No sense? YOU only think that it's a serious violence issue. Talking about issues people face living in the ghetto is very much the same as trying to censor pornography or rock music or anything like that. This ******** argument of 'it causes deaths, it causes violence, it causes gangs.' has been tried so many times throughout history to try and shut people up by people who don't like listening to reality of life, trust me you'll get no where this time either.Comparing the moral issue of pornography in the late 20th century with violence and gangs is nonsense.
Funny, you say I don't have a right to impose what I think of others. So you think in some other parallel universe violence should be condoned?
There isn't anything wrong with girls listening to sexual songs, but I said it ticks me off because I have a little sister who others can take advantage of. But this thread is geared toward violence.
And to your last point, "there is nothing wrong with people ... not taking **** from anyone": this thread isn't about people getting bullied... Its about gangs and childish violence.
Depending on the particular belief, of course.zomgwtf said:I said you have no right to impose what you believe ON others.
Keep thinking they want that over a normal life away from the ghetto. There probably are some like that but the majority of people? No way. They want what everyone else wants... money and a good life.If they want to destroy their lives with drugs and gang violence, too bad for them
Nano-Passion said:You don't see people come out of their house shooting people after playing call of duty.
Disconnected said:Now an age limit thing similar to movies or videogames, I guess could work, but I really don't see outright banning of any music.
ryan_m_b said:That would work about as well as ratings for movies and videogames now, badly. Very few shops actually bother to check ID (who cares? Unlike alcohol there really aren't any repercussions if someone finds them to be selling underage) and kids can always order it over the internet or get older friend/brother/mother to buy it.
Disconnected said:Yeah, I must have forgotten to put the little addition "but that wouldn't really work". I mean, a large number of people download their music illegally anyways, I really don't forsee TPB checking ID any time ever.
Disconnected said:Similarly, if you were to ban these songs, the huge quantity of them already avalible for download/streaming would make it a pretty futile effort.
zomgwtf said:I'm still waiting for a citation on all this 'music causes violence' non-sense.
Disconnected said:Didn't you know?
Nano-Passion said:You don't see people come out of their house shooting people after playing call of duty. Music has a much more profound affect, I don't know if you live by any ghetto areas but people are moved by these songs. It reinforces the "gangster" and violent things. I've been around in a bad school were your simply scared to walk alone. People ARE moved by these songs. You don't see it, you provide good points but you don't know what extent each influence can play.
Yes, I know music can still be on the internet and the such. But think more long term.. things die over time. Not many people here listens to songs from the 1930s anymore (I don't know if any).
Alfred Whitney Griswold said:Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.
Noam Chomsky said:If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
Hurkyl said:Depending on the particular belief, of course.
zomgwtf said:I think it's cause you're equating listening to 'gansta music' equates to becoming a 'gangsta' yourself. Go outside and live in the real world man. You have no ****ing idea what you're talking about.
Also you're making factual claims in your posts I want citations for these in your next post or I'm reporting you. It might be General discussion but I don't think the rules are lenient enough to let you just say whatever the **** you want with no backing.
PS. Another ******** point you try to make is that those songs would hardly cause as 'much damage', however imaginary that damage is... Biker gangs are FAR more dangerous around Canada than any other gangs. They hardly listen to gangster rap LOL!
Nano-Passion said:Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression
This shows no causative relationship between listening to violent music causing violence. They only discuss the "relationship" between violent music listeners and increased positive views of violence. Correlation not causation with no analysis of which came first.Nano-Passion said:Whats with the cursing and attacks? Relax yourself.
Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED507397.pdf
I couldn't access this paper, so I cannot comment other than on the abstract. The abstract simply seems to be investigating cultural shifts based on rap music. As was already stated, this is not necessarily a bad thing.Tragic Narratives in Popular Culture: Depictions of Homicide in Rap Music.
doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01122.x
Taken from abstract:
"Results show violent death was constructed in glorified ways, incorporated cautionary tales, or used as an analogy for powerful rhyming. The major themes found in these homicide-related rap lyrics were the normalization of killing, respect maintenance, confrontation with the power structure, vengeance, and masculine confrontation. Homicide was almost always male on male. Careful consideration is given to the multiple meanings of homicide, particularly the ways rappers have appropriated the word “killing” and transformed it into a term that indicates creative success."
