Wind-up?

[Guest Exposure @ Lemon Tree]

In response to earlier comments in this discussion, it isn't just anarcho punk that has begun to turn away from ethical persuasions - it has been gradually increasing in society for years, and it just so happens that a few anarcho punk bands have decided to follow suit. Its what Richard Ryder (the psychologist not the comedian, in case anyone knows of him!) calls the 'Cult of Machismo' - ie, how it's cool not to care and all that. I guess it just shows even anarcho punks aren't above following the mainstream.

As for the wifebeater controversy, I have read a few posts on the point and am confused as to why people are defending against the fact that it could be seen as an offensive project for any band to take up/lead to influencing young folks views on the subject for the worse. It seems most people on here will take the high ground on freedom of speech, and also admit that domestic abuse is wrong. But is it not obvious how a band making a joke of domestic abuse could be influential upon a young persons mind, even if they don't intend to be? The main defence is that you weren't being serious/wanted to piss a few folks off - well newsflash, a lot of people into the punk scene are folks who take a lot from their music - and it doesn't matter what the intention behind it is, people hearing the songs/attending gigs etc might well take something quite sick away with them. Unfortunately your 'intentions' are not enough to stop this from happening.

And on the subject of how comedians get away with being ironic, well that is exactly what comedians are - people making a living of of such things. (These two froms of performance are different in a number of ways which I would imagine have some relevance here, ie the fact people into music will take a lot of the subject of music into their hearts, such is the nature of this particular artform, whereas the same isn't generally true of comedy) Those comedians that do advocate such extreme violence promoting views, without a hint of irony, or without any back information that it is indeed just an act, are as bad as a band that does the same thing (though no modern comedians like this come to mind). And for me, when I heard of a new band called wife beater (although I must admit I am not as much into anarcho punk as others) i assumed it was a piss take to be honest, but theres not a hint of it being so anywhere, and thats where the danger comes in isn't it. People are easily influenced (as those anarcho punks that have bowed to minimal societal influence to drop ethics from their music have showed) and I can't see how anyone can really defend a band that is undoubtedly going to have this influence, regardless of intentions or the personalities of the guys in the band (who I have never met, but assume are nice enough guys from the posts I have read).

My personal view is that you've watched too many Eminem videos.

[The Milner]

That's not my rationale - my rationale is if something which isn't clearly ironic promotes domestic violence (or any other discriminatory act) then it is dangerous to some of those taking it on board, especially in a genre in which being different from the mainstream is treasured- and whether you like it or not, that's sound judgement of this situation I believe. I don't know any of those songs that you are talking of, so won't judge, but I'm sure wifebeater aren't the only band in the world that have made this mistake - however I would imagine many bands manage to be ironic without doing so.

And thanks for the patronising comment at the end, but no I am not a student, perhaps you could show a little more respect to polite discussion.

so do you believe that all computer games with violence should be banned? All films with any kind of violence/sex/drugs?

Why just stop with one little band in aberdeen, why not make a bigger issue of the kind of media more readily avaliable than wifebeater? If these mps really cared surely they would be lobbying to remove all of these aspects from normal life, oh but wait they make a lot of money and wifebeater......ok i get it.

What always gets me is this argument that you are lead by what you see/hear in life. Ive completed every GTA and never stolen a car or raped a prostitute, ive listened to My Chemical Romance and not killed myself or anyone else, ive listened to Ozzy and not eaten any live bats, i play halo everyday and have never had the urge to kill anyone, where does this link come from? Why do people asume that music/films/computer games are to blame?

[Bigsby]

so do you believe that all computer games with violence should be banned? All films with any kind of violence/sex/drugs?

No, clearly he doesn't, he's already said, just music, because people take music "into their hearts".

That's not my rationale - my rationale is if something which isn't clearly ironicpromotes domestic violence (or any other discriminatory act) then it is dangerous to some of those taking it on board

How are we to determine if something is "clearly ironic" and who it will be dangerous to - establish a board along the lines of the BBFC, chaired by Alanis Morissette?

and whether you like it or not, that's sound judgement of this situation I believe.

