-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 18, 2017, 04:37:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Pet Sounds and Race
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Pet Sounds and Race  (Read 16473 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #250 on: January 06, 2017, 03:18:00 PM »

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who
Have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?

Trump is a giant piece of sh*t, and his misogynistic statements horrify me as well (please don't for a moment think that they don't). If I have harped more on about mocking disabled people, it's probably because while some people defending him can perhaps try to "squirm" out of calling him trash for misogyny (saying that it's only a mere "interpretation"), there is NO way that anyone with their right mind can see him making fun of a disabled person's spasms and not outright puke. It's completely fucking indefensible.  I am just as disgusted with his treatment towards women, how Bannon calls lesbians "dikes", etc etc. Trust me, I have no shortage of outrage for how he talks about women.

Bottom line - you can't make fun of disabled people -blatantly on TV as a candidate - and then not apologize for it and still be considered not a piece of sh*t in my book. Ditto for Bannon. Ditto for Trump's "p*ssy" comment, etc etc etc.

So no, of course, I would not be wrong to have made the comments that I believe Trump is a giant ass.
Let me bring this back for a moment. Trump's made dozens of absolutely blatantly misogynist comments. As far as I know, he did the one thing about disability. But you focus on the disability because you think it will sell better with your audience. Does not talking about the misogyny help deal with misogyny, or does it just help you defend against "picking on Trump" attacks?
You and I have different agendas. My agenda does not include letting things like misogyny and racism slide because the people I'm talking to might miss some other point, or might irrationally hold it against The Beach Boys, or might be like the guy on that other thread who supports things because he likes to see other people upset. Usually, if this sort of topic comes up, the point about racism or misogyny is my agenda.

Please know: being extremely against Trump's racism and misogyny IS my agenda too. I have stated my disgust with the his "grab them" comment, and in real life, I talk about my disgust of his misogyny and racism frequently. When it comes to strangers on a message board, I happen to think that it's sometimes easiest to shut someone down from defending the man by picking *the* most ridiculously indefensible things he has said - things that even racist or misogynist people can't defend. How does it "help" my (our, actually) causes of being anti-racism and anti-misogyny by sometimes focusing instead on homophobia and mocking disabled folks? Well indirectly I would hope it does, by simply chipping away and de-legitimizing him as being any sort of respectable human being. This doesn't need to be a contest!  I mean if we go down that route, then we both could call foul about how many other things that both you and I haven't yet called him out on. This seems like a needless argument.

If we are going to judge which is worse - mocking disabled people or being a horrifying sexist pig, I think they are all off-the-charts bad, and the frequency in which he does those things probably reflects how often he interacts with those groups. He's a narcissist who will find a way to both use and put down anyone who he can. Perhaps yes, he is more of a sexist pig than a disabled person mocker. I'm often picking on what I think are Trump's weak spots in an argument with strangers - areas in which theoretically there's no way that *anyone* can weasel out of saying that he acts indefensibly. I have even seen women online defending the "grab them" comment by letting it slide as "locker room talk" which is a despicable, tragic, and ridiculous way for them to perceive things. Me, I just happen to find it hilarious to see someone sit back and defend mocking disabled folks, or Bannon's "dikes" comment (or just stop responding because they know they can't defend those things), so perhaps that makes for more entertaining bait in an argument. I care no less about his abhorrent views on women, trust me.

Don't think for one moment that his views on women/race are not a priority to me - that's your projection based on how you are interpreting my argument tactics on a message board. We are absolutely allies on this.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 03:29:09 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #251 on: January 06, 2017, 03:34:03 PM »


I didn't think you had a bad intent or were using the term or any term pejoratively. I assumed that you do not have the same concerns that I do about the impact of putting focus on the age, sex or color of a speaker when the speaker's statements can stand on their own.

Do you not find it the least bit ironic that people who enjoy the band's music from the '60s, and enjoy it for just the deep feelings of love that it brings to them, and feel the music stands on its own (aside from the civil unrest that was going on concurrently when it was written/recorded) also do not wish to place such as heavy emphasis on continually reaching to find ways to tie in the band with those very same things - especially those who are NOT in denial about institutional racism being a thing?

