Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

I disagree. Their are a whole host of celebrities that are on the grid, that speak their minds, AND make efforts to their cause. Most just don’t advertise it.

I make efforts. I donate, that does not mean I am qualified or crazy passionate about what I speak to tell others what to do with their life and how to do it. There is a serious idea that alot of celebs who take to the camera to preach these things are either being paid to do it or because they like the idea of people thinking they are in the know. Im not doubting that there are genuine people. I just doubt the ones in front of a camera. JMO.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

There is also a difference between a celebrity and an artist. People like Childish Gambino, Kanye West, and Janelle Monae express themselves through their art. Some more vocally than others. What’s more, being too “solution oriented” risks alienating people away from your message AND affects your bottom line both. Glover has learned from the mistakes of Kanye West and has thus decided to let his art speak for itself. Which is brilliant.

Kanye expresses himself everytime he thinks someone is watching him. I will agree wholeheartedly with you that Kanye cares about representing what Kanye thinks, keeping Kanye real, and preaching about those things Kanye cares about. If you understand that Kanye is all about Kanye.

Sure artist's do touch on topics through their art though. And if we were discussing something like Crossroads by BoneThugs or Hurt by Nine Inch Nails. I would agree they probably know better how to express about those topics then alot of people. But the constant someone is out to get you theory (and we both know who that someone is) is nothing but a preach that does little more but digs deeper lines and divides that hurts any healing process that can occur.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

You say that this message is nothing different than what we always see, well why is this all over the news, all over YouTube with reaction videos, and all over media with philosophical debates? Clearly the message is relevant. For you? Perhaps not. But the again, you are in this thread debating its relevance. Clearly if it were nothing relevant you would be elsewhere entirely.

Sure I would be. And you're right it got me debating. But im debating the idea that all celebrities care about what they preach or even really know what their preaching about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

There is a difference between bandwagoning issues to increase your popularity as a celebrity and people that are consistently telling a message that they believe needs attention and do so in such an elegent and creative way to draw attention to the issue.

The artistic expression within this video and the previous artistry from this artist isn’t analogous to other celebrities. If those are the situations of hypocrisy that you would like to speak to, then do it as they pop up.

But in this instance, we’re talking about an artist who has talked about these messages from the very beginning. Have you listened to an entire album of his? If so which one?

You're attempting to deflate this artistic expression by using ignorant claims unrelated to this work. Stop it.🛑 

But just to comment on this nonsense, Donald Glover is tied to 3 charities.

1. Oceana- Health of the oceans

2. MPTAFF- Creativity in motion pictures

3. Community Connections- Adoption, Fostering, and supporting in struggling communities.

Again, it has nothing to do with this video or the artistic expression within. But this notion that the artwork is irrelevant because the artist is not “contributing to the solution” is not only disingenuous, but is flat out absurd and wrong.

Can you guys, if you have nothing to ACTUAL say about the topic, remove this to PMs or simply not post?

This sorry notion of, “I won’t speak how I feel or else I’ll get banned from the website for trolling a topic and talking about politics... oh well maybe just a little bit about how I feel.” Is absurd. I just have to ask again, what is the goal of the comments? To troll the topic? I understand everything gets off topic, but can we at least try to stay close to the actual artwork?

I already said the video was done well from an artistic standpoint. That doesn't mean it's not pandering and virtue signaling just because it's creative. I can't point out exactly what I'm talking about without breaking the rules. We've already stretched them as is by taking it this far.

You point out he belongs to charities that have nothing to do with the topics in this video, yet you try to claim I'm wrong about what exactly? Just because you disagree with my standpoint doesn't mean I'm wrong just because you say so.

 this is exactly the type of conversation I was trying to avoid... Not because I'm not prepared to have it, but because we're limited on how deep we can delve into it... And that being the case, I'm going to stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EliteTexan80 said:

zGHQb4O.gif

Just what we expect from ET. When there's moderating to be done, he leaves the thread ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no one is saying that topics within the video aren't relevant... But as always with the mainstream media, it's a laughably biased interpretation of a problem rather than a complete assessment of the overlying REAL issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@diamondbull424 made some great points in our PM conversation and I think it's possible I was too quick to assume what Glover's point was with the video, especially on one specific area.  Think I might have to rewatch it tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

@diamondbull424 made some great points in our PM conversation and I think it's possible I was too quick to assume what Glover's point was with the video, especially on one specific area.  Think I might have to rewatch it tomorrow. 

