UK graduate thrown out of gay club after "triggering" Blurred Lines is played

The King of Moo · 05-08-2015 11:29AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Music dance and art has always been dirty, sexy, filthy, earthy and playing with boundaries. That's what makes them so much fun.

Should we ban elvis because of his pelvic choreography? Shakespeare for his dirty jokes?

The sender police and feminists are like the new nuns for the 21st century.

No, because they're not as sexist and dismissive of consent, and I don't like things to be banned because they offend some people. Which is why I never once suggested banning "Blurred Lines," just noting that it's good to make people aware of how creepy it is.

jungleman wrote: »

@King of Moo

I'm not going to quote your comment because all of the scrolling would drive everyone mad.

It's a sleazy song but the way everyone lost their minds over it was a bit much. It's a song. Just a song. People have become so egotistical and self obsessed that a song is enough to send them into a frenzy.

People need to get outside, go for a walk, and get their sense of perspective back.

I agree to an extent. Doubtless there are many more songs with horrific lyrics out there, but...

People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy (Batman, 2005)

"Blurred Lines" got all the attention because it was famous and widely-played because it's really catchy. In a sense it's not fair, but we can't expect the general public to get angry about songs they haven't heard. And if it draws attention to a more general trend of sexist, rapey lyrics in popular music (I'm not clued in enough to know if there is such a widespread trend), then there's at least a positive coming out of it.

It's like poor old Cecil the lion. Yes, there are other animals being poached all the time, but this was a popular, tame-ish lion and if the furore surrounding his death draws attention to poaching and canned hunting, again, there's a positive coming out of it.

It's also worth remembering that regardless of how many people do what they've done, Robin Thicke and that dentist are still complete a**holes.

05-08-2015 11:29AM

I identify as [latex](\sqrt-1)^2[/latex].

i is bein' real, man.

Bio Mech · 05-08-2015 11:31AM

Kev W wrote: »

Complete consistency in fact. Since it's impossible for a living person to be Napoleon Bonaparte as he is dead, the fact of Bonaparte's death is sufficient proof that anyone claiming to be him is at the very least lying or delusional.

I would conjecture that its quite possible to be Napoleon through the process of re-incarnation. I think we are wrong to consider life in an alive or dead binary way. When someone could be in any number of quantum states neither alive nor dead. I consider myself trans-existing. Hey you cant prove me wrong. You cant prove a negative and look at all the research into kharma.

kylith · 05-08-2015 11:32AM

CruelCoin wrote: »

And you don't see it as impolite to ask every person you meet "How do you identify?"

How many obviously male/female people would be offended that you would even have any kind of doubt as to what they are. You're going to offend far fewer by not asking.

Gotta agree with this. If you identify as different to your physical appearance the onus is on you to tactfully, and without getting bent out of shape, that you would prefer a different pronoun. It's not feasible to ask everyone you meet how you should address them in case 0.05% of them identify differently.

I know it's not the same but I don't like my name, however I wouldn't expect people who don't know me to know that and ask what they should call me so I say "Just call me 'nickname'".

galljga1 wrote: »

Personally, I think Blurred Lines is one of the best pop songs of this decade.

Weird Al's version is better.

zeffabelli · 05-08-2015 11:32AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

No, because they're not as sexist and dismissive of consent, and I don't like things to be banned because they offend some people. Which is why I never once suggested banning "Blurred Lines," just noting that it's good to make people aware of how creepy it is.

I agree to an extent. Doubtless there are many more songs with horrific lyrics out there, but...

"Blurred Lines" got all the attention because it was famous and widely-played because it's really catchy. In a sense it's not fair, but we can't expect the general public to get angry about songs they haven't heard. And if it draws attention to a more general trend of sexist, rapey lyrics in popular music (I'm not clued in enough to know if there is such a widespread trend), then there's at least a positive coming out of it.

It's like poor old Cecil the lion. Yes, there are other animals being poached all the time, but this was a popular, tame-ish lion and if the furore surrounding his death draws attention to poaching and canned hunting, again, there's a positive coming out of it.

