·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Some folks are born silver spoon in handFollow
'Universal' means that everyone would be in agreement. Everyone clearly is not. Also, trying to interpret and lend meaning to someone else's literary work is pretty ballsy. The reality is you have absolutely no idea what these words signify.
If it was me writing a song I'd be choosing words for their cadence and structure.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
The song has been used at anti-war rallies for decades people WTF?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's kinda scary how easily people are being manipulated by this.
It's also scary how easily people can be manipulated into using ham-fisted phrases like this to try and shame people into thinking their way
Which is funny in a thread that's basically about how we should ridicule (and shame) people for being offended by something. At the end of the day, the absurdity here is that we've got a bunch of people insisting that other people were wrong to be offended. Um... Maybe they get to make that decision?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The song has been used at anti-war rallies for decades people WTF?
Yes, about people in power using the common man for their goals while avoiding the same service. Not "The army is EVIL!!!!"
Or maybe someone was trying to use it for that. They were just as wrong as you are if they did.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
At the end of the day, the absurdity here is that we've got a bunch of people insisting that other people were wrong to be offended.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's kinda scary how easily people are being manipulated by this.
It's also scary how easily people can be manipulated into using ham-fisted phrases like this to try and shame people into thinking their way
Which is funny in a thread that's basically about how we should ridicule (and shame) people for being offended by something. At the end of the day, the absurdity here is that we've got a bunch of people insisting that other people were wrong to be offended. Um... Maybe they get to make that decision?
I bet the vets that were at that concert were not offended. They probably had a great time. They're the only ones whose opinions matter.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
At the end of the day, the absurdity here is that we've got a bunch of people insisting that other people were wrong to be offended. Um... Maybe they get to make that decision?
Sure. And we get to react to them. The difference here being that no one in attendance at the show is likely reading the forums so no one is actively trying to change their mind. Meanwhile you're using 4th grade tactics like "Well, I guess you're just too dumb to see it..." in a pathetic attempt to make an argument.
Now we're laughing at you though so I guess you have us there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The song has been used at anti-war rallies for decades people WTF?
Before it gets edited, how about we just look at the wiki article (the only edit after veterans day was the genre line):
Quote:
The song is a counterculture era anti-war anthem, criticizing militant patriotic behavior and those who support the use of military force without having to "pay the costs" themselves (either financially or by serving in a wartime military).[5] The song, released during the Vietnam War, is not explicit in its criticism of that war in particular, but the clear attacks on the elite classes (the families that give birth to "fortunate sons") of America and their withdrawal from the costs of nationalistic imperialism are easy to contextualize to that conflict. The song was inspired by the wedding of David Eisenhower, the grandson of President Dwight David Eisenhower, to Julie Nixon, the daughter of President Richard Nixon, in 1968.[6] The song's author and singer, John Fogerty, told Rolling Stone: "Julie Nixon was hanging around with David Eisenhower, and you just had the feeling that none of these people were going to be involved with the war. In 1968, the majority of the country thought morale was great among the troops, and eighty percent of them were in favor of the war. But to some of us who were watching closely, we just knew we were headed for trouble." [7] The song has been widely used to protest military actions and elitism in Western society, particularly in the United States; as an added consequence of its popularity, it has even been used in completely unrelated situations, such as to advertise blue jeans.
Again. It's always been known to be anti-war and anti-service. Yes, it does so within the context of the rich and influential not having to serve like the regular folks, but it does not limit itself just to that inequity but puts a negative view of the military and military service at a whole. No one was confused about this until like the last few days.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point being that the military is something negative that must be endured.
Just in case it wasn't clear. The song assumes that serving in the military is something that one must try to avoid. That it laments the fact that the rich and connected can do this more easily than regular people is kinda beside the point. It's still a really inappropriate song to sing to honor people who have chosen to serve in the military rather than seek to avoid it.
Coward.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
I love how Gbaji selectively bolds stuff and leaves out "and those who support the use of military force without having to 'pay the costs' themselves (either financially or by serving in a wartime military)" 
Ah, you.