Whats powerful about music aside from its sheer influential power is its ability to change paradigms and influence cultures.
Did you even read through this book? I read about 20 pages of the "inciting to violence" chapter. Violent music used to incite violence apparently goes back to biblical times - I guess that shouldn't be all that surprising. Half the book was cut out from google books, but it seemed like a very interesting read.Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence.
Authors: MASTERMAN, BRANDON P.
Source: Notes; Dec2009, Vol. 66 Issue 2, p282-284, 3p
I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.Need more? That was just a quick search too. It doesn't take a genius to understand that music can be really influential. Others have made good points that there are other influences such as the media which I am aware of. Get off your high and mighty horse its a discussion, don't assume a devout certainty, you are not a divine being. Social issues are incredibly complex, its not the type of thing that is either a or b.
I'm here for a discussion, tone it down a bit. Others have made pretty good points which I respected, if you feel so strongly about it go vent to your mother.
Norman said:I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.
ryan_m_b said:Studies on whether or not violent music makes people violent will always be hard retrospectively. Most studies rely on trying to plot correlations between listening to violent music and being violent but do not outline a cause (nor do they show that the correlation they see is actually reversed).
A test would be to get a random selection of people and make them listen to violent music, then see if they act violently. I severely doubt they will because whilst music is influential it is nowhere near the super-potent memetic virus some people advocate it to be. It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse but whether or not it does strongly relies on who I am as a person which is influenced by far more than music. Lastly, I think that suggesting that violent music makes people more violent is as tenuous as suggesting that listening to music about love makes someone more loving.
ryan_m_b said:Point of order: Americans don't have a monopoly on Freedom of Speech ideals.
Other than that I agree with everything you've said.
This is a fair point. I find my use of the bird increases dramatically on days that feature Mr Shady on my playlist...ryan_m_b said:It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse
Yes this is a major concern. I don't have a strong view of whether it can be done effectively or not. Rather I created the topic to see whether it would be better if these songs simply didn't exist. And that for the most part I definitely agree with. I didn't make the topic with the concern of attacking the major issues of enabling such censorship nor did it cross my mind.Disconnected said:This still doesn't approach the main concern I have of the whole situation; how would it be done fairly and effectively? As talked about earlier in this thread, I don't think it can. Nor do I think it should (see the quote about freedom of speech), but I know people have differing opinions on that kind of thing.
Nano-Passion said:I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.
Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.
Nano-Passion said:I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.
Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.
Norman said:I think maybe you are missing the point. There may not actually be an influence of the music on a person's actions at all. That is the point he was making. People who listen to this music AND perform violence may have been just as likely to perform the violence regardless of the music. (or live that lifestyle or whatever).
I am uncertain of your premise that a certain way of life will definitely lead to violence. Is there even an example of a lifestyle that 100% of the time leads to violence by the person living it? If something like that does exist, how do you disentangle the violence from that lifestyle?
But maybe I am the one missing the point.
Norman said:This shows no causative relationship between listening to violent music causing violence. They only discuss the "relationship" between violent music listeners and increased positive views of violence. Correlation not causation with no analysis of which came first.
I couldn't access this paper, so I cannot comment other than on the abstract. The abstract simply seems to be investigating cultural shifts based on rap music. As was already stated, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Did you even read through this book? I read about 20 pages of the "inciting to violence" chapter. Violent music used to incite violence apparently goes back to biblical times - I guess that shouldn't be all that surprising. Half the book was cut out from google books, but it seemed like a very interesting read.
I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.
ryan_m_b said:Exactly right, the fundamental issue is violence and crime. To suggest that music encourages this is tenuous, whilst people might see the common sense argument it fails to hold up to scrutiny.
Nano-Passion said:I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence...the way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.
Nano-Passion said:The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.
Nano-Passion said:I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.
Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.
I contend that since, yet again you're making positive claims, that you must cite sources and as well you have to link this to how music will lead to a more positive view of violence. A change in the usage of the word kill to put it in a positive connotation does not mean that the negative connotation of the word is taken any more lightly. And if it IS taken more lightly it does not show at all that the change in view of the negative connotation of the word is due to any music.Nano-Passion said:I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.
