Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Holy crap, I just looked that it; and I thought "I'll be watching you" was creepy; "Baby It's Cold Outside" is just MESSED UP!

There are two differing interpretations of Baby, It's Cold Outside. The second one is that the woman in the song fully intends to stay the night with the man, and simply is using the bogus excuse of being drunk to "allow him" to persuade her to go against standard social convention of the 1950s or whenever it was written.

Typing_on_a_keyboard_with_the_spacebar_malfunctioning.


You_can_tell_the_difference_between_people_who_listen_to_"Baby-its-cold-outside"_and_those_who_heard_about_it.


The_song_ends_in_a_harmony._No_rape.


http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpersephonemagazine.com%2F2010%2F12%2Flistening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1eoMLn-wN1tlUko-aWuzdZhJwDes0bRhcezrJKHZR5uTk32yVyn4Bu3RY&h=AT2I-U21tn1RpaguFv6vQY3laE8lbTMtT7fiNeeeWD6-BzPAQLXWaeo7HViAb2xX2CU8H0K8ElldNchQMWlfoq8kPDm8MdyuM4LfU_EyHIH7qBrW8zv7eVyxSUNgZhm2

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is this one of those cool threads where we pretend we're not discussing politics even though we totally are?

Social issues are not always politics.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Is this one of those cool threads where we pretend we're not discussing politics even though we totally are?

Yep, right from the OP. It's a textbook repeat of a certain political group's standard tactics, complete with never coming back to respond when people call the OP out on the dishonesty of it.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Overread wrote:
With Disney musicals?

In case you seriously haven't read one of the three classic novels on the rise of fascism in the west: all art and entertainment is banned when the government folds to outrage culture and every single piece is protested by some offended minority or another.

...

You do realize that this is not a government ban, right? That it's a private group saying "yeah, you have a point, pressuring random strangers to kiss on stage isn't really a great idea" and voluntarily stopping the show?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Holy crap, I just looked that it; and I thought "I'll be watching you" was creepy; "Baby It's Cold Outside" is just MESSED UP!

There are two differing interpretations of Baby, It's Cold Outside. The second one is that the woman in the song fully intends to stay the night with the man, and simply is using the bogus excuse of being drunk to "allow him" to persuade her to go against standard social convention of the 1950s or whenever it was written.

To add to that, the song was originally written and performed by a husband and wife during parties as a way to indicate the party was over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby,_It%27s_Cold_Outside

During the 1940s, when Hollywood celebrities attended parties, they were expected to perform. In 1944, Frank Loesser wrote "Baby, It's Cold Outside" for his wife, Lynn Garland, and himself to sing at a housewarming party in New York City at the Navarro Hotel. They sang the song to indicate to guests that it was time to leave. Loesser often introduced himself as the "evil of two Loessers" because of the role he played in the song.[1]

Garland wrote that after the first performance, "We become instant parlor room stars. We got invited to all the best parties for years on the basis of 'Baby.' It was our ticket to caviar and truffles. Parties were built around our being the closing act." In 1948, after years of performing the song, Loesser sold it to MGM for the 1949 romantic comedy Neptune's Daughter. Garland was furious, and wrote, "I felt as betrayed as if I'd caught him in bed with another woman."[1]

I don't think the song was ever intended to be interpreted the way that it is being interpreted now, but that is the funky thing about language - it evolves. I understand the backlash over the perceived issues with (lack of) consent that the song seemingly advocates, but I can also understand why fans of the song are upset that radio stations are pulling it. If you know the song's history it is pretty clearly not about rape, but to modern ears the lyrics are problematic.


Personally, I've always found the Band Aid song, Do They Know It's Christmas Time pretty tone deaf in terms of the message it is trying to convey and the language it uses to convey that message.

But say a prayer, pray for the other ones
At Christmastime, it's hard but when you're having fun
There's a world outside your window
And it's a world of dread and fear
Where the only water flowing is the bitter sting of tears
And the Christmas bells that ring there
Are the clanging chimes of door
Well, tonight thank God it's them instead of you
And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life, oh
Where nothing ever grows, no rain nor rivers flow
Do they know it's Christmastime at all?

