took it as a social commentary on how some people have a very narrow view of the world, not a statement on Axl’s actual personal beliefs.

That said , if they got booked for something corporately sponsored like the Super Bowl, I think the chances of “One in a Million” or “Back off Bitch” not coming up and being an issue is zero.  So I highly doubt we will ever see them do something like that (not necessarily a bad thing).   If Pepsi thinks there is even a chance of a nickel rolling out the door over them booking a certain band they will panic and book Maroon 5 faster than Adam Levine can take his shirt off.

Try telling that to the lynch mob on social media they just look for any reason to be offended however trivial, probably wasn't Axl's wisest move to record that song as he knew it would be misinterpreted but it's 3 decades ago now and they haven't played it live since the 80s.

Did Axl ever claim the song was a character? I don't recall that. I mean, even if so, it is an awfully coincidental thing that the character would be some country boy coming to L.A. for the first time to make it big...


Wow, what a laughably biased article:


"Everyone agrees with this loaded narrative stated as a truism!"

What is the supposed double standard here? What is "inconvenient for multiculturalism" about going after more recent rock bands? The obvious reason is nothing more than coincidence, that those songs have not been noticed and publicized for their lyrics in the modern day. Their main claim that '70s and '80s artists have been spared criticism is just demonstrably false.


That's an interesting interpretation. However, I find it a bit of a stretch because think of Coma. Remember how Axl said he was worried it would be taken as pro-suicide, so he worked hard on comping up with some kind of redemption in the lyrics? And that was a song much less prone to misinterpretation than OIAM by a long shot.

Also, if that were the case, then the "radicals and racists" line would not be Axl defending himself, but rather defending the character which he is portraying as a racist? Doesn't make sense.

And Back off Bitch is really just another example of his pretty ugly views back then. And before anyone tries to defend that, we all know he didn't treat women well back then in his real life, so that wasn't "just a song".

As far as the Superbowl, didn't they have The Who a few years ago? Nobody mentioned Townshend's issues.

You bring up some interesting points that I will definitely have to think about,  I disagree with a few things but I see where you are coming from.

The way he approached "Coma" might have been influenced by some of the reaction he got from "One in a Million", who knows?  I still maintain that there are several layers to "OIAM" and it is not simply an anthem promoting racism, and I think the warning/apology posted on the album cover backs that up.  It wasn't like they were completely surprised by some backlash and issued an apology after the fact.

The song was certainly meant to be provocative and offensive, and to challenge the listener to think.  I can't say what the true interpretation of the song is or should be but that is what art is, it is up for interpretation.  I can only say that I don't see a pattern in GNR's behavior that says we should take that song as a sing along anthem about what a wonderful thing they think racism is.

Also "Back off Bitch" is actually just a song, its 5 minutes  of vocals, guitar, bass, and drums.  To try and make some correlation to the artists personal life or views at the time which frankly none of us know anything about doesn't interest me.  It is definitely not a road I am comfortable going down when we possess little to no facts about a given situation.   As far as people trying to defend "Back Off Bitch, generally speaking, I don't think art should need to be defended or apologized for. 

Yes  The Who played the Super Bowl, but that was in 2011.  Outrage Culture was still in it's infancy back then.  I highly doubt they would be booked for that gig today without meeting some resistance from somewhere.

This is more of a response to some of the general comments I've seen in the thread regarding if songs should have been recorded in the first place.  People change, their views change, and sometimes a band looks back and doesn't relate to something they did in the past.  For example, Paramore won't play the song "Misery Business" anymore because Hayley Williams doesn't feel like the lyrics represent her any longer, thats fine.  Those lyrics represent how she felt in 2008 and not 2019.  But do I think she should apologize for writing the song in the first place?  Absolutely not.  If artists were going to do that, they would be so guarded and paranoid all the time about what something might look like in the future, that they wouldn't take any risks anymore, and certainly would not be authentic.  Imagine the type of art that would produce? (see Imagine Dragons and Maroon 5)    What a boring world that would be to live in.

Yeah, but he was just "doing research".

Actually i did some research and i couldnt find anything on One In A Million being told by a character. I probably mishmashed my view and what Axl told in interviews.

The Interviews seem pretty straight forward. So it seems like its Axls feelings from 1987.

Fair point, Coma was after OIAM.

As far as the statement on the cover, its seems to me that it is in fact suggesting it's an anthem for anyone who has been in those kind of situations ("Have you ever been attacked by a homosexual?"). And I mean, admitting that it's generalizing doesn't really address the issue. The issue isn't stereotyping so much as it is the use of slurs, although the stereotyping is also an issue. I mean, he could have certainly conveyed the same message without any slurs and it may have been seen as a backwards kind of attitude but not really a controversy, at least not in 1988. And especially the way he defended it ("well they can say it, why can't I? I don't like limits") was just really tonedeaf.

Obviously, this was only one song and I agree, it was not like racism was a significant part of what their music was about. But at the same time, if we let it slide when "well, they only did it once", that sets a bad precedent and also makes it seem okay to anyone who is impressionable and paying attention. It doesn't even have to be about "punishing" the person who did it, because the goal is really just to make it clear that this is unacceptable. Social norms are a very strong shaper of human behavior.

Of course, in the literal sense BOB is just a song. But this kind of ties into the previous point; impressionable people (particularly the young) are prone to be shaped by the media they ingest. In fact, Axl made this point on Don't Damn Me:

"The trash collected by the eyes and dumped into the brain
Said, it tears into our conscious thoughts, you tell me, who's to blame?"

But we do know about his personal life. He said himself to Rolling Stone that as a kid he was made to believe that women were evil and that domestic violence was the normal way of life. Also, we heard the depositions of Erin and Stephanie in court.


Ever? Because a photographic artist could claim that child pornography is art. If you disagree with that (and I'm assuming you do), then you have already decided there are limitations on what constitutes protected artistic expression. I think any healthy society should push back against art that is destructive to society. And before anyone says it, no I am not comparing BOB to kiddy porn, reading comprehension is fundamental.

There is no such thing as "outrage culture". It is simply the changing of social norms as has always happened throughout all of human history. Simply dismissing peoples' concerns offhand as "fake outrage" just makes it clear that you never intended to listen to their concerns to begin with. And 2011 was not a long time ago. According to the very people who push this "fake outrage" narrative, it has been going on since the 1980s. In fact, they were saying the same things about OIAM criticism back then, that it was "fake outrage". However nowadays, most of us realize that saying the n-word and using stereotypes are wrong. If you're not even listening to the peoples' concerns today, how do you know you're not on that same wrong side of history?

