Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[wasted]

14 minutes ago, Angelica said:

 If I can overcome the virulent misogyny of GNR in general, I can overcome the racist, xenophobic, homophobic horsefuckery of OIAM. After all, the misogyny appears a buttload more often.

Asia had sex with a 17 year old she’d known since he was 6, and blamed a dead man for settling a related lawsuit with him. Fuck her. 

This is what I was saying about GNR songs coming from a certain place, like in the moment, people use certain words and people relate to that, feel the emotion. The words are part of a culture. What I liked about CD was that Axl didn’t go to those words to get that emotion too much. 

I feel like she is being found guilty before a trial. I mean I think the 17 year old knew what he was getting into. It wasn’t against his will. The hypocrisy is strong but is it really rape?  

Edited August 26, 2018 by wasted

[wasted]

8 minutes ago, soon said:

Not trying to be a dick, but Im not sure Im following you here?

I dont think one of your arguments kinda leads form the other. They seem to contradict each other?

Well if you think the artist who made OIAM is a racist, are you a fan of that artist? 

It’s a reasonable question, are you a cop or do you want to appear to be a cop?

Edited August 26, 2018 by wasted

[EvanG]

You have to respect Madonna. She's never been the prettiest, best dancer, most talented, most musical of all those women, yet she became the most iconic and perhaps most famous female singer of the last 40 years. She can barely sing, then she started playing guitar on stage which was even more horrendous, but she's still at the top, so hats off to that. And Ray of Light is a great album.

Edited August 26, 2018 by EvanG

[soon]

4 minutes ago, wasted said:

Well if you think the artist who made OIAM is a racist, are you a fan of that artist? 

I could ask the same to you because the lyrics are objectively bigoted. 

Ive said the lyrics are bigoted, but yes the are racist among many forms of oppression. I just see a bigger picture and am not really puritanical. I like Star Wars even though Padme starts grooming a romantic relationship with a childhood Anakin. Wth Jar Jar being a blatant send up of Islander culture(s). 

I still think your to statements are contradictory but I guess we are moving passed that

[wasted]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

I could ask the same to you because the lyrics are objectively bigoted. 

Ive said the lyrics are bigoted, but yes the are racist among many forms of oppression. I just see a bigger picture and am not really puritanical. I like Star Wars even though Padme starts grooming a romantic relationship with a childhood Anakin. Wth Jar Jar being a blatant send up of Islander culture(s). 

I still think your to statements are contradictory but I guess we are moving passed that

That’s not what we are talking about. You’re saying the artist is objectively racist because of your subjective interpretation of the lyrics. To me a racist doesn’t question his own validity. But ultimately you can interpret the song how you want to, so it’s not objectively anything. 

But once you have said it is objectively racist, then how can you be a fan of the artist? 

I’m completely consistent, songs are open to interpretation and a song doesn’t necessarily represent an artist. 

[Len Cnut]

Just now, wasted said:

But once you have said it is objectively racist, then how can you be a fan of the artist? 

 

Because who gives a shit, its his life.  You can't...credit check everyone whoose CD you buy or film you watch or book you read about their life, being racist isn't really a hanging crime, not in my book anyway, its not the nicest thing in the world but its certainly not something that'd raise my eyebrow any more than any number of any sillinesses.  I don't think you can actually gauge whether someone is or is not a bona fide racist (and also, why would you care to?) but you can point out when something like a song is expressing sentiments of prejudice.  

[soon]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

That’s not what we are talking about. You’re saying the artist is objectively racist because of your subjective interpretation of the lyrics. To me a racist doesn’t question his own validity. But ultimately you can interpret the song how you want to, so it’s not objectively anything. 

But once you have said it is objectively racist, then how can you be a fan of the artist? 

I’m completely consistent, songs are open to interpretation and a song doesn’t necessarily represent an artist. 

Im not sure that I have called Axl a racist? I definitely haven't in this thread. I think you are attaching me onto conversations you've been having in general.

