Should GnR songs be played?

[sandman]

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

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. 

[Bodhi]

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.

[Executioner]

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? For example ,Michael Jackson is still being played in heavy rotation and I can’t think of anything GNR have done that rivals the allegations against him.

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).

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. 

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.

[PermissionToLand]

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.

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...

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

Wow, what a laughably biased article:

No matter which side you are on, it has to be acknowledged there is a serious double standard in place, one that is convenient for multicultural inclusiveness on one hand, yet utterly ignorant on the other.

"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.

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.

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.

[Bodhi]

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.

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.

[D-GenerationX]

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

Yeah, but he was just "doing research".

[rebelhipi]

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.

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...

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

Wow, what a laughably biased article:

No matter which side you are on, it has to be acknowledged there is a serious double standard in place, one that is convenient for multicultural inclusiveness on one hand, yet utterly ignorant on the other.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

[PermissionToLand]

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.

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. 

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.

I don't think art should need to be defended or apologized for.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah, but he was just "doing research".

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

[Bodhi]

I don't think art should need to be defended or apologized for.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[rebelhipi]

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.

[(t)]

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.

[ITARocker]

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

[PermissionToLand]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

although I hear the universities are having their issues.

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

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.

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

There is no longer a discussion, it is just straight to outrage

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.

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.

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:

Perhaps we should also remember that belittling the pain of others is actually an abusive habit, and that emotional safety matters and isn’t something to be mocked. Nor is it always something to be debated, as my colleague Dara Lind noted in an essay on the safe space controversy at Yale.

An op-ed in the Yale Herald was widely mocked for this line: "I don't want to debate. I want to talk about my pain." But given other context from the op-ed, that line makes more sense:

"My dad is a really stubborn man. We debate all the time, and I understand the value of hearing differing opinions. But there have been times when I have come to my father crying, when I was emotionally upset, and he heard me regardless of whether or not he agreed with me. He taught me that there is a time for debate, and there is a time for just hearing and acknowledging someone's pain."

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.

[PermissionToLand]

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

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?

[rebelhipi]

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

[ITARocker]

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

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?

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...

[allwaystired]

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

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?

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.

[ITARocker]

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

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?

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...

[allwaystired]

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

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?

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, its the same exact thing. 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 use to judge 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.

[ITARocker]

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

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?

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, its the same exact thing. 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 use to judge 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