Never heard of Misery Business but looking at the lyrics, I don't see much other than calling some other girl a whore. But the fact that she's decided not to play it negates the need for any kind of apology anyway.


Sorry but this is ridiculous hyperbole. And you are conflating societal risks with musical risks. You can write music that is original as anything without using slurs or stereotypes, I mean come on... the vast majority of GNR's catalog does that. Again, with Coma, did it lose its edge because Axl gave it lyrical redemption? Of course not.

But I think what both sides are missing is that there need to be artists pushing boundaries to an extent, and there needs to be society pushing back when they go too far. Everything these days is so scorched earth... both of those roles serve a necessary function to society.


"Your honor, the only thing I'm guilty of is being too thorough!"

Really great post above I just grabbed a few things I'd like to address though.

I said "generally speaking" art shouldn't have to be defended or apologized for.  If you are breaking the law I don't think that should fall under freedom of expression.  The example you gave above definitely wouldn't fall under anything a rational person would think to defend.

I don't think it is ridiculous hyperbole to say that if you put extreme limits on art you are going to get safe and boring art.  You are using the extreme case of slurs and stereotypes in music but music doesn't have to have slurs and stereotypes in it for SOMEBODY somewhere to find something they are offended by in it.  And, just because someone might be offended by something that does not mean they are automatically correct.  If 99 people find a song innocuous, but 1 person takes issue with it, that 1 person is not automatically right.  That seems to be the way the world is heading.  You can call it paranoia, but it is a trend I see especially on social media. 

Which really brings me to the reason I think this thread was started in the first place, and that is outrage culture.  If you don't think that it is real at all then that is something I don't think we are going to agree on.   We can go back and forth on the severity of it, but to say it doesn't exist? I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  You stated above that it is just the changing of social norms that has happened throughout history.  I think that is not what people mean by outrage culture. There is nothing wrong with societal norms changing over time, thats always happened and its how you build toward a more tolerant and accepting society.   You would hope that people treat each other with more respect with each passing generation. I think we can all agree on that.  The difference is now with social media and things like the #cancel movement, if someone expresses an opinion someone might not like there are people who want that person to lose their job and to be destroyed over it .   Opinions are not legislation, people should be entitled to have them.

Now it might mostly be a social media phenomenon, thats where I seem to see it most prevalent, although I hear the universities are having their issues.  We seem to be heading toward a world where you are not allowed to say anything negative whatsoever about anything without running the risk of being automatically branded as  something.   For example, "You didn't think Captain Marvel was the greatest movie in history?  Well its because you are sexist."  This kind of thing happens constantly on social media, literally constantly.  .  How far is too far?   There is no longer a discussion, it is just straight to outrage, and it does seem that some people not all, are looking to be outraged.   Safe spaces are a regular occurrence on college campuses and coloring books are handed out to students in their early 20's to help them cope with the fact that a speaker is coming to the school who *gasp* may have an opposing viewpoint than theirs.  It is bonkers.

Bret Easton Ellis author of "American Psycho" and fairly liberal guy just wrote a book talking about  outrage culture and he articulates these things way better than I can.  Now if you are someone who doesn't think outrage culture is a thing at all you may not agree with anything he says and think he is full of shit, but nonetheless I thought it was a very interesting read.

It is also something Joe Rogan talks about a lot on his podcast and he had this recent exchange with comedian Bill Burr that I also found interesting,

https://youtu.be/PJhl0tLxflc

Like I said I am not trying to change anyones mind, just throwing out my 2 cents and playing devils advocate here.  I always get a lot out of these types of  discussions and a lot of the points I read in the post above will make me rethink some things.  I definitely don't have all the answers.

Food for thought.
Art can be illegal, (drug references for example) Ratm Burnin the US flag, ect.

Abuse cannot be used to make art. Or can it? Are the pyramids art, or just some historical bulding? I dont know.

Pedophilia of course cannot be made into art. The scorpions album cover with the young girl, is pretty close to art. Is the over the line? Probably. Zeppelins Houses Of The Holy album covers is art for sure. Where do we draw the line? I dont know.


Im pretty happy where the dine has been drawn by western society in the past lets say 60 years.

Very interesting topic indeed.

You could probably go on youtube and watch any number of interviews and live clips from the early '90s where Axl is being insensitive about something or other. It's all been well publicized, and Axl paid for it in the media. For someone to dredge it up again and feign shock and horror at "GNR's hidden past" or whatever would be disingenuous.

If it did happen, they should just embrace the controversy. GNR wasn't ever intended to be family friendly. They weren't supposed to be jock rock. They were an honest rock band that laid it all out there and let you decide if you wanted to hate them for it. Which many chose to do. But time softened those opinions. Maybe it's time to be hated again.

Guys, words are just words.

We are cleaning up our language, omologating our behaviours, thoughts etc  and world is worse than ever, think about that.

I mean i love to sing the line "Turn around bitch I got a use for you"... I've been in love with my girl for 10 years and I've never been so rude to her.

If u don't have a grain of salt, u can erase the all the words in this word , but your're still a dumb fuck. And usually the best dumb fuck is the one who call u racist if u use the n word even only once

Nobody is actually putting limits on art though. It's just public opinion turning against the views expressed in it. I mean, you can make a song about how great Nazis are but you can't say you're being censored because nobody buys it and no radio station wants to play it.

Just because somebody is offended by your song also does not mean they are censoring you. People have a right to be offended, which is the crux of what seems to be the issue here; a lot of people seem to be offended that anyone else is offended by anything (oh the irony!). To me, it just seems like a disingenuous way of trying to silence any criticism of dangerous or bigoted views.

And the thing about that is, one person being offended cannot change anything. So why is it always framed as if one person being offended is just a step away from government censorship? Social media is just the modern public square, so if you have a movement of people bringing attention to something offensive on Twitter, it's basically equivalent to a protest in the town square over something that offends the citizens (for example, taxation with the Tea Party). I think it's interesting that many of the same people complaining about people trying to make change through social media were supporters of the Tea Party because that was change they agreed with and spurred by something that offended them.

I mean, really, America was built on citizens working to change things they find offensive about society in order to continually make society better. Whether their concerns are social or political should not matter.

