"So Jason Aldean is catching A LOT of shit for his new song because of the lyrics in this video. Let’s highlight some music lyrics that aren’t causing any controversy and see why that might be. Shall we? • DMX: ‘If you got a daughter older than 15, I’mma rape her/Take her on the living room floor, right there in front of you/Then ask you seriously, what you wanna do?’ • ICE CUBE: ‘So don't follow me up and down your market/ Or your little chop-suey ass will be a target/ Of the nationwide boycott/ Juice with the people, that's what the boy got/So pay respect to the Black fist/ Or we`ll burn your store right down to a crisp/ And then we`ll see ya/ Cause you can't turn the ghetto into Black Korea.’ • SADAT X: ‘Though I can freak, fly, flow, fuck up a fa#%ot, Don't understand their ways, I ain't down with gays’ • BIGGIE: ‘Then I'm dippin' up the block and I'm robbin' bitches, too/Up the herringbones and bamboos/I wouldn't give a fuck if you're pregnant/Give me the baby rings and the #1 Mom pendant’ • RICK ROSS: ‘Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain’t even know it/I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain't even know it’"
Amiri King
I could be wrong, but I suspect that part of the problem is that the video for Aldean's song consists of actual footage of the actual riots in 2020. I think that the hand wringers probably prefer we forgot all about those riots.
16 comments:
Once again we see the notorious leftist double standard system at play. The "progressive" left has no moral compass to break. They are their own gods...even when they falsely profess devotion to Christ. We have too such examples posting and trying to post at our blogs. Shamefulness to the Nth power.
I agree with the double standard. While I personally object to lyrics that glorify rape, murder, objectifying women, drug use and the like, I respect the freedom of speech that allows those types of lyrics. However, when the same folx who don't bat an eye at those types of lyrics all of a sudden try to cancel Aldean I have a problem. I deal with things I find personally offensive by simply not exposing myself to them. The fact that these folx choose not to do the same just points out how subjective their view of free speech really is. Or to put it another way, "Do as I say, not as I do.". I'm beginning to think this is the now mantra of the APL.
Well, there IS a real life difference in that, white people HAVE terrorized and lynched black people in our history and that was accepted or at least tolerated by many and ignored by others. On the other hand, no one is really supporting rape or rapey language.
In other words, your privilege is showing.
And who is defending DMX's words about rape? Or any of the others?
Do you think people are SERIOUSLY okay with rape? Prove it.
I think the concept of freedom of speech has been greatly perverted. I will need to study the original arguments from the nation's founding on the issue to be certain, but I believe the point was to protect the right to speak freely against the government without fear of repercussions. I don't see the lyrics you posted having any relation to the federal government, so I don't see any problem with any degree of governmental regulation. Ideally, I would prefer folks self-govern, that recording companies refuse to record and sell the filth like that and better still, that there existed no market for it. But leftists who defend it, as if it has any value of any kind, pervert the Constitution, as perverts do, to the vile end.
Dan,
One, the Aldean song is in no way an endorsement or on incitement to lynch anyone. The fact that something occurred in the past, has no bearing on this situation.
Really, who is "defending" these lyrics? let's start with the fact that millions of people buy, download, or stream this music, as well as buy merch and go to concerts by these people. That seems to be an endorsement. The problem is that this is an attempt to cancel Aldean for a song that is nowhere near as offensive or problematic as the lyrics above. IF there was a move to cancel these "artists", as opposed to simply accept them, you might have a point.
Again, people buy the music/go to the shows/buy and wear the merch.
Dan,
A couple of other thoughts on the acceptance of the types of lyrics I posted. Record companies choose to sign and market these "artists", as well as to profit from their work. Radio stations and TV play their songs and videos. People look, dress, and act like these "artists".
While the vast majority of people don't support actual rape, murder, drug use, etc, there are millions of people who support the "artists" who sing or rap about those things.
Art,
Don't get me wrong. I agree that these people have the right to write and perform this music under the first amendment. I have virtually 100% control over what I listen to or consume, and if I choose not to consume this kind of music, I simply won't. I am simply commenting on the double standard. Aldean's song is clearly not endorsing wanton violence, rape, drug or alcohol use, lynching, or anything negative. He's literally pointing out that in small towns, people are less likely to tolerate the behavior that is happening in most of our urban areas. He's literally extolling the virtues of sticking up for one's neighbors and not tolerating lawlessness. The fact that a bunch of people want to restrict his freedom of expression, while not wanting to restrict those who's lyrics are worse, is the problem. Just be consistent.
Actually Craig, we're not in agreement here. My point is that the left has perverted the Constitutional protection of speech to include filth, when I believe the point was to protect those who criticized the government, not those who spew filth.
Dan's angle, even if it was intelligent, wouldn't mitigate the value of applying the 1st only to governmental criticism (even if in music), and legally prohibiting the sale of the vile crap of which your post provides examples. There's no relation between speech involving objections to legislation, for example, and speech expressing a far worse level of misogyny than even Louisville liars pretend to oppose or violent assaults on people of another race. I believe there's no Constitutional problem in regulating or prohibiting the sale of the latter. It has no value except to enrich the "artist" who hasn't the talent to produce art of any true value.
