Rob_86

Maybe agreeing to disagree, but if there's a debate in the first place, then there's 2 opposing views so agreement would mean someone changing their views. Which I don't think anybody has done.

Perhaps yeah, but also when you make things clearer often people realise they aren't really disagreeing all that greatly if at all. Like you might assume someone is saying thigns he isn't, and then it takes posts like Tam up there to point out what is really being said etc.

In all reality I don't think anyone here has differing base moralities or anything (ie I dont think anyone is actually in support of Nazi bands) we simply disagree on finer points, and those have become a lot clearer this morning, and seem not so great as far as I can see.

are you just looking for people to agree with you?

Not specifically, but if you're debating the issue then the goal is agreement yes.

I'd just like to say that I think people are being assholes to Rob because they disagree with him. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and I think he has some valid points which he is conveying in a fairly sensible manner. It's not like he's some outraged Northsound listener spouting off a load of bullshit because they are offended by the name or the actions of the band. This discussion has sort of migrated away from the original thread so if any mods care that much perhaps we could move it into a new discussion of how stuff like this can affect people in society.

I personally agree with his point that nobody would go to a show of this band, then go home and beat their wives because they were told to. But young people are influenced by stuff in subtle ways and stuff like this that was taken the wrong way could over time have a negative effect on the progress of sexual equality. It's pretty unlikely, though.

I reckon if Wifebeater had stated a manifesto they could have avoided this whole upset (much like The Chinkees, an all-Asian band whose Tshirts even had a little statement about how the band name was not meant to be offensive but was in itself designed to promote positivity against racism).

There is also a point at which the joke could wear a little thin - I wonder if Seth Putnam has a lot of gay or jewish friends?

I would agree with that, I don't think they are likely to have a huge individual effect - largely due to their seemingly endless unpopularity (!). However its not always the biggest or most popular bits of culture that spark things, and the tiny progression they might have made (no matter how small or untintentional) is still a pretty negative thing that is easily, and best avoided.

Are we all reaching any nearer agreement? The different views look worryingly similar compared to at some points in this thread!

Wow, half my morning just disappeared.

Half your morning - is that all? Try typing half the posts when you're meant to be working lol good job it's a slow day

Again, how is it possible to determine when something has a strong enough "essence" or irony? You have said you have looked into this matter and you didn't think the band made it clear enough that they were being ironic. Others have said that, to them, it was obvious that the band were being ironic.

Which opinion is right?

There's only one way to find out...

I like your thinking.

But no, seriously, I think it is often difficult to judge if a band is doing enough, if irony is thier intention-thats a valid point. However in this example, even at gigs from friends who went saying they didn't spot any irony at all, there didn't seem to be any. I mean credit to the band for saying afterwards that it was meant to be ironic, but there is hardly a 'date rape' esque edge to the music, or any discernible irony to their music. A lot of people on here might hear actual Nazi bands and discern irony from it when there is none - my point is that it has to be clear for everyone, and if it isn't then there is no harm just thinking about it and stopping/changing the music - it is just that, music after all. And in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things. I don't think banning things is right, but I would promote the idea of musicians taking responisbility for their musical content certainly.

"Triggers" - yes that's my point, kind of. Things in this world will trigger people off, but if it isn't a song by Wifebeater because they've been banned, locked up and key thrown away, it will be something else.

Where do you stop when you start banning things that could potentially trigger something off in someone who is already unbalanced?

Computer games/movies/songs/tv programmes/speeches/preachings/etc etc.

It is a free world for a reason. You have to sum up the pros and cons of all these arguments, and the risks are minimal. How many hard and fast cases are there of people going out and committing serious crimes because of the direct influence of a movie/song/game/etc? Not many. There are cases that people try to argue that the particular thing has influenced the individual to go and commit the crime, but I think on the whole it would be more of a copycat thing, and the person would have just copied something else. The example I used above was the High School shooting that copied a 30 second scene from Basketball Diaries. There are thousands of movies out there with guns and people getting killed etc - are you going to ban them all because a teenager decided to wear a long jacket and shoot up his school? No. A better idea would be to ban guns in America. It's guns that hurt people, not movies.

One example where I would say a movie has had a very strong influence would be the Bulger murder. BUT - that was an 18 rated movie that was watched by 10 year olds. It is the responsibility of the adults in charge of those kids to protect them from things like that. But, in saying that, I think those boys knew exactly what they were doing and knew the consequences, but that's a whole different debate. I haven't seen any movies that are inherently violent being pulled because two little boys committed that horrific murder.