I don't believe outrage culture is real in the sense that people are just looking for things to be offended by for no reason, and are faking their outrage because... why? It doesn't make sense.


So, as I understand it, the #cancel movement is just a call to boycott certain things that people find offensive. Again, this is supposed to be a feature of society, particularly in Capitalism. However, I do disagree with campaigns to fire people for their personal views, as long as those views do not conflict with their work duties/responsibilities, of course. You can't have an anti-gay marriage person refusing to sign gay marriage certificates when it has been legalized, like that lady some time back. But it has certainly been weaponized, by both sides, and that is an issue.


This is part of the narrative being pushed by the right. It traces back to think tanks putting out articles in the early 1990s and has had a huge resurgence in modern times. But when you actually dig into the supposed examples they offer, they fall apart very quickly under scrutiny. These articles do a great job of busting the myths about university culture:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/02/why-do-those-college-students-hate-free-speech-so-much

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/26/the-free-speech-panic-censorship-how-the-right-concocted-a-crisis


I would like to see an example of that, because I do not believe it, sorry.


How so? The point of publicly posting their offense is to start a discussion. Do you need a discussion weighing the merits and benefits of something before you decide if you are offended by it? Of course not, humans do not operate that way. You see something and you react.


Let's stop and look at the definition of a safe space:

"a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm."

Why is this a bad thing again? Most businesses have policies against the exact same things. The idea that they are sheltering people from differing opinions is simply a lie. Again, here is an article that explains it much more thoroughly than I can:


https://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/11949258/safe-spaces-explained

That article taken out of context is a very common example of how the narrative about "political correctness/outrage cultrue/safe spaces" is deliberately misleading.

As far as the coloring books, what is wrong with an event that is optional and outside class hours for students to de-stress after the election of a radical demagogue? In fact, it wasn't even set up by the school but rather students in one dorm. College students are already at the highest risk of stress-induced suicide of any age group and that is a serious problem. Even if you are not a part of any group that may be targeted by the Trump administration, it shouldn't be hard to understand why his election was deeply disturbing to many people who were.

Joe Rogan is not an intellectual, I'm sorry. Not only does he frequently wade into subjects beyond his knowledge, he invites guests on with a particular agenda and does nothing to hold their feet to the fire. Just listening to the very first sentence of that video... is this who we should be taking our social morality cues from? "Usually women want to push this, and men who are bitches"? Really? Same goes for Bill Burr the comedian. How about a professor or expert? Or literally anyone who would know what they are talking about? The problem with these podcaster talking heads is there is no responsibility to cite sources for their claims. It's just 100% rhetoric. To go through and debunk everything they claim in that 16 minute clip would take me hours. And that's the problem; by the time you've effectively debunked a lie, it has already made it around the world and been followed by 30 other lies. Hopefully this post and the sources linked are enough to reveal the flaws in their arguments because I've spent a considerable amount of time on this as it is.

I appreciate that you are open minded on this. A lot of people hear this narrative repeated so often that it becomes cemented as indisputable in their minds.

Words are just words? You should tell that to cults, marketing firms, Nazi propagandists and anyone else who has successfully influenced people to action with "just words".

Words do not exist in a vacuum, social norms shape how people think and behave, this is well-accepted social psychology.

Not sure what "omologating" is supposed to mean, but that is quite possibly the most wide-ranging correlation fallacy I have ever heard. "We are cleaning up our oceans and yet there are more bear attacks than ever before! Think about that..."

Not to mention that "the world is worse than ever" is yet another mind-numbingly gargantuan generalization.

As to your last statement... what? I'm pretty sure you can't use the defense, "I only killed ONE person, now all the sudden I'm labelled as a murderer?!" Your words and actions reflect your character. Why would a person who is not racist use the n-word at all?

Gotta appreciate PermissionToLand's very well written and well thought answers.



I Found this online which is a bit interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTGpbyStMqQ

U missed my point.

I give you an example: ask any italian what they think about the north-african immigrants...You would hear anything from "they should come back to their country" to "i hope they will sleep with the fishes"

Then ask the Pope the same question. Answer: "they are all human beings, let them in, they are our friends, brothers."

Now, look at what the Vatican is doing for the immigrants and then look at what Italy have done and doing still. There is no competition. If u look at words italians are racists, at least... If u look at facts, the Pope is the fuckin Hitler, with his 0 help. So what?

Words are just words, if  not supported by the facts. I could be an employer and call my fat black secretary "chocolate mommy".  ANother employer has not black people employed cause he hates them. But you know, because of the "social norm" I'll be the homofobic racist employer who should be  banned from society, the other one would be the good guy...

So your nazi propaganda example doesn't work, we are talking about a whole different thing. Saying publicy let's gather up and kill all the n****s or the jews, its' a fuckin plan.

Now I answer your last question. I'm bald. If u are in anger with me and u want to punch me, kill me etc. What are u going to say? "bald shit, bald retard etc... If you are a black guy who is assaulting me maybe i'll answer you  "fuckin n". When you are angry you know u'll use words that are hurting the other side in any way possibile but that doesn't make you a racist or a bald people hater...

I can say hand on heart, I would never call a black person a "fuckin n" no matter what the situation it is. That's an absolutely ludicrous thing to say, and absolutely the only white people I would ever hear saying that to black people now are extreme racists. Comparing it to someone calling another a "bald shit" is absurd- it doesn't have the weight of hundreds of years of slavery and oppression behind it.

I'm not sure what world you live in where white people are still calling black people the n word and not being deemed as racist. Certainly not the one I'm living in.

Dude the word NIGER-NIGRIS comes from latin. And ONLY in the USA has that meaning, cause originally it hadn't that negative aura. Niger means "coming from niger (africa). If America slaves were called "n" shouldn't matter for the  entire world, we come from different cultures at the end of the days. And remember racism is not about slavery, but it's about somatic traits. So being bald or black or fat and been discriminatied for that is called racism, and its the same exact thing, don't matter what you say. That's why im saying words are just words, this shows how people don't know the meaning behind the words they use... ANd im not saying is a good thing say the "n" word, im just saying  it can happen to use it, but it doesnt mean anything... People usually judge other people just because of words they use because is the easiest (and pathetic) thing to do.. When it's time to think about facts it's too difficult, just this...

Remind me again why being called bald or fat is racism?

I couldn't care less where the n word came from- it's use is wholly racist. As anyone knows.