Edit: Actually, almost everything he DIDN'T bold lends evidence against his idea.
"the clear attacks on the elite classes (the families that give birth to "fortunate sons") of America and their withdrawal from the costs of nationalistic imperialism are easy to contextualize to that conflict"
[...]
"The song's author and singer, John Fogerty, told Rolling Stone: "Julie Nixon was hanging around with David Eisenhower, and you just had the feeling that none of these people were going to be involved with the war."
Edited, Nov 13th 2014 3:05pm by Jophiel
Ah, you.
Edit: Actually, almost everything he DIDN'T bold lends evidence against his idea.
"the clear attacks on the elite classes (the families that give birth to "fortunate sons") of America and their withdrawal from the costs of nationalistic imperialism are easy to contextualize to that conflict"
[...]
"The song's author and singer, John Fogerty, told Rolling Stone: "Julie Nixon was hanging around with David Eisenhower, and you just had the feeling that none of these people were going to be involved with the war."
Edited, Nov 13th 2014 3:05pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Again. It's always been known to be anti-war and anti-service.
gbaji wrote:
No one was confused about this until like the last few days.
Edited, Nov 13th 2014 4:04pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Jophiel wrote:
Meanwhile you're using 4th grade tactics like "Well, I guess you're just too dumb to see it..." in a pathetic attempt to make an argument.
Really? Those are some seriously biased blinders you've got on there.
cynyck wrote:
How do you misinterpret the words to a song so badly? Apparently there is a certain slice of the American Pie that thinks Fortunate Son is an anti-war, anti-military song.
I'm responding to that sort of tactic Joph. This entire thread is about how dumb people are for thinking that "Fortunate Son" is anti-war, anti-military and being offended by it being sung at a veterans day event. Funny how you failed to notice said tactics in the OP.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The point being that the military is something negative that must be endured.
While I agree with the sentiment expressed in the song, that privilege results in an unequal burden on the large proportion of military personnel, I would never agree with you that the military is something negative.
Honestly, I don't get you liberals and your constant bashing of the military. Enough already.
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
cynyck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point being that the military is something negative that must be endured.
Sigh (I even added a post to explain this, but apparently you didn't read it). I don't think it is. The song does. Get it? The base assumption in the song is that of someone who would not choose to serve in the military if given the choice, but is forced to while those with wealth and political connections can opt out.
That's why it's inappropriate to perform at a concert to honor those who did actually choose to serve. The third verse is entirely about how some people have a form of patriotism that causes them to volunteer for military service, but "It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no military son". It's not just that others can more easily avoid service, but the song also derides those who would choose to do so.
Quote:
While I agree with the sentiment expressed in the song, that privilege results in an unequal burden on the large proportion of military personnel, I would never agree with you that the military is something negative.
But that's the sentiment in the song. More specifically that those who support the military are supporting something negative. Now, obviously, it was written in the context of the Vietnam war, where supporting the military was seen as supporting the horrifically failing foreign policies of the day and the inequities the song mentions. However, to sing it today at a Veterans Day concert is somewhat of a slap in the face. It's not about whether the song has a valid point to make, nor that current veterans defend the practices it speaks out against, but that it's just the wrong venue to sing it.
Sing it on the other 364 days of the year or at any venue that isn't specifically about honoring those who serve. Is that really so much to ask? I get that many people view fervent patriotism as something negative, and I even agree that if we are flag waving every single day, that would be a sign that we're in some kind of denial about the existence of flaws in our society. But this is the one day that you should do that though. So why take a dump on it?
Quote:
Honestly, I don't get you liberals and your constant bashing of the military. Enough already.
So when you said "serious question", you weren't actually being serious? Or are you actually just confused?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The song has been used at anti-war rallies for decades people WTF?