Nothing says brotherly love like Othering those less fortunate than yourself.

The entire point of Do They Know It's Christmas is that it's othering. It's meant to satirise western listeners. When the 'thank god it's them instead of you' was removed for the rerelease they removed the only good part of the song.

Do we need a Christmas Music thread? I mean who couldn't talk about Christmas Carols all day long?

Sia's Christmas album rules.........

*SIGH*. "Othering", "Abelism", "Mansplaining"....



Today any time anyone makes a point or states a case, someone just whips out a label, writes(whatever) on it, sticks it on the inconvenient comment and then says because it's (whatever) they don;t have to respond to it because it's wrong because it's (Whatever).


RPG.net mastered this technique.

So someone makes a point, all someone on the other side does is say "Mansplaining", "Othering", "Abelism", ad nauseum infinitum.

This discussion, debate, discourse, dies, buried under manufactured lables that eliminate any need for a reasoned response. Where's the vomiting ork smiley when we need one to say you're sick of something?

And yes, both sides have done and continue to do it, and it's as much a social issue as a political one.

nfe wrote:
The entire point of Do They Know It's Christmas is that it's othering. It's meant to satirise western listeners. When the 'thank god it's them instead of you' was removed for the rerelease they removed the only good part of the song.

Is it? That is interesting if true. Band Aid was a little before my time, but those lyrics always stand out when I hear that song.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
*SIGH*. "Othering", "Abelism", "Mansplaining"....



Today any time anyone makes a point or states a case, someone just whips out a label, writes(whatever) on it, sticks it on the inconvenient comment and then says because it's (whatever) they don;t have to respond to it because it's wrong because it's (Whatever).


RPG.net mastered this technique.

So someone makes a point, all someone on the other side does is say "Mansplaining", "Othering", "Abelism", ad nauseum infinitum.

This discussion, debate, discourse, dies, buried under manufactured lables that eliminate any need for a reasoned response.

What the feth are you going on about? The concept of Othering has been a thing for decades. It isn't some pop culture neologism. Educate yourself before spouting off embarrassing nonsense. Also don't gak up this thread with your issues from other forums/discussion groups.

 Luciferian wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Holy crap, I just looked that it; and I thought "I'll be watching you" was creepy; "Baby It's Cold Outside" is just MESSED UP!

"I'll Be Watching You" is cool because it's intentionally creepy. It's a clever juxtaposition of a sweet pop/love song with darker themes of obsession and possessiveness. "Baby it's Cold Outside" always struck me as odd because it's this close to being a song about festive date rape. Whether or not you agree with it being pulled is another matter but either way you have to admit that it's kind of dark in a weird and unintentional way.

Perhaps, but is it really what we should be targeting first? Modern song lyrics, Rap in particular, are full of way worse and more explicit stuff.

There are also plenty of "clean" versions of Baby its Cold Outside if you are worried about offending anybody. Just substitute for a version that omits the bad lyrics.

Oh trust me, I wasn't making any kind of value judgment, just commenting on how the song comes off. I'm not easily offended and I can appreciate things within the context they were created.

Edit: I also don't think we need to be "targeting" anything, whether it's "Baby it's Cold Outside" or rap, I'm not big on censoriousness in general.

The lyric that gets me is from Taylor Swift. "So it goes. He can't keep his wild eyes on the road."

Swift is clearly referencing Slaughterhouse Five with the phrase "so it goes". She's definitely telling us that her boyfriend ran someone over while getting fresh with her. There can be no other interpretation.

Indeed. It is a very petty, and even hypocritical, to moan about this song. Some friend of a friend on Facebook was talking about this and how she was glad about Baby its Cold Outside getting pulled, and literally the previous post she had made was a link to some trash song about drugging girls in bars and shooting it out with the cops.

Should'a known Perry'd be in here championing the perennially offended.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All this being said, it's hardly ripping up the very foundations of western civilisation just to stop singing a Disney song at a university concert.