You're obviously talking out of your backside. Try wandering up to a black person, calling them the 'n' word, and see if they agree it "doesn't mean anything".......I think they might enlighten you as to their feelings on the use of the word by a white person.

Not "being called". Being discriminated for that. Again, you're missing the point and are you're giving me reason without even knowing it

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about anymore, but your previous suggestions that it's ok to call a black person the 'n' word if you're angry with them is utterly ridiculous.

I imagine you're just trolling to be honest, as no one could be that idiotic in 2019, so I think I'll end it here.

Boom! And at the end the good guy, having nothing more to say, offended the bad one.  :rofl: :rofl:

And rightfully so

Okay, first of all, you are generalizing all Italians, which makes your entire argument invalid. You cannot presume to know the racial attitudes of all Italians. If they have tolerant immigration policies, then clearly the majority of them do not think immigrants should "go back where they came from". It sounds like you had some bad experiences there and projected those individuals' attitudes onto their entire populace. That is, if you've even ever been there and aren't just making assumptions based on what you hear.

As far as the Vatican goes, that is a shame but there is a motive for it; looking good publicly to hide your true views. But why would a person who is tolerant want to be publicly viewed as intolerant? There is no motive for the opposite.


What planet are you living on? It is a FEDERAL CRIME to discriminate in employment.


Clearly it's you who missed my point. Which was that words influence people. They do not exist in a vacuum and they can lead to actions. Saying "let's kill X group" is also still "just words", so it is absolutely the same thing. Saying we should kill somebody is not the same as the action of killing them. If words did not influence actions, why would propaganda exist at all?


No, I would not. I would probably call you stupid or an asshole or whatever relates to the reason you made me angry, not some irrelevant thing like your hair or skin color.

And we are not talking about words thrown out in a blind rage anyway, we are talking about words that written down as lyrics, thought over, recorded, produced and released worldwide. Regardless, I have never used such words in a fit of rage anyway because they are simply not in my vocabulary. You don't suddenly introduce new words to your vocabulary in a fit of rage, like "You fucking loquacious piece of shit!"


You are disproving your own point. The meanings of words change over time and differ between cultures. And the "g-g-e-r" version was created in America precisely as a slur. If you call an American black person a "niger", they will probably just look at you sideways.

As far as whether that matters in the rest of the world, it is generally less offensive in other countries, although American culture (especially in the digital age) bleeds out into the rest of the world, and most other countries' people know the history of the American variation, and know what an ugly slur it is. You cannot police people's minds and tell them what to be offended by.

Bald and fat people are not races. But discrimination of any kind is wrong. However, there is no equivalent to the n-word for bald and fat people. To suggest so is disturbingly ignorant of the history behind that word.


Judging a man by his words is "pathetic"? That statement is pathetic. Your words are revealing a lot about you right now.

Yeah, that's not racism either. It's discrimination. For the guy ranting about people not knowing the meaning of words they use, you sure do it a lot yourself...


For the love of God, grow up.

Thanks. That was interesting. I wonder what Vin would say though if he knew Axl was actually a small town country boy before becoming a star? I think if it were really just him inhabiting a character, he would have made that very clear when the controversy was at its height in '88/89.

And of course, as you could predict, lots of comments are running with Vin's opinion, coming from an upbringing very different from most African Americans, as exoneration of the song.

Ok boss tell Axl is a racist. And don’t listen to gnr songs as the thread suggests cause that makes you racist too, i dont want you to be corrupted by his racist propaganda. And leave this forum and do any thing to close it, this is a racist forum cause people here support a racist man, right? Have fun doin it.

Dude we keep on talking about different things, i was using paradoxes to lead you to my point but ok, it doesn't work. I get your point, but on the otherside you keep on taking me litterally, but ok nevermind...

I really don't know why is so difficult to understand that the use of some words in a certain context (from a state of anger to the portait of a character or characters in a song) doesn't make you anything (not racist, not homofobic)... Maybe is not the perfect thing to do and some people may get offended, but is understandable. Or it was understandable, at this point, cause it looks like people i'm discussing with they are living in a bubble of a world made of words, judging people only by the words they are sayin' even if the way they live their lives shows the opposite...

Duff was interviewed recently by Yahoo! Music and in the interview they mention the song and how it was written in character. He's asked if he was surprised that people didn't get that part:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/guns-n-roses-duff-mc-kagan-addresses-gun-control-in-school-somethings-gotta-be-done-165805785.html

(They're talking about it after the 46:44 mark in the full interview clip)

He says it was brilliant and super brave of Axl to step out and do that. He says the song is public commentary. Duff mentions that the song uses the verbiage of ill informed people on the street.



/jarmo

Nobody said listening to GNR makes you racist. Why can't you have an honest discussion? It's clear you haven't comprehended a single thing I've said. I said pretty clearly that while I think the song is racist, Axl has clearly grown up in the past 30 years and learned from that mistake.

"Paradoxes"? You shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of to look smart. It tends to have the opposite effect.

Yes, I am taking you literally because you are making arguments, not writing a fantasy novella. Please point out where you were using metaphors, I'll wait. This is a really weak diversion tactic to keep claiming you are being misinterpreted and changing your argument once it's clear you have no defense left.

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand that people who are not racist don't suddenly become racist when they are angry. Also, Axl did not write these lyrics in a blind rage. This is not the same as insults thrown during road rage. I already addressed that argument and you not only failed to respond to it, you are simply ignoring it and re-stating the same things again.

I don't know many people who throw around the n-word and live their lives working tirelessly for the rights of african americans...

You are living in a bubble where words don't mean anything. You are suggesting that a person cannot be judged by their OWN STATED VIEWS. That is fucking insane.

Again, the song is not racist, just portraits a young guy who is against the entire world and uses shitty and ignorant language. Again, you say it's racists because of some bad words and I'm saying is not, words don't mean  a shit if you don't look at who is using them e and why he's using them.
Tell me what's the meaning of putting togheter the words"POLICE and niggers" . Why nobody here remembers the word "police"? Oh well cause police is accused of being racist as well, so the racist bullshit wouldn't work... It's a fuckin oxymore, it's not difficult to understand, it's like saying I'm against everybody, get out of my way, It's a fuckin portrait of a guy against the entire world, the song is far from being racist. Try to sing "coloured man get out of my way" if lyrically it has the same effect...