I don't think so -triggers are exactly as you suggest, except that they don't neccesarily always appear. Most of us could be induced to murder for example, if given the right set of triggers, but we don't.

Your question about were to draw the line is an interesting one, and perhaps far more steeped in opinion than our previous discussion. I would say that something like a computer game ie GTA, if played by someone of a reasonable adult age wouldn't be particularly badly affected, and the game wouldn't have a particular effect on culture (though I'm no expert on that - it doesn't appear to though, perhaps for reasons myself/other folk have put across on here already). However I think Nazi bands are an example that do have effects on people, especially their fans/culture they are in, and so bands taking the piss like wifebeater have to be very careful. I mean really, why bother making an 'ironic' band anyway, why not act responsibly and steer well clear in the first place. But if you wanna make the band, just think about it at least - rather than hiding the irony away so as to piss people off.

No you didn't.

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic

Seriously, you didn't mention the word easier at all, that has only just been introduced into your argument, and implies shades of grey where only black and white existed before.

By the same token then, you shouldn't necessarily have expected or demanded a serious tone and start complaining when people didn't do as you wanted them to do.

Yes I did. Nice clip

Perhaps didn't mention the exact word, but it is implied lol! I'd like to think the shades of grey appear in every argument, and show development of the issue/ extensions being bought in. The actual argument I'm making as a whole is pretty black and white as far as I am concerned though. (caution: shit analogy) There may be grey tentacles, but the body is black and white:ding:

I didn't demand a serious tone, I just think one should probably be afforded such an issue. After all, if my argument was correct then it is a very serious issue - regardless of any effect wifebeater actually had. And if not, well should people really be arrogant enough to assume their correctness before hearing an entire argument. I have tried not to do that, and taken the serious comments on board and treated them with respect even though I didn't agree with them - and it would be an easier and clearer discussion if everyone did do that, but I'm not forcing anyone. A few people have made that last bit clear...

AAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!

You go on and on and on about people not reading your posts, but you are failing to grasp this very very simple point.

Wifebeater was the name of the band. Agreed?

The info on Wifebeater didn't suggest they were ironic or they were taking the piss. Agreed?

The fact that the band was called Wifebeater would NOT incite domestic abuse. Agreed?

Until you actually listen to their songs, or go to the gig, there's no more influence could be taken from a mere band name. Stella Artois and vests jokingly get called wifebeater. I don't think anyone argues that that could incite violence, so why could a band name?

Then - if you actually went onto their myspace and found songs like "Where's My Fucking Tea?" and "Take That and That" you would clearly have to be a bit of a twat to take it seriously, and to be predisposed to wifebeating and probably already doing it and also be a fucking lunatic to then be influenced by those songs and take them so much to heart that you go and beat your wife some more.

I never went to any Wifebeater gigs, but those on this thread that did, say that it was very very obvious that the guys were taking the piss if you actually attended a gig.

Therefore, I would say that Wifebeater did nothing to incite domestic abuse of any sort whatsoever. The people being offended by this band are being very presumptious and assuming because they are called Wifebeater (which is no doubt the only info they have on the band), that they promote wifebeating. It is VERY similar to the Ross/Brand situation where thousands of people who did not actually hear the broadcast just jumped on the bandwagon and complained to the BBC anyway. There were hundreds (was it really hundreds though?) of people that complained about Wifebeater. I think it's fair to say that those hundreds of people never heard a song or went to a gig. All they knew was the band was called Wifebeater and presumed the worst.

You're making the assumption that if something doesn't outright incite a whole number of bad events, then it isn't itself bad. Humans work much more subtley than that, and as I'm sure you're well aware, cultural changes don't just appear, they gradually increase until they have become accepted. Nothing really ever does such, outwith things like cults(ie religous sects, not the place, though I've never been...), but plenty of things do affect people into cultural changes. To get back to a sexist ruled society (if it has ever properly went away) all you need is for the jokes to get more accepted, and for the wrong groups (ie maleable minds) to see the acceptance of such social jokes without understanding the idea/importance of equality (which undoubtedly is lacking in our society's education system). It's all very well for a band not to want responsibility for this, and berift their music of such issues (though are certain marxist arguments that seem useful in that discussion, but that's something else altogether), but to turn the music into a promotion of the inequality isn't right, and if you're going to do it ironically then it has to have a strong essence of that else it will fail to capture the masses with irony (much like this band) and only seek to do what the irony-less version of the music will do.