I don't believe I ever said it was.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From what I can read in the story, the choir have handled it well. They've taken on board the criticism and decided to shelve that number until they can figure uot how to bring it back without making people uncomfortable.

The problem is that people complained about the song at all. They shouldn't stop singing it because people start bleating about 'consent'. It removes the meaning behind the song in the film, the entire plot of the film, and it's a song from a cartoon sung by a crab for feth's sake.

The people kissing on stage part? Well that's weird, and easy to fix. You just stop doing that. Why does the song itself have to go away?

Then again, I 'spose there are dumber reasons to ban things.

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm sure everyone's heard about "Baby it's Cold Outside" being pulled from radio stations... now that song has some creepy lyrics.

It absolutely doesn't.

The second post in this thread (I'm discounting Perry's because... well... Perry!) talks about context.

Context is king (or, if you prefer, queen).

Anytime you remove something's context and then claim it's bad, you are showing your ignorance. 'Bady It's Cold Outside' has nothing to do with date rape or slipping someone a roofie (or however you spell that*). It's about two people wanting to get it on in a time when saying such things out loud was not the done thing.

*I'm at work. Not about to start searching the spelling of that word on a work computer.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Holy crap, I just looked that it; and I thought "I'll be watching you" was creepy; "Baby It's Cold Outside" is just MESSED UP!

Do you mean "Every Breath You Take" by The Police?

Or...Rockwell's "Somebody's Watching Me"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It absolutely doesn't.

The second post in this thread (I'm discounting Perry's because... well... Perry!) talks about context.

Context is king (or, if you prefer, queen).

Anytime you remove something's context and then claim it's bad, you are showing your ignorance. 'Bady It's Cold Outside' has nothing to do with date rape or slipping someone a roofie (or however you spell that*). It's about two people wanting to get it on in a time when saying such things out loud was not the done thing.

Don't get all triggered on me
I was just trying to spur discussion. Even in context if the woman is just coyly playing along, it means that she makes a joke about being roofied. In any case, I'm one of the last people you have to worry about when it comes to calling for things to be censored even if I find it disturbing or whatever.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Should'a known Perry'd be in here championing the perennially offended.

Yep, definitely revealing your real purpose with this thread.

And it's amusing that you accuse me of championing the "perennially offended" when your entire behavior here is pretty accurately described by "perennially offended". You're upset about the fact that a group isn't performing a song that you think they should perform, or is citing reasons that you don't agree with, and you need to make sure everyone knows that you aren't happy. And your desire to be offended is so strong that you're willing to dishonestly quote stuff out of context as justification for your outrage.

Why does the song itself have to go away?

Because the performance is objectionable, and they decided to remove it entirely while they figure out a better way to handle things? It's not like they've erased the song from existence, they've just declined to continue performing it. You're free to listen to it any time you like.

Then again, I 'spose there are dumber reasons to ban things.

Oh look, another dishonest attempt to portray "we voluntarily decided not to do this play because we don't like its message" as a ban. Do you honestly think that nobody looks at the actual content of the stories you post?

(I'm discounting Perry's because... well... Perry!)

Ah yes, apparently rule #1 doesn't apply to you. Or is it just too painful to acknowledge when I point out your dishonest out of context quoting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Perhaps, but is it really what we should be targeting first? Modern song lyrics, Rap in particular, are full of way worse and more explicit stuff.

The difference is receptiveness to the message. The rap lyrics you're thinking of are blatantly offensive. There's nothing subtle or hidden about the offensive material, it's the entire point of the song. Anyone listening to it knows exactly what they're listening to and either doesn't care or likes the fact that it's offensive. Telling people that it's offensive is just going to get a " off" in response. But most of the people listening to "Baby it's Cold Outside" probably aren't thinking of it as more than just a classic song, and certainly aren't gleefully enjoying the image of drugging a woman and raping her. So pointing out the unfortunate implications of its lyrics in 2018 actually has a purpose.