Dan's also missing the point that Aldean's song speaks of something about which those like Dan would feel shame and regret if they had souls and morals. He's simply saying that unlike urban areas run by modern progressives, the town whence he comes won't tolerate the behaviors so commonly enabled and excused by the modern progressive (a term I define as "evil moron of low intellectual capabilities"). It's the type of town in which "good" people prefer live and raise their kids and they're willing to defend it against the thugs and ne'er-do-wells those like Dan excuse and enable with his crap about past injustices to the black population, as if that shit has any legitimate relevance.
And of course the acceptance of the "rapey" lyrics and messaging is clear in the fact that these "artists" (I don't even like saying that with scare quotes...they aren't artistic at all any more than that a comedian doing blue isn't as funny as those with true creativity) are living large on the profits from the sales of their vile recordings and associated merchandise. No progressive seems to oppose it these days. Back in the mid 80's...seems a lifetime ago...Tipper Gore worked to put warning labels and so many protested it as a 1st Amendment breach. As I stated above, it was not and we need that kind of concern for our young. The modern progressive has no concern for our young.
Art,
I don't particularly care if we're in agreement on this. I do believe that the !A protects offensive speech as well as non offensive speech. We are not forced to listen to this crap, and those that choose to listen, do so of their own free will. Obviously, if speech becomes incitement, that does cross a line. The problem with Tipper's warning labels (which I don't necessarily object to), is that they actually drove sales of the music because people tend to be drawn to the forbidden. Ultimately my problem is that when one side or the other uses the power of the government to prevent certain things, it is almost guaranteed to be used against them at some point. You know that the GOP is going to start to use the tactics that the DFL has been using against them, of they aren't already.
Like so many of our social problems, this is something that should be handled within the family, not by government fiat.
Having said that, if people want to boycott or protest the record labels, streaming services, etc to protest that's awesome. Protest live shows, or whatever, go for it. When I advocate for less government intrusion, I mean that across the board.
I'm for less government, but I'm quite in favor of good government. Note that we have tons of laws against tons of behaviors which are indeed detrimental to the health, safety and property of the individual. We certainly aren't going to criticize government for such intrusions into the "personal lives" of those perpetrating the behaviors against which the laws regulate or forbid. What's more, "incitement" or "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" are certainly offensive, yet not protected by the 1st.
But again, I need to dive more deeply in the commentaries of the founders to affirm their intentions in crafting the 1st Amendment speech protections. Assuming my position can be confirmed by such a study, then the issue isn't agreeing with me, but with what the truth is about the intention of the 1st Amendment as regards "free speech". And assuming my position is so confirmed, that doesn't mean laws restricting porn or crap hippity-hop lyrics can't be argued on their own merits. There's true harm and indeed "incitement" in such things toward bad behaviors. We, the people, aren't obliged to allow it, and neither are our duly elected representatives.
Here's the thing(s) you need to remember:
1. Toxic masculinity is a reality and it's been regularly acted upon.
2. The killers of Matthew Shephard, Ahmaud Arbery and James Byrd, Jr who were all small town folks, may well have been thinking the same thing: Don't you DARE be outwardly, overtly gay in MY small town... Don't you DARE be a young black man running through the streets of a "white" neighborhood in MY small town... etc. I don't know anything about this country music singer, but his WORDS sound like that vein of toxic and deadly/violent masculinity, so you shouldn't be surprised when people remember Matthew Shephard, Ahmaud Arbery and others and eyebrows/concerns are raised.
3. Toxic masculinity isn't called "toxic" for naught.
When you say "toxic masculinity" are you referring to the kind of masculinity that is part and parcel of so much of rap/hood culture?
It's always amusing when you put words in the mouths of people you disagree with, or ascribe motives to people you don't know, then act as if your made up bullshit actually represents reality.
Ohhhhhh, it's one more of Dan's scary bogeymen. Heaven forbid people defend their friends, their property, and their community from those bent on destruction.
I do enjoy it when you play this false equivalency game in order to excuse, justify, or defend those on the left engaging in violent actions that cause harm to people, businesses, and communities.
"3. Toxic masculinity isn't called "toxic" for naught"
It's true! It's called that in order for modern progressives to have another invented threat about whom they blame for their own failures. Stupid (and dishonest) is as stupid (and dishonest) does and there are none so incredibly stupid (and dishonest) as the modern progressive.
Art,
Of course there are men who take masculine traits to an extreme, and therefore could be referred to as "toxic". Unfortunately, this is a human problem, not one specifically limited to men. To refer to the innate male instinct to protect those in his family, tribe, or community from those who would do harm as "toxic" is simply absurd. The fact that Dan doesn't seem to think that the protection of others is a desirable trait of men, seems strange.
"Of course there are men who take masculine traits to an extreme"
They're more commonly known as "criminals", "thugs", "bullies" and a host of other terms which separates them from true men referred to by the modern progressive and feminist as "toxic".
Post a Comment