Bottom line: the band benefited from being white during that era. No denying that. They also benefited from not all having Mike Love's hairline. And lots of other things. No need in either case (your example above, or mine in this response) to needlessly rope in race, etc. again and again and again, and frankly I don't even know what there is to argue about when I think (?) we seemingly agree on the main crux of this.  Smiley
I don't think it's continual or heavy emphasis. I think it's pretty rare. I think Brian Wilson enjoys a stellar reputation as a good guy. I think Mike Love's reputation is more hotly disputed. I think the Beach Bous reputation is mainly that of very safe and cute light '60s pop, all of which is associated with a time when civil rights was a contested issue and I think almost nobody thinks of the Beach Bous are particularly involved with that one way or another. A subset of people think Brian Wilson is a soulful genius who is way beyond the early Beach Boys stuff Anne a smaller subset of people think The Beach Boys are broadly an underrated band who went on to do significant interesting work beyond the early hits, Pet Sounds and Smile and I think this article had almost no impact on the Beach Boys' reputation.

Well, one isolated article may not have an impact, but if that goes viral, becomes a pattern, and as bonnevillemariner pointed out in the Trump inauguration thread, he has witnessed students getting some potentially twisted views about the band - that may be problematic. Most especially nowadays that Mike is associating with the orange imbecile, articles like the Pet Sounds one will doubtlessly be used by some researchers to further negatively skew peoples' views of the brand, especially if they are motivated by the current situation. That's gonna continue to happen I think, sadly.

No, I have not done some scholarly study where I go and interview the kids which he was speaking about to get soundbites on how they view the band. I just know how things can sometimes get blown out of proportion and distorted (especially in the internet world), and how repeatedly seeing any brand name associated with the term racism can be potentially damaging in and of itself. Same way in which seeing the terms "Hillary" and "crooked" over and over again can drill that thought into peoples' heads, so can a similar thing happen, to a certain degree, with this band and racism.

There is no magic solution. I advocate that authors should choose their words perhaps a bit more carefully (something I myself adhere to - and not by duress, but because I think it's the right thing to do), and if that's not a satisfactory solution to you, then I don't know what will be. I don't want anyone to feel muzzled, just a responsibility to not nudge (even if inadvertently) misguided notions into taking hold in the culture.

I just think there's very little to discuss with regards to this band in the 1960s and institutional racism. Certainly not enough for an author to write a thesis/dissertation about.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 04:19:43 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #252 on: January 06, 2017, 04:12:50 PM »

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who
Have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?

Trump is a giant piece of sh*t, and his misogynistic statements horrify me as well (please don't for a moment think that they don't). If I have harped more on about mocking disabled people, it's probably because while some people defending him can perhaps try to "squirm" out of calling him trash for misogyny (saying that it's only a mere "interpretation"), there is NO way that anyone with their right mind can see him making fun of a disabled person's spasms and not outright puke. It's completely fucking indefensible.  I am just as disgusted with his treatment towards women, how Bannon calls lesbians "dikes", etc etc. Trust me, I have no shortage of outrage for how he talks about women.

Bottom line - you can't make fun of disabled people -blatantly on TV as a candidate - and then not apologize for it and still be considered not a piece of sh*t in my book. Ditto for Bannon. Ditto for Trump's "p*ssy" comment, etc etc etc.

So no, of course, I would not be wrong to have made the comments that I believe Trump is a giant ass.
Let me bring this back for a moment. Trump's made dozens of absolutely blatantly misogynist comments. As far as I know, he did the one thing about disability. But you focus on the disability because you think it will sell better with your audience. Does not talking about the misogyny help deal with misogyny, or does it just help you defend against "picking on Trump" attacks?
You and I have different agendas. My agenda does not include letting things like misogyny and racism slide because the people I'm talking to might miss some other point, or might irrationally hold it against The Beach Boys, or might be like the guy on that other thread who supports things because he likes to see other people upset. Usually, if this sort of topic comes up, the point about racism or misogyny is my agenda.

