120
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
120 points (94.8% liked)
News
23664 readers
4797 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Flag burning is 1st Amendment protected free speech and he is threatening gun violence which is an actual crime.
It's very telling that they thought this song was in defense of and promoting small towns. It's the exact opposite.
For one, I doubt many small towns are having liberal protests. Largely, I imagine, because two, they're proudly declaring they're close minded and violent. This song is just "patriotic" violence porn over imagining someone protesting for equal civil rights. Frankly it just reminds me, a non-white person, to stay the hell away from small towns.
Is it too cruel to suggest that we let small towns fend for themselves completely if they're so proud of it?
I'm white and it tells me to avoid small towns. These hickabilly cousin fucking dipshits scare me.
And it's not like we haven't let towns die before. There's so many along railroads in the middle of nowhere that just stopped existing because people didn't need to take trains everywhere anymore.
Were you under the impression that he was going to call the cops on them? Because whoosh
Saying you own a gun is not the same as threatening to murder someone.
What a wild two statements to make back to back. Yeah, my entire problem with it is that it is a call for illegal vigilante violence, against someone exercising their constitutional right. As a political statement, it's a messed up thing to be promoting.
And right after you "correct" me and tell me no, the people in the titular small town are not going to call the police, aka they are taking care of things themselves illegally, you try to also claim they're not threatening the hypothetical flag burning person with a gun? They are obviously violently threatening repeatedly, and the next line is about a gun. If you want to claim the mentioned gun is not necessarily being brandished, I see why you're saying that but "this is a man with a gun who is threatening physical violence...he never explicitly said he is threatening GUN violence" is such a weak point. Fine, remove the word "gun" from my point. He is still threatening violence which is an actual crime.
Or a notification that destruction of property won't be tolerated? Could be either. I mean really it could mean any number of things. As with most songs, it's intentionally vague. But you're the one going around proclaiming what's "obviously" going on.
Also no.
"If you try to rape my wife, I'm going to kill you." Is this a criminal threat of violence? If it's preceded by "if" and *if *the consequences are perfectly reasonable given the situation?
Only difference is I'm being much more explicit.
You got it wrong.
The implied threat to use a firearm comes after that, in regards to trying to take the firearm in question, not in regards to the section quoted.
If you're going to point out hypocrisy, point to the accurate hypocrisy :)
See how far you make it down the road because he has a gun... which he will use as a pointing device to politely direct you elsewhere.
I mean this song is dumb as fuck but the quote is misleading.
That last line is the start of a second verses focusing on how you can't take his granpappy's gun - it's not part of a continued threat from the first verse
OP definitely knew this, because the punctuation doesn't even line up as if it were the end of the verse. This is deliberately misleading, which is weird, because the song is obviously already ridden with shit lines.
The entire thing is a threat of violence, see all the un-bolded parts. Like literally what is different about a small town in this song which forces people to stop burning flags, except that they will violently prevent you from exercising your first amendment rights?
Immediately mentioning a gun is specifying gun violence but threatening violence in reaction to free speech in general is illegal and an immoral call for vigilante justice.
Yes the implied violence and the introduction of grandpas gun are purely coincidental! How misleading of OP!
It is misleading. The second verse literally has its own implied threat.
This is just how songs, paragraphs, and language in general work.
Just because the second verse literally has its own implied threat does not mean the first verse is unrelated. In songs and paragraphs adjacent sentences are typically related- its how English works- but I can't speak for all languages.
It's not "unrelated". It's just not part of the same shitty statement. It's part of a different shitty statement.
Working hard defending this guy aren't you?
No. I'm against people intentionally misleading others even when I agree with their general thrust.
If people stopped buying in when they were being obviously mislead, we wouldn't have had Trump
This really shouldn't be such a hard concept for you to grasp.
That's a lot of words to say, 'yeah, I am spending a lot of personal, unpaid time to defend someone I don't know'.
Except I'm literally attacking both the song and the OP's lying comment.
Quit being stupid. It's a bad look.
Defenses of people don't normally include statements about how the person is shit lol
Except that's not how songs are received. We don't read them. We listen to them. And the two topic dog whistle is as old as Jim Crow.
Imagine listening to music and not being able to tell where different verses are. Song must be confusing!
Exactly.