Am I making my points any clearer? That is the jist of a pretty straight forward argument, as clear as I could make it, so feel free to take that as my view and counter accordingly - might make the thread a bit easier than tracking back to points everywhere.

Yes I understand influence, all I'm saying is that if you didn't go to one of the gigs then you don't fully understand what kind of band they were.

I never said that domestic abuse has childhood roots, I just said that in development iit s more influential in childhood. Some people just can't handle their emotions well etc...

You're trying to put across a point that we can all understand, but don't agree with so this thread is going to go on for ages and I'm sure everyone's bored of restating their points but because neither side is agreeing or backing down, so it's going to keep happening.

I agree it probably is more influential in childhood, though there are people who would argue certain things are more influential in teen years - as moral views develop mostly then. Which isn't a particularly contentious point, however I would agree that cultural triggers after childhood are needed in the majority of cases - not with the extreme mentally ill on the whole, but with most cases. And hence why things like this are an issue - cultural triggers are such by their very existence, and without outward irony they will almost always act as triggers to some people (not a great number perhaps, but more than just the 1 incidental case) Obviously Wifebeater didn't have the number of fans to cause this kinda thing, but the very fact that they have a bunch of people arguing pro the rights of freedom to make such 'ironic' jokes, regardless of their influence on people, is just one sign that backs me up. Though I'm sure after a sentence like that a defensive backlash will be forthcoming...

no it wasn't a lie, if you had read the rest of this thread, you would have realised that the woman who said that is an absolute tot.

I heard from one of my mates who works with a lot of local charities that it wasn't, the information put across on this thread simply backs it up. How exactly do you know it was donated? And not just used as a covering ass point like the 'clear irony', which only became clear after they split up.

Um, no, you didn't.

I don't think anyone, at any point has said that domestic violence is not an important issue. I just think it's strange that you think you can come into the middle of a thread where the tone has clearly been established for some time, expect serious debate, and then feign offense when people carry on as they have been doing for the previous 30 pages.

Urm I did, there isn't one paradoxical thing in what you pointed out!!

The tone wasn't established as, several people had tried to bring up decent points, one in particular being shot down with sexist replies. I don't know the situation so I won't comment, but the tone certainly wasn't set as 'no serious debate allowed' and even if it was, why couldn't it turn that way if someone bought up a serious point? Strange view.

and lets not forget that whatever cash they raised was then donated to womens charities.

Wasn't that a lie? I was under the impression that that particular womens charity said they didn't received the fund, and would have rejected them if they were offered.

Have you read my initial posts in this thread?

I put my opinion across on how people can be influenced by music/movies/whatever etc. but my opinion (which isn't a professional opinion - is yours?) is that people who commit crimes/violence/murder/rape/insert horrible crime will probably have some sort of disposition to this before they hear the song/see the movie/etc or will be driven to it by something that's happened in their lives.

In short, someone who commits murder must have some mental health issues, if they are willing to take the life of another human being (excepting things like self defence).

This is why I disagree with your OPINION (i.e. not "fact") that a band like Wifebeater could incite domestic abuse. It has been said lots and lots of times above that they were taking the piss. The name of the band was Wifebeater. That is all the information anyone would have on the band before listening to them on myspace or going to their gigs. Their songs and their gigs were clearly taking the piss and anyone who actually cared to listen to them would get that. I would put money on the fact that this band never incited one incident of domestic abuse.

Mental health issues aren't neccesary for most murder/abuse, that's an outdated myth. you just need a disposition to not respect other humans and it is taken from there. And that disrespect is pretty much solid for most folk during youth due to poor/hypocritical decisions in education/governmental systems. It is clear that influences in culture do have an affect on a persons psyche, I would hope we don't disagree on that, and unless this undying respect for sentience/conmsciousness is taught in youth (which it isn't in any culture as far as I am aware) then the first layer is already built.

And as for your second paragraph, I would agree to some extent if it were obvious that they were taking the piss - but it wasn't, even as per their own admission that it was meant to piss people off, which it wouldn't have done if it was obvious they were bing ironic or whatever. That really should be the end of that particular point, the irony was not obvious - except apparently at gigs, for which about one person here knows!

34 pages and still going in circles... aargh

Agree to disagree? Rob-person, you obviously didn't go to a gig therefore wouldn't know what the set and atmosphere was like, so your argument is invalid regarding the "influence" issue. No-one would become a wifebeater after hearing about a band name! If you didn't see them, then you don't know the whole story and can't back it up with evidence.

Right, end of bloody discussion. It's just going to grow and grow, more names thrown about and points already made will be made again

With all due respect I don't think you grasp the idea of influence, and aren't willing to discuss it so we will have to agree to disagree. It certainly isn't true that people indulge in domestic abuse just because of childhood trauma, or genetic disposition. Cultural signs have a massive effect - and this kinda thing is one of them.

Sigh. For the avoidance of doubt, the statement of yours that I took issue with was this:

As I explained, I believe that this argument - the argument that it is ok for comedians to be ironic, but not musicians (that's what the quote says) is unsound, as I don't accept your contention that people necessarily "take the subject of music into their hearts... whereas the same isn't generally true of comedy". I've already given numerous examples of "funny" songs that could be seen as offensive if the listener did not appreciate the intended irony, but I could give some more if you like, how about "Rednecks" by Randy Newman? "We're rednecks, we're rednecks, we're keeping the niggers down." Should that song be banned?

You went on to say:

But I still don't think you have been able to say how and when we can determine when something is or isn't clearly ironic. And therein lies the rub. Different people will respond to it in different ways.

You can SAY that your argument is logical, or that you have displayed "sound reasoning", but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. As you seem to be coming round to, all of this, whether music, lyrics, film, games etc, is subjective - we are not dealing in "facts" here. You cannot possibly say that Wifebeater were "wrong" or "bad", anymore than you can say the Brand/Ross stuff was, because slomeone else will have a different take on the matter.

I don't think anyone was responding with anger, yes there was gentle piss-taking going on but that's just what happens on this forum. Apart from a couple of apparently genuine fall outs between members (not involving me, I love everybody ), everybody gets on pretty well, despite making a few digs here and there. If you are going to stick around (and I hope you do) then you should probably get used to it, and learn not to be offended. That said, I think it is slightly presumptious to come into a thread in which the tone had been set for weeks and then expect a serious debate.

I made the point comedians get away with being ironic easier, as it is their job, not that it is one rule for one and one for another medium. I am quite happy to admit there may well be comedians who push this too far, I just don't know of any/think there are any in the public sphere.

As for banning songs, I haven't approached that issue. My point (among others) has been that wifebeater could have had a negative impact, which I am only one of hundreds to have seen by the sounds of it's public discussion, and that it doesn't clear them of responsibility just because they were being ironic (or say they were or whatever) after splitting up - or 'hiding it' in while together.

As for the similarities with Ross/Brand, it's very different. What they did was offensive to the guy were calling, and perhaps did influence a lot of folks to say 'hey theres nothing wrong with treating other people with this lack of respect' but I don't know enough about that situation to pass comment. This one is different, though it has many similarities obviously.

And don't get me wrong, I am not in the slightest bit offended by the insults - just think it is a bit of a piss poor reply to make when your discussing issues of ethical concern, for which there are people who do suffer in. As even if you do think I'm wrong, it's still an important issue.

I did try debating and put my points across but you just keep coming back with your "I am holier than thou" views about the psychology of humans etc etc.

You haven't actually made a point in about 20 posts. You made some points clearly and they were fair points, most people disagreed with your points and said why they disagreed, and offered some counter arguments, then you just came back and wrote about 4 paragraphs a time, saying 20 words when you could have used none, to try and justify each point by saying your point was made in a reasonable, well put manner.

It doesn't make your point any more correct, and we still disagree with your points.

I got a bit sick of you spouting off about it - it was only then that I started saying things like you're talking balls etc etc.

You're the one trying to belittle people with your "I'm so much more intelligent than you" opinions of the pschology of human beings etc, but you haven't given us any authority for your views. Are you a pschologist/student/on drugs? What exactly gives you the authority to know more about this stuff than the 6 or 7 people on here who all disagree with you?

I know how human beings work because I am one, and know many others. I haven't studied it in great detail, but I interact with human beings on a daily basis and have done for 27 years. I am an intelligent guy, I have two degrees, and prizes and stuff for coming top of my class at uni, but not in the field of psychology. I'm just using my personal experiences through life (which are apparently the most important thing in developing me as a human being) to come to my conclusions.