It's also worth remembering that regardless of how many people do what they've done, Robin Thicke and that dentist are still complete a**holes.

How about the rape of the Sabine women, the rape of Persephone? Should we take those off museum walls?

Kev W · 05-08-2015 11:33AM

Bio Mech wrote: »

I would conjecture that its quite possible to be Napoleon through the process of re-incarnation. I think we are wrong to consider life in an alive or dead binary way. When someone could be in any number of quantum states neither alive nor dead. I consider myself trans-existing. Hey you cant prove me wrong. You cant prove a negative and look at all the research into kharma.

Actually that would mean you used to be Napoleon.

Wright · 05-08-2015 11:35AM

But Noah and Georgia are still unhappy. Noah said: “The manager didn’t even use the right pronouns for Georgia”.

Georgia identifies as “gender non-conforming” and prefers to use both “she and “they” pronouns, adding: “Noah as far as I know identifies as non-binary”.

OK ♡♡♡♡ off now luv. Millenials.
Can imagine this one down the Welfare office.

"Ummm, where's the non-conforming non-binary check box?"

People who are actually sexually assaulted don't tend to go throwing this information around; attention seeker through and through.

valoren · 05-08-2015 11:35AM

"You address me by my proper title, ya little bollox!"

05-08-2015 11:35AM

Kev W wrote: »

Actually that would mean you used to be Napoleon.

Tenses are a social construct

Into The Blue · 05-08-2015 11:36AM

The real outrage here should be, why are 'uk graduate' and 'gay club' significant enough to be in the title?

Kev W · 05-08-2015 11:36AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

How about the rape of the Sabine women, the rape of Persephone? Should we take those off museum walls?

Once again, for clarity's sake:

NOBODY ON THIS THREAD IS CALLING FOR A BAN.

NOBODY IS SUPPORTING CENSORSHIP.

STOP PRETENDING THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

The King of Moo · 05-08-2015 11:37AM

tritium wrote: »

Misogynistic, possibly though that songs writers have a different view than the outrage posse who saw a chance to get some headlines off someone else's creative work. Dodgy on consent? Well only if you ascribe to a very narrow interpretation given by agenda groups pushing outrage and ignore a significant amount of the songs lyrics that don't fit that narrative...

And his does this equate to a right of censorship? Should a club, catering to thousands of people get it's song list approved by all patrons? How far should we take this? Can I object to certain national anthems at sports events because they trigger memories of colonial oppression? Can I insist certain movies are never shown because they trigger memories of the death of a loved one? Or should we expect people to be adults and maybe just go to the bar when these come on?

My point that you responded to was actually a general one. Should we put the protection of precious little flowers ahead of everything else? Should one person be able to restrict others just to satisfy their own needs? Let's say I really want to hear that song because it reminds me of a good or special time in my life, why would I be any less deserving if being accomodated here?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course it doesn't, but nothing can justify censorship on the grounds of offence - not unless we want to rewind the clock on social liberation from various thought police over the centuries, most recently the church.

I don't agree at all with censorship on the grounds of offence. I'm very liberal when it comes to censorship. The only main area I would agree with censorship in is in keeping some things from young children.

At the same time, if a private club or radio station chooses not to play "Blurred Lines" I can understand that and respect that, as it's their choice to make.
Equally, I can understand them choosing to play it as it's really catchy.

It's always worth pointing out that Georgia didn't expect the DJ to stop playing it on her behalf. I think it was just a misguided political statement.

Kev W · 05-08-2015 11:38AM

Wright wrote: »

OK ♡♡♡♡ off now luv. Millenials.
Can imagine this one down the Welfare office.

"Ummm, where's the non-conforming non-binary check box?"

People who are actually sexually assaulted don't tend to go throwing this information around; attention seeker through and through.

So now we have an accusation that she's lying about being raped?

Awesome.

This thread is filling up with awesome people.

LizT · 05-08-2015 11:43AM

Mod

I hate to stifle the discussion on gender identity because quite frankly, it's a discussion that needs to be had. But I have to unfortunately because people can't seem to discuss it in a rational manner and the thread has gone to sh1te.