No defense left? From what or who? You really made my day hahha :rofl: :rofl: Diversion tactic? Changing argumet? I'm not changing a shit, i'm adding things but it's just a waste of time. You don't understand, end of the story.

And for you self culture, LEARN THE FUCKIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PARADOX AND METAPHOR.

I din't use metaphors, i used pararadoxes which means I was exaggerating things to explain my point of view. When i'm talking about italians and the pope being a fuckin hitler, for example, it was a nonsense/paradoxical comparison in order to make you understand the difference between words and facts. ANd you took me literally, trying to explain me why i wasn't right.  :rofl: :rofl:

Anyway, think whatever you want, i said what i had to said



This. Simple as that.

As i said people don't get it because they like to point their fingers at anybody faster as  they can, taking words out of their context for different purposes or just because they have no mental abilities and they stuck on the words...Internet and poor culture lead to this situation at its maximum level nowadays, and it's pretty sad cause things like satire are going to be erased.

I'd still like him to put his money where his mouth is in the 'it's just words' and 'people might say the n word and not be racist' nonsense and routinely call black people the n word to their faces rather than spouting that nonsense on a forum. Pretty sure he might be 'corrected' rather quickly.

He seems to be very confused as to the difference between 'writing in character' and the fact that only racists use racist language in their everyday lives.

   Here is a good read about applying today's PC culture to older works - somewhat related to what we are discussing here-  As I mentioned before, with one in a million I believe that Axl was playing a character and the lyrics were not his personal views, but he gets slammed anyway due to the song being misunderstood.

Will political correctness kill classic movies?

The rise of political correctness can be seen across movie screens this weekend.

“The Hustle,” a gender-swap remake of 1988's “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels,” rails against the patriarchy between sight gags. “Avengers: Endgame” shoehorns a minor gay character into the story as a super-virtue-signal. “Long Shot” shows Seth Rogen apologizing for the United States bombing Japan to help end World War II.

Even older films, and the stars who made them great, are now seen through the PC prism. Just ask the estate of John Wayne. The legendary star got pummeled a few months ago, decades after his passing, for a racially insensitive Playboy interview in 1971. Some critics demanded that his name be stripped from John Wayne Airport in Orange County, Calif.

Singer Kate Smith’s film career is dwarfed by her radio, TV and stage accomplishments. Yet Smith’s recording of two 1930s songs deemed racist convinced two professional sports teams — the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Flyers — to strip her iconic rendition of “God Bless America” from their programming.

It’s easy to imagine the culture attempting to do something similar to films that don’t mirror today's cultural mores. Molly Ringwald, who brought some of John Hughes’s best films to life, turned on her collaborator last year, saying that his films weren’t "woke" enough in our "Me Too" era.

Those films primarily hit theaters in the 1980s. So what about older films? Would any modern studio greenlight 1974’s “Blazing Saddles,” the Mel Brooks farce teeming with racial and sexual humor?

What about James Bond's early adventures, in which 007 treated female characters in a sexist fashion? Even a comedy classic such as 1959's "Some Like It Hot," featuring two men dressed in drag, could be insensitive given modern mores.

Could problematic films eventually be pulled from home video and streaming services?

Sound hysterical? It's currently in vogue to tear down statues that don’t align with current groupthink. So why would pop culture artifacts be spared?

In fact, it’s already been done.

Two years ago, a Memphis theater nixed a screening of the 1939 classic “Gone with the Wind” because of its “insensitive” content.

Disney’s Oscar-winning “Song of the South” won’t be seen on the company’s forthcoming streaming platform. The 1946 film’s antiquated, and some say racist, portrayal of black life turned the movie into cultural poison. It’s never made it to home video, and that’s unlikely to change in the near future.

The effort to wipe clean questionable content is happening elsewhere, too. The work itself doesn’t have to be “problematic” if the performer in front of the camera is. Bounce TV yanked reruns of “The Cosby Show” following star Bill Cosby’s conviction on rape charges.

When comedian Louis C.K. admitted to pleasuring himself in front of a series of women without their consent, he lost more than his FX series “Louie.” HBO announced it had expunged all C.K.-related programming from its service, including stand-up specials and his series “Lucky Louie.”

His 2017 film, “I Love You, Daddy,” never hit theaters as intended following his revelation. More than a year later, the film can’t be found on home video or streaming outlets, despite rave reviews from its festival run. The film’s star, Chloe Grace Moretz, even argued against the film’s release. “I think it should just kind of go away, honestly,” the millennial actress told the press.

Her age matters because her peers represent a potent part of the PC movement. Just ask any conservative speaker chased off campus by students frightened by unfamiliar viewpoints.

Woody Allen’s historic film career may be over, and not because of his age or any health woes. Allegations of child abuse against his daughter Dylan Farrow while never proven, finally caught up with the “Annie Hall” superstar. Amazon refused to release Allen’s latest work, “A Rainy Day in New York,” citing Allen’s "Me Too" statement in court.

One highly controversial film, and its collective shunning, predates the current PC mania. The 1915 drama “Birth of a Nation” glorified the KKK and dehumanized black slaves, among other revolting elements. Cultural critics marvel at some of its artistic achievements, given the technical constraints of the era, but its content makes any public display cultural dynamite.

Is that the best way to deal with art? Wouldn’t a screening of the film, followed by an informed dialogue on its place in culture and how the real KKK used it as a recruiting tool, be more illuminating?

Audiences could process the material on their own terms along with the vital context.

That’s the key word missing from PC-themed conversations — “context.” Without it, PC scolds too often win the day.

Hughes couldn’t have imagined his plucky teen comedy would one day be shamed by its star. And there’s a chance movies like “Long Shot,” “The Hustle,” and “Avengers: Endgame” may one day be seen as “problematic,” too, in ways we can’t imagine now. Who know how we’ll handle art that doesn’t fit the current zeitgeist by then?

Christian Toto is editor of the conservative entertainment site HollywoodInToto.com and host of the weekly "Hollywood in Toto Podcast."

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/443282-will-political-correctness-kill-classic-movies (https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/443282-will-political-correctness-kill-classic-movies)

Quick question, is this writer mentally impaired?

This is what you consider a salient point being made? There is as much substance to that screed as there is nutrition in a Twinkie.

 

Considering some people's puritan attitudes towards art which doesn't match current political correctness, it isn't out of the realm of possibility in the future that other older works could get the sanitation treatment or banned altogether.