Also, these motherfuckers can't see the joke in my comment. People be trippin hard lol
maybe if it was funny, you wouldn't be getting downvoted to oblivion? but go ahead and keep blaming others lol
Well, looks like some of the assholes escaped reddit after all.
Flag burning is protected and threatening gun violence is a crime. What the gun violence is a reaction to is irrelevant.
It matters in this case because the quoted lyrics imply the gun is linked to the flag portion of the song but it's the start of a different verse. Not getting the facts straight devalues the (valid) criticisms and allows people to dismiss the whole thing outright. The point can be made without being misleading or being inaccurate, so why undermine it?
But the section about having a gun immediately follows one about burning the flag? Comes across to me as hero fantasies of the flag burner escalating and giving the gun holder a justified reason to shoot them.
Really speaks to Republicans actual priority when the only take they can apply to anything in society is "It's my god given American right to ensure everybody at all times knows exactly how hard my dick gets thinking about murdering them"
No, that's not what it implies at all. No one was talking about 2A or taking guns away. He's literally mentioning the gun in direct response to the last infraction (burning the flag). Read it again.
Read the lyrics to the actual song again
Edit: the relevant verse is emphasized
Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk Carjack an old lady at a red light Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like
Cuss out a cop, spit in his face Stomp on the flag and light it up Yeah, ya think you're tough
Well, try that in a small town See how far ya make it down the road Around here, we take care of our own You cross that line, it won't take long For you to find out, I recommend you don't Try that in a small town
Got a gun that my granddad gave me They say one day they're gonna round up Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck
Try that in a small town See how far ya make it down the road Around here, we take care of our own You cross that line, it won't take long For you to find out, I recommend you don't Try that in a small town
Full of good ol' boys, raised up right If you're looking for a fight Try that in a small town Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town See how far ya make it down the road Around here, we take care of our own You cross that line, it won't take long For you to find out, I recommend you don't Try that in a small town
Try that in a small town Ooh-ooh Try that in a small town
The fact that this is down voted... hey guys maybe listen to the actual song so you can hear how this is very obviously an entire new verse, and the gun is not related to the flag burning? Why do we care more about bashing the song than being actually correct?
One story or one argument can very much span multiple different verses. Plenty of songs will use different verses to each provide a similar argument to the core point of the song, and plenty will tell a single story across all verses.
And looking through the lyrics, the entire song is at any point either listing actions or hinting at consequences. Which honestly makes it worse since that effectively suggests protected first amendment expression deserves the exact same vigilante violence as armed robbery and carjacking?
Honestly I'd rather not. Mostly because country is one of the few music genres I absolutely can't stand. Just whatever it is, the style absolutely grates on me to where I struggle to make it through a single song.
Also it's lyrically pretty lazy. Write some sentences, change words around so the syllable count matches the tempo and verse structure, throw in some loose rhymes, an identifiable chorus and some callbacks to earlier in the song and you've got lyrics for a song. It would be entirely forgettable if it wasn't so disgustingly racist. And worse than just being racist, it's all painfully obvious dogwhistles which is just insulting the listener's intelligence
ok this song in particular has generally supported "country" ideals separated by "try that in a small town," with each ideal being a new verse. It's possible this is the only verse that's actually a continuation of the previous verse while having already traversed a 20 second chorus, making no mention of the previous verse, but that seems very unlikely.
The only verse that I'd say directly implies violence is the taking away our guns line, because knowing the culture in places like that most of these things would likely just get you laughed at or threatened/chased away (maybe could consider that violence). For first amendment I'm not saying it's correct but just don't be stupid about it. I'm not going to walk into Texas saying howdy fellas gonna vote to take your guns and stomp on the flag, just like I'm not gonna walk into a place in Manhattan and say yo guys deport all immigrants amirite?
Modern society cares more about fighting perceived evil than they do about being good, or honorable. Even the truth must not stand in the way of the wrath of the angry mob of keyboard warriors.
Knee jerk, probably. People see the first line and don't bother to read the rest without carrying over the initial reaction.
Which, that's the humor of it. You start out with a jarring intro, switch to a lighthearted part, and finish with a wink and a smile. Alas, a lot of people can't let go of their first reaction in text like they would in person. Kinda silly, but this is the internet lol.