Please know: being extremely against Trump's racism and misogyny IS my agenda too. I have stated my disgust with the his "grab them" comment, and in real life, I talk about my disgust of his misogyny and racism frequently. When it comes to strangers on a message board, I happen to think that it's sometimes easiest to shut someone down from defending the man by picking *the* most ridiculously indefensible things he has said - things that even racist or misogynist people can't defend. How does it "help" my (our, actually) causes of being anti-racism and anti-misogyny by sometimes focusing instead on homophobia and mocking disabled folks? Well indirectly I would hope it does, by simply chipping away and de-legitimizing him as being any sort of respectable human being. This doesn't need to be a contest!  I mean if we go down that route, then we both could call foul about how many other things that both you and I haven't yet called him out on. This seems like a needless argument.

If we are going to judge which is worse - mocking disabled people or being a horrifying sexist pig, I think they are all off-the-charts bad, and the frequency in which he does those things probably reflects how often he interacts with those groups. He's a narcissist who will find a way to both use and put down anyone who he can. Perhaps yes, he is more of a sexist pig than a disabled person mocker. I'm often picking on what I think are Trump's weak spots in an argument with strangers - areas in which theoretically there's no way that *anyone* can weasel out of saying that he acts indefensibly. I have even seen women online defending the "grab them" comment by letting it slide as "locker room talk" which is a despicable, tragic, and ridiculous way for them to perceive things. Me, I just happen to find it hilarious to see someone sit back and defend mocking disabled folks, or Bannon's "dikes" comment (or just stop responding because they know they can't defend those things), so perhaps that makes for more entertaining bait in an argument. I care no less about his abhorrent views on women, trust me.

Don't think for one moment that his views on women/race are not a priority to me - that's your projection based on how you are interpreting my argument tactics on a message board. We are absolutely allies on this.
You read my comment wrong. I'm just pointing out that you are editing what you are saying based on your audience - perhaps wise - but if I were to edit what I was saying for the audience, I wouldn't be able to say what I want to say, in some cases.
I do think it's a shame if some people think that a Trump association applies to ALL Beach Boys. I also think it's a shame that any Beach Boys music will go unheard because of the association with Trump. We are in agreement there. That will get more attention than that article, in any case.
I hope some trend of rewriting The Beach Boys' history does not come out of this. If it does I will be unhappy and will acknowledge that you had a point here that I missed.  But I don't anticipate it.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #253 on: January 06, 2017, 05:01:43 PM »

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who
Have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?

Trump is a giant piece of sh*t, and his misogynistic statements horrify me as well (please don't for a moment think that they don't). If I have harped more on about mocking disabled people, it's probably because while some people defending him can perhaps try to "squirm" out of calling him trash for misogyny (saying that it's only a mere "interpretation"), there is NO way that anyone with their right mind can see him making fun of a disabled person's spasms and not outright puke. It's completely fucking indefensible.  I am just as disgusted with his treatment towards women, how Bannon calls lesbians "dikes", etc etc. Trust me, I have no shortage of outrage for how he talks about women.

Bottom line - you can't make fun of disabled people -blatantly on TV as a candidate - and then not apologize for it and still be considered not a piece of sh*t in my book. Ditto for Bannon. Ditto for Trump's "p*ssy" comment, etc etc etc.

So no, of course, I would not be wrong to have made the comments that I believe Trump is a giant ass.
Let me bring this back for a moment. Trump's made dozens of absolutely blatantly misogynist comments. As far as I know, he did the one thing about disability. But you focus on the disability because you think it will sell better with your audience. Does not talking about the misogyny help deal with misogyny, or does it just help you defend against "picking on Trump" attacks?
You and I have different agendas. My agenda does not include letting things like misogyny and racism slide because the people I'm talking to might miss some other point, or might irrationally hold it against The Beach Boys, or might be like the guy on that other thread who supports things because he likes to see other people upset. Usually, if this sort of topic comes up, the point about racism or misogyny is my agenda.

