Thread: music censorship

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Great points Jockeys. If someone points out SKREWDRIVER to Amazon or iTunes, do I think they should elgally have to listen to it and make the call? hell no.
Do I think they SHOULD, morally, do a bit of checking where appropriate and remove the worst of the worst? Not allowing themselves to be used by extremists? Yes.
Will I no longer purchase from those avenues if they don't listen to my thoughts? nah, I'll still use them. Would I sign a petition or letter writing campaign to encourage them? join the facebook group (if one existed?) You bet.

COULD the Dixie Chix or Nugent be seen as hate groups? By someone? Sure. Do I think most rational people would? No.

where's the line for extremism? i know people who DO think the dixie chicks shouldn't be sold in stores. I know people who think that Skrewdriver should be on the radio (and it sometimes is, if you have satellite).

You advocate the morality of opposing extremism, yet all I can see is an arbitrary line in the sand that you've drawn. It represents your comfort level with certain ideologies. Nothing more. It's certainly not a guideline that can be used meaningfully.

Personally, I don't have much use for racism or racist music. Seems kinda silly to me to hate folks 'cause of how much melanin they were born with. But I'll defend, with my life if needed, the rights of those silly folks to state their opinions.

"Most rational people" isn't much of a guideline either. If we just go on popularity, all we've done is exchange on kind of majority harrassing a minority for some other majority harrassing a minority. Whether the minority is skin color or opinion, does it matter?

Originally Posted by jockeys

where's the line for extremism? i know people who DO think the dixie chicks shouldn't be sold in stores. I know people who think that Skrewdriver should be on the radio (and it sometimes is, if you have satellite)..

Why do they think they shouldn't be sold in stores? because they think they are morally repugnant, and that the store owner would be doing a good act by not selling them. OK. If enough people agree, the owner has every right not to sell it.

You advocate the morality of opposing extremism, yet all I can see is an arbitrary line in the sand that you've drawn. It represents your comfort level with certain ideologies. Nothing more. It's certainly not a guideline that can be used meaningfully..

I don't deny that I am universally (though I won't agree with 'arbitrarily') against promoting hate. I admitted to my biases in my second post in this thread. I do, however, disagree quite strongly with your last sentence. A business most certinly MAY listen to its customers and to the public at large, and remove that music, art, etc that is most opposed by the most people. It is their right. I BELIEVE, because of my biases, that it is actually their DUTY to do so. You may not, that is fine, but do you believe it is their right? If they wouldn't any works showing blacks, jews, gays, immigrants, etc in ANY positive light, is that there right? Yes. Do I think they would become the wpowerhouses of the e-conomy acting in such a way? Nope.

Personally, I don't have much use for racism or racist music. Seems kinda silly to me to hate folks 'cause of how much melanin they were born with. But I'll defend, with my life if needed, the rights of those silly folks to state their opinions.

Agreed fully. Racists and extremists have every right to use their freedom of speech. The public at large, the "market" does not have to stand idly by while privat business helps them spread their bile.

Jockeys, yet again you leave me with almost nothing to post.

I'll just add that music stores can choose to carry any legal music they wish. I can't put into words how much I dislike gangsta rap, but I don't expect Amazon or Apple to quit carrying it. I think that music [gangsta rap] is just as bad, if not worse, than the skinhead music from the article. Why worse? Because white society is so worried about being PC toward urban black culture that they let their kids listen to music glorifying rape, murder, abuse, and gang life. When it comes to white supremacists though, they [rightly] raise a fuss and don't let their kids listen to it. It's a sick double standard.

I only really hate two things in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Racists and extremists have every right to use their freedom of speech. The public at large, the "market" does not have to stand idly by while privat business helps them spread their bile.

I really don't understand the point of censoring ignorant bigoted viewpoints. I LOVE IT when ignorant bigots spout their nonsense. It lets me know they are ignorant bigots. It lets everyone know.

Don't censor them. Publicise their stupidity!

Originally Posted by jockeys

That's their business. I can choose to spend my money there, or not. Just because I find something personally distasteful doesn't automatically justify moral outrage.

An example, although intentionally humorous:

I am disgusted by fat people in revealing clothing. I really don't like it. So maybe when Victoria's Secret starts carrying plus sizes, I quit shopping there. I vote with my money. But do I get morally outraged and start picketing Victoria's Secret and demanding that they only sell clothes to skinny people?

Or course not, I'd look like an intolerant ass.