Something many are missing here- CONTEXT. Whether it be banning songs, movies or tearing down 100 year old statues, they miss the whole story and focus on a smaller point. 

Ill leave it at that. Don't want to get too far off topic here.

I see more people saying this, and while I sure could believe he used a character in his mind while writing this song, I really don't buy it. He explained in many interviews at the time that the basis for the lyrics were his personal experiences (being molested by a man, getting arrested all the time, getting annoyed by all the black people tryng to sell him stuff when coming to LA, being looked away by foreign owners at the gas station). The song itself is also very similar to his life story and his personality ("some say I'm crazy"). Add to that the band members feeling really uncomfortable with the lyrics and not wanting to release it, I'm pretty sure it was less of a character than we think. It was just his personal experiences, written from the perspective of someone struggling with a world (LA) he did not know yet (including anger and frustration). In the past -as far as I can remember- Axl always defended the song from his personal pov and experiences. You don't do that when it's a character, then you explicitly explain why the character would feel that way. Not you yourself.

That being said, I would never EVER be for censoring any form of art. That's why CONTEXT is everything. Look at Eddie Murphy's Raw or Delirious: it would be extremely offensive these days but back then people just talked like that. No point in removing all of that from every possible outlet, cause it's still funny as hell.

You can use personal experiences and base a character on those. Doesn't mean it's your own beliefs though.





/jarmo

You guys have pretty much summed it up, its a long but interesting read. You've said all the arguments pro and con, but unfortunately skipped over all that's said and kept on going at each other.
The one thing in the 80'ies, that I admire, is that there was a punk attitude, where you could say stuff even though its against the mainstream political correctness. I personally would like to have such an ability... to use it when I think is needed... but my "responsibility and politness does not allow me. Guns have a lot of impolite songs, that I think are really cool...
Guns addressed something in One in a Million, that was actually happening... its a real feeling that someone, somewhere felt. They portrayed or put that feeling into raw words and into a cool song. I too think it was very brave of them to do so. There is a very small line between bravery and stupidity... Brave because they addressed something so delicate, yet they knew they would take crap for it if (when) interpreted in a wrong way...
Now days we have our own social challenges. If I made a song about how I hate dog poop on the sidewalks, screaming babies in restaurants, or filth left in parks by immigrants... It does not mean I hate dogs, babies in restaurants or immigrants that have to fleed their own home in search for a normal life... I don't, I have dogs, I have kids and I try to help immigrants as much as I can, but it can irritate me when I am not in my best mood...
p.s.
In this part of the world, where I live, words such as Nigg..., gypsy, cop, etc. have less of a foul slang meaning, and do not have the same weight as it seems to have in the States. Especially when said in English. On the contrary, it has a cool association. We have a famous white rapper who goes along the name "Nigger". Its a different culture with a very different history. That is how I understood some of the arguments of ITARocker.

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  :D )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

are there any other quotes from anyone in the band that this song was written "in character", or is this the first time that was ever mentioned?

I was thinking the whole "in character" thing was just an assumption by some in the fan base to make Axl not look so bad. 

One In A Million is about...... I went back and forth from Indiana eight times my first year in Hollywood. I wrote it about being dropped off at the bus station and everything that was going on.
Axl - RIP April 1989

The most important thing about "One in a Million" is that it got people to think about racism. A lot of people thought I was talking about entire races or sectors of people. I wasn't. And there was an apology on the record. The apology is not even written that well, but it's not on the cover of every record. And no one has acknowledged it yet. No one.
Axl - Rolling Stone April 1992

There's a lot of people who have chosen to use that song ["One In A Million"]. However that song makes them feel, they think that must be what the song means. If they hate blacks, and they hear my lines and hate blacks even more, I'm sorry, but that's not how I meant it.
Axl - RIP September 1992

The song is very generic and generalized, and I apologized for that on the cover of the record. Going back and reading it, it wasn't the best apology but, at the time, it was the best apology I could make.
Axl - RIP November 1992





/jarmo

none of those quotes appear to imply that he was writing about some "character". it seems like it is very personal. the words are directly from Axl's point of view.

which is why I find Duff's comments so confusing. part of me wonders if this is the band trying to get out in front of something before it blows up? a very important step if you are considering any future releases and/or any press.

this is from a Rolling Stone interview:

Does it bother you that so many people think you’re misogynous, homophobic and racist?

Axl: "It can bother me. But the racist thing is just bullshit. I used a word that was taboo. And I used that word because it was taboo. I was pissed off about some black people that were trying to rob me. I wanted to insult those particular black people. I didn’t want to support racism. When I used the word faggots, I wasn’t coming down on gays. I was coming down on an element of gays. I had just heard a story about a man who was released out of the L.A. county jail with AIDS and he was hooking. I’ve had my share of dealings with aggressive gays, and I was bothered by it. The. Bible says, “Thou shalt not judge,” and I guess I made a judgment call, and it was an insult. The racist thing, that’s just stupid. I can understand how people would think that, but that’s not how I meant it. I believe that there’s always gonna be some form of racism –– as much as we’d like there to be peace –– because people are different. Black culture is different. I work with a black man every day [Earl Gabbidon, Rose’s bodyguard], and he’s one of my best friends. There are things he’s into that are definitely a “black thing.” But I can like them. There are things that are that way. I think there always will be."

And it doesn't state those are his actual personal beliefs either.

Obviously you feel strongly about the subject since you started the topic.


I think he spoke about it almost thirty years ago. They're not performing the song live, they're not out promoting it.... I don't know what you're after to be honest.



/jarmo

what am I after? interesting question, Jarmo.

i'm after something to pass time while i'm playing in poker tournaments. poker can be boring at times, so I look for mindless outlets to balance the mental challenges of poker, and to occupy my time.

as far as this thread, if you read my original post, you would understand my concerns; i.e. my favorite band could be black-balled by the current PC culture. in voicing those concerns on this board, I found that others have the same concerns. even some journalists have picked up on this risk. others don't see the risk, and it's interesting (reassuring even) to me to hear those opinions as well.   

the discussion logically went in the direction of Axl's intensions when he wrote and recorded those lyrics. a "defense" of Axl has been that it wasn't him using those words, but some "character" he created. I've heard this over the years and I never saw any comments from Axl, or anyone in the band, to support this. I always believed that was a portion of the fan base making something up to make themselves feel better about being such a huge fan of someone who could use such language.