I simply dont see why his embarrassingly bigoted song needs to prevent me from being a fan? Especially becoming a fan of a band that used MLK quotes. It really just is what it is. I dont expect a perfect human just because they make perfect hard rock.

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, soon said:

I dont expect a perfect human just because they make perfect hard rock.

History has shown that the above mentioned is usually a sign of their being a massive cunt

[wasted]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Because who gives a shit, its his life.  You can't...credit check everyone whoose CD you buy or film you watch or book you read about their life, being racist isn't really a hanging crime, not in my book anyway, its not the nicest thing in the world but its certainly not something that'd raise my eyebrow any more than any number of any sillinesses.  I don't think you can actually gauge whether someone is or is not a bona fide racist (and also, why would you care to?) but you can point out when something like a song is expressing sentiments of prejudice.  

That seems reasonable, I just think a song is open to interpretation so can’t be objectively racist. To me this is pretty simple. 

From there I find it impossible to call the artist racist based on my interpretation. It’s one of many. 

 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

History has shown that the above mentioned is usually a sign of their being a massive cunt

 very true!

And in addition, Im trying to remember a Mick Jagger quote about the aging Richards something like "Keith plays a role of an outlaw, to manifest that part of everyones psyche...'

I can say that for me, thats one element of rock fandom that I can admit to enjoying. 

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

That seems reasonable, I just think a song is open to interpretation so can’t be objectively racist. To me this is pretty simple. 

From there I find it impossible to call the artist racist based on my interpretation. It’s one of many. 

 

The songs not really very abstract though is it?  I mean its not a surrealist track, 'immigrants and f@ggots, they make no sense to me, they come to our country and think they'll do as they please' isn't exactly Horses by Patti Smith, it don't take a lot of working out   And quite apart from anything else, Axl has explained it as being literal.

[wasted]

5 minutes ago, soon said:

Im not sure that I have called Axl a racist? I definitely haven't in this thread. I think you are attaching me onto conversations you've been having in general.

I simply dont see why his embarrassingly bigoted song needs to prevent me from being a fan? Especially becoming a fan of a band that used MLK quotes. It really just is what it is. I dont expect a perfect human just because they make perfect hard rock.

It’s just your interpretation of the song. 

 

 

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

It’s just your interpretation of the song. 

it requires about as much interpretation as:

 

 

[soon]

1 minute ago, wasted said:

It’s just your interpretation of the song. 

 

 

Nah, it's mine and Axls and Duffs. Its so blatant man! Surprised to see you going all PoMo

[wasted]

10 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The songs not really very abstract though is it?  I mean its not a surrealist track, 'immigrants and f@ggots, they make no sense to me, they come to our country and think they'll do as they please' isn't exactly Horses by Patti Smith, it don't take a lot of working out   And quite apart from anything else, Axl has explained it as being literal.

A song can’t be literal though, as much as an artist wants it to be.

Whatever Axl said about it, not everyone will know, and could easily see the chorus as a negation of the verses. 

And it coukd be that, Axl writing verses about what he thought in

the moment on the street. Then using what friends and family were saying about him back home to put it in context. It’s these grey areas that make it hard for me to say it’s racist. It’s what you say in a certain situation where you are angry or threatened. Rather than said in the cold light of day. That to me is the trick used in a lot of GNR songs. You don’t edit it too much, but you put it in context. Rocket Queen is like that, the seedy sex side and then the caring outro. People want music or art to be black and white, issue based, but that’s not life for everyone. In OIAM I see a lost scared person and people who are worried about them. 

There is no right and wrong, good or evil, life is just a fear based videogame you are meant to wake up from. And OIAM could help you do that. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by wasted

[wasted]

14 minutes ago, soon said:

Nah, it's mine and Axls and Duffs. Its so blatant man! Surprised to see you going all PoMo

Still it’s open to interpretation by someone else. 

[soon]

11 hours ago, killuridols said:

Ok. I had to watch it again because all these opinions confused me.

