[Inter]

Oh those crazy christians! what won't they worry about?

<--- and I'm a christian.

 

[MdRex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blip Woah! Depeche Mode is Christian Rock?

They do use plenty of Christian themes in their lyrics

Like As I Lay Dying said "I'm not sure what the difference is between five Christians playing in a band and a Christian band. If you truly believe something, then it should affect every area of your life".

 

[familyman]

As long as you enjoy your music and your not sacrificing squirrels or thinking your music is getting you through the golden gates(or is it golden arch's?), then it's alllllll goooooooood.

 

[Ayreonaut]

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blip I'm sure they're easily available, read them and find out if you think they are "evil" or not. If they are, no one is forcing you to listen.

Hi guys - Not to hijack the thread, but I have always found the "if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it" argument interesting because it seems to be so selectively applied.

What I mean is this: People love to say that sort of thing about the stuff they personally don't find offensive, in response to people who are bothered by the same stuff. For example, if conservative groups are complaining about sex on TV, the response often is something like "don't watch it if you find it offensive", etc.

But does that same argument work for something you DO find offensive, such as racism or sexism, for instance? In other words, is racist imagery in music OK because "if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it?"

I'm not defending either position, I'm just wondering about the inconsistency...

 

[blip]

I hear where you're coming from Doc... And to a certain extent you are correct, it is an argument that is used primarily as a rhetorical device by all sides of the culture war. However, I personally would apply it to just about all music....

That isn't to say that there is some music I disapprove of, just that I don't support much top-down finger waving about art. I don't expect to get all art... And I don't particularly expect everyone to get art I like... The situation is more complicated than that. Thus, I have a rather live and let live attitude towards the whole endeavor. If you disapprove of something, just ignore it and move on.

Now, an interesting question is whether or not the critique of art can legitimately be used as part of a larger social criticism. I.e. while I wouldn't decry any work of art for being racist, sexist etc. I might use such art as evidence of more general racism or sexism of society. Is that the same thing? Not really, its is less a rejection of the art itself and more an analysis of the forces that create the art. Yet this too remains a rhetorical device... In some ways it is even more so as the vicissitudes of the human psyche make motivation a complicated topic.

Perhaps, however, the malleability of meaning is more indicative of the discursive nature of reality than anything else.

 

[Inter]

It's not inconsistent for everyone. I don't get offended by anything, ever. I don't understand why people waste so much time in being offended by something, it's a waste of energy. If you don't like it, be on your way, shake your head, think that's really messed up, and then do something or watch something you DO like.

 

[familyman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis Hi guys - Not to hijack the thread, but I have always found the "if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it" argument interesting because it seems to be so selectively applied. What I mean is this: People love to say that sort of thing about the stuff they personally don't find offensive, in response to people who are bothered by the same stuff. For example, if conservative groups are complaining about sex on TV, the response often is something like "don't watch it if you find it offensive", etc. But does that same argument work for something you DO find offensive, such as racism or sexism, for instance? In other words, is racist imagery in music OK because "if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it?" I'm not defending either position, I'm just wondering about the inconsistency...

Great point. Where is the line drawn when it comes to what's shown on TV and when you can just change the channel. What i mean is what if your channel surfing with your children, and you see a quick 3 seconds of "Pulp Fiction" which you quickly recognize and change the channel, and then you change it to CNN and see a corpse floating in the water, but that's ok?
Have you seen time magazines 2005 photos of the year? I wouldnt look at that with my child until a certain age, but you don't get ANY warning its coming.
http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/

 

[VicAjax]

Opeth is [size=x-large]DARK-SIDED!![/size]

 

[familyman]

omg someone exercise that demon!

 

[Inter]

You gotta give the people who dig up reality-show contestants credit. They know where to find the crazies.

 

[steel102]

[Peter Lindgren]"We are atheists; we are not religious at all. At the same time we're not anti-religious either. The occult is an interesting topic to write about and read about but it's not extreme at all - like I said, we are just regular guys, but if people want to think were evil, then that's cool!"