You see gangsters walking around shooting their nines every day all day do you? Rap music is very popular yet gangs still seem to be confined to certain areas. Hmm I wonder why rap music can break the barrier of poor socio-economic areas but 'gang' mentality and life struggles to break out to middle class and upper class people who also listen to rap. Granted there are cases where these people will 'act gangster' but that's a far cry from saying that they are now violent.The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.
So you admit that when you made the claim you had utterly no idea what you're talking about and needed to do a 'quick' search to grasp for some straws? Your claim is still wildly absurd speculation. Your sources have provided no evidence to support your claim.The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.
Name one freedom which has been lost for absolutely no reason other than speculation that was intended to curb violence, rape and murder. If anything some things which took freedoms away from people for no reason other than speculation in an 'effort' to do these things made it worse. AKA projects AKA not mixing whites and blacks etc. etc. etc.. things like 'not allowing anyone to own a gun' is not based on speculation if that's along the lines of what you're thinking.I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.
Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.
Nano-Passion said:I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.
The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.
The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.
I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.
Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.
zomgwtf said:Keep thinking they want that over a normal life away from the ghetto. There probably are some like that but the majority of people? No way. They want what everyone else wants... money and a good life.
zomgwtf said:Regardless of if it does cause violence or not isn't even that great of an issue in my opinion (although I also don't buy it).
We live in a society where we try not to punish the innocent. What's that saying about letting 100 guilty men walk free if it means one innocent person doesn't get convicted?
The vast majority of people who listen to this type of music aren't even violent in the slightest (This is demonstrably true due to the fact that this type of music is REALLY popular/mainstream and the fact that violent crime let alone violent gang related crime is very low it'd have to be much higher if there was such a strong causative link) Why should the majority of innocent people lose freedoms in order to 'protect' society against future crimes possibly committed due to some music?
First people are losing rights. Second the majority of these people are innocent. Third it's a pre-emptive revocation of rights to prevent crimes in the future. Something which there's hardly any evidence to even support in the first place!
bp_psy said:In the case of cigarettes there has been conclusive scientific evidence that there is actual harm.I doubt that this is true for "music with violent message", whatever that means.
zoobyshoe said:Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.
Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.
Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?
There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.
Ken Natton said:I don’t necessarily disagree with you zoobyshoe, but I can see a distinction. The problem of people being badly influenced by cigarette advertising was widespread, and thus the ban on cigarette advertising has had a significant effect at a demographic level. The problem of music being used to promote violence is much less widespread and thus is more realistic to deal with at the level of the individuals responsible for attempting to influence others and the individuals actually incited to real acts of violence.
zoobyshoe said:Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.
Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.
Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?
There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.
Another good point. The intent of cigarette ads was never disputed, and they could be condemned based on that intent alone.Disconnected said:I think it has to do with intent. Cigarette ads intend to promote smoking, it's their main aim. Music with a violent message aims to sell CDs. It does not intend to promote violence, that is not it's purpose, it is a side effect.
Similar to attempted murder and reckless endangerment, the intent of an action is a major factor in the US legal system.
zoobyshoe said:But then, there's the Huckleberry Finn problem. It's been banned from a lot of libraries because it's full of the "N' word. I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate Mark Twain never intended to promulgate the use of that word. He was pro-black, anti-slavery. He used only because it was used by the society he depicted: the south of his childhood. It seems whatever reason you give for banning that book could be used to ban the music in question.
zoobyshoe said:Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.
Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.
Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?
There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.
zomgwtf said:Like I said many times zooby, you show me a song which actively promotes other people to be violent then we can discuss that. No one has provided any example in this thread of such a thing being actively promoted in music. They talk about what real things that happen, things they think, things they do, maybe it sounds cool maybe not but I have yet to see a song in mainstream music or in this thread that says 'go out and kill this man.'
That IS illegal by the way and songs with those messages DO face the legal consequences.
First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.zoobyshoe said:What's your reaction to the Hucklberry Finn ban? Show me one place where Mark Twain actually said "Black should be called N*****." He never endorsed it, but the book is banned in places based on the fact he depicted it being done by a whole society.