You believe wrong, for the reasons already stated. And I can't remember ever coming across anyone on t'internet before who feels the need to justify their comments in this manner, most amusing (see also your earlier "I think the points I've made are pretty valid ones to be honest."

And thanks for the patronising comment at the end, but no I am not a student, perhaps you could show a little more respect to polite discussion.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha, wabbit season.

[scottyboy]

How are we to determine if something is "clearly ironic" and who it will be dangerous to - establish a board along the lines of the BBFC, chaired by Alanis Morissette?

It'll be like the ELSPA hearings after Mortal Kombat, resulting in stickers being slapped on all Wifebeater CDs: ATTENTION: CONTENT IS IRONIC

[The Milner]

How are we to determine if something is "clearly ironic" and who it will be dangerous to - establish a board along the lines of the BBFC, chaired by Alanis Morissette?

that was my next point, at what point does it stop becoming ironic, and who decides this? Why would wifebeater be considered more dangerous than, say again as an example GTA?

[Rob_86]

so do you believe that all computer games with violence should be banned? All films with any kind of violence/sex/drugs?

Why just stop with one little band in aberdeen, why not make a bigger issue of the kind of media more readily avaliable than wifebeater? If these mps really cared surely they would be lobbying to remove all of these aspects from normal life, oh but wait they make a lot of money and wifebeater......ok i get it.

What always gets me is this argument that you are lead by what you see/hear in life. Ive completed every GTA and never stolen a car or raped a prostitute, ive listened to My Chemical Romance and not killed myself or anyone else, ive listened to Ozzy and not eaten any live bats, i play halo everyday and have never had the urge to kill anyone, where does this link come from? Why do people asume that music/films/computer games are to blame?

I think on the most part computer games aren't particularly damaging, and those that are have different age ratings etc. You certainly wouldn't want a maleable young brain playing highly violent games though, that's obviously a poor idea.

As for the second part that these things haven't affected you, I don't see why they should have - different situations, and you're probably not one of those that is easily affacted by that stuff anyway, I'm not saying everyone is. I don't think music/games etc are to blame for things, I think that kind of link is incredibly complicated, and the pro's outwiegh the cons on the whole - but if you make rousing Nazi anthems, odss on you will influence a few people's views in terrible ways, similarly if you make songs glorifying domestic abuse, you will do the same. Simple really. All I'm saying is in this situation, it seems to me theres not a strong defence like there is for violent video games, or for the other irony based music of the same type.

[Rob_86]

No, clearly he doesn't, he's already said, just music, because people take music "into their hearts".

How are we to determine if something is "clearly ironic" and who it will be dangerous to - establish a board along the lines of the BBFC, chaired by Alanis Morissette?

You believe wrong, for the reasons already stated. And I can't remember ever coming across anyone on t'internet before who feels the need to justify their comments in this manner, most amusing (see also your earlier "I think the points I've made are pretty valid ones to be honest."

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha, wabbit season.

No it isn't just music, but music is very different from the other art forms people use, pretty obvious I would have thought, but hey who am I to argue with an expert who judges a persons arguments first and foremost on whether they are a student or not.

Determining what is irnoic? Doesn't really matter - a lack of clearness on boundaries doesn't indicate a lack of an issue. If someone is going out clearly not putting any signs across other than 'domestic abuse is good' then that's crossed the line hasn't it, even though it is meant to be ironic.

And I believe wrong? Well I reckon my argument is pretty sound, wouldn't say much for yours though - I have no vested interest in this cause and am just using simple reason, you however seem to be the opposite. Feel free to throw some insults my way if it makes you feel better?

[The Milner]

I think on the most part computer games aren't particularly damaging, and those that are have different age ratings etc. You certainly wouldn't want a maleable young brain playing highly violent games though, that's obviously a poor idea.

.

so why is music more damaging than computer games?

Surely a computer game as big as that has a wider audience than wifebeater who by all accounts had about 10 fans (no offense guys). Cds with swearing have warnings like games do so again where is the difference?

Im just curious btw on your thoughts on this i dont want an argument or flame war.