I love your example (and agree more than I care to admit publicly!). Things can be distasteful without inciting MORAL outrage, for sure. The topic at hand isn't one of them FOR ME. As for choosing to spend your money there, I agree completely. I think that that is the only way that I could get this behavior which I DON'T LIKE to change. By getting enough people to vote (or threaten to vote) with their wallets.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I really don't understand the point of censoring ignorant bigoted viewpoints. I LOVE IT when ignorant bigots spout their nonsense. It lets me know they are ignorant bigots. It lets everyone know.

Don't censor them. Publicise their stupidity!

The guy with a chair next to my tattoo artist thought the same way. No one else in the shop would do gang tats or nazi tats. he would. His theory: Better that they are all clearly marked. And with less money.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I don't deny that I am universally (though I won't agree with 'arbitrarily') against promoting hate. I admitted to my biases in my second post in this thread. I do, however, disagree quite strongly with your last sentence. A business most certinly MAY listen to its customers and to the public at large, and remove that music, art, etc that is most opposed by the most people. It is their right. I BELIEVE, because of my biases, that it is actually their DUTY to do so. You may not, that is fine, but do you believe it is their right? If they wouldn't any works showing blacks, jews, gays, immigrants, etc in ANY positive light, is that there right? Yes. Do I think they would become the wpowerhouses of the e-conomy acting in such a way? Nope.

"moral repugnance" is arbitrary because not everyone has the same morals. and as I said before, if we just go on popularity, all we've done is exchange on kind of majority harrassing a minority for some other majority harrassing a minority. Whether the minority is skin color or opinion, does it matter?

Of course a business has a right to sell whatever it wants, whether because of customer demands, managerial whim, or pure randomness... it doesn't matter. But I disagree that a store has a duty to do so. again, the idea of duty is arbitrary. why should the duty to weed out hate-promoting music be any greater than violence-promoting music, etc.

=jockeys;335499]Whether the minority is skin color or opinion, does it matter?.

I think so. I would venture a guess that most reasonable people agree. I think itwould make the world a better place if this music was harder to get. I feel the same about ANY music calling for violence, or that glorifies rape, shooting cops, etc.

Of course a business has a right to sell whatever it wants, whether because of customer demands, managerial whim, or pure randomness... it doesn't matter. But I disagree that a store has a duty to do so. again, the idea of duty is arbitrary. why should the duty to weed out hate-promoting music be any greater than violence-promoting music, etc.

I think there is a moral duty to make it harder to obtain this music. Why should it be different? I don't. If the music promotes ciolence as blatantly as Skredriver promotes racism, I think it should be handled roughly the same. I have NEVER heard of a rap group that is as focused on that aspect of the "culture" as the skinhead bands are....have you?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I think there is a moral duty to make it harder to obtain this music. Why should it be different? I don't. If the music promotes ciolence as blatantly as Skredriver promotes racism, I think it should be handled roughly the same. I have NEVER heard of a rap group that is as focused on that aspect of the "culture" as the skinhead bands are....have you?

Gangsta rap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't claim to be an expert on rap (as I never listen to it) but just a few minutes browsing on a lyrics website revealed all sorts of that stuff.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Gangsta rap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't claim to be an expert on rap (as I never listen to it) but just a few minutes browsing on a lyrics website revealed all sorts of that stuff.

Just because Gangsta rap is about killing cops doesn't mean I don't listen to it. It's often utilized as a way of expressing their fight against oppression. Plus, it's not too hardcore to rap about "writing a stern letter to your local police department."

I will say, whenever a song comes on about killing cops and whatnot, I tend to ignore it or change songs; but a lot of "gangsta rap," such as Tupac's work, is really beautiful if you listen to it. It's not to say it's ok, but it's art in it's own regard...sort of like a pornographic painting of Queen Elizabeth can be art in the sense that it personifies the punk movement in Britain; so also does gangsta rap represent the rapper mentality of "me vs. the world," as an artful expression.

I still think everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and can sing about whatever they want to.

Originally Posted by jockeys

Gangsta rap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't claim to be an expert on rap (as I never listen to it) but just a few minutes browsing on a lyrics website revealed all sorts of that stuff.

Me neither, and I never claimed (I'm not THAT dumb) that it didn't exist. But I would be amazed to hear that terribly many rap groups are as singularly comitted to a message of hate and violence. Other less than desrieable things, for sure. The racist group exist FOR the racism. Does this distinction make any sense? Or does it exist purely in my own mind?
I think a parent letting a child listen to any of it should have their head examined. I also think that stores selling it are selling things that are not good for our society, and I stand by my opinion that that gives rise to a moral duty to curtail said activity. There is always money to be gained by selling to the least common denominator in America, whatever the color of their skin.