This is no black Jesus, he is a black man unfairly accussed of having raped a girl who was actually raped by white guys and he is incarcerated for that, Madonna is the witness of the crime and she is willing to save the "saint"/black guy when she finds the courage to tell what she saw.

Looks to me like an anti-racism video and some criticism to religions but those burning crosses aren't KKK stuff?

I dont hink Ive ever seen the video before. I just watched it and it strikes me in a similar way that you've laid out. Burning crosses are definitely KKK symbolism and I have no idea what - other then shock value - they specifically mean in the context. Other then its about racism. 

It feels like an incredibly heavy handed, virtue signalling, white guilt thing. The white men are bad and the black people, including the child, are innocent and pure. The whole thing kinda serves to smooth over the appropriation of black church musical culture and this brings to mind the Paul Simon Graceland controversy which was around that same time I think (when he fronted an afro pop outfit as a white person). 

The odds of finding a Gospel choir in what is clearly a Catholic church is basically zero, just as an aside.

 

[wasted]

36 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

it requires about as much interpretation as:

 

 

Even if you take it literally, there are parts which are bigoted, but the song also contains parts about not knowing right from wrong, and the chorus of song basically is saying the person expressing the verses has lost it saying these things. 

So while there is bigoted language, the song actually condemns it. So the song itself isn’t racist or bigoted. 

I don’t think many listen to the whole song, they just hear the bad stuff. 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by wasted

[Dazey]

10 hours ago, killuridols said:

Were you a liberal when you were 6yo?

Aren't all 6 year olds liberals? 

[soon]

Theologically and historically the video is actually very true to Scripture and shouldn't be controversial to a believer. First, of course Jesus had dark skin! The only thing added in addition to Scripture was the one second clip of Jesus on top of her giving her a little peck. The rest of their physical contact is direct nods to stories recorded in the Gospels. In Jesus' time men and women didnt touch out side of family bonds or within the bounds of priestly duties. But Jesus did touch women in very caring and intimate ways, just as the video depicts these forbidden contacts were tender, warm, healing and safe. From sharing a cup of water with a women, through having contact with a women while on her period (a huge no no that makes one 'unclean' and therefore outside of Gods sight) to the very sensual contact when a women washes his feet with her hair and tears, kissing his feet and applying oil. What these things meant in there time are akin what the video means in our time.

And the cheap 'stigmata' thing probably doesn't warrant examination, but it is true that in Christian thought acknowledging ones own role in Christ crucifixion is important. And "following Christ to the Cross" is a tenant that magnifies the importance of being the imitation of Christ. So when she takes the knife and cuts herself (by mistake?) it just seems like an artsy nod to those more heady of Christian notions. In keeping, she seems to have a further awakening of a 'real presence' in this man in that moment. Both the finding safety part and then moving on to the idea of a role in Christ death, but more importantly resurrection and work - to embody Christ and be a witness as Madonna serves as in the video- is exactly the steps that a new believer would walk through.

And exploring the sensuality and sexuality of Christ isn't in opposition to Christian thought. Its a fascinating area of thought and reflection. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Furthermore for a human to have sensual or sexual aspects to their understanding of Christ is just normal. Even John is often portrayed as snuggling against Jesus while they all sit together. But here we have a women face to face with Christ making the idea of attraction just plain easy to understand. The sceens of Jesus embracing her and kissing her forehead seem to be more of the reality storyline, while him on top of her seems to be more fantasy, but maybe they are both literal, I dunno. I mean her name is Madonna but here she is positioned as a Mary of Magdalene (with the fallacy of her a a sex worker underscoring Madonnas sexual liberation no doubt)

The story seems to say that releasing Christ from the cage of the church will spread love and healing from racism but that the world will quickly put that revolutionary love back in a cage, this time a jail. That manifest love was contained by the hierarchical church and then contained by the hierarchical state because its too powerful and too outside of the Worldly thought to fathom. But that it now lives in her and that healing from racism is depicted in her dancing with the black choir. They can cage Christ, unless we embody Christ freely.