Any point that people has made that ahs been a valid one has been debated. When people have just gone - i disagree followed by some odd observation that makes little sense as to how the world is, of course I defer backt o original points that are more fair reflections, that is a pretty fair way to debate.

With all due respect, I am not doubting your intelligence, I'm sure you are a clever guy. But in this debate you haven't been particularly open with your responses, or as to why my points are wrong. I don't personally think that when debating a point it is enough to just spout an opinion, I think you have to use reasons why. And on these I have always responded, and will continue to.

blah blah blah, its all old news, everyone is over it.

Good God, grow up. I'm afraid domestic abuse is a problem even if it doesn't affect you, so this issue is worth debating. Sorry if it's getting in the way of you discussing a new abulm, why not start a new thread?

Whether the band's original intent was irony, a piss-take or incitement to back-handing the missus, it was a project that Viz comic may have declared too low-brow a concept, can it nae just die in peace, why spend eons arguing about a band that have packed it in?

Personally, I never saw the point of it at all, it just seemed a bit immature, The Macc Lads for the Noughties.

I just think it's an important thing to get straight, and a useful thing to everyone to think about. Everyone is speaking about it as PC gone mad, when in actual fact it doesn't really fit into that category at all. It is however good to get it straight that freedom of speech should have it's limits, as often musicians fail to see this. There are worse things in the world than stopping yourself from making a band to piss people off, if say it could have negative impacts on things like domestic abuse. That's all I'm saying...though I have had to say it a few times, and in a few different ways I admit...taking on board a lot of useful criticism along the way...

I've came to the conclusion that this is some sort of elaborate wind up to prove a point.

Rob_86 has been taking the piss out of everyone, and isn't actually being serious. The fact that he's hooked us in, and we've argued with him, despite the fact that he's clearly taking the piss, will, in his mind go some way to prove that not everyone would realise Wifebeater were being ironic.

Or something like that.

I would take your comments on board if you hadn't ignored my points all the way through, and weren't just trying to wind me up now. Perhaps you should try and make me sound like a dick again, will that make you feel better? Don't for a second try debating the actual issue, wouldn't wanna actually get anywhere.

are you still posting?

This is old news, get over it, not that many people agree with what you are saying, and no one wants to hear your side....

So!!!

New Dylan album, YAS!

Sorry yeah, I should just be quiet and not put my views across, or argue actual reason - it's not like most people are arguing freedom of speech or anything is it. Why not jump off the bandwagon for a second? It's a bit of shame people can't discuss things, and when having their views challenged respond with anger that someone isn't thinking in line with everyone else. This is a thread for discussion of this, and I am discussing it - deal with it, or perhaps don't read it as it will only make you challenge your ignorant views - and God forbid you might be wrong about something.

What I have said is pretty simple - if a band is acting like a Nazi band, all be it intentionally ironic, and yet there is no outward sign of this irony to the masses, then there is no difference. Simple as that, whether you like it or not, that is how most of us saw the band. - it then becomes the problem of such nazi bands (which I am not for a second saying the guys in this band were - I don't know them), which surely you can't all argue for freedom of speech over incitings to violence and the such? Is that really what our underground music scene has become? A cause for absolute and undying freedom over all else?

correct (although 'completely stupid' is a bit strong...perhaps 'lacking in awareness', or 'deliberately avoiding awareness' might be more apt).

Hopefully you are now aware, and we can all relax and enjoy the music.

Well I didn't deliberately avoid it, I assumed the irony, and couldn't find any so stopped assuming. That's fair enough, and seems much more intelligent than most of the arguments I have heard on here. I would say, sarcasm aside, that stupidity would rest with those who try to justify things like this with appeal to low forms of wit like irony. I mean it's a matter of taste (not much taste in my opinion, but that's just an opinion) as to whether irony like that is funny, but as to denying it's impact because you like it/like being ironic/like defending these mythical virtues like freedom of speech that most music ceases to exercise usefully anyway these days, then that is both ignorant, unaware and stupid. In my OPINION. People like to give their opinion on here rather than using logical arguments, so I thought I'd give mine

Wrong on both counts. Plenty of folk have explained quite clearly why the thrust of his argument is fatally flawed, but he chooses to ignore this by claiming that his points are "clear" or "simple".

And that Mr Milne, is knob-like behaviour of the highest order.

Lol, yep I'm sure people will read your post and assume you are correct - unfortunately just disagreeing doesn't counter arguments, and I have refuted every single response quiote reasonably. Perhaps you could study a course in logic or something? You seem to think that replying once, with comments that are then easily refuted, is a winning method - let me assure you it is not. I hope the insults are fun for you though - it's nice to know that kind of thing is the way to discuss issues on this board.

And fatally flawed, that would imply my argument didn't logically follow on, or was false at some point - at which no one has pointed out the part it was. There has been discussion, but I'm pretty sure I have answered the replies. The go to card of 'it's Political Correctness gone mad!' didn't work as there are reasonable links to negative impact, and the 'everybody who doesn't get purposefully hidden irony is a twat so it doesn't matter', now that is a flawed argument. Perhaps you could say why it is fatally flawed, because I think the other guys who did must have deleted their posts - either that or your throwing your insults around for no reason - and that's not like you. Unless you're going to sit on the ace in the musicians pack - 'musicians shouldn't be responsible for their impact on people'. Oh yeah I totally agree, after all musicians are Gods who shouldn't have to answer to anyone...or is there a new argument, perhaps based around 'you're a knob, and you don't realise it's cool to offend people - hence this music is justified'?

It is starting to sound like band-wagon jumping. A band who's name and 'schtick' have a few pc folks tutting, and as soon as someone jumps on them everyone else piles in like cluster-fucks. It's a bit like the Brand/ Ross/ Manuel incident.

When you say your investigations included...erm... reading this thread, did you read it all? Did you read my earlier comment about Crass and the Dead Kennedy's lyrics.

In your Utopian society, would the Dead Kennedys have been banned for singing about killing poor people and making light of Pol Pot and the killing fields? Did the punk movement as a whole become discernably more anti-cambodian, or were there punk-pogroms against the poor because of this?

Strict regulation of peoples lives is NOT characteristic of anarchism. Censorship is clearly a tool of the fascist state.

I think you need to credit people who listen to music with a bit more intelligence, most people don't need you, or anyone, else to think for them- they want to do it themselves and rightly so. The guy who wrote the lyrics has now clearly stated the intention as ironic, and most who have actually seen/ heard/ met the band (without any preconception of guilt) have 'got' it. And yet they keep being likened to Nazi's- a very subtle way of painting them in a negative light without actually saying it.

It also occurred to me that there are two other situations which I can't really speculate on

CASE A: Perhaps the lyricist came from a background of domestic abuse. After years of not talking about it to anyone, the only way to express the pent up anger was to write songs about it. Chanting all the bullshit excuses he has heard used as lyrics.

CASE B: Perhaps the lyricist has indulged in a bit of handiness at home at some point, to his eternal guilt and shame. Perhaps the songs are telling us what he did as a way of exorcising these feelings.

I couldn't say if either of these cases were true and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to be so candid about their personal life on 'teh Internut'. But these are possibilities you have to consider as well. Though my intial reading of them was Post-Modern Irony, plain and simple. That belief hasn't changed.

And the thought of wife-beaters going to see a band just because they percieve them as 'promoting domestic violence' makes me laugh so much- do they have conventions too? Heh!

Most wifebeaters aren't proud of it, many are ashamed and hide it under a veneer of 'normal family life', often apologising after the event, crying and promising to change. I can't see them all congregating at a Wifebeater gig! Ludicrous!.

As Wifebeater mainly play in pubs and don't have any real cd's available- in what way will they corrupt children?

On the contrary, I have discussed the points you make and think I have ignored, on censorship and how this band strikes me as a bit different to other examples that people bought up earlier in the thread.

There's PC, which is often a tool used in oversensitivity, and there are bands that cross the line from irony into the same group as those bands that do promote things like sexist attacks etc, and other than those of us who didn't realise they were 'being ironic' (despite there being no evidence of this) being completely stupid apparently, and so the ironic intentions justify it, then there is no other defense of that is there?

But how did you know they aren't discernibly ironic if you didn't bother to find out anything about them? The notion "a band like this could cause a good few problems of domestic abuse" is utter baseless nonsense just like the rest of you're musings on civilisation. Your basically just admitting you heard about a band called Wifebeater on the radio and decided to complain about it without having a clue what your talking about.

No I heard about them on here, posters around the place, and through my mates - and as already mentioned, not just by me, there is no sign that they are being ironic - and as they stated there aim was to piss people off, so presumably that is why they didn't let on. This thread started after they ended(or around that time?), not a lot of use at the time

my bad, was started on the 2nd March