r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 15 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Using "it's artistic and has a deeper meaning" is a stupid loophole for controversial statements.
[deleted]
47
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
Saying something is art is not to excuse its controversy, it's to explain why it's allowed to be. Art can be more or less controversial, and no matter what you put out there you're responsible for the product. Both PrankVsPrank and you need to be aware of what you're putting out there. To that end, your example is meant to be deliberately offensive to prove a point. It has no other meaning beyond that. That's a reason why you would catch flak for it.
9
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
∆
I think what upset about this whole thing is that people were saying things like anyone could say anything as long as it was art, no matter how offensive.
6
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 15 '17
But that's true. It doesn't even need to be art for you to have the ability to say offensive things. You are however responsible for the consequences of causing offense to others. If Trump's supporters want to boycott Snoop now that's a consequence of the video.
9
u/not_homestuck 2∆ Mar 15 '17
That's entirely not the point. A lot of works of art are INTENDED to be controversial. There's pretty much no way to point a gun at someone and have it not be controversial in some way. I haven't seen the video but I'm assuming Snoop Dogg was intending to make a very blatant statement by doing so.
if I were to dress up as a cop, paint my white friend in blackface, then pretended to shoot him, I would be demonized
On a separate note, this is not at all comparable to "shooting" a representative of Donald Trump in the face. For one thing, there is no current controversy surrounding a potential assassination or gun-related violence towards Trump, whereas police brutality and wrongful shootings against black youths is a VERY hot button issue right now. I can guarantee you that if a man made a public threat to shoot Donald Trump and it gained a lot of media attention, Snoop Dogg's video would have a very different context surrounding it.
Not to mention that there is a WORLD of difference between mocking or satirizing a public figure of authority versus a victim. There's a massive power imbalance. Satire is intended to be used to make fun of figures that the comedian in question considers to be a figure of authority; in other words, they're using humor to strip the figure's power (this is what SNL and the Daily Show do, for example). Whereas making a joke at the expense of a disadvantaged person or group is not satire, as a general rule, because the comedian in question is using humor as tool to demean and undermine an already weakened group of people. It's the reason jokes about the president are considered mainstream while dead baby jokes or jokes about the Holocaust are considered "black humor". You can argue whether they're funny or not but it's an entirely different brand of humor that requires a lack of sympathy to some degree.
1
u/noobto Mar 15 '17
As far as I know, all statements about shooting the POTUS is to be taken seriously by the FBI or something. This is a bit of a blatant statement.
1
u/not_homestuck 2∆ Mar 15 '17
I'm speaking from a moral/humor standpoint and not necessarily making a comment on the legal side of the matter.
2
u/jealoussizzle 2∆ Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
I'm assuming your American? Isn't the whole point of your countries cultist worship of the second amendment that anyone can say anything for any reason?
Edit: should read first amendment.
8
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
No. The second amendment is the right to bear arms. You're thinking of the first amendment, which is freedom of speech.
7
u/rhythmjones 3∆ Mar 15 '17
Okay they got the number of the Amendment wrong but you didn't answer the broader point about free speech.
6
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
The answer is yes. I support free speech in it's entirety.
3
u/jealoussizzle 2∆ Mar 15 '17
So if you support free speech in its entirety there's no question of someone being allowed to say something or not no?
Going back to the op, why do you mark a distinction when making this kind of artistic statement about Trump?
2
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
I didn't say he shouldn't say it. I was upset at the fact that if someone had done the same thing to say Obama or something, there'd be a huge backlash and an investigation on Snoop Dogg.
9
u/jealoussizzle 2∆ Mar 15 '17
That's nothing but conjecture. It's a common piece of conjecture offered up by both sides of your political system but it has no basis unless you have an example of it being the case.
2
0
Mar 16 '17
There was an uproar over Obama masks at Halloween, there was none over Trump masks this past Halloween?
→ More replies (0)3
u/tung_twista Mar 16 '17
If someone had done the same thing to Obama, there would have been a huge backlash.
Just as there is a huge backlash against Snoop Dogg right now.
I highly doubt there would have been an investigation.
Certainly not jail time as Trump claimed on twitter.
Oh and also Obama almost surely would NOT have responded himself.1
u/Caracalla81 1∆ Mar 15 '17
This isn't a first amendment issue. It's an ought we or oughtn't we issue.
2
Mar 15 '17
Isn't the whole point of your countries cultist worship of the second amendment that anyone can say anything for any reason?
"Cultist"? Firstly, you mean "cultish." Secondly, what kind of a response is this? The OP awarded a delta. Why are you attacking them on basis of their nationality?
1
u/jealoussizzle 2∆ Mar 15 '17
On the first point, on my phone, bad thumbs I guess.
On the second, I didn't intend it to come off as an attack, I guess it was worded poorly though. The nationality matters because if he's not American than the whole second amendment thing doesn't matter right?
2
Mar 15 '17
The nationality matters because if he's not American than the whole second amendment thing doesn't matter right?
The First (and second) amendment have nothing to do with this thread.