Whether you believe it's against the people who serve, or those who send them to serve, it's still incredibly inappropriate to sing at a veterans day celebration. How about instead of re-writing history in order to defend Springsteen, we just acknowledge that his song selection was in bad taste and move on? Is that really so hard to do? People in his audience were offended. Instead of ridiculing them for this and insisting that they are wrong to be offended, maybe we should just respect that they were, in fact, offended. What arrogance to do otherwise.
Whether you believe it's against the people who serve, or those who send them to serve, it's still incredibly inappropriate to sing at a veterans day celebration. How about instead of re-writing history in order to defend Springsteen, we just acknowledge that his song selection was in bad taste and move on? Is that really so hard to do? People in his audience were offended. Instead of ridiculing them for this and insisting that they are wrong to be offended, maybe we should just respect that they were, in fact, offended. What arrogance to do otherwise.
Some people may use the song to show anti-military sentiment, some for anti-administration or anti-entitlement. I believe you've brought up a certain slogan recently to illustrate the point that actions and intent don't necessarily correlate.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
People have also been dancing to Sarah McLachlan's "Possession" and the Police's "Every Breath You Take" at weddings for decades. Sometimes people are just kinda dumb when they hear a good hook.
Edited, Nov 13th 2014 5:41pm by Jophiel
Edited, Nov 13th 2014 5:41pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
People have also been dancing to Sarah McLachlan's "Possession" and the Police's "Every Breath You Take" at weddings for decades. Sometimes people are just kinda dumb when they hear a good hook.
Absolutely. But if a couple told the DJ *not* to play those songs at their wedding because they actually know that they aren't appropriate for their wedding you wouldn't argue that they don't actually know what the lyrics mean, would you? You wouldn't argue that "lots of people play those songs at weddings, so why are you offended that they might be played at your wedding?". That's basically the argument being made here. And it's absurd.
Fortunate Son is an anti-war song. And yes, it's possible for an anti-war song to be pro-soldier, in the right context. That context is *not* a Veteran's Day concert though. That one day is about celebrating people who have served, many of them in wars. It's just one of those strange kinda backhanded things to do. While no one wants to go to war, wars are why we need to have a military. They go hand in hand. I just think that some people go a bit overboard with the whole "fighting for the soldier by fighting against the war" bit. Again though, I think there's a time and place for all things. This was not the time nor place for that song to be sung IMO.
I'm not saying we can't recognize and warn of the danger of inequity and the rich and powerful forcing the rest of us to fight their wars. But Veterans day isn't the right day to make that point.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
People have also been dancing to Sarah McLachlan's "Possession" and the Police's "Every Breath You Take" at weddings for decades. Sometimes people are just kinda dumb when they hear a good hook.
No, the argument is "But people played this song at a protest so it MUST be anti-war!!!" is as solid an argument as "But they played Possession at a wedding so it MUST be a love song!!!!"
Sorry. Didn't know I'd have to spell that one out for you.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Fortunate Son is an anti-war song.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Ah, Vietnam.. Makes me nostalgic for the days when we stayed out of the USA's half-hearted experiments with imperialism.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
lolgaxe wrote:
I need a beaker
Meep meep meep?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I need a beaker
Meep meep meep?
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
cynyck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point being that the military is something negative that must be endured.
Sigh (I even added a post to explain this, but apparently you didn't read it). I don't think it is. The song does. Get it? The base assumption in the song is that of someone who would not choose to serve in the military if given the choice, but is forced to while those with wealth and political connections can opt out.
Quote:
Quote:
While I agree with the sentiment expressed in the song, that privilege results in an unequal burden on the large proportion of military personnel, I would never agree with you that the military is something negative.
Quote:
Quote:
Honestly, I don't get you liberals and your constant bashing of the military. Enough already.
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
Hermann Goering, April 1946.
Jophiel wrote:
The "anti-military" aspect of it wasn't "The army is evil!" but rather "WTF is with these rich guys sending us out into this jungle while they and their kids stay home"?
With the lack of a draft these days that's not quite the same message.
With the lack of a draft these days that's not quite the same message.
With a lack of a draft, the same thing happens, but they are forced to offer somewhat better benefits.
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 402
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (402)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC