nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Again you need to ask him what his motive is for it. I can not speak for him. All I can tell you is that reading the lyrics I do not see it as a song that is advocating the use of that drug. And I can see no valid way to interpret the song as having done so.
optogirl wrote: » nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I can not parse it that way at all. As I said to two other users, I just read over the lyrics and the song appears to be trying to build an awful, repellent, lead character. The kind of person who does fat shame, use people for sex even if he finds them repulsive and more. The whole song contrives to make you dislike the main character. THEN he has that character make a given drug the crutch that justifies and supports those abhorrent character traits. Thus tainting the drug by it's association with the awful character who is taking it. This is not nuanced shakespearean use of imagery and motive here. It is barely nuanced, in your face, simplistic motif that I am embarrassed to even have to explain. Outside of the song, has he spoken much about the drug itself and what he, rather than the character in a parody song, actually thinks about it? Can anyone cite this stuff? You have the patience of angels Nozz
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I can not parse it that way at all. As I said to two other users, I just read over the lyrics and the song appears to be trying to build an awful, repellent, lead character. The kind of person who does fat shame, use people for sex even if he finds them repulsive and more. The whole song contrives to make you dislike the main character. THEN he has that character make a given drug the crutch that justifies and supports those abhorrent character traits. Thus tainting the drug by it's association with the awful character who is taking it. This is not nuanced shakespearean use of imagery and motive here. It is barely nuanced, in your face, simplistic motif that I am embarrassed to even have to explain. Outside of the song, has he spoken much about the drug itself and what he, rather than the character in a parody song, actually thinks about it? Can anyone cite this stuff?
Sal Butamol wrote: » I didn't mention anything about advocating glue sniffing I actually used your words that he was mocking them as awful characters.
optogirl wrote: » You might as well say that Sacha Baron Cohen advocates toddlers carrying guns.
Ush1 wrote: » The idea that the song was supposed to deconstruct stereotypes or be progressive is some of the most hilarious sh*te I've read on this thread. Do people seriously think its audience were standing around at their gigs going, "hmm, I really think the protagonists behaviour here is despicable, what a deep metaphor and an inciteful social commentary" instead of actually drunk and pissed up students/ne'er do wells off their face dancing to a song about taking drugs? All those rappers like Lil Jon and The Game aren't advocating misogyny, pimping women and violence. It's actually a higher concept, high-falutin' take on society that us thickos can't understand.
Erica Pitiful Appetizer wrote: » Just because it's a song does not make it okay. I don't care if it's a parody. You can't be a mental health advocate and a self-proclaimed feminist whilst simultaneously referring to the weight of a female in a derogatory sense and stating that the use of drugs is needed to "clear his head" before he can determine whether he can engage in sexual intercourse with her. The main characteristic of the girl in this song is that she's overweight, and that this makes her unattractive. Don't tell me that's not hypocritical, and don't even get me started on the other suggestion that there's a deeper meaning behind this song like there is to "Jeremy" by Pearl Jam. Blindboy is no Eddie Vedder. Fact.
weldoninhio wrote: » But a character is a person too. Source: you, a few posts back.
Sal Butamol wrote: » Spastic Hawk is Blindboys magnum opus
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The idea that the song was supposed to ADVOCATE for the use of that drug, by constructing an absolutely repellant and repugnant main character who uses it, is some of the most hilarious sh*te I've read on ANY thread. But I am still waiting for what you people dont appear to have. Citations and quotes of him actually discussing what HE, rather than a character in a song he has created 7 or so years ago, thinks of the drug.
Ush1 wrote: » You'll be waiting a while ya mad yoke, I've given up on you a long time ago.
Ush1 wrote: » The only real success the Rubberbandits have enjoyed has been by appealing to the audience I described. If you don't think that's the case and that Blindboy isn't aware of that, you're deluded.
Ush1 wrote: » By the way, I like the song bags of glue a lot.
Ush1 wrote: » Sure he said on literally on todays podcast he wrote music that he didn't like for a specific audience, the horse outside crowd.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Real person Blndboy character "Blindboy" parody character in songs
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Leaving Blindboy aside entirely I would say that is not a distinction you would be wasting your time exploring. The difference between an author creating a character in some form of literature..... and giving it a voice...... and someone creating a persona/character in which they themselves speak by adopting that character..... is a very different thing.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » More like he doesn't want former private school classmates and teachers to recognise him and blow the working class Limerick b**locks clean away.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » If you think he's "literature" let alone "art", God help you.
Cienciano wrote: » I don't think it's any secret that exercise helps against depression.https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/depression-and-exercise/art-20046495 Getting motivated is the thing which he goes into a bit more detail in addressing. If you don't like the guy, fair enough and I can understand why, I unsubscribed a while back and think he talks ****e on plenty of things and comes across as condescending on others. But comparing his stance on helping people with depression with antivaxxers is not only stupid and disingenuous, but proves you never actually listened to his show and have just made up your mind about him. Again, I'll stand to be corrected if he does this outside his podcast, because apparently the guy is "paraded all over the media". I haven't bought a newspaper in about 15 years, don't listen to the radio and don't watch RTE, so he could be all over those for all I know.
Sal Butamol wrote: » Remarkable coincidence. You'd swear he was reading this thread
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Well if he is it would be useful if he would do a podcast on drugs in general, which ones he advocates, which ones he takes, which ones he thinks are safe and acceptable to legalize, which ones he feels should stay off the market. Or if he is reading this, or if his friend who posts on the thread wants to communicate with him........ someone should tell him to at least subject tag his podcasts. If one was marked #drugs for example I might listen to it to get his take on them, since no one here can be arsed citing what they think he believes when they presume to tell us what they think he believes on any subject.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Given he has a platform, and you and I do not, I would suggest that statement is not convincing. Further the character he creates may be of a type/class/level that he feels might be more accessible to the people who he most hopes receive his message. After all school drop out types, lower class types, and so forth do not tend to spend a lot of time listening to preachy messages from highclass suits and labcoats. So perhaps he feels he can be a communicator by creating a bridge via his character. You would have to ask him though, I have no idea. As do I. I am someone who believes in the legalization and regulation of many drugs. I am also someone who advocates many things I believe support or would support improved levels of health care. I am not seeing the contradiction therefore that you apparently do. I see the two things as being perfectly congruent in fact. I can not answer for him on that one, ask him. I can answer for me. And my answer is that one of the reasons I would like to see weed legalized and regulated is BECAUSE the stronger "skunk" variant we get on the streets is an issue. Further I have seen little evidence that the drug causes such issues so much as it only triggers and exacerbates issues that were already there.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » And the second he, his character, his alter ego, or his shadow produce a qualification in Pharmacology or similar - we'll take his view on board.
Dannyriver wrote: » He did a whole podcast explaining that he doesn t do drugs [other than alcohol occasionally] and warned of the evidence that the strains of weed available nowadays due to lack of regulation are hit and miss regarding strength and also advocates legalisation in order to put some regulation on strengths etc.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Nail on head there. Though we may be using the wrong definition of feminism and perhaps he's using one where it is okay to demean women if they are unattractive ?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Speak for yourself. I evaluate what people say based on the substantiation they offer while saying it. Not based on some qualification they have, claim to have, or want to have. I would not recommend putting too much stock in qualification. They are nice to have, and worth pursuing, but they do not validate the words out of anyone's mouth, or devalue the words from people who do not have one. Indeed? So the claims on the thread that he advocates the use of glue are solely and wholly based on a 7 year old song of parody? Well color me unsurprised.
Dannyriver wrote: » That s the interesting point he is rarely if ever in the mainstream media. These are all claims of the people who decided he s a talentless chancer years ago and are ****ed if they re gonna change their mind and don t realise that they see everything about him through this initial lens, regardless of all the various accomplishments achieved in the last 10 years or so.
Dannyriver wrote: » He has said many times that songs from earlier in their career were written when they were teens and they no longer play them anymore as they 'are a bit embarrassing' . Bag of Glue being the most obvious which I think is harsh as I believe it's a bit of a cracker myself but I can see why the PC brigade on here might get a bit rattled by it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)