I am uncomfortable with the locking of the thread by Jagwah (COVID-19 track)

[guitfnky]

these threads are always funny. righteous indignation about righteousness indignation is still righteous indignation. yeah—how meta of me.

[bxbrkrz]

[BRIGGS]

It's up to everyone to decide for themselves.

Unfortunately not everyone has the capacity to filter information.

This is why parents should not let their children loose on the internetz.

100% of the problem is 100% at the top.

[Auryn]

but again, it’s not a political sentiment—it’s a conspiracy theory with real world consequences.

It's utterly unclear to me where the dividing line is between these 2 categories.

not discussing the politics is the bar, but that’s not where he failed. regardless what you’re asking for comment on, you still shouldn’t be allowed to post stuff that has the potential to lead to dangerous behavior.

There is literally so much music that could be construed as 'leading to dangerous behaviour'. Everything from 'F*ck the Police' to 'Ebeneezer Goode' qualifies...

you mentioned RATM, and I’d apply the same standard to them (even though, I personally agree with their politics in some ways)—certain songs don’t belong on a site like this.

I can't believe you'd just ban RATM man. Sheesh. What about Stereolab? I mean, I love me some French ladies singing a post structuralist commentary on modern society to the sound of motorik beats...

as for the non-specificity of the lyrics, that’s hardly a good defense, IMO.

What if it had said "don't trust your leaders they tell you lies" or "fuck the government" or something generic along those lines?

[guitfnky]

but again, it’s not a political sentiment—it’s a conspiracy theory with real world consequences.

It's utterly unclear to me where the dividing line is between these 2 categories.

not discussing the politics is the bar, but that’s not where he failed. regardless what you’re asking for comment on, you still shouldn’t be allowed to post stuff that has the potential to lead to dangerous behavior.

There is literally so much music that could be construed as 'leading to dangerous behaviour'. Everything from 'F*ck the Police' to 'Ebeneezer Goode' qualifies...

you mentioned RATM, and I’d apply the same standard to them (even though, I personally agree with their politics in some ways)—certain songs don’t belong on a site like this.

I can't believe you'd just ban RATM man. Sheesh. What about Stereolab? I mean, I love me some French ladies singing a post structuralist commentary on modern society to the sound of motorik beats...

as for the non-specificity of the lyrics, that’s hardly a good defense, IMO.

What if it had said "don't trust your leaders they tell you lies" or "ferk the government" or something generic along those lines?

1st response--drawing lines can be tough, because ultimately they're arbitrary, most of the time--even the 'you can't shout FIRE! in a crowded theater' test is arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. in this case, I don't think it's very difficult at all. if you're putting an idea out that's been thoroughly debunked, or is based on obviously anti-scientific beliefs, then it's not really related to politics in any fundamental way. just because an idea has been co-opted for political use doesn't make it inherently political. climate change isn't inherently political either--it's just that lots of people have used it as a tool to further their own interests.

2nd response--yes, agreed, which just goes back to my first point, that these lines have to be drawn somewhere, or else things get out of hand. the trick is finding the right spot to draw it. reasonable people can disagree on where exactly to put it, but most would agree at approximately where it belongs. a good test is, how many people are indifferent? the fewer people who care to have discussions like the ones people like you and I are having right now, the more likely it is that the line is in the right spot. (I'll own it--I'm a dork who enjoys this sort of discussion ) if this thread gets to 10 pages though, I'll worry.

3rd response--please don't misunderstand--I'm not talking about banning or silencing anyone. I'm just talking in terms of an internet forum for a DAW. I am not for outright banning any music whatsoever, as distasteful as it may be. but, for example, when I post my own music, I use my own best judgment about where to post it. a general music forum on KVR, Reddit, or Facebook may be perfectly appropriate, but Reasontalk is about a community of software users first, and even if the software is music-related, that doesn't mean anything that's music should automatically have a place here.

I love political music--often militantly-so. I cut my teeth on RATM and Downset, love me some Refused, and think War on Women is one of the best punk bands to come along in a long time. I just don't think a lot of their songs would belong on a site like this--but elsewhere, absolutely! but I digress--I'm not familiar with Stereolab, and now I need to address that deficiency...

