Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're going with option 2. Violence is okay and we should just accept it. No point in trying to progress beyond the stage of hairless monkeys.
I fully reject your outlook.
The only thing that's happened to violence is it went to a more organized level. Think WW2. No period of human history has been as violent as WW2 despite our "civilization."
I noticed that a lot of Muslim nasheeds glorify fighting, honor, and even women. These couldn't be two different cultures, 2 different people singing about the essentially the same thing just translated to a different cultural context. Why do you think that is if it is not organic to who we are? We are animals. We eat, breath, and have sex. That's all what monkeys do, and every animal for that matter.
If you are the 98th most popular rap artist of the last 5 years then you are not popular. A small minority listen to him and purchase his music. He has never even had a song that charted inside the top 30 of the Billboard hot 100 songs.
you are making an argument that selling 600,000 albums total over a 5 year span in a nation of 300,000,000 makes some one popular.
The man is popular. You obviously don't know any young people, and definitely not any "hoods" so to speak. He's all over the radio, TV, etc.
And his popularity in raw numbers are completely irrelevant and in fact could be used to support the OP's position if anything. He's referring to a specific demographic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
The only thing that's happened to violence is it went to a more organized level. Think WW2. No period of human history has been as violent as WW2 despite our "civilization."
I noticed that a lot of Muslim nasheeds glorify fighting, honor, and even women. These couldn't be two different cultures, 2 different people singing about the essentially the same thing just translated to a different cultural context. Why do you think that is if it is not organic to who we are? We are animals. We eat, breath, and have sex. That's all what monkeys do, and every animal for that matter.
And of course that makes it perfectly acceptable, because, uh, everyone else is doing it. We should just sit back, shut up, and keep killing. Oh and don't forget beating the **** out of women and smoking crack.
Sorry, I refuse to accept that outlook. Our "civilization" has progressed far beyond the stage of monkeys, and the world is a better place because of it.
If you are the 98th most popular rap artist of the last 5 years then you are not popular. A small minority listen to him and purchase his music. He has never even had a song that charted inside the top 30 of the Billboard hot 100 songs.
you are making an argument that selling 600,000 albums total over a 5 year span in a nation of 300,000,000 makes some one popular.
Come on, you're undermining the entire situation. If you want to talk record sales, then of course he lags behind but he depends on mix tapes to stay relevant. I don't think someone who is the 98th most popular rap artist would be capable of having as many features as he has. But that's not my argument, my argent is that he and a bunch of other rappers glorify violence to a specific demographic that can influence them to emulate their music.
It's not a question of what's acceptable. It's a question of what's in our nature. Eating candy and greasy food isn't healthy but it's in our nature to stuff ourselves when we can. Having sex with every woman we can may not be 'acceptable' but it's in our nature to lust after every attractive woman. What you see in this music isn't new, it didn't come out of thin air. It's been with us since ever.
So I guess I'm saying is that recognize the music for what it is. Human nature. How you want to deal with natural instincts is another matter.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,561 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
Come on, you're undermining the entire situation. If you want to talk record sales, then of course he lags behind but he depends on mix tapes to stay relevant. I don't think someone who is the 98th most popular rap artist would be capable of having as many features as he has. But that's not my argument, my argent is that he and a bunch of other rappers glorify violence to a specific demographic that can influence them to emulate their music.
if your argument is the broader situation at hand with music, I can agree, not about killing each other, but simply that the music is bad.
But mixtapes artist usually are the least popular ones, mixtapes are made to build your buzz when you dont have any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
The man is popular. You obviously don't know any young people, and definitely not any "hoods" so to speak. He's all over the radio, TV, etc.
And his popularity in raw numbers are completely irrelevant and in fact could be used to support the OP's position if anything. He's referring to a specific demographic.
Sam, i am a 20 year old black college student from a town where 35% of the population is black and 22% of the population is below the poverty line. I know young people and a know people of poverty and i am telling you that Gucci Mane is not one of the more popular artist.
As i said, there are many artist he could have used to make a better argument, but i guess Gucci's violent history is the reason he used him.
also, how exactly could Gucci's anemic popularity prove the OP's point? Gucci's mixtape downloads arent even in the top 10 of MIxtape websites when they are released.