As did you my fine sir. I think we both agree on a lot. Obviously not everything, but certainly enough. Appreciate the great dialogue.

Edited by diamondbull424

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT:

Viewpoints and opinions I dont agree with make me uncomfortable because they hint at my personal perspective being invalid or incomplete but since my perspective is the only one that matters; dismiss, detract, devalue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people agree there is a problem, but the there are two factions, almost diametrically opposed, as to who's at fault for these problems. And each groups' stance is offensive to the other group. Nothing will get done because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, animaltested said:

Viewpoints and opinions I dont agree with make me uncomfortable because they hint at my personal perspective being invalid or incomplete but since my perspective is the only one that matters; dismiss, detract, devalue.

Viewpoints and opinions based more on emotions and shallow surface-level analysis of amazingly complex issues make me uncomfortable because the ones who hold them are often loudest.

Dismiss, detract, devalue is a great description of how a large number of influential people on one particular end of the spectrum (media members, blue-check "journalists", celebrities) avoid uncomfortable conversations. What kind of folks do you see being banned and/or censored from social media sites? Is there a general trend you care to acknowledge? What types of folks do you see most often engaging in mob-mentality witch hunts that demand peope be fired or even prosecuted for mundane interactions? Which 'side' most often demands speakers be silenced or 'de-platformed'; and when that can't be managed, which side disrupts events either violently (with actual riots, bike lock attacks) or simply rudely (blasting air horns instead of engaging in dialoge)?

There are and always will be authoritarians on all sides; however, you're simply not paying attention if you think there isn't a massive imbalance right now in terms of who is making the most authoritarian demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

And each groups' stance is offensive to the other group. Nothing will get done because of this.

That's all well and good. Capable adults should be able to stand firm when being 'offended' by an opinion and reasonably state their perspective or their argument. If you can't do this, you're simply not mature enough to engage in the realm of political discussion.

Anything important enough to spark a discussion is inherently going to offend at least some people to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

@diamondbull424 made some great points in our PM conversation and I think it's possible I was too quick to assume what Glover's point was with the video, especially on one specific area.  Think I might have to rewatch it tomorrow. 

This video kind of reminds me of that laurel/yanny debate. You can hear different things each time depending on your POV.

I think you might be right. I still think it’s a satire in many respects, but I believe the opening act references the Louisiana culture. The music has a very similar feel.

But then as Childish Gambino’s “character” enters the fray, we hear ON TOP of that sound a more new age sound that burries that Louisiana sound into the background. Almost directly after that we get our first defining moment that shocks us. The man being murdered.

I think this gives it an entirely different brush stroke than what I thought I saw before. I still think the perspective is the same though. And I still believe that it’s a bit of satire. But this opening potentially opens up new meaning to this that I didn’t initially explore.

I mean, could this entire video be an exposition of the Hurricane Katrina experience? Is this an insane theory that I’m looking too deeply into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freak_of_nature said:

I think most people agree there is a problem, but the there are two factions, almost diametrically opposed, as to who's at fault for these problems. And each groups' stance is offensive to the other group. Nothing will get done because of this.

I agree w/ this and to add my tidbit, the overall exaggeration of a terrible problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

This video kind of reminds me of that laurel/yanny debate. You can hear different things each time depending on your POV.

And like so many other debates IRL, what some assert is a result of POV, or subjective experience / environment, often times simply boils down to measurable biological differences:

but biological differences being the root of certain issues is an uncomfortable topic so best avoid it, or deflect and obfuscate instead of having a reasonable discussion :^)

Edited by cddolphin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×