4th response--I'd be totally fine with that. generic to the point where a reasonable person wouldn't know the message was anti-(insert established scientific field here) would absolutely be fine, IMO. I do this a lot with my own music. most of the lyrics on Becoming Sane are very political when you know what it's about, but they're also intentionally vague, so the listener might not even realize it unless they're really looking to dissect the meaning.

[Kuranes2021]

Had this piece not been banned, hardly any of us would have noticed. But now that it has been banned, attention has been drawn to it.

I've watched the video in full, and I have to say - it's horrible.

Not necessarily because of the music, it's a matter of taste (the comparison with Atari Teenage Riot is actually obvious, by the way. But they were crap too; Nine Inch Nails and Ministry were much better), but because of the level of ignorance that is evident.


I would not have banned the song because the moment something is banned it becomes interesting for those who distrust the authorities.

It would have been much better to attach a comment to the video criticizing it with FACTS.

Suppressing such opinions makes them much more dangerous in the end than giving them a chance to ridicule themselves.

[tt_lab]

I am pro vaccines but anti censorship. I am out of this forum.

[MrFigg]

I am out of this forum.

Bet you’re not.

[orthodox]

a good test is, how many people are indifferent? the fewer people who care to have discussions like the ones people like you and I are having right now, the more likely it is that the line is in the right spot. (I'll own it--I'm a dork who enjoys this sort of discussion ) if this thread gets to 10 pages though, I'll worry.

You're just testing your ability to suppress the granted freedom of thought/expression without getting a substantial resistance. It's interesting how you set the threshold of 10 pages, why not 100?

[pushedbutton]

i think the song carried a potentially dangerous sentiment.
It would be nice if the virus was a hoax but it isn't. I've seen people get seriously ill and die from it.
80% of people are smart enough to fact check, 10% will assume this isn't what the man on the telly says, so it's bollocks, the other 10% will swallow the conspiracy theory bollocks and endanger themselves and others.
We can't afford to have 10% of the world pushing back on the vaccination efforts or more lives will be lost.
Should the thread have been locked? Well a warning that the thread breaks the rules doesn't make it exempt from the rules.
It was a political statement, a fecking stupid one, but we don't do politics round here... apart from when we're ... ah, wait a min.

[guitfnky]

a good test is, how many people are indifferent? the fewer people who care to have discussions like the ones people like you and I are having right now, the more likely it is that the line is in the right spot. (I'll own it--I'm a dork who enjoys this sort of discussion ) if this thread gets to 10 pages though, I'll worry.

You're just testing your ability to suppress the granted freedom of thought/expression without getting a substantial resistance. It's interesting how you set the threshold of 10 pages, why not 100?

there’s no suppression of freedom. RT is not a government entity, and I shouldn’t have to keep pointing out that there are plenty of alternatives for people to check out just how free we truly are to express ourselves (might I suggest Spotify? Reddit, perhaps?).

in all seriousness though, I do understand what you’re getting at. where I suppose we diverge is in whether people will speak up about a perceived slight—and I think this very thread is an indication that that human inclination is very much alive and well. people aren’t afraid to share their views when they have them.

as for why to set the bar at 10 pages? another arbitrary choice—most threads don’t seem to make it past 5 or so, so my reasoning was that if we manage to beat the average by a significant margin, users must feel strongly enough about it that something’s off. sort of like the R+ thread—after a while, all the forum usuals burn through their arguments and it takes lots of unfamiliar faces chiming in to keep the fires burning.

but of course that’s just a guess based on no real factual information whatsoever. just a thought experiment, I suppose.

[BRIGGS]

[motuscott]

My mommy was southern baptist church lady and my dad a conservative attorney. I just hunkered down until I got loose.
Reading is the key.
Every man who knows how to read has it in his power to magnify himself, to multiply the ways in which he exists, to make his life full, significant and interesting.
Aldous Huxley

[BRIGGS]

My mommy was southern baptist church lady and my dad a conservative attorney. I just hunkered down until I got loose.
Reading is the key.
Every man who knows how to read has it in his power to magnify himself, to multiply the ways in which he exists, to make his life full, significant and interesting.
Aldous Huxley

[Tiny Montgomery]

I don't agree with censorship but this isn't the public square so the owners and moderators of this site can do what they like. It's the same with Twitter etc who and what gets banned can be very revealing (depending on your POV) but it's a website owned by a private company they can do what they like. Free speech is just that, free speech - it is not a guarantee of a platform.

All that being said I have very mixed feelings about this. As someone who has basically been liberal left for most of his life the last few years have been eye opening for me.

To be a 'liberal' now amounts to believing your govt is interfering in the Middle East for 'humanitarian' reasons and the horrors that inevitably followed were just mistakes made in good faith; to be a liberal now means talking about how crazy all other folk are with their conspiracy theories while literally shitting the bed for four years over a completely made up conspiracy theory (Russiagate); to be a liberal now is to shut down any criticism of corporate culture and live in a kind of childish naivete believing eg big pharma basically has your best interests at heart; being a liberal now is to resist workers organising and feel embarrassed about concepts such as comradeship or class consciousness.

So I agree with whoever brought up the Streisand effect. The song and the music are terrible and a really basic and hamfisted attempt at a protest song but liberal over sensivity over the content has given it noteriety it doesn't deserve

[Tiny Montgomery]

I’m with Billy+ on this. political music is fair game as far as I’m concerned, and should absolutely be allowed, as long as they’re focused on the music, and not asking for comments on the lyrical content (as they were, in this case, in all fairness). but when it crosses the line into dangerous misinformation, that shit doesn’t belong here. to me, that’s not even political—it’s just that if an impressionable person saw it and acted on it, it puts people in danger.

You see like you I am basically pro vaccination but I'm afraid the idea that even questioning what's happening currently as 'dangerous misinformation' is pure hyperbole that's of a similar tenor to the paranoia in the song.

Of course you're not an 'impressionable' person are you? Right? That would be unthinkable! You've read books and have moderate and sensible political beliefs. In fact you're so immune to bad information you get to choose what's dangerous and what's ok for other people.

As I have sense of perspective I don't care what gets banned or locked on this website, but let's not kid ourselves about the motivation behind this one.

[Aosta]

If the song had been posted in the 'what are you listening to' thread I doubt it would have been removed but it was obviously posted in it's own thread to make a statement and provoke a reaction rather than for a musical critique.
I'm with the mods on this one.
There are more than enough platforms to put forward thoughts and opinions on certain things so can't we just keep this place free from it.

[Tiny Montgomery]

If the song had been posted in the 'what are you listening to' thread I doubt it would have been removed but it was obviously posted in it's own thread to make a statement and provoke a reaction rather than for a musical critique.
I'm with the mods on this one.
There are more than enough platforms to put forward thoughts and opinions on certain things so can't we just keep this place free from it.

Yes, I think you're right. The flip side of this trend for liberal scolding is that it's easily played -if you know there will or must be a reaction to something you put out there then it's easy to formulate that thing for the response, even something as clumsy and embarrassing as this song.

[ScuzzyEye]

I would have been fine with removing the song. This wouldn't have been censorship, as has already been pointed out, this is a private forum.

But it wasn't even removed. The thread was simply locked, the song is still there to be heard. It just can't be talked about. Which was actually requested by the original post, "Please do not discuss the political lyrical content here". What else was anyone going to do?

Now, this discussion? This is is interesting and productive. Talking about the nature of art, and (dis-)information.

[Tiny Montgomery]

I would have been fine with removing the song. This wouldn't have been censorship, as has already been pointed out, this is a private forum.

But it wasn't even removed. The thread was simply locked, the song is still there to be heard. It just can't be talked about. Which was actually requested by the original post, "Please do not discuss the political lyrical content here". What else was anyone going to do?

Now, this discussion? This is is interesting and productive. Talking about the nature of art, and (dis-)information.

Right on!

Can I just say, apropos of nothing, that being politically far left while also having a natural libertarian instinct and distrust of totalitarianism and ideology is really difficult these days...? Everyone wants to know what team you're on. I don't want to be in any of them.