Please know: being extremely against Trump's racism and misogyny IS my agenda too. I have stated my disgust with the his "grab them" comment, and in real life, I talk about my disgust of his misogyny and racism frequently. When it comes to strangers on a message board, I happen to think that it's sometimes easiest to shut someone down from defending the man by picking *the* most ridiculously indefensible things he has said - things that even racist or misogynist people can't defend. How does it "help" my (our, actually) causes of being anti-racism and anti-misogyny by sometimes focusing instead on homophobia and mocking disabled folks? Well indirectly I would hope it does, by simply chipping away and de-legitimizing him as being any sort of respectable human being. This doesn't need to be a contest!  I mean if we go down that route, then we both could call foul about how many other things that both you and I haven't yet called him out on. This seems like a needless argument.

If we are going to judge which is worse - mocking disabled people or being a horrifying sexist pig, I think they are all off-the-charts bad, and the frequency in which he does those things probably reflects how often he interacts with those groups. He's a narcissist who will find a way to both use and put down anyone who he can. Perhaps yes, he is more of a sexist pig than a disabled person mocker. I'm often picking on what I think are Trump's weak spots in an argument with strangers - areas in which theoretically there's no way that *anyone* can weasel out of saying that he acts indefensibly. I have even seen women online defending the "grab them" comment by letting it slide as "locker room talk" which is a despicable, tragic, and ridiculous way for them to perceive things. Me, I just happen to find it hilarious to see someone sit back and defend mocking disabled folks, or Bannon's "dikes" comment (or just stop responding because they know they can't defend those things), so perhaps that makes for more entertaining bait in an argument. I care no less about his abhorrent views on women, trust me.

Don't think for one moment that his views on women/race are not a priority to me - that's your projection based on how you are interpreting my argument tactics on a message board. We are absolutely allies on this.
You read my comment wrong. I'm just pointing out that you are editing what you are saying based on your audience - perhaps wise - but if I were to edit what I was saying for the audience, I wouldn't be able to say what I want to say, in some cases.
I do think it's a shame if some people think that a Trump association applies to ALL Beach Boys. I also think it's a shame that any Beach Boys music will go unheard because of the association with Trump. We are in agreement there. That will get more attention than that article, in any case.
I hope some trend of rewriting The Beach Boys' history does not come out of this. If it does I will be unhappy and will acknowledge that you had a point here that I missed.  But I don't anticipate it.

Let's hope for the best. What is seemingly about the get unleashed in terms of the brand name is toxic on an unheard level, and I shudder to think what will happen next.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #254 on: January 06, 2017, 05:15:00 PM »

There. We agree!
Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #255 on: January 07, 2017, 10:21:05 AM »

I also think it's a shame that any Beach Boys music will go unheard because of the association with Trump.

I think it's a shame some people are dumb enough to avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views. To be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on.
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #256 on: January 07, 2017, 11:15:51 AM »

Well, about 62 million people certified themselves as complete morons in November. So there are a lot of dumb people out there.
Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #257 on: January 07, 2017, 11:28:04 AM »

Yup, a lot. According to my sources there are even 3 million more  Roll Eyes
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #258 on: January 07, 2017, 04:12:00 PM »

I also think it's a shame that any Beach Boys music will go unheard because of the association with Trump.

I think it's a shame some people are dumb enough to avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views. To be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on.

Would you listen to an artist who performed at the inauguration of David Duke?  Or Adolf Hitler? Just curious if those examples would make you change your opinion.
Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #259 on: January 07, 2017, 04:30:31 PM »

Would you listen to an artist who performed at the inauguration of David Duke?  Or Adolf Hitler? Just curious if those examples would make you change your opinion.

If the music's good, yes. Definitely.
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #260 on: January 07, 2017, 04:36:48 PM »

Would you listen to an artist who performed at the inauguration of David Duke?  Or Adolf Hitler? Just curious if those examples would make you change your opinion.

If the music's good, yes. Definitely.

I appreciate your honesty about that. That's where you and I differ, because it would unfortunately pollute the music too much for me for those people.  How about if it was the inauguration of a person who had sexually molested several close members of your family, and thus messed up their lives, but they were not able to have been prosecuted for it due to statute of limitations? Would the fact that it is personal change your way of thinking?  

