this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
158 points (96.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
2422 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Or maybe you still love it, but now you have a different perspective.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I actually just copied someone else's post because you accused someone if ignoring something while completely ignoring this person's post. You are a hypocrite who can't seem to accept that words mean different things in different contexts. You are hung up on how we perceive things today and not the world as it was at the time this work was created.

Do you know that the phrase "hey what's in this drink" was an excuse to do things you wanted to do but were not supposed to do.

You keep referring to a movie that used this song. And it's fine to argue that the scenes in the movie reflect a woman who doesn't want to be there, but this song is not that movie, however much you want it to be your smoking gun.

This song predates that movie. By more than 5 years. That movie, as an explanation of the meaning of this song is absolutely meaningless, yet it is the thing you are focused on.

You aren't listening because you are stuck on something that isn't true and are absolutely refusing to listen to any other point.

You argue like ken ham does.

I've already stopped posting that person's comment on your posts btw. I posted it s few times only to get your attention on it. I will go delete those unless there are replies.

The world is not an easy place to understand. You are trying to make something fit your worldview and while there is no reason you need to like this song, or want to understand it so that it no longer bothers you, i take great exception, given the US putting a convicted felon who was in bed with Jeffrey fucking Epstein and Putin, to seeing refuse to accept reality in favour their view of the world.

Baby it's cold outside is now a song that is only a problem for ignorant people who arent informed enough, are willfully ignorant.

Women matter. Black lives matter. It's important to understand where problems actually exist.

Its okay to be botherer by this song, it has an imagery that is hard not to see and misunderstand by todays standards and sensibilities. Not because the problematic behaviour of the past, such as presented in the movie you wont stop refering to, but because everyone in that era had to work around problematic behaviour. People had to be clever to be who they were in a way that is very different from today

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn't let me sleep for 5 without me "ignoring what you don’t want to hear". Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn't really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else's comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you're allowed to use "it's an old song" as your argument, then I'm allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it's always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don't want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It's not "willfully ignorant", and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don't understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it's okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Im sorry that I didnt notice the times of posts. I also slept, and responded when i woke up. Apologies for that.

You keep repeating that im not addressing what the song is about. Yes very much that is entirely and solely what im addressing.

If you dont stop repeating the same wrong thing, then dont be surprised when you keep being told the same thing.

You refuse to accept that your interpertion is flawed. As indicated by disputing other peoples arguments with evidence from a movie that the song predates. Thats not historical context, its a simple timeline. Im establishing a time line. Thats a very normal thing to do. Ita not bad faith. Explain why im wrong because ive explained why your argument had problems. This is a big one of them

YOU specifically related scenes in a movie as evidence of meaning to the song. Thats the problem.

Also i read the article from the post i copied. Its not just a quote from the song writers song addressing this. Let it be known the only value of that article in my opinion is the explanation from the song writers kid. The commentary in the article by the writer on that page is bad.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?

And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not complaining about you not l liking the song i straight up said that and you even quoted me. Wtf kinda crazy pills are you on if you cant see that?