One thing I'm certain of is mainstream liberal discourse is getting extremely low IQ while simultaneously being more smug and certain of itself. Perhaps it was always so.

[guitfnky]

I’m with Billy+ on this. political music is fair game as far as I’m concerned, and should absolutely be allowed, as long as they’re focused on the music, and not asking for comments on the lyrical content (as they were, in this case, in all fairness). but when it crosses the line into dangerous misinformation, that shit doesn’t belong here. to me, that’s not even political—it’s just that if an impressionable person saw it and acted on it, it puts people in danger.

You see like you I am basically pro vaccination but I'm afraid the idea that even questioning what's happening currently as 'dangerous misinformation' is pure hyperbole that's of a similar tenor to the paranoia in the song.

Of course you're not an 'impressionable' person are you? Right? That would be unthinkable! You've read books and have moderate and sensible political beliefs. In fact you're so immune to bad information you get to choose what's dangerous and what's ok for other people.

As I have sense of perspective I don't care what gets banned or locked on this website, but let's not kid ourselves about the motivation behind this one.

I’d recommend looking up the word ‘impressionable’. if you’ve read any of my comments, including some in this thread, I think you’d agree that I’m not very impressionable at all. hard-headed, more like.

there’s nothing wrong with questioning the goings on of the world, but when you’re pushing past proven answers because you don’t like them, you’re moving into conspiracy territory. I’ve said this often in my life, but it bears repeating—there’s plenty wrong in the world already, without having to make shit up.

[Tiny Montgomery]

You see like you I am basically pro vaccination but I'm afraid the idea that even questioning what's happening currently as 'dangerous misinformation' is pure hyperbole that's of a similar tenor to the paranoia in the song.

Of course you're not an 'impressionable' person are you? Right? That would be unthinkable! You've read books and have moderate and sensible political beliefs. In fact you're so immune to bad information you get to choose what's dangerous and what's ok for other people.

As I have sense of perspective I don't care what gets banned or locked on this website, but let's not kid ourselves about the motivation behind this one.

I’d recommend looking up the word ‘impressionable’. if you’ve read any of my comments, including some in this thread, I think you’d agree that I’m not very impressionable at all. hard-headed, more like.

there’s nothing wrong with questioning the goings on of the world, but when you’re pushing past proven answers because you don’t like them, you’re moving into conspiracy territory. I’ve said this often in my life, but it bears repeating—there’s plenty wrong in the world already, without having to make shit up.

Missed the point entirely I'm afraid.

Of course you don't think you're impressionable, none of us do. But - as your response shows -you haven't even considered that you might be on occasion.

I can guarantee you that you and I are impressionable as is everyone reading this. If you don't allow for this then I'm afraid you're missing a vital component for critical thinking.

[guitfnky]

I’d recommend looking up the word ‘impressionable’. if you’ve read any of my comments, including some in this thread, I think you’d agree that I’m not very impressionable at all. hard-headed, more like.

there’s nothing wrong with questioning the goings on of the world, but when you’re pushing past proven answers because you don’t like them, you’re moving into conspiracy territory. I’ve said this often in my life, but it bears repeating—there’s plenty wrong in the world already, without having to make shit up.

Missed the point entirely I'm afraid.

Of course you don't think you're impressionable, none of us do. But - as your response shows -you haven't even considered that you might be on occasion.

I can guarantee you that you and I are impressionable as is everyone reading this. If you don't allow for this then I'm afraid you're missing a vital component for critical thinking.

you’re conflating the word impressionable with the ability to be influenced. impressionable means <easily> influenced. that’s not the same thing as being able to be influenced at all.

[Tiny Montgomery]

In 2007 I was very impressed with Richard Dawkins. Now I think he's a prick. In fact I think he's quite dangerous in his small way.

In 2008 I really thought Obama might actually be the real deal despite by that time I really should have known better.

We're all impressionable.

[guitfnky]

In 2007 I was very impressed with Richard Dawkins. Now I think he's a prick. In fact I think he's quite dangerous in his small way.

In 2008 I really thought Obama might actually be the real deal despite by that time I really should have known better.

We're all impressionable.

these are personal anecdotes.