Jump to content
Tydirium

Crazy woke Washington Post article claims that John Williams' STAR WARS music "reproduces harmful prejudices in pop culture"...

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Arpy said:

He's not completely lost, you can find more reliable news sources from outside the mainstream media. 

 

Here where I live people these days are finding their reliable news sources throught WhatsApp, so a lot of people actually believe in bizarre stuff like baby bottles with penises would be distributed on daycares, to turn kids gay since early age. They were called "mamadeira de piroca" ("dick baby bottles").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, King Mark said:

Bottom line, This article is damaging to John Williams and will be read by a fair amount of people since it's a high profile publication

 

Hopefully anyone with half a brain who happens to have the misfortune to read the article contained within a journalistic silo will see through the "woke" bullshit that oozes out of it  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally detest it when something is labeled «Politically Correct», because usually that’s just a cheap way of denigrating an opinion that happens to be more liberal than your own. But jeez...  if something ever deserved the label, it’s got to be that article.

I’m astonished at how badly researched it is (as others here have pointed out through plenty of examples).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Falstaft (hiatus til TROS) said:

 

Still, he was a brilliant music critic and hugely influential social theorist; his book on Wagner is especially a tour de force. It's just that no one especially wants to read him any more, most musicologists included...

 

So what you're saying is he's the Pauline Kael of music criticism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can that still be called Political correctness or this "woke" thing is way beyond that?

 

I wasn't familiar with the term until today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Larry O said:

I'm honestly really surprised how often this sort of ugly, antisocial, and dismissive discourse tends to pop up here, of all places, a site dedicated to enjoying the music of John Williams, but hopefully this might help a few people out? I don't know. But there are lots of ways - more constructive ways, as more than a few posters here have shown - to engage with how poorly thought-out and badly written this thinkpiece at the Post is than to indulge in... whatever all the rest of this ugly stuff is. 

 

"Ugly stuff"? "Antisocial"? People in this thread seem to be getting along alright, for the most part... It's strange that you appear to be trying to make a mountain out of not-even-a-mole-hill, here.

 

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

 

Over time it came to mean, "be hysterically sensitive towards and hysterically sensitive about literally everything and anything."

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Josh500 said:

 

Yup. Like I said, the totally ignorant and clueless. I call them the "sheep."🤣👆


Aww you’re so deranged it’s adorable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nils said:

I generally detest it when something is labeled «Politically Correct», because usually that’s just a cheap way of denigrating an opinion that happens to be more liberal than your own.

 

No, it's an effective way to identify viewpoints that are fundamentally more censorious than your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Josh500 said:

Washington Post, along with The New York Times and several other "big names," are among the worst propaganda newspapers in existence today. Rivals Goebbel's propaganda in Nazi Germany, and that's no joke. If you are totally ignorant and clueless, you might believe the opposite. 

 

images (36).jpeg

 

That said, I didn't even finish reading the quote about JW. No thanks!

 

Thank you. 

 

What a steaming pile of revisionist shit. 

How do these people get in the position to pollute the public to this degree of misguided diarrhea? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example for what is permeating society anyway: people wouldn't even consider John Williams music as whatever this dirt sheet writer is implying, unless someone told them they should. 

That's how the game always goes. 

It's bordering on mind control. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a friend recently accuse me of being racist just because I named my cat Gomez. I was bewildered by this ignorant assumption. When I pressed her on what the hell she meant by that, like how does my naming of my cat indicate that I harbour hatred towards I presume a latin ethnic group, she fumbled for an answer but made no sense. I mean is she only satisfied if I name my pets safe and approved English names or stereotypically cat names like Fluffy or Mittens? Gomez is just a nice name and I felt it suited him. My friend is a fucking idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Arpy said:

There's no way to slice this article's contention to be viewed in any favorable light. You're either for the freedom of artistic expression through cultural appropriation, or you're creating more boundaries by saying who can and can't use what instrument and in what manner they're used for. You're throwing intent and context away. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the subtextual connotations of Williams, Shore and modern film composers appropriating Eastern instrumentation isn't just nefarious, but some form of blind ignorance to their oppression and othering of minorities... Yeah right.

I would add that the author and like-minded people would say it is not cultural appropriation (or at least not the bad kind), when a non-European descendant composes for an orchestra.  Just so dumb.  I know we are giving the author too much attention by even discussing this, but we also know that the author represents the logical conclusion to a lot of people's principles on these things--so, I suppose we have to respond.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tom said:

I would add that the author and like-minded people would say it is not cultural appropriation (or at least not the bad kind), when a non-European descendant composes for an orchestra.  Just so dumb.  I know we are giving the author too much attention by even discussing this, but we also know that the author represents the logical conclusion to a lot of people's principles on these things--so, I suppose we have to respond.  

 

And a rag like the Wawthingtum Potht is widely read and influential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Falstaft (hiatus til TROS) said:

I mentioned it up-thread, but when you see yourself implicitly compared to Joseph Goebbels, when that man was in fact responsible in part for murdering members of your family, then you begin to wonder whether this is an online community you want to participate in.