I'm just throwing an extreme example out there to see if there's any possible way that you could be so repulsed by someone that you would finally be put off to their art, even if the art was great.  It is an honest question.   I tend to assume that everyone has a line they would draw at some point.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 04:39:03 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #261 on: January 08, 2017, 01:16:58 AM »

How about if it was the inauguration of a person who had sexually molested several close members of your family, and thus messed up their lives, but they were not able to have been prosecuted for it due to statute of limitations? Would the fact that it is personal change your way of thinking?  

I'm just throwing an extreme example out there to see if there's any possible way that you could be so repulsed by someone that you would finally be put off to their art, even if the art was great.  It is an honest question.   I tend to assume that everyone has a line they would draw at some point.

Again, I would definitely listen to the music if it is good. I would probably hate the elected person more than I've ever hated anybody, but the artist who would perform for said person would be a different person, and there wouldn't be anything personal between this artist and me. Actually I wouldn't even be interested in the artist as a person - I would be interested in the artist as, well, an artist. The music matters, the person doesn't. Let's go a bit further: I assume many people would draw a line there because it would be too much to withstand, but I would probably listen to the elected person/molester's own music if it was worthwhile, simply out of curiosity. After having illegally downloaded it, of course.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 01:19:56 AM by SloopJohnB » Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #262 on: January 08, 2017, 01:19:03 AM »

(double post, deleted)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 01:19:35 AM by SloopJohnB » Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #263 on: January 08, 2017, 05:52:45 AM »

That illegally download part is key. I wouldn't give money to a supporter of Trump if I could help it. I don't give money to Roman Polanski. I didn't buy OJ Simpson's book. I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund. I don't shop at Hobby Lobby or Walmart.
And I don't think I'm very unusual in these choices. I don't buy Ted Nugent and I also tend to ignore his existence as much as possible - same for Chuck Norris. There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.
Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #264 on: January 08, 2017, 10:42:02 AM »

I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund.
I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.

Quote
And I don't think I'm very unusual in these choices. I don't buy Ted Nugent and I also tend to ignore his existence as much as possible - same for Chuck Norris. There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.
If they don't want to find out about an artist's work simply because they saw said artist on TV for five minutes during the inauguration of a president they didn't vote for and automatically concluded that the artist shared the exact same ideas, they are indeed dumb. Actually, it's dumb even if you don't think they share the exact same ideas - because the artist's political stance doesn't necessarily have an impact over the lyrics or the music. Which leads me to what I said previously: "to be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on."

Also, "social responsibility" has nothing to do with that, and it's a poor excuse for an excuse. "Social responsibility" does however have a lot to do with voting and respecting the results of an undisputed election.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 10:45:11 AM by SloopJohnB » Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #265 on: January 08, 2017, 11:24:40 AM »

I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund.
I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.

Quote
And I don't think I'm very unusual in these choices. I don't buy Ted Nugent and I also tend to ignore his existence as much as possible - same for Chuck Norris. There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.
If they don't want to find out about an artist's work simply because they saw said artist on TV for five minutes during the inauguration of a president they didn't vote for and automatically concluded that the artist shared the exact same ideas, they are indeed dumb. Actually, it's dumb even if you don't think they share the exact same ideas - because the artist's political stance doesn't necessarily have an impact over the lyrics or the music. Which leads me to what I said previously: "to be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on."

Also, "social responsibility" has nothing to do with that, and it's a poor excuse for an excuse. "Social responsibility" does however have a lot to do with voting and respecting the results of an undisputed election.

It's really not "dumb". It's people's emotions regarding what things disgust them and which don't. I detest having art tainted where it can affect my enjoyment of something. It doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes. I will probably go back to listening to The BBs without thinking about this at some point - I just randomly heard California Girls at a party last night and it brought a big smile to my face, but that doesn't mean I'm going necessarily to be very motivated to actively seek out put on a Mike Love lead on for possibly awhile.