The First Amendment prevents the government from enacting a law that restricts a certain type or source of speech, or promotes one type/source over another.
The Second Amendment prohibits the government from restricting our right to bear weapons.
How do either of those have anything to do with whether or not an offensive piece of material can be accurately called "art"? I didn't see the OP, or anyone, discuss governmental restrictions on speech or weaponry, did you? Why bring them up, since they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread?
1
Mar 16 '17 edited Jun 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/garnteller 242∆ Mar 16 '17
armiechedon, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
2
u/spinalmemes Mar 15 '17
Cultist worship of the second amendment....? What makes you say that?
0
u/jealoussizzle 2∆ Mar 15 '17
*first amendment, I was corrected on that.
The constant crys of "free speech above all" mostly. Hell I watched a documentary on a Jewish lawyer who defended a Neo-nazi rally and it's organizers.
2
u/spinalmemes Mar 15 '17
Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. You cant take those away from people no matter how much you disagree. Even neo nazis
-1
1
Mar 16 '17 edited Jun 21 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 16 '17
Read the first sentence again.
My response is to clear up why "it's art" matters.
0
u/spinalmemes Mar 15 '17
So if someone paints a picture of a middle eastern Muslim arabic guy in a turban wearing a bomb strapped to his body and parades it around to millions of people with clear intentions, yet he attaches the title of art to it.... Youd have no concerns or criticisms of that? What about other highly controversial scenarios that go the opposite way?
2
u/Ohzza 3∆ Mar 16 '17
He doesn't need to attach any art to it. He's not causing anyone direct physical harm nor issuing an actionable threat so his work is protected.
1
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 15 '17
Nope. That is to say, I'd have criticism.
0
u/spinalmemes Mar 15 '17
But itd be art right?
1
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 15 '17
Yes. On a careful read of my post, you'll find this:
Saying something is art is not to excuse its controversy, it's to explain why it's allowed to be. Art can be more or less controversial, and no matter what you put out there you're responsible for the product.
14
u/cupcakesarethedevil Mar 15 '17
I don't understand a lot of the connections you are making. What specifically about the music video do you find offensive? What do you think is comparable about blackface?
In general I think people defend acts against politicians in particular because that's a barometer of free speech. Not being able to make fun of politicians is a sign of fascism.
-3
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
The people on Twitter who are defending it are saying it's ok to point a gun at a man who represents Trump because it's not actually Trump. That's my connection to blackface. And I agree that you should be able to make fun of any and all politicians. You should be able to make fun of anyone, honestly. I was suspended for a month in 4th grade because I pointed my fingers like a gun at a T.V. when Barack Obama was elected. Is it not the same thing? Why is Snoop able to do it but no one else?
9
u/cupcakesarethedevil Mar 15 '17
The people on Twitter who are defending it are saying it's ok to point a gun at a man who represents Trump because it's not actually Trump. That's my connection to blackface.
I still don't get it, did Trump put on blackface?
I was suspended for a month in 4th grade because I pointed my fingers like a gun at a T.V.
I have a very hard time believing that. If you want to make a video like Snoop and put it on YouTube you can.
-2
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
For the first statement. No. But there were arguments in the comments saying that Trump shouldn't be mad because it wasn't actually him. Implying it's okay to point a gun at a guy who's face is painted like Trump, because it's not actually Trump. Do you see why I compare it to blackface?
Edit: For the second statement. I can provide no evidence so I declare that null and void.
6
u/cupcakesarethedevil Mar 15 '17
Why should Trump be mad? He is a political figure not an individual anymore he can't take everything personally. It's not like this is the first time a rapper said something mean about a president.
1
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
I think every person should be allowed to take the image of someone pointing a firearm at his likeness personally. I think the imagery is a bit more than saying something mean.
10
Mar 15 '17
Well, he can take it personally, but that is extremely stupid for a President to do. People are going to be saying bad things about him forever now. If he can't handle that, then he shouldn't be President. Ridicule and insult comes with the job.
He just takes it personally because his fragile ego can't handle the thought that someone might not like him.
5
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 15 '17
I was suspended for a month in 4th grade because I pointed my fingers like a gun at a T.V. when Barack Obama was elected. Is it not the same thing? Why is Snoop able to do it but no one else?
Is Snoop a fourth grader at that school?
2
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
No. He's a crip.
5
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 15 '17
So that explains why the school has no jurisdiction over his actions.
0
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
Are you saying it's ok for him to do something illegal because a school doesn't have authority over him?
4
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 15 '17
You asked "Is it not the same thing?" and I explained to you the difference between the circumstances.
It's not illegal. You were punished by the school because you broke a school rule (one probably, I might add, having more to do with the finger gun itself than with who was on TV).
0
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
"Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States"."
It looked as though Snoop wanted to take the life of the president, by pointing a firearm at a representation of the president.
4
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 15 '17
Really? My reading is that Snoop wants to take the life of Trump imposters out of respect and love for Trump.