A pretty good tool of evangelism as they go.

Edit: Of course the white eroticizing of the Black body really kinda undermines things a bit.

Edited August 26, 2018 by soon

[killuridols]

11 hours ago, wasted said:

In terms of Axl being or not being racist, I don’t think you can tell from a song. I don’t think a song can be racist, it’s a song. Lennon used a word in a song, same applies. Patty Smith too. I think context is important. 

Also don’t agree with online vigilante style of hanging the evils of history on one person in the name of a cause. I don’t think it sets the right example of how to treat people. Whether it’s Asia Argento or Axl, I think to jump on these things and go to war of them only breeds tribalism. It’s kind of like the civil war in Paradise lost. Don’t drink the Apple Koolade. 

Those things he wrote are racist, homophobic and xenophobic statements in the book of any person with a bit of social awareness.

Why can't a song be racist? It can be and there are many out there, just because you don't want to acknowledge them it doesn't mean they do not exist. But the Patty Smith and Lennon songs are not racist, they are anti-racism. You not being able to tell the difference and trying to lump them together with OIAM speaks more of your desperation to try to justify this whole thing.

Yeah, being a vigilante sucks.... in Argentinian Spanish we use that word to refer to police and the gossipers that help police find someone who's committed a crime.

Axl fits that word perfectly, since he put himself the blue hat on when he decided to talk shit about the opressed minorities. Doesn't he know you don't do that?
Fuckin' cop!

6 hours ago, wasted said:

Not in this case. But in general making one person accountable to the whole of history seems a bit harsh. 

But at least be consistent, if you think OIAM is racist why are you a fan? 

It’snot about shame but just having cohesive argument. 

I don’t think Asia Argento should be destroyed publicly for having underage sex with a 17 year old. 

Where in the hell did I make Axl accountable for all the racism in the world?

You are so visibly bothered by me putting Axl the cop on the spotlight that now you have to make up BS and condemn me for saying something many people think and say. You won't save the guy from public scorn, he's already been roasted for that.

This doesn't mean that I am not consistent in my fandom, because GN'R doesn't have more racists song like that, so their music can still be enjoyed if you selectively choose what to listen to from them.

[killuridols]

6 hours ago, soon said:

I had to look all over for meaning of pogo but Im guessing its the jumping up and down in a group around someone? Russians paid for this?!. Yes, please do not send your football roughians! I meant your activists! . Yeah, its all about the penis with this guy. Some men are afraid of being robbed of their masculinity, apparently. Suggesting their masculinity lives or dies on forces outside of them is an interesting thing to note. 

The pogo thing really does look fun though! 

Haha, yes, thats what pogo means.... you never been to one?

LOOOOOL yiss!! Russians paid for that! and people here were laughing their asses off, because it is so Argentinian trying to make money out of a dry fountain, like Jesus turning water into wine, hahahahaa......
Apparently people in those cold countries want a bit of our fun, so why not?

6 hours ago, soon said:

Oh, wow, thats really fascinating about that 2 finger forehead lyric! Thanks for explaining it for me  The singer (or whoever writes the lyrics) is fantastic. Rich with meaning, relevancy and history. Not a lot of that in rock over here, like we see on this forum people "dont want politics in their entertainment" I do not feel that way. I like that the look of the band and the stage is that of any popular touring band, to me it highlights that art and politics are one thing and a band touching on real life themes doesnt require flags and insignia (again, like RATM is portrayed here). And I love that the fans elevated them from the internet to this level of success! 

These two songs are just gorgeous too. Wonder what they are about? Thanks for sharing them! Ill have to download them so that I can burn a cd to listen on my stereo.

That's ok, I love explaining stuff

Yup, the singer is the main writer of the lyrics, he's such an urban poet..... he plays so much with words, with the Spanish language, with the Argentine jargon... I guess that's a big part of their success, his lyrics and the passion he has inside.

Well, this group is not an ultra anti-establishment band. Their material is pretty diverse, they dont focus on politics only but they do have many songs with strong messages about life, love, society, friendship. Their characteristic is to celebrate the Argentine way of being of the working-middle class. For us, the most important things are the family and friends, most of us don't have wealth here.... most of us strive everyday to make ends meet.... so the stance is: after all, you have nothing but your loved ones and that's what you have to take care of.

"Ella dice...." is kind of a... mess.... hahaha.... lyrics are kinda mystical, Im not sure what it is about, each line is made of metaphors. I'll translate it for you later and send you through PM. "Tantas escaleras" is also a mix of things... each line is a contradiction or a game of meanings and words. I think that's his style, writing in dualities, opposites, etc. I'll translate it later too.

Oh, I think this band is so simple yet so fantastic. None of them is a "rock diva", they are all pretty accessible with the press, the fans, they are not scared of reaching out to people. They do as they preach, really, they don't wear clothes that distance them from their fans........ They are all about and for the music, I love it and they have worked so much to get here. They have played every single corner of this country, they never stop, only take breaks for making albums but they are always on tour and they headline all of the rock festivals but at the same time they play small places, so it's like they don't discriminate audiences or cities. You can find them playing Buenos Aires and also the smallest town in the north or in the south. Amazing guys!

I'll send you the song which is their biggest hit, you will love it as well!!

 

 

[killuridols]

8 hours ago, soon said:

Theologically and historically the video is actually very true to Scripture and shouldn't be controversial to a believer. First, of course Jesus had dark skin! The only thing added in addition to Scripture was the one second clip of Jesus on top of her giving her a little peck. The rest of their physical contact is direct nods to stories recorded in the Gospels. In Jesus' time men and women didnt touch out side of family bonds or within the bounds of priestly duties. But Jesus did touch women in very caring and intimate ways, just as the video depicts these forbidden contacts were tender, warm, healing and safe. From sharing a cup of water with a women, through having contact with a women while on her period (a huge no no that makes one 'unclean' and therefore outside of Gods sight) to the very sensual contact when a women washes his feet with her hair and tears, kissing his feet and applying oil. What these things meant in there time are akin what the video means in our time.

How do we know he did all of that?

I was raised in Catholicism and I had it all on me: baptism, first communion and all the sacraments, blah blah but I stopped going to Mass when I was very young, also started doubting all of this religion, didn't like it, wasn't interested, it really bored me..... it was a drag to me studying all of that, but I was never taught those kind of things, I was a child when having these religion lessons so they would have never told me about Jesus touching women

Of course, I grew up with the image of Jesus being a white guy with long hair and long beard...... and I've been thinking about him being a dark skinned guy, which of course, its pretty plausible but then again I think that we're not talking about the same "person" 

At risk of sounding very ignorant with all of this, I don't think Jesus (as we know him) is a person. He is a myth or a legend, but he's not human.

Maybe there was a guy out there who could resemble of Jesus,  maybe there was someone like that who was good and altruistic, but that's not the Jesus of Roman Catholic Church. Because that Jesus is unreal.... you know, he was born from a virgin woman () and his father is God, then he died and resurrected.... and he's nowhere to be found now.... and the Catholics are awaiting for his second coming but so far he's not come...

Im not trying to discredit anyone here or say it is not possible that Jesus is brown but again, I think the people who want Jesus to be brown just want him to be a real human person and that's not what Catholics believe in. He's not real, he's like an unicorn, you know? No one has ever seen one and no one has ever seen Jesus. He's the character in an old old book and huh, who knows who wrote that.

That's basically why I don't believe in him, regardless if a person like that ever existed, that's not who people worship. So that's it.....

 

[soon]

10 minutes ago, killuridols said:

How do we know he did all of that?

I was raised in Catholicism and I had it all on me: baptism, first communion and all the sacraments, blah blah but I stopped going to Mass when I was very young, also started doubting all of this religion, didn't like it, wasn't interested, it really bored me..... it was a drag to me studying all of that, but I was never taught those kind of things, I was a child when having these religion lessons so they would have never told me about Jesus touching women

Of course, I grew up with the image of Jesus being a white guy with long hair and long beard...... and I've been thinking about him being a dark skinned guy, which of course, its pretty plausible but then again I think that we're not talking about the same "person" 

At risk of sounding very ignorant with all of this, I don't think Jesus (as we know him) is a person. He is a myth or a legend, but he's not human.

Maybe there was a guy out there who could resemble of Jesus,  maybe there was someone like that who was good and altruistic, but that's not the Jesus of Roman Catholic Church. Because that Jesus is unreal.... you know, he was born from a virgin woman () and his father is God, then he died and resurrected.... and he's nowhere to be found now.... and the Catholics are awaiting for his second coming but so far he's not come...

Im not trying to discredit anyone here or say it is not possible that Jesus is brown but again, I think the people who want Jesus to be brown just want him to be a real human person and that's not what Catholics believe in. He's not real, he's like an unicorn, you know? No one has ever seen one and no one has ever seen Jesus. He's the character in an old old book and huh, who knows who wrote that.

That's basically why I don't believe in him, regardless if a person like that ever existed, that's not who people worship. So that's it.....

 

Yes, It wouldn't be right to read my post through the lens of Catholicism. Im speaking about the Jesus of the Gospels. 

It's not just what the Nuns didn't teach you. I dont think anyones childhood notions of Jesus really susses out a full picture of what he is all about, you know what I mean? And really, the same could be said about childhood notions of almost everything on Earth, right? 

The Jesus of Nazareth, Messianic leader of a spiritual and political movement, is accepted as an historical figure. 

 

[wasted]

6 hours ago, killuridols said:

Those things he wrote are racist, homophobic and xenophobic statements in the book of any person with a bit of social awareness.

Why can't a song be racist? It can be and there are many out there, just because you don't want to acknowledge them it doesn't mean they do not exist. But the Patty Smith and Lennon songs are not racist, they are anti-racism. You not being able to tell the difference and trying to lump them together with OIAM speaks more of your desperation to try to justify this whole thing.

Yeah, being a vigilante sucks.... in Argentinian Spanish we use that word to refer to police and the gossipers that help police find someone who's committed a crime.

Axl fits that word perfectly, since he put himself the blue hat on when he decided to talk shit about the opressed minorities. Doesn't he know you don't do that?
Fuckin' cop!

Where in the hell did I make Axl accountable for all the racism in the world?

You are so visibly bothered by me putting Axl the cop on the spotlight that now you have to make up BS and condemn me for saying something many people think and say. You won't save the guy from public scorn, he's already been roasted for that.

This doesn't mean that I am not consistent in my fandom, because GN'R doesn't have more racists song like that, so their music can still be enjoyed if you selectively choose what to listen to from them.

I said not you in this case, but in general I don’t like how media jumps on these things and hangs a whole issue on it. That happened with Axl back then and now happens on daily basis in the media. Like Asia Argento yesterday. 

I feel that more strongly because I don’t think a song can be racist. Like you said there are bigoted parts but it’s always open to interpretation. In this cases the narrator admits he doesn’t know right from wrong and the chorus is basically saying you’re crazy you think you’re special condemning the verses. So the song itself isn’t bigoted. In another example the listemer could think it’s a parody or ironic, a character, not a manifesto of what the artist thinks. 

What the media does is interpret it one way and then the artist is put on trial publicly using only this one way to look at art. 

The difference is if you brand a song objectively bigoted then you are saying the artist is bigoted, then in my opinion how can you be a fan? 

Whereas if it’s interpretation, then the song is not racist, but you can interpret it that way. And then you can be a fan because you haven’t branded the artist.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by wasted