 

Well...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buried_by_the_Times

 

And this isn't some obscure conspiracy theory book. It's published by Cambridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Falstaft (hiatus til TROS) said:

Between the approving comparisons of writers for the Washington Post -- a "dirt sheet" to which I now proudly count myself as a contributor! -- to literal Nazis, to what I can only interpret as a  mocking emulation of a gay lisp in several above posts, this thread is getting really gross.

 

I mentioned it up-thread, but when you see yourself implicitly compared to Joseph Goebbels, when that man was in fact responsible in part for murdering members of your family, then you begin to wonder whether this is an online community you want to participate in.

 

The article in question is misguided and intellectually embarrassing enough as it is without these shit-posts. There's plenty of solid dismantling of its stupidity done a rhetorically responsible way in this thread and for that I'm grateful. You can criticize bad music analysis without resorting to infantile homophobia or your personal political axe-grinding.

 

Jay already called Josh out, though, and since then things have been pretty well-behaved I thought(?). Nobody was comparing you to Goebbels; you wrote a great article about film music, lol. Yes, Josh's comment was over-the-top, but I don't think someone calling out the mainstream media (largely in regards to reporting of news) automatically means that a side-gig arts contributor who wrote an article on STAR WARS music should take offense, as though it were directed at you personally.

 

Everybody here loves you and your contributions both to this forum as well as to film music discussion across the board. Josh very well may not have even known you had written that article for the Post, and I'm sure if you asked him he would say he was not referring to you in the least. No offense, but it seems like you might be reading into things a bit too much.

 

And I didn't read that other comment above as being intended to be a gay lisp, or as being homophobic... Never thought of it as possibly being that, until reading your comment. I think it's a tad unfair to assume that anything spelled out like that is "homophobic".

 

Idk, just seems like some people here are getting a little too offended. Scrolling through the thread, the discourse here seems to be pretty friendly for the most part, save for the few people showing up trying to say that it's somehow not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lithp being interpreted as being an ironic attack on homosexuals is a stretch and really is an assumption that originates in the mind of the outraged. Falstaft is projecting.

 

I do the lithp to lampoon hysterically effeminate chardonnay socialists who arrogantly presume their moral superiority through ultra PC absurdities. It's Titania McGrath, only more low brow and gives me the giggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

The lithp being interpreted as being an ironic attack on homosexuals is a stretch and really is an assumption that originates in the mind of the outraged. Falstaft is projecting.

 

I do the lithp to lampoon hysterically effeminate chardonnay socialists who arrogantly presume their moral superiority through ultra PC absurdities. It's Titania McGrath, only more low brow and gives me the giggles.

 

Yeah, I think the assumption that any instance of "s" being replaced with "th" is meant to parody a "gay lisp"/is "homophobic", is a bit of a stretch... I never once drew any connection between your comment and anything remotely homosexual-related, until Falstaft's comment lambasting you for it.

 

EDIT: It's honestly kind of weird, because this thread reads as being pretty tame and friendly for the most part (aside from stuff that Jay had already addressed)—nobody really insulting one another or anything, nobody cursing each other out, nobody getting heated at one another—until LarryO and now Falstaft show up and tell us that things are apparently "ugly", "antisocial", "gross", "homophobic", etc....? Feels almost like gaslighting, lol. Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Larry O said:

"I'm not making fun of gay people. I'm making fun of effeminate men. It's totally different. You know who's REALLY making fun of gay people? Falstaft."

 

Nobody ever said that, though.

 

40 minutes ago, Larry O said:

And now there's a thread on the site so closely associated with him where a small percentage of this forum's membership persists in being needlessly cruel to one of its best members, because it's more important to feel better about being casually nasty to weak straw figures in the shape of lisping effeminate PC men, than it is to be respectful and thoughtful to any degree.

 

Dude. Who is being "needlessly cruel to one of [the forum's] best members"? We all love Falstaft here. If you're referring to the instance of the user who posted the Goebbels image: 1. that person was chastised by Jay awhile ago and 2. that image was in no way directed at Falstaft, anyways... Can we please stop the pearl-clutching? Nobody here is attacking Falstaft.

 

The Goebbels image was dealt with long ago by Jay; why can't you move beyond it? You keep seemingly trying to conjure up outrage for the sake of outrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Larry O said:

Have a nice night, gentlemen. 

 

I wasn't referring to you or your comment, if that's what you thought. I didn't even read the thread aside from the first post. Did something offensive happen here that I'm not aware of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure! @Josh500 posted a rather tasteless image likening mainstream media to Geobbel's propaganda, but that was already addressed pages ago by Jay, so...

 

It honestly seems like the few people here taking issue with the thread, are either trying to retread that water rather than move on, or are trying to just denounce this whole discussion as somehow "problematic"—even though aside from them, everybody here seems to actually be getting along, lol. 

 

I don't see what the problem is. If someone has an issue with something that someone else is saying, you'd think it could be calmly addressed to that person in particular—rather than take some moral high ground stance over the discussion as a whole, and throwing out words like "ugly", "gross", etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...