Right, because people who willingly listen to stuff that is overtly championing offensive, immoral, and illegal behavior is ok, while people who listen to something that can potentially be interpreted as offensive, immoral, and illegal is the worst thing ever and they should be shamed for doing so.

The performance in question was stupid. The correct response however would have been just to remove the audience participation part.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Right, because people who willingly listen to stuff that is overtly championing offensive, immoral, and illegal behavior is ok, while people who listen to something that can potentially be interpreted as offensive, immoral, and illegal is the worst thing ever and they should be shamed for doing so.

I didn't say it was ok, I said the people listening to that garbage aren't going to listen to criticism and you're probably wasting your time if you try. Nor did I say that "Baby it's Cold Outside" is the worst thing ever and anyone who listens to it should be shamed. Please don't make straw man arguments.

The performance in question was stupid. The correct response however would have been just to remove the audience participation part.

Correct according to whose standards? Why is "well, now that the audience participation part is gone this isn't much fun anymore, let's find a different song" not a correct response? Why is this group obligated to keep the song in their show?

 Luciferian wrote:
I was just trying to spur discussion.

Fair enough. I'll dial it back a bit.

 Luciferian wrote:
it means that she makes a joke about being roofied.

She wasn't. That's not what the line means in the slightest.

 Peregrine wrote:
Correct according to whose standards? Why is "well, now that the audience participation part is gone this isn't much fun anymore, let's find a different song" not a correct response? Why is this group obligated to keep the song in their show?

Lets make some things clear here for a second;
1. The song wasn’t removed from the choirs’ repertoire because of ‘offensive lyrics’. It was removed because the choir has an awful performance that goes with it or it’s members don’t like singing the song. It’s an excuse.
2. The fact that there is an article around the potential offensive lyrics of this Little Mermaid song is a trap designed to lure discussion around that subject instead of dealing with the real issue (the Choir’s performance is poor).

This is what annoys people. The choir seems unwilling to accept criticism and state something like; ‘yes, sorry we tried to make a mother and son kiss on stage during a rendition of a song about two potential lovers kissing’ and instead have stated ‘that Disney song has to be cut because it is clearly polluting our minds and the minds of others with its filth, it’s definitely not our fault.’

I had the impression this was what HBMC was commenting on when he made this thread - the blame culture and lack of self analysis that is prevalent in this day and age and presented perfectly in this news story. Not to mention how stupid it all is.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I had the impression this was what HBMC was commenting on when he made this thread - the blame culture and lack of self analysis that is prevalent in this day and age and presented perfectly in this news story. Not to mention how stupid it all is.

You had the wrong impression. HBMC is repeating a trend they've demonstrated in the past, posting an example of how the "SJW PC FEMINAZI REGRESSIVE LEFT" is ruining everything as a political argument. That's why they presented it as the group removing the song because of the "consent issues" in the lyrics and omitted the part about awkwardly getting random strangers to kiss on stage, the intent is to get you outraged about how poor innocent Disney songs are being banned by the evil SJWs and how the SJWs have gone too far. The intent is to get you laughing at how SJWs think that a "cartoon crab" is offensive, and hope that you don't bother to look more carefully into the issue and see that the real objection was something entirely different and a lot more legitimate. HMBC has done this over and over again in the past, each time equally dishonest.

(You'll note a repeat of this dishonest anti-SJW outrage tactic in HBMC's reply in this thread, citing an example of a group voluntarily deciding "nah, we're not doing this play this year" as "banning" the play.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I had the impression this was what HBMC was commenting on when he made this thread - the blame culture and lack of self analysis that is prevalent in this day and age and presented perfectly in this news story. Not to mention how stupid it all is.

You had the wrong impression. HBMC is repeating a trend they've demonstrated in the past, posting an example of how the "SJW PC FEMINAZI REGRESSIVE LEFT" is ruining everything as a political argument. That's why they presented it as the group removing the song because of the "consent issues" in the lyrics and omitted the part about awkwardly getting random strangers to kiss on stage, the intent is to get you outraged about how poor innocent Disney songs are being banned by the evil SJWs and how the SJWs have gone too far. The intent is to get you laughing at how SJWs think that a "cartoon crab" is offensive, and hope that you don't bother to look more carefully into the issue and see that the real objection was something entirely different and a lot more legitimate. HMBC has done this over and over again in the past, each time equally dishonest.