I didn't mention any of this previously in this thread, but when I saw Duff's comments, it really got me thinking. maybe I missed a quote from back in the day. obviously, this is important to the topic of this thread because if true, it would make the comments less offensive.

but I certainly remember that Rolling Stone interview. and I remember his quotes well. not everyone accepted it back then, but destroying people's careers over words being said was not commonplace. also, there was probably a lower bar for dirty rock stars from LA. and Axl certainly had some powerful people in his corner.

Maybe I have higher hopes for people...

I guess if his political beliefs were somewhere closer to Ted Nugent, these people would be yelling for a boycott...?





/jarmo

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

People have lost their careers over things they have said since the beginning of time. Does the Red Scare ring a bell? Over TWO THOUSAND govt employees lost their jobs because they appeared too "radical". That was an actual wide ranging operation by many conservatives who actually held power and used it against regular citizens. You are whining about some nobodies on Twitter with no power having opinions you don't like.

You people really do live in an alternate universe...

There is no threat at all, you are just trying to stir shit up to further your anti-PC agenda. If anyone called them out, Axl would make a genuine apology because he's grown up considerably since 1989. You should take notes.

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history . So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that. Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad. Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues :rofl: :rofl:.

Any update on calling black people 'n#####s' to their faces yet? You know, as it's just a word? I'm eager to know how that one's going....

Yes sure, cause i wrote down that...How old are you, 13? I hope so. Do yourself a favor. Go back, re-read and quote me where I say that. I'm waiting.

Certainly.

Here you are:

"Words are just words, if  not supported by the facts. I could be an employer and call my fat black secretary "chocolate mommy".  ANother employer has not black people employed cause he hates them. But you know, because of the "social norm" I'll be the homofobic racist employer who should be  banned from society, the other one would be the good guy."

Also, we've got:

"Guys, words are just words."

As "words are just words" I suggested you started calling black people "n#####s" to their faces, and see if they agreed. I'm eager to hear how you're getting on with that one.

Yeah, pathetic. As the old Racist says "we read what we want between selected lines"... Funny how you missed my point on purpose  ::) ::) If you don't understand what I wrote, go back to school. And plz, tell me where  I used the "n-word" in that quote, cause i just don't find it. Just sayin'...

I'm not too sure how much ambiguity or scope for misunderstanding there is in someone repeatedly saying "words are just words". If you actually believe that, please feel free to start backing it up. I'd suggest you don't think that "words are just words" at all, and modify your language in everyday life as everyone else does.

Here's your use of the n word, just to refresh your memory:

"If you are a black guy who is assaulting me maybe i'll answer you  "fuckin n"

The charming defence of calling someone fat and black a "chocolate mummy" was a good one too. How about trying that one in real life and away from a forum? 

NB. Following advising someone to "go back to school" with "plz" is somewhat ironic.

uh oh, the angry kid is back. didn't mommy cut the edges off your samwich?

you should look up the word "commonplace."

Kate Smith just had her reputation destroyed because of a random fan. if you can't see how technology has changed the game and made everything and everyone accessible, you should try stepping out of mommy's basement. 

Again u missed my point...How many times i have to explain this? I think it's pretty clear and I'm really fed up, so I won't restart this...

Great. I can't be bothered to try and work out what you mean by "words are just words", if it isn't that words are just words. Fairly sure I'm not alone on that one. The mind boggles as to what else it could mean.

Good luck with using some of your words in the real world.

... what?

It appears you didn't read a word I wrote or any of my links. Being content in ignorance is not a good thing.


Except monuments of Romans were not built with the explicit purpose of whitewashing history. But sure, take them down. They belong in museums anyway, where they can be given proper context.

Also, Roman statues are of people who fought FOR their country, not AGAINST it.  ::)

Yes, monuments are art and reminders of history, I never said otherwise. However you keep ignoring the fact that they are also meant to glorify, which is what's actually relevant to the discussion here.

The EUR and Dux Obelisco are not the same as a statue of Mussolini. Come on, that is just a desperate argument.


Wow, where to even begin with this one? You might want to look up the definition of Naziism... by your definition Christians are Nazis for trying to keep satanist statues off of public lands.

Taking down a statue is not erasing anything. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. Monuments are not textbooks. They do not exist to teach history, their primary purpose is to glorify.

You're proud to have roads named after Lenin and Stalin? But yeah, the problem is clearly with American culture here...


... uhh, what? Do you mean Columbus?  ::)

And why the hell should we glorify a guy who orchestrated mass genocide, pillaged and enslaved people? You think that deserves glorification? Not to mention he wasn't even the first to discover the Americas (if you are arrogant enough to say anyone "discovered" a land already inhabited by millions of people. I guess brown people don't count?).

Tell me, did you learn about Columbus from a statue or from your history teacher and textbook?

Hey, weren't you just castigating me for making insults? I guess now everyone knows what an utter hypocrite you are!  :o :o

Show me the 2,000 people who lost their jobs due to one person today, if it's so "commonplace". I'll wait...

Did Kate Smith lose her job? Nope. You lose.  :rofl:

I guess that one example proves it's "commonplace", huh? ::)

Not "one fan". Many. Why are you against the will of the people? Fascist.

When did I say anything about technology? You should try stepping out of mommy's basement.

Nope, your problem is that he discredited your point, so you're running away. You said "words are just words". It doesn't get any clearer than that. Why can't you just have an honest discussion like an adult?

Very very very naive point of view.

Taking down a statue is 100% erasing history. Look at what ISIS have done in Palmira. Tell me that they had the right to destroy those statues because was their belief that those statues represented something wrong. Tell me.

I'm not proud of  Stalin, but you know if u come to Italy and you see "Stalin road" and you stop me and ask me why the fuck we called a road that way i can answer you " because in the 60's and the 70's some people here in Italy had that same stupid (from a nowadays point of view) belief". It's not about glorification, it's about remembering our mistakes and how we were. And I can explain you why we were that way and your culture would be surely enriched, you know? And probably you won't find my explanations in any textbook. This is how u build up your culture and your point of view on history, thinkin about how we were and how we developed trough the years. Believe a textbook is like believe the bible. It's an act of faith. But if bible is at least "inspired by God (as humans say, obviously, who else)" a textbook is just inspired by a human political point of view. You wanna believe everything you read without any prove? You know we still have Extermination camps and someone still don't believe they ever existed?