If you have an agenda to push, boards is not the place for it. Know that you are being watched very carefully and bans will be handed out soon. You know who I'm talking to, if not, PM for clarification.

I'm not sure there's much point in keeping this thread open but if people can try and discuss this story in a civil manner and disregard the gender identity bit of it, we may have a chance.

ohnonotgmail · 05-08-2015 11:44AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

If a lot of it's at the level of "Blurred Lines" I'd rather not.
Even if there are worse songs lyrically, it doesn't justify the awfulness of "Blurred Lines'" lyrics.

Nobody said it does. But to jump all over it because it is objectively worse than other songs is just nonsense. rap and hip hip, but rap especially, bring misogyny to a whole different level than this song.

05-08-2015 11:45AM

Into The Blue wrote: »

How do you ad pacman faces on the touch site?

type :pac:

05-08-2015 11:45AM

This thread has pretty much become Kev W vs the world.

speedboatchase · 05-08-2015 11:46AM

Into The Blue wrote: »

The real outrage here should be, why are 'uk graduate' and 'gay club' significant enough to be in the title?

I used 'UK graduate' rather than graduate in case people assumed before clicking that this story took place in Ireland. I thought that mentioning it was a gay club was relevant because the people who were kicked out mention that they thought they were in a "safe space", when in reality people had no time for their 'trigger warning' squeamishness.

Wright · 05-08-2015 11:48AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

I used 'UK graduate' rather than graduate in case people assumed before clicking that this story took place in Ireland.

Yes everyone else assumed this too; I think that guy is making the 'hilarious' insinuation that all UK graduates are gay or something.

The King of Moo · 05-08-2015 11:48AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

How about the rape of the Sabine women, the rape of Persephone? Should we take those off museum walls?

I'm getting a bit annoyed that you keep suggesting I'm pro-censorship, when I've repeatedly stated that I'm not.
Can you stop doing that?

Now: I don't think we should if they're in public museums and they're considered of significant artistic value, and public museums and galleries have a duty to display significant works. But if a museum or gallery got consistent complaints about particular works, then they could do something simple like have a small note in the guide or subtly on a wall mentioning their content.
I'd imagine not many people would find offence with them due to their historical distance and, crucially, they're not suggesting that rape is ok or consent is unclear, which is a message it's very easy to pick up from "Blurred Lines."

And if a small private gallery chose not to display certain minor works, then more power to them, it's their right, and people have an equal right to complain about their decision.

It's almost like there are subtleties to these situations, bizarrely enough.

B0jangles · 05-08-2015 11:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread has pretty much become Kev W vs the world.

Kev W vs. The dregs of AH more like.

awec · 05-08-2015 11:51AM

Kev W wrote: »

If it's not obvious when meeting, the phrase "what's your pronoun preference?" works.

This sentence made me burst out laughing. What absolute bollocks. :pac:

Samaris · 05-08-2015 11:51AM

Ok, there's a couple of different arguments in here, as far as I can see. There is a bit of a tendency to wait for someone to say something unreasonable an then dismissing everyone who identifies as something other than their biological sex as delusional idiots. Which is unfair.

My opinion on this is that Georgia was being a bit unreasonable to try talk to the DJ right in the middle of the song. She said herself that she wasn't expecting him to turn off the song, so what was she expecting? A better response would be to ...I don't know, complain about the song in another way, rather than picking on one random DJ that was playing it.

However, the DJ was also a dick in his response, especially making it so public to humiliate her for a bad choice. And especially since no-one else would have any idea what it was about, just the DJ calling some random person a silly bitch.

As regards using the incorrect pronouns, yes, no-one involved could possibly be expected to know what Georgia's preferred pronouns are. She was showing the characteristics of a female, so she was referred to as female.

HOWEVER. There does seem to be a spectrum of sexuality. And transgender has certainly been in the news enough for us all to have gotten an idea of people not wishing to be called the pronoun that they don't feel themselves to be, particularly when they are putting a lot of work in to be the other gender. Dismissing the entire argument because one person went over the top is like dismissing all feminist arguments because one raging shouter is being obnoxious, or dismissing the concept of a round planet because the person saying it is also saying that Australians are upside down.

There does seem to be people just waiting in the wings for something like this, just so they can say that lol, they knew it didn't exist all along. Equality is when you can have an asshole in your "corner" without everyone being tarred with the same brush for their comments.

Pre-edit: Using game consoles or oranges or anything else for mocking gender identities is rather obnoxious too.

Edit: ack, sorry Mod, I'd written that while the conversation was still evolving. Is the above ok?

05-08-2015 11:52AM

awec wrote: »

This sentence made me burst out laughing. What absolute bollocks. :pac:

What's your pronoun? Honestly, I prefer being identified as an adjective.

tritium · 05-08-2015 11:54AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's always worth pointing out that Georgia didn't expect the DJ to stop playing it on her behalf. I think it was just a misguided political statement.

Her note to the DJ was "I don't want to hear this ****" coupled with an emotionally loaded story -how can that be interpreted as anything other than an expectation to have it stopped. And then in spite of her protestations subsequently about not meaning this she later states she wants it banned or at least given a special warning status.

Maximus Alexander · 05-08-2015 11:57AM

"Well met lifeform, I hope that your mental and emotional states are within the spectrum that you consider adequate, or better than adequate, insofar as emotional states are accessible to you. Alternatively, I hope that your respiratory, biological or life supporting systems are operating optimally."

Would that be sufficiently inoffensive way to address somebody?

whomitconcerns · 05-08-2015 11:57AM

the rest of it...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/luufemsoc/10153008753858263/

....we are all doomed with people like this

The King of Moo · 05-08-2015 12:00PM

tritium wrote: »

Her note to the DJ was "I don't want to hear this ****" coupled with an emotionally loaded story -how can that be interpreted as anything other than an expectation to have it stopped. And then in spite of her protestations subsequently about not meaning this she later states she wants it banned or at least given a special warning status.

And I agree that Georgia's method was pretty stupid, and I don't think playing a warning before the song would work (it'd kill the atmosphere, for one).
Though I can give Georgia just a little leeway, considering their judgement could have been clouded by emotion. But any stupid statements after the initial moment are entirely on Georgia.

I understand why people are repulsed by the song, but I don't think it needs to go beyond clubs deciding if they want to play it or not.

And if someone were in a club and were annoyed it was played, they could email the management to express their dislike of the song later.

kylith · 05-08-2015 12:00PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Well met lifeform, I hope that your mental and emotional states are within the spectrum that you consider adequate, or better than adequate, insofar as emotional states are accessible to you. Alternatively, I hope that your respiratory, biological or life supporting systems are operating optimally."

Would that be sufficiently inoffensive way to address somebody?

Lifeform? LIFEform?! What about those who identify as undead, you prick? :pac:

Penn · 05-08-2015 12:01PM

Samaris wrote: »

However, the DJ was also a dick in his response, especially making it so public to humiliate her for a bad choice. And especially since no-one else would have any idea what it was about, just the DJ calling some random person a silly bitch.

As regards using the incorrect pronouns, yes, no-one involved could possibly be expected to know what Georgia's preferred pronouns are. She was showing the characteristics of a female, so she was referred to as female.

HOWEVER. There does seem to be a spectrum of sexuality. And transgender has certainly been in the news enough for us all to have gotten an idea of people not wishing to be called the pronoun that they don't feel themselves to be, particularly when they are putting a lot of work in to be the other gender. Dismissing the entire argument because one person went over the top is like dismissing all feminist arguments because one raging shouter is being obnoxious, or dismissing the concept of a round planet because the person saying it is also saying that Australians are upside down.

Completely agree. I genuinely do believe in spectrums regarding both sexuality and gender. Everyone should be free to identify as the sexuality or gender they wish (none of this "Well then I identify as carpet" nonsense). But I think it's unfair to complain about someone using the wrong pronoun, unless they're purposefully doing it to be a dick. Even if we know how someone wishes to be referred to, we subconsciously identify others based on a range of factors and standard pronouns are part of our lexicon.

UK graduate thrown out of gay club after "triggering" Blurred Lines is played

Comments