Thread: music censorship

Originally Posted by jockeys

And then the kids on the "other side" will grow up experiencing that resentment, not really understanding why, and develop their own resentment. Rinse, repeat, forever.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. My friends and I are living proof that you are wrong in this conjecture. As time goes on, and more and more black families work their way out of poverty into the middle class, the resentment will go away. Like all issuses in the world, time and circumstances change the sentiment of the people affected.

Originally Posted by kljr

I'm going to have to disagree with you. My friends and I are living proof that you are wrong in this conjecture. As time goes on, and more and more black families work their way out of poverty into the middle class, the resentment will go away. Like all issuses in the world, time and circumstances change the sentiment of the people affected.

purely anecdotal. I've got plenty of it going the otherway, much of it firsthand. I'm glad you had a good experience but don't assume everyone else was so lucky. Someday you should go to east Texas and see what I'm talking about. The next generation of mindless reactionary hatred is alive and well on both sides of town.

4 years in fort hood tx, i know about east tx. but keep in mind, that's east tx. that microcosm doesn't the rest of the country. that behavior is slowly fading away with time. true, there are areas that will take longer to change, but in time (maybe a long time), change will come.

Originally Posted by kljr

4 years in fort hood tx, i know about east tx. but keep in mind, that's east tx. that microcosm doesn't the rest of the country. that behavior is slowly fading away with time. true, there are areas that will take longer to change, but in time (maybe a long time), change will come.

agree to disagree. the human animal has always behaved this way, I always will, I think.

When I was growing up, I wasn't allowed to listen to Ozzy Osbourne's music because it was "the devil's music." When I got a copy of one of his tapes for a birthday present, my aunt went nuts and confiscated it because of the song titles alone. The album was titled No Rest for the Wicked. Is it actually Satanic? Well, yes in that certain of the lyrics mock the hypocrisy of organized religion, and Jimmy Swaggart in particular. But harmful in some way? Only if I listened to it very loud.

Ozzy's music is extremely liberal, and a lot centers around love for others and love of God. Same goes for Black Sabbath. The Satanic front was only a front. I still listen to his stuff, even though I don't always agree with his politics or religious stance.

I've heard music on both sides of the racial equation, and don't really care for either. I listen to music for enjoyment. I can't really identify with the non-white side. On the other hand, I can't understand half of the screaming and garbled stuff from the white supremacists. I prefer music with melodic lyrics, so I prefer not to listen to most rap and also the garbled chanted stuff. If I'm riding down the road with a song in my head, it's probably one I can sing to.

Now, some of the lyrics of this stuff, as far as poetry is concerned, are pretty well-written, on both sides. But it's spoken poetry put to music, not a song to me.

But in America, we have freedom of speech and press. We have to allow them an avenue of expression for their ideas. By the same token, people have the right to listen or not. As far as the people selling the stuff goes, they have a right to carry it or not, and they probably make the decision based on whether or not they think they can make a profit from it.

If unpopular views were never expressed, we would never have advanced scientifically because religion would have burned all scientists as unrepentent heretics. We would never have abolished slavery. We would never have had women or blacks voting. We wouldn't have rock n roll. We wouldn't have an alternative viewpoint to the status quo. We wouldn't have balance.

What we have to do is show responsibility to the responsible. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If you do, then buy it. If you don't want anybody to be able to produce that kind of music, then talk to some lawmakers. (And be aware that your particular point of view may be next on the chopping block.) If you want them to be able to make it, then support the Bill of Rights. But make a rational choice, a responsible choice, and if either way you choose backfires on you don't put the blame somewhere else. By way of example, there are right-wing talk show hosts on the radio with large audiences and those shows are sellable. Many left-wing talk shows have small listenerships and are not really sellable. The non-sellable shows get pushed to time slots when most people are not listening or are not aware that they are on and big sponsors will not invest in advertising during them. Then they complain about not having the same amount of airtime and want the airtime given to them. Too bad. Make a show people want to hear and the listeners, airtime and the money will follow. Each side is given its due, as it should be.

Wholesale hate is a waste of energy, though. It's more productive when you hate someone for a reason like something they did. I never really got the collective hate thing.

Anyway, there will always be someone oppressed somewhere. The rich oppress the poor. The strong oppress the weak. And among the oppressors are always people saying how all of humanity are equal, and among the oppressed are people saying they should be meek and submit.

Is either side right or wrong? No, but they are both human, and we have to remember that humans are animals who like to think they are better than other animals and because of that they are extremely vicious. The first group says they are better than a second because they hate the second. The second group says they are better than the first because the first one hates. The third judges all of them and decides wholesale hate is ridiculous anyway, and I think I'll side with them.