You can't, really, you just can't erase anything just because your actual point of view says "this thing is wrong". It's the first step towards nazism, in any case, even with all the good intentions.

USA is a country built on blood "thanks" to people like Colombo (this is his right name, Columbus is the classic retarded americanization...I don't call johnny Winter "Giovanni Inverno"). If u were coeherent you should leave America and give it Back to the Native Americans. But hypocrisy is always easier and more convenient than coherence, right?. Colombo and people like him made your country and this is written in stone. Are you going to tell me that is right to erase his statue cause native americans won't suffer anymore? But do those few native americans ever seen a columbo statue?  :rofl: :rofl: or you are just gettin the occasions to erase you're shameful past? Who knows...

You know to erase some lines from a textbook it takes 5 min, to erase monuments it takes a lot of time and public brain washing and this should be something to worry about. But you already are in this phase so you won't get my point, again.

"a textbook is just inspired by a human political point of view. You wanna believe everything you read without any prove? You know we still have Extermination camps and someone still don't believe they ever existed?"

No, I'd much prefer to deny all evidence, facts, reason and expert knowledge. Far more healthy that way. Who needs historical facts in this day and age, hey?

I enjoy the repeated "you don't get my point" argument. I think you're the only one that has a clue at this juncture what you're on about.

For the record, the only people that don't believe extermination camps existed are extreme right-wing, nazi nutcases, partial to ludicrous conspiracy theories. Holocaust denial is also a crime in many countries.

So now that ISIS destroyed those statues, the history they represented is lost despite still existing in textbooks and many other forms? Talk about a "very very very naive point of view"...  ::)

What about naming a road after somebody teaches how they made mistakes? NOTHING. Naming things after people only serves one purpose; to honor and glorify them. Naming a street after Hitler does nothing to teach anyone about his atrocities because it's just a fucking name, there is no context to explain who he was or why he was wrong. I cannot believe how far you are going down this incredibly stupid path...


Yeah, I don't doubt that. Because your explanations are revisionist nonsense.


 :rofl:

Jesus Christ, you are proud of your willful ignorance... this is just getting more and more disturbing with every word you type.

No, textbooks do not operate on faith, they operate on EMPIRICALLY PROVEN FACTS. That you can't tell the difference says everything about you.

Textbooks have extensive citations for proof (not "prove"). You might know that if you ever bothered to read one...

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say about concentration camps. Since you are the one arguing that textbooks are not proof of anything, I guess you must be a holocaust denier, because textbooks tell us it was real...


Again, NOTHING IS BEING ERASED. Are you mentally impaired? I've made this very clear, several times now.


If you were coherent, you would know how to spell the word "coherent". Oh, the irony...

Tell me, what does the discussion of statues have to do with the rightful ownership of North America? You are making a cheap diversion. And you've failed because your assumption is wrong; I do believe it belongs to the natives.


When did I say removing statues would end suffering? Why do you repeatedly put words in my mouth? These desperate assumptions are not helping your case, you know. Why can't you engage with the actual points I am making? It seems that all you can do is argue with a strawman because you know you cannot win an honest debate on this...

It's not just about natives (who surely have seen Columbus statues), but also Americans who see him GLORIFIED in a statue and internalize that he is someone to be admired and emulated. You seem incapable of thinking anything beyond the most surface-level thoughts...


And this highlights the pinnacle of your utter hypocrisy; you rail against glorifying statues being taken down, but do not make a single peep about attempts to change textbooks by right wingers in Texas.

And how does it take "a lot of time and public brain washing" to take down a statue? They can be taken down overnight. In fact, the fact that statues are subject to the public's approval of them, whereas textbooks are less susceptible to the whims of public opinion because they are written by experts and changes are only made through board approval, is one of the many reasons why we teach children through textbooks, not fucking statues.

Are you quite done making an absolute fool of yourself yet? Dear Lord, you desperately need to go back to school, this has been terribly disturbing an encounter...

The opinions...key word being OPINIONS....in this thread are more offensive than anything Axl Rose ever wrote. Disgusting.  >:(

A difference in opinion shouldn't offend anyone. A good debate is a constructive thing.

But when you slam someone personally for having a different opinion,  that's offensive.

When one person makes it clear they aren't engaging in the debate in good faith, they can't cry victim for getting called out on it.

Naa I don't feel offended, why should I be? I don't know him, I'm not not judgin' him, knowing these are just words on a forum which occupies the 0,00001% of my life...I know how to contextualize things. Maybe he's the greatest guy in the world who knows...But like all the politically correct people, which are obviously denying the bad side of their human nature (getting pissed/angry, over reacting, making bad mistakes, having bad instincts), he's the first who get mad at people who don't agree with him, it's a classic. It was pretty clear i was leading him to the breaking point (actually faster than I thought) and he just proved the things i was saying (but you can see from his last answer he won't get it for a long time, maybe never): if you can't hold a 4-5 messages conversation without being aggressive or "insulting" people, wonder what you can say to a black bro who assaults you or gropes your girlfriend   :hihi:.
So never say I won't do/ say that, and don't judge people for their words only, peace out. :peace: :peace:

People don't "wonder what they can say to a black bro" at all. They know, and most of them don't even think in the racist terms you seem to feel are fine, let alone use them.

When you have no argument, you resort to attacking the character of the other person, as your generalized "politically correct" strawman boogeyman. Just another example of bad faith argument.

Also, even if you were right about me, "leading him to the breaking point" is yet more proof that you were not arguing in good faith but simply trying to get a rise out of the other person, AKA trolling.

Yet more proof as you complain about being insulted while insulting me in the same post. Classic troll gaslighting.


I would say the same thing I would to anyone doing that "get the fuck out of here, scumbag, or I'm calling the cops"

Your need to bring it to a racial place only proves your own issues with race. That you can't see this after having it pointed out repeatedly by multiple people is distressing...


So peoples' words do not reflect their views and opinions? Hot take. Professional psychologists would laugh in your face at that claim.

And when you are online, words are all you have to judge anyone by, soo...  ::)

My thoughts on this is that OIAM points out something important. Racism is a result of prejudices. Prejudices is a result of lacking knowledge. Lack in knowledge is a result of....well, many things (a fckd school system for example?), but a "small town white boy" can very well suffer from many of those things. I think people with little knowledge is an easy target to extremists.

Anyway, GnR songs should be played. A song written in "character" don't change that. They've never flagged racism.