It's not a question of what's acceptable. It's a question of what's in our nature. Eating candy and greasy food isn't healthy but it's in our nature to stuff ourselves when we can. Having sex with every woman we can may not be 'acceptable' but it's in our nature to lust after every attractive woman. What you see in this music isn't new, it didn't come out of thin air. It's been with us since ever.
So I guess I'm saying is that recognize the music for what it is. Human nature. How you want to deal with natural instincts is another matter.
This reminds of a thread I saw asking something along the lines of "Why do liberals glorify John Lennon" or something along those lines, my post pretty much said he was human so he made mistakes. So, I and I'm sure SamBarrow agrees that it's only human nature to make mistakes. What we're saying is, it shouldn't be glorified. If a new genre of music came along and it glorified eating terrible foods, Id suspect more people would eat bad if it didn't speak on consequences of the unhealthy foods although Americans have been eating unhealthy for decades now. Pretty much what I'm saying is, famous people are influential and can deem what's acceptable and not acceptable, they have that power. Why use that power for the negatives? You can talk about society, drugs, woman, etc if you'd like but don't glorify it.
So I guess I'm saying is that recognize the music for what it is. Human nature. How you want to deal with natural instincts is another matter.
I am recognizing it for what it is. It is primitive garbage which glorifies animalistic behavior. I never doubted the existence of primitive instincts, I raise issue with the advocation of regression by those obviously intelligent enough to think beyond such stupidity.
Society deals with natural instincts in a variety of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Sam, i am a 20 year old black college student from a town where 35% of the population is black and 22% of the population is below the poverty line. I know young people and a know people of poverty and i am telling you that Gucci Mane is not one of the more popular artist.
As i said, there are many artist he could have used to make a better argument, but i guess Gucci's violent history is the reason he used him.
And I am a 24 year old male in the DC area and I'm telling you that he was when I was your age. And my experience wasn't in college. I really haven't left the house since then so I don't know now.
But it's really not relevant as the point remains. You wouldn't argue the popularity of someone like Wayne, and he's nearly as bad as far as his music goes.
if your argument is the broader situation at hand with music, I can agree, not about killing each other, but simply that the music is bad.
But mixtapes artist usually are the least popular ones, mixtapes are made to build your buzz when you dont have any.
Sam, i am a 20 year old black college student from a town where 35% of the population is black and 22% of the population is below the poverty line. I know young people and a know people of poverty and i am telling you that Gucci Mane is not one of the more popular artist.
As i said, there are many artist he could have used to make a better argument, but i guess Gucci's violent history is the reason he used him.
also, how exactly could Gucci's anemic popularity prove the OP's point? Gucci's mixtape downloads arent even in the top 10 of MIxtape websites when they are released.
So who is the most popular artist among the inner-city youth? Not college students. At my school, African-Americans aren't really from low-income areas so they typically listen to Lil Wayne, A$AP Rocky, or pretty much any extremely popular artist. When it comes to low-income, inner-city areas they don't listen to Lil Wane because he doesn't have enough street cred, Gucci Mane has killed someone, sold drugs, etc and with that type of record he can lead many to believe that they can do what he has done without major consequences. That's just from the musician side of things, his music then glorifies killing people, selling drugs, and etc. So although a minority may listen to his music, you cannot deny that he can be affective in causing more violence.
I just drove to the store a few minutes ago, here's a few lyrics that I heard from him:
"Watch is to die for, Chain is to kill for,
Money, *****, kush, pills is all a ***** live for"
Those lyrics don't show that there's more to life than killing, drugs, and women. If I was ignorant and didn't know more was out there, listening to Gucci Mane probably would make me want to become a gangster but because I know more is out there, his lyrics don't have a major affect on me aside from having occasional road-rage.
I guess I just want more responsibility from artist, that's all. They are influential and can help low-income areas progress if they actually put a thought into a song.
I don't think it's Gucci Mane...I think it's 2 Chains.
Personally when I get ready to go shoot other black people I get high and listen to In A Gadda Da Vida.
This song has made me think of many things to do........ hmmmmm, shooting people isn't even on the list. LOL
Now on the other hand some people are just plain a** stupid and think the song had God telling them to do it or some crap like that. Some of us are just easily influenced how do we stop that, music has been known to be a driving force for people to commit murder......"Helter Skelter"
Music is like the Bible some people actually parts and use it to justify their "dirty deeds".....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