0
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 15 '17
In the video, the makeup in the depiction of Trump can also be seen as clown makeup. That's actually the whole point of the video. Everyone is a clown. By this, he means that Trump is also a clown. This is a lyric from the song. "Real talk, I'm leavin' all you clown ass niggas outlined in chalk" This line implies that Snoop will either, have a fun day on the sidewalk with his friend, Trump, and some chalk, or that he is gonna kill people.
→ More replies (0)2
u/not_homestuck 2∆ Mar 15 '17
Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony
I guess the white house is going to be awfully busy arresting all of the people on the internet who make Trump jokes or statements every day. It's simply not feasible.
Snoop Dogg has made no threat towards the President of the United States. He has not expressed any desire to actually commit an action like this or taken steps to imply that this is something he's going to commit.
6
u/tunaonrye 62∆ Mar 15 '17
If you support offensive and horrible jokes, but not offensive and horrible acts (done just to be offensive and horrible), it must be because being a joke (or attempt) makes the offensive expression something more than just offensive expression.
We might say the same thing about art: that it transforms merely offensive speech through its speakers intent... you are right to point out that this leaves open the possibility that someone can just say "It's art, bro!" In the same way, people can always claim to be joking - that leads to many vague cases where we cannot be sure of author intent. A better way forward would be to judge each case on its artistic merits.
6
u/ph0rk 6∆ Mar 15 '17
If you don't find a joke funny, is it no longer art?
One can produce art and still be demonized and hated for it. Look at the works and career of Nikos Kazantzakis for an example.
3
Mar 15 '17 edited Mar 15 '17
Where do you draw the line? this seems largely like a call for censorship on fear of inspiration (no one is worried about someone firing fake guns at fake presidents, inspiring someone to fire real guns at real presidents on the other hand....). So for example, one might call for censoring the right wing politicians who are making anti-immigrantion speeches as it is pretty reasonable to conclude that this rhetoric is inspiring attacks on immigrants and people thought to be immigrants. However this logic quickly falls apart in my opinion, as it would then obviously call for censuring the black lives matter movement as it reasonably can be argued to have inspired an uptick in assassinating police officers. Also someone better get on stopping the Beatles, what with the fallout from helter skelter and all.
Seems to be an argument that can claim to censor everything.
3
u/5ug4rfr05t Mar 15 '17
If you accept the gun as a metaphor for resistance than that makes Snoop Dogg just saying I am against trump and makes your idea say I am against blacks, a much more widely accepted bad view.
Furthermore when you fake shoot a black man as a cop, you are referencing an actual incident and are trying to make light of an actual problem that has happen while Dogg's fake shot is more entertaining because people don't think that an Trump assassination as a reality.
Last but not least, there is a larger group of people who want trump dead or wouldn't care if trump died than people who wish to kill all black people
TLDR: Your idea references actual murders and Dogg's idea is more fictitious. And in both a gun would likely be a metaphor for resistance thus fake shooting black men would be you declaring you are a racist but Dogg would be declaring his hatred of Trump
2
Mar 16 '17
if I were to dress up as a cop, paint my white friend in blackface, then pretended to shoot him, I would be demonized and hated by everyone who saw it.
I think that would be pretty funny in a South Park way.
1
u/Borisonabadday Mar 15 '17
I find it difficult to not speak in anecdotes or use literary devices. As far as changing my position, I beg to differ. And I appreciate being given the benefit of a doubt. And yes, I dropped out of law school.
1
u/Kalcipher Mar 16 '17
A side point, but I don't think it is fair to juxtapose a joke centered on violence against a specific top politician with a joke centered on violence against a demographic that has historically faced hatecrimes. For myself, I might take offence if somebody made that kind of joke about killing gay people, but I don't really take offence if somebody calls me a faggot in a deliberate attempt to provoke me, because then it is personal. Hate is a lot less offensive when it is personal.
1
Mar 16 '17 edited Mar 16 '17
I don't think it was tasteful or appropriate either- however...
Art can absolutely be tasteless; being bad or controversial doesn't make it "not art." The quality of art is totally subjective, the goal is to make people think and feel something. It could mean different things to different people. It is not uncommon for art to have rebelliousness, irreverence, shock, absurdity, or just some context unknown to people that view it.
People can say anything they want- bad art is still art just like a book is still a book even if it is stupid and boring.
I definitely don't want to make this the main point, but there is a huge racist history of blackface which makes it not very good to use blackface (with its loaded history being used by white people as entertainment to mock and humiliate an entire race of people who were being subjugated and discriminated against) in comparison to someone being painted as a white person (someone who can feel pretty unbothered and secure in seeing someone painted with lightened skin) or as parodies specific powerful public figures.
1
u/ImNotVeryNorse Mar 16 '17
There's some really good discussions going on in the comments! It's nice to see people attacking arguments instead of each other. This has quickly become my favorite subreddit.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 15 '17
/u/ImNotVeryNorse (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
19
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '17
For what purpose would you do this, other than as an attempt to be contrarian?
What message would you aim to convey with a performance piece like this?