Again - it depends on how much the association disgusts you. If a band you very much liked went and performed for a terrorist organization like the ISIS or HAMAS version of Coachella, or something like that, I venture to guess you'd be hard pressed to find the same level of emotional enjoyment out of the music in quite the same way if you are sickened TO THE CORE by the association.  Especially, if say, your entire family was killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center. That's an extreme example, but I'm just pointing out that certain things pull at peoples' emotions in very particular ways, and they aren't "wrong" or "dumb" to feel that way.  There's no reason to get insulting.  Honestly... would you tell a person to their face  - a person whose family died in that manner - that they were "dumb" for feeling that way about an artist who played a pro-terrorism event?

I really, truly think if you were, for example, a woman who personally had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by wealthy, "untouchable" people like Trump in a "grab them by the ..." kind of way, that you'd at least have a touch more empathy toward folks who are so repulsed by Trump and repulsed by any artist associating with him.  

Just put yourself in those shoes for a moment and think about it. Where's your empathy in this? Just because you might feel there are lots of liberals who might not have empathy for causes you believe in, doesn't mean you have to sink to anyone's level. We can all be bigger people if we want to be. The country is divided because we call each other "dumb". I'm not perfect with regards to this either, but it's really uncool to generalize an entire group of people in that manner. For example, I don't know how you could claim that it's not more understandable that a Jew whose entire immediate family was killed in the Holocaust would be more put off by Wagner, than say someone of an entirely different culture who has had no such personal awful (however indirect) connection. At its core, the principle of this makes sense, and while it may be unfortunate, it ain't "dumb".
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 12:19:52 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #266 on: January 08, 2017, 06:07:39 PM »

I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund.
I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.
What?
Quote
Quote
And I don't think I'm very unusual in these choices. I don't buy Ted Nugent and I also tend to ignore his existence as much as possible - same for Chuck Norris. There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.
If they don't want to find out about an artist's work simply because they saw said artist on TV for five minutes during the inauguration of a president they didn't vote for and automatically concluded that the artist shared the exact same ideas, they are indeed dumb. Actually, it's dumb even if you don't think they share the exact same ideas - because the artist's political stance doesn't necessarily have an impact over the lyrics or the music. Which leads me to what I said previously: "to be honest I don't care if those people never listen to the Beach Boys, especially if it translates into less idiots joining this messageboard from that moment on."

Also, "social responsibility" has nothing to do with that, and it's a poor excuse for an excuse. "Social responsibility" does however have a lot to do with voting and respecting the results of an undisputed election.
You're contradicting yourself, unless you are intentionally calling yourself dumb. 
It's a shame if you think a vote or respecting the results of an election are the limit of social responsibility.
Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #267 on: January 09, 2017, 03:15:07 AM »

It's really not "dumb". It's people's emotions regarding what things disgust them and which don't. I detest having art tainted where it can affect my enjoyment of something. It doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes. I will probably go back to listening to The BBs without thinking about this at some point - I just randomly heard California Girls at a party last night and it brought a big smile to my face, but that doesn't mean I'm going necessarily to be very motivated to actively seek out put on a Mike Love lead on for possibly awhile.
It's dumb to me, it might not be to you. If you choose not to listen to a band because you disapprove of something they did, instead of judging their work on its merits, feel free to do so. I'll feel free to think it's dumb.

Quote
Again - it depends on how much the association disgusts you. If a band you very much liked went and performed for a terrorist organization like the ISIS or HAMAS version of Coachella, or something like that, I venture to guess you'd be hard pressed to find the same level of emotional enjoyment out of the music in quite the same way if you are sickened TO THE CORE by the association.  Especially, if say, your entire family was killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center.
Obviously I'm not in that particular situation, but I'm pretty sure your guess would be wrong. I find it very easy to overlook an artist's political views and focus on the actual music. There are many artists who have voiced political opinions that I most definitely didn't share, and/or said things that I consider outrageous, and/or performed in countries that were or are apartheidistic and violent, and whose music I still enjoy just as much.

