Wind-up?

[Rob_86]

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[neepheid]

The Tate Murders? The Beatles totally caused that.

[Guest Exposure @ Lemon Tree]

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!

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.

[Rob_86]

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...

[Bigsby]

Urm I did

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.

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.

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Guest Exposure @ Lemon Tree]

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...

"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.

[Guest Exposure @ Lemon Tree]

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.

And my point is that it was clearly ironic if you actually took the time to listen or go to a show.

The only other exposure anyone could have had to Wifebeater would be their name on posters and gig listings. There is no way that anyone (well you might try) could argue that just that word "Wifebeater" on a poster could incite domestic abuse. Then, once you listen to the songs and/or go to a show, you realise that it's a piss take. That is a simple and straightforward point.

[Bigsby]

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

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...

[Rob_86]

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...

[girl anachronism]

Wow, half my morning just disappeared.

[Rob_86]

"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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Rob_86]

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

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

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?

[Teabags]

I wonder if Seth Putnam has a lot of gay or jewish friends?

When we met Seth Putnam he never let up on the joke in the slightest. And had "Rid the disease" on his shirt with an anti star of david logo on it, as well as swastikas on his shorts.

But he puked after one sip of buckfast and looked like he wanted to be in another coma when Johnboy Narcosis licked him and gave him a hug. He's a fucking joke.

[The Milner]

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?

thats the best post in this thread for quite a few pages now.

[Rob_86]

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!

[unbroken]

Are we all reaching any nearer agreement?

are you just looking for people to agree with you?

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

When we met Seth Putnam he never let up on the joke in the slightest. And had "Rid the disease" on his shirt with an anti star of david logo on it, as well as swastikas on his shorts.

But he puked after one sip of buckfast and looked like he wanted to be in another coma when Johnboy Narcosis licked him and gave him a hug. He's a fucking joke.

I guess it's always been the ongoing debate..."is he or isn't he?" well, is it a twisted sense of humour, is it dedication to remain offensive/shock or is he actually a racist, antisemetic homophobic cunt? My guess is a bit of all three.

I would personally see AC as a more straightforward analogy to the stuff Rob is suggesting. I would be very surprised if none of their fanbase over the years has consisted of young people who actually do appreciate the sentiment of some of their song names. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be friends with a guy who wore that kind of shit. So what kind of people really are mates with him?

[Teabags]

I guess it's always been the ongoing debate..."is he or isn't he?" well, is it a twisted sense of humour, is it dedication to remain offensive/shock or is he actually a racist, antisemetic homophobic cunt? My guess is a bit of all three.

I would personally see AC as a more straightforward analogy to the stuff Rob is suggesting. I would be very surprised if none of their fanbase over the years has consisted of young people who actually do appreciate the sentiment of some of their song names. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be friends with a guy who wore that kind of shit. So what kind of people really are mates with him?

Well the other 2 guys that were playing with him were wearing wearing the same t-shirts. I don't think he really has friends.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Teabags]

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

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.

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

Well the other 2 guys that were playing with him were wearing wearing the same t-shirts. I don't think he really has friends.

Probably not...just meant that if the guy wears swastika clothes and hangs around other people who do the same, he's probably not entirely joking when he endlessly writes comedy songs about how hitler was great and gas chambers, and that the folk who really like the music might also not see it as a joke, thus inadvertently or not more 'malable minds' as Rob puts it are probably thinking that these sort of beliefs are acceptable.