(You'll note a repeat of this dishonest anti-SJW outrage tactic in HBMC's reply in this thread, citing an example of a group voluntarily deciding "nah, we're not doing this play this year" as "banning" the play.)

Seems a stretch man. This isn’t what I get from the OP at all and to be fair it’s not up to us to decide if this is a political thread disguised as something else it’s up to the mods - so I wouldn’t worry about it honestly.

I don’t know about HBMC’s post history so can’t comment on that.

What I can see from this thread however is that you were the second person to post and it is you who brought up any notion of ‘SJWs’.

Either way I’m sure politics chat is banned so we should probably stop right? Personally I think it’s more of a social thing and don’t see an anti-left agenda here but I’m not massively bothered as ultimately that decision is up to the mods.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don’t know about HBMC’s post history so can’t comment on that.

And this is the key point. You aren't familiar with HBMC's history, I am. When put in the context of HBMC's previous posts this one fits into the pattern exactly as I described. Trust me on this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Should'a known Perry'd be in here championing the perennially offended.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All this being said, it's hardly ripping up the very foundations of western civilisation just to stop singing a Disney song at a university concert.

I don't believe I ever said it was.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From what I can read in the story, the choir have handled it well. They've taken on board the criticism and decided to shelve that number until they can figure uot how to bring it back without making people uncomfortable.

The problem is that people complained about the song at all. They shouldn't stop singing it because people start bleating about 'consent'. It removes the meaning behind the song in the film, the entire plot of the film, and it's a song from a cartoon sung by a crab for feth's sake.

The people kissing on stage part? Well that's weird, and easy to fix. You just stop doing that. Why does the song itself have to go away?

Then again, I 'spose there are dumber reasons to ban things.

 Luciferian wrote:
I'm sure everyone's heard about "Baby it's Cold Outside" being pulled from radio stations... now that song has some creepy lyrics.

It absolutely doesn't.

The second post in this thread (I'm discounting Perry's because... well... Perry!) talks about context.

Context is king (or, if you prefer, queen).

Anytime you remove something's context and then claim it's bad, you are showing your ignorance. 'Bady It's Cold Outside' has nothing to do with date rape or slipping someone a roofie (or however you spell that*). It's about two people wanting to get it on in a time when saying such things out loud was not the done thing.

*I'm at work. Not about to start searching the spelling of that word on a work computer.

I quickly put peregrine on my ignore list. I'm glad to see other peolle find him irritating too.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I quickly put peregrine on my ignore list. I'm glad to see other peolle find him irritating too.

Ah yes, the popular "post pseudoscientific garbage and then proudly declare that you have blocked anyone who points out how terrible your arguments are" strategy. I guess that's the kind of echo chamber you have to create for yourself to continue to believe in your "marching morons" nonsense.

Even tho i didn't see the above post, I imagine it rang with the sound of ruffled feathers...

You'll notice there's only one person constantly attacking me personally rather than addressing the absurd notion that Kiss the Girl is 'problematic' due to 'issues of consent'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You'll notice there's only one person constantly attacking me personally rather than addressing the absurd notion that Kiss the Girl is 'problematic' due to 'issues of consent'.

But he was right. You are still misrepresenting the "absurd notion". The problematic aspect was forcing two people to kiss on stage, not the song. You clearly just want to spread your own politically motivated outrage, even when you have to misrepresent the truth to do it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You'll notice there's only one person constantly attacking me personally rather than addressing the absurd notion that Kiss the Girl is 'problematic' due to 'issues of consent'.

I see you're going to double down on your dishonesty and then try to play the martyr about how calling you on it (and your previous anti-SJW nonsense) is somehow attacking you personally.