Quote
That's an extreme example, but I'm just pointing out that certain things pull at peoples' emotions in very particular ways, and they aren't "wrong" or "dumb" to feel that way.  There's no reason to get insulting.  Honestly... would you tell a person to their face  - a person whose family died in that manner - that they were "dumb" for feeling that way about an artist who played a pro-terrorism event?
First of all, I think (I may be wrong) you're implying that my "dumb" comment applied to people who wouldn't listen to a band because they support someone who killed their relatives. Look at my previous replies and you will see that it isn't the case: I only said it was dumb to avoid listening to an artist just because of different political stances, and I'll stand by that statement. Regarding your question, I wouldn't call them dumb, but I would probably immediately stop talking to them about music, and if they were friends, I would stop seeing them altogether, because I would then know that their judgment on such a trivial thing as music can be overthrown by emotional considerations, and I can't imagine being friends with someone who I can't have a rational conversation with. Which I think also answers your question about empathy. I would definitely feel empathy towards those persons but I would also know they're not who I want to hang out with.

Quote
For example, I don't know how you could claim that it's not more understandable that a Jew whose entire immediate family was killed in the Holocaust would be more put off by Wagner, than say someone of an entirely different culture who has had no such personal awful (however indirect) connection. At its core, the principle of this makes sense, and while it may be unfortunate, it ain't "dumb".
When Wagner died, Hitler wasn't even born yet. Thus, this is -and I'm sure you will understand- a pretty dumb statement to make. On a more humorous note, I personally know a few jewish people who drive BMWs and it doesn't seem to bother them. For the reasons stated above, that's why they're my friends.

I look at what mutual funds invest in before I invest in the fund.
I guess George Soros and Saudi Arabia are ok in your book then. Which seems a bit contradictory, considering some of your previous political statements.
What?
You weren't put off by that when you supported Hillary Clinton.

Quote
You're contradicting yourself, unless you are intentionally calling yourself dumb.
How so?

Quote
It's a shame if you think a vote or respecting the results of an election are the limit of social responsibility.
My point was that "I have a stronger sense of social responsibility" doesn't mean "I let my judgment be affected by emotions more than the average person". Just because a person chooses not to listen to some artists because they (supposedly) voted for another candidate and that displeases said person, it doesn't mean the latter is "socially responsible". It has literally nothing to do with that.
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #268 on: January 09, 2017, 11:06:46 AM »


Obviously I'm not in that particular situation, but I'm pretty sure your guess would be wrong. I find it very easy to overlook an artist's political views and focus on the actual music. There are many artists who have voiced political opinions that I most definitely didn't share, and/or said things that I consider outrageous, and/or performed in countries that were or are apartheidistic and violent, and whose music I still enjoy just as much.
 

Bottom line is, you may have a better ability to do that than some other people. And good for you. I mean that non-sarcastically, too. I am often able to do that also, but I don't begrudge people who feel differently, and as I mentioned before, it's really both petty and needlessly divisive to call them "dumb". You can stand on your high horse all you want and refuse to back down an inch from claiming this is a perfectly fine blanket label for others, but you have not walked in the shoes of countless people from innumerable backgrounds/life experiences who you label as such. It's simply uncool and not right.

Whether you want to admit it or not, name-calling like that is contributing to the awful divide in this country right now. Snicker at that if you want to, but it's the truth. Not trying to sound sanctimonious, but what the world needs now is less ugly blanket statements about groups of people as a whole. Label people as "misguided" all you want if you feel that way, but don't claim they are literally lacking IQ points.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 11:26:19 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #269 on: January 09, 2017, 01:12:56 PM »

Bottom line is, you may have a better ability to do that than some other people. And good for you. I mean that non-sarcastically, too. I am often able to do that also, but I don't begrudge people who feel differently, and as I mentioned before, it's really both petty and needlessly divisive to call them "dumb". You can stand on your high horse all you want and refuse to back down an inch from claiming this is a perfectly fine blanket label for others, but you have not walked in the shoes of countless people from innumerable backgrounds/life experiences who you label as such. It's simply uncool and not right.

Whether you want to admit it or not, name-calling like that is contributing to the awful divide in this country right now. Snicker at that if you want to, but it's the truth. Not trying to sound sanctimonious, but what the world needs now is less ugly blanket statements about groups of people as a whole. Label people as "misguided" all you want if you feel that way, but don't claim they are literally lacking IQ points.
Fair and understandable point. I don't see you criticizing Emily for labeling 62 million US citizens as "morons", however.