[Rob_86]

that was my next point, at what point does it stop becoming ironic, and who decides this? Why would wifebeater be considered more dangerous than, say again as an example GTA?

The differences between the two examples are numerous. As already stated, music is a much different media than games, and as such influences people differently. What about the addition that wifebeater suggest domestic abuse is a good thing, whereas GTA doesn't do the same of it's issues - it simply lets you play imaginary roles involving it.

I can see what you are saying, and how going down a path of banning different pieces of art or forms of media is a dangerous assault on freedom of speech, among others - and I completely agree. After all, censorship obviously seeks only to create the type of society it wishes to avoid. However, it doesn't mean that right minded individuals shouldn't think about their actions, and bands shouldn't think about their responsibilities when playing. Similarly, there is a strong case for state intervention when something does cross over from the realms of GTA, to the realms of promoting race hating violence etc. Whether or not that is a good thing in the bigger picture who knows.

[The Milner]

The differences between the two examples are numerous. As already stated, music is a much different media than games, and as such influences people differently. What about the addition that wifebeater suggest domestic abuse is a good thing, whereas GTA doesn't do the same of it's issues - it simply lets you play imaginary roles involving it.

I can see what you are saying, and how going down a path of banning different pieces of art or forms of media is a dangerous assault on freedom of speech, among others - and I completely agree. After all, censorship obviously seeks only to create the type of society it wishes to avoid. However, it doesn't mean that right minded individuals shouldn't think about their actions, and bands shouldn't think about their responsibilities when playing. Similarly, there is a strong case for state intervention when something does cross over from the realms of GTA, to the realms of promoting race hating violence etc. Whether or not that is a good thing in the bigger picture who knows.

yeah im just really confused as to the need for the fuss over this little band where as there are games and films out there ten times more violent and likely to influence people.

I do understand the point about music infulenceing people however i dont think it is more influencial than a computer game or a film.

Thanks for the decent answers tho.

[Rob_86]

so why is music more damaging than computer games?

Surely a computer game as big as that has a wider audience than wifebeater who by all accounts had about 10 fans (no offense guys). Cds with swearing have warnings like games do so again where is the difference?

Im just curious btw on your thoughts on this i dont want an argument or flame war.

No I respect that, and I'll explain my views best I can.

Firstly there is the fact that music does influence people hugely, personality wise, while on the whole games don't do this. For example, I know a lot of people who grew up listening to punk music, who are now into their ethics, or into their punk anti-authority thing (or were lol) whereas I know nobody who does the same with games. The only real personality influence there seems to be is influencing them to like games, not influencing them to act how the guys in the games do etc. I'm not saying this is the same for everyone, but it is a general rule which seperates the issues somewhat.

Secondly, music is more accesible. You can hear it at a gig, otuside a gig, get an essence even from a name on a poster, a forum or a myspace page. You don't get the same sort of involvement with games etc.

Thirdly, the subject matter itself is different. While there are games that involve violence, or perhaps even rape in small degrees, there are not games promoting specific issues (to my knowledge) and if there were, perhaps the two would be a lot more similar and there would be a similar problem. For example, you don't get games called 'Punch your wife' or 'rape the bitch'. And even if there were such mainstream games, I would imagine there are a lot of people who could quite happily play it without becoming violent towards their wives, or rapists - but you can certainly see how it would be a bad influence on a lot of people playing it.

[scottyboy]

All this is moot anyway, because the band IS clearly ironic, which has been gone over several times already. Like I said, I don't know what more you want other than a disclaimer stating: "THIS SONG IS IRONIC. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY"

[Rob_86]

All this is moot anyway, because the band IS clearly ironic, which has been gone over several times already. Like I said, I don't what more you want other than a disclaimer stating: "THIS SONG IS IRONIC. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY"

If that is the case, that they say that before they play/ on cds etc (though wouldn't that make all the tracks a bit shit having to put disclaimers before them?!) then I have no massive problem with it. However from what I read here, I thought as a band they wanted to piss people off, and so couldn't really use disclaimers?

And I didn't think they were clearly ironic (as I know a couple of mates didn't either), even after looking it up, and as a member of the public I think my views are pretty important when it is about public noticing of such things! Again - intentions aren't the important bit on this issue.

[Bigsby]

And I believe wrong? Well I reckon my argument is pretty sound, wouldn't say much for yours though - I have no vested interest in this cause and am just using simple reason, you however seem to be the opposite. Feel free to throw some insults my way if it makes you feel better?

I have no vested interest either - I have never seen Wifebeater play, never listened to their songs online and I don't know anyone in the band.

And yes, "simple" is the word.

[scottyboy]

If that is the case, that they say that before they play/ on cds etc (though wouldn't that make all the tracks a bit shit having to put disclaimers before them?!) then I have no massive problem with it. However from what I read here, I thought as a band they wanted to piss people off, and so couldn't really use disclaimers?

And I didn't think they were clearly ironic (as I know a couple of mates didn't either), even after looking it up, and as a member of the public I think my views are pretty important when it is about public noticing of such things! Again - intentions aren't the important bit on this issue.

I think you just have a problem discerning irony.

[The Milner]

No I respect that, and I'll explain my views best I can.

Firstly there is the fact that music does influence people hugely, personality wise, while on the whole games don't do this. For example, I know a lot of people who grew up listening to punk music, who are now into their ethics, or into their punk anti-authority thing (or were lol) whereas I know nobody who does the same with games. The only real personality influence there seems to be is influencing them to like games, not influencing them to act how the guys in the games do etc. I'm not saying this is the same for everyone, but it is a general rule which seperates the issues somewhat.

Secondly, music is more accesible. You can hear it at a gig, otuside a gig, get an essence even from a name on a poster, a forum or a myspace page. You don't get the same sort of involvement with games etc.

Thirdly, the subject matter itself is different. While there are games that involve violence, or perhaps even rape in small degrees, there are not games promoting specific issues (to my knowledge) and if there were, perhaps the two would be a lot more similar and there would be a similar problem. For example, you don't get games called 'Punch your wife' or 'rape the bitch'. And even if there were such mainstream games, I would imagine there are a lot of people who could quite happily play it without becoming violent towards their wives, or rapists - but you can certainly see how it would be a bad influence on a lot of people playing it.

all very decent points thanks.

I do see your point to be honest and i can see why music may influence people more than a game or film i just dont completely agree with it from a personal point of view, but then that is just me and the way i let myself be influenced by certain things.

I dont however agree with the fuss that has been caused by this band and i find it highly upsetting that our MSPs are actually bothering with nonsense like this instead of the bigger problems we have at the moment.

[Skubbs]

If that is the case, that they say that before they play/ on cds etc (though wouldn't that make all the tracks a bit shit having to put disclaimers before them?!) then I have no massive problem with it. However from what I read here, I thought as a band they wanted to piss people off, and so couldn't really use disclaimers?

And I didn't think they were clearly ironic (as I know a couple of mates didn't either), even after looking it up, and as a member of the public I think my views are pretty important when it is about public noticing of such things! Again - intentions aren't the important bit on this issue.

It's not as if they played their set, didn't say anything between the songs and just left... Jake would take the piss, make jokes and show that the whole set was obviously a JOKE.

I was beaten up by an ex, and I'm not offended by the songs. They're basically highlighting how stupid you are to be violent in a relationship.

If you didn't realise they were ironic then you're an utter tit who takes everything too seriously.

[Rob_86]

I have no vested interest either - I have never seen Wifebeater play, never listened to their songs online and I don't know anyone in the band.

And yes, "simple" is the word.

What on earth? Yeah I forgot reason is a concept born out of complication erm not

[Rob_86]

all very decent points thanks.

I do see your point to be honest and i can see why music may influence people more than a game or film i just dont completely agree with it from a personal point of view, but then that is just me and the way i let myself be influenced by certain things.

I dont however agree with the fuss that has been caused by this band and i find it highly upsetting that our MSPs are actually bothering with nonsense like this instead of the bigger problems we have at the moment.

Well I would agree with that, theres a lot of bigger problems that need to be dealt with. My point is really for discussion here, not that parliament should be concerning itself with it, but that folks on our scene should be.

[Rob_86]

It's not as if they played their set, didn't say anything between the songs and just left... Jake would take the piss, make jokes and show that the whole set was obviously a JOKE.

I was beaten up by an ex, and I'm not offended by the songs. They're basically highlighting how stupid you are to be violent in a relationship.

If you didn't realise they were ironic then you're an utter tit who takes everything too seriously.

Erm with all due respect, if a black guy disagrees with a racist band being bad then it doesn't stand as an advert for the band being non-racist, but rather that even those in groups which suffer discrimination can be unaware or insensitive to the issue. And as I have already said, if a few people get the irony, and stupid (or perhaps a better word is neutral) folk like me don't, then there is still an issue.

I wonder if you'd be so happy to join/support a band taking the piss out of children who have been raped? Even if their intentions were ironic. Would you be a 'tit taking everything too seriously'? Or is that completely different, despite the fact it is completely the same?

[unbroken]

Well I would agree with that, theres a lot of bigger problems that need to be dealt with. My point is really for discussion here, not that parliament should be concerning itself with it, but that folks on our scene should be.

people are looking into this WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much, jesus.

They had a song called "Where's my fucking tea" for christ sake, I think Family Guy is more offensive towards women....

[Bigsby]

What on earth? Yeah I forgot reason is a concept born out of complication erm not

Sigh.

http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/multimedia/soundclips/imalans01/s01e01/Scum.mp3

[The Kernel Loaf]

I wonder if you'd be so happy to join/support a band taking the piss out of children who have been raped?

That band would be awesome.

CH-CH-CH-CH-CH-CH-CHERRY BREAKER

[Guest Exposure @ Lemon Tree]

so do you believe that all computer games with violence should be banned? All films with any kind of violence/sex/drugs?

Why just stop with one little band in aberdeen, why not make a bigger issue of the kind of media more readily avaliable than wifebeater? If these mps really cared surely they would be lobbying to remove all of these aspects from normal life, oh but wait they make a lot of money and wifebeater......ok i get it.

What always gets me is this argument that you are lead by what you see/hear in life. Ive completed every GTA and never stolen a car or raped a prostitute, ive listened to My Chemical Romance and not killed myself or anyone else, ive listened to Ozzy and not eaten any live bats, i play halo everyday and have never had the urge to kill anyone, where does this link come from? Why do people asume that music/films/computer games are to blame?

It's such a pile of balls. I remember doing some sort of essay or something on "video nasties" years ago.

It's such a crap argument. One person copies Basketball Diaries so it's to blame. The guy who shot up that school in America would have copied something else, or just done it his own way or whatever. There has to be something going wrong in your head before you copy a movie or computer game and commit murder. Like Milner says - I've watched many a violent movie/played many a violent computer game and I haven't inflicted violence on anyone in my life, other than the odd playground scuffle. Nor have I nicked a car, or committed any sort of crime whatsoever.

If individuals are going to commit crimes, be violent or whatever, they are going to do it regardless. There's no doubt that these video games/movies etc trigger something within them, but we can't go all nanny state and ban everything because it might trigger something off in someone who's going to be triggered by something else at some point in their lives anyway.

[paranoid]

It's such a pile of balls. I remember doing some sort of essay or something on "video nasties" years ago.

It's such a crap argument. One person copies Basketball Diaries so it's to blame. The guy who shot up that school in America would have copied something else, or just done it his own way or whatever. There has to be something going wrong in your head before you copy a movie or computer game and commit murder. Like Milner says - I've watched many a violent movie/played many a violent computer game and I haven't inflicted violence on anyone in my life, other than the odd playground scuffle. Nor have I nicked a car, or committed any sort of crime whatsoever.

If individuals are going to commit crimes, be violent or whatever, they are going to do it regardless. There's no doubt that these video games/movies etc trigger something within them, but we can't go all nanny state and ban everything because it might trigger something off in someone who's going to be triggered by something else at some point in their lives anyway.

Very well put, pretty much sums it up.