(Also, I'll just add that I am not a US citizen - not that it should change much to what has been said.)
Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4098



View Profile
« Reply #270 on: January 09, 2017, 01:20:20 PM »

Bottom line is, you may have a better ability to do that than some other people. And good for you. I mean that non-sarcastically, too. I am often able to do that also, but I don't begrudge people who feel differently, and as I mentioned before, it's really both petty and needlessly divisive to call them "dumb". You can stand on your high horse all you want and refuse to back down an inch from claiming this is a perfectly fine blanket label for others, but you have not walked in the shoes of countless people from innumerable backgrounds/life experiences who you label as such. It's simply uncool and not right.

Whether you want to admit it or not, name-calling like that is contributing to the awful divide in this country right now. Snicker at that if you want to, but it's the truth. Not trying to sound sanctimonious, but what the world needs now is less ugly blanket statements about groups of people as a whole. Label people as "misguided" all you want if you feel that way, but don't claim they are literally lacking IQ points.
Fair and understandable point. I don't see you criticizing Emily for labeling 62 million US citizens as "morons", however.

(Also, I'll just add that I am not a US citizen - not that it should change much to what has been said.)

The morons comment isn't great, and certainly isn't helping the situation either. I get why emotions would get people to that point though.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #271 on: January 09, 2017, 06:36:24 PM »

There were two options for president, one vastly preferable in every respect to the other. No ethical conundrum there.

You said you would download for free the music of "the elected person/molester"

Of course it's socially responsible to not fund those who support or do negative things.
Logged
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3530


View Profile
« Reply #272 on: January 09, 2017, 08:20:49 PM »

There were two options for president, one vastly preferable in every respect to the other. No ethical conundrum there.

You said you would download for free the music of "the elected person/molester"

Of course it's socially responsible to not fund those who support or do negative things.

Im not sure Im.go so far as to say that Hillary was a "vastly superior" candidate. 

I support Trump, and I'll at least admit he wasn't even the best candidate in his own party.
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
SloopJohnB
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 933



View Profile WWW
« Reply #273 on: January 10, 2017, 12:30:23 AM »

Of course it's socially responsible to not fund those who support or do negative things.

In your original comment:
Quote
There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.
You're absolutely not referring to the matter of paying or not paying in order to listen to music. You're clearly saying that the people who I think are "dumb", which means those who "avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views", have a "stronger sense of responsibility", meaning that people would be socially irresponsible if they listened to a band after they played the inauguration of a president said people didn't vote for. If it was a matter of money, you wouldn't have said "A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out", because these people could then download the music for free. As usual, you're being intellectually dishonest, by changing what you said. I'm not surprised.  Roll Eyes

Im not sure Im.go so far as to say that Hillary was a "vastly superior" candidate.  

I support Trump, and I'll at least admit he wasn't even the best candidate in his own party.
Emily would greatly benefit from ending every single statement she makes with "...in my opinion".

« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 12:31:17 AM by SloopJohnB » Logged

I don't know where, but their music sends me there
Pleasure Island!!!!!!! and a slice of cheese pizza.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


View Profile
« Reply #274 on: January 10, 2017, 04:36:56 AM »

Of course it's socially responsible to not fund those who support or do negative things.

In your original comment:
Quote
There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.
You're absolutely not referring to the matter of paying or not paying in order to listen to music. You're clearly saying that the people who I think are "dumb", which means those who "avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views", have a "stronger sense of responsibility", meaning that people would be socially irresponsible if they listened to a band after they played the inauguration of a president said people didn't vote for. If it was a matter of money, you wouldn't have said "A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out", because these people could then download the music for free. As usual, you're being intellectually dishonest, by changing what you said. I'm not surprised.  Roll Eyes

Im not sure Im.go so far as to say that Hillary was a "vastly superior" candidate.  

I support Trump, and I'll at least admit he wasn't even the best candidate in his own party.
Emily would greatly benefit from ending every single statement she makes with "...in my opinion".


I prefaced the comment by saying that the "illegally download part is key". I don't consider that an option because I'm not just intellectually honest, I'm also generally honest. You are the one who's being inconsistent.
And why would one need an ellipsis?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines