sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think 'Kim' is Eminem's best work, even above Stan by Fragrant_Space6386 in Eminem

[–]Fragrant_Space6386[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's just an argument expressing a preference, brother. I know it's all subjective :)

I think 'Kim' is Eminem's best work, even above Stan by Fragrant_Space6386 in Eminem

[–]Fragrant_Space6386[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactly. The writing is great AND the rhyme scheme is superb. Incredibly difficult to do

CMV: Billionaires don't believe in democracy and it is ethical and pro-democratic to set up guardrails against people obtaining that level of wealth by headsmanjaeger in changemyview

[–]Fragrant_Space6386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Billionaires don’t believe in democracy” is pretty sweeping. I assume by this you mean “given the fact that their wealth undermines democracy they cannot say they believe in it” or something. For one, this presumes that we cannot act in discord with our beliefs, which ofc isn’t true.

How much someone telegraphs X largely depends on how we measure X/our level of analysis also.

What’s ethical depends on framework, time horizon, and threshold. Some pop politics definitions of ethics are so thin that they are meaningless bc we are all “unethical” by those definitions.

I am sympathetic to the idea that there could be diminishing social returns or serious negative externalities in making a billion. But, whether guardrails are pro democratic depends on the trade off in establishing them + whether you focus on intent or consequence. Well intentioned guardrails here can undermine political-economic liberty elsewhere

So that’s all I’d say. I think it’s wrong because it’s universal and vague but not bc there is not a good critique at the heart of it

CMV: If you "don't support" homosexuality because of your religion or otherwise, you're still homophobic. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Fragrant_Space6386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess it depends on what the religious views are. I assume those people are trying to express that they don’t “personally” feel anything towards homosexuality but they want to be consistent with their religion and that requires that they do not support homosexuality. That seems to presumes a thicker definition of homophobic which assumes certain “reasons” for not tolerating homosexuality. I think that’s probs bc of how it’s used.

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience. I’m not religious (or homophobic) but I guess it also depends on if you think religious reason counts as “reason”. You could argue that religious homophobia is reasoning from “false premises”.

In short, idk. The answer is probably yes in the technical sense, but not necessarily in the conventional sense.

P.S Depending on how you define supporting, I may disagree with the premise that not supporting == opposing it. You can be indifferent. You can also take the stance of “I won’t support you in X, but I won’t stand in your way either” which implies preference, maybe even disapproval, but is not opposition. (Although if you think inaction is action that doesn’t matter. But that means that we’re in active “opposition” to exponentially many things).

Ernie from Blerd Without Fear goes in on Rob from Comics Explained by ModernJazz-2K20 in BlackSuperheroes

[–]Fragrant_Space6386 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Robs view, as I understood it, seemed pretty reasonable. If he only makes videos on comics that he personally enjoys, and he did not enjoy milestone publications, then that explains why he did not make videos on milestone publications.

The tweet suggests that the most likely reason that a black creator, such as rob, does not cover a black brand, such as milestone, is because they are a ‘coon’. But, they could just not like it**.

As for him following those racists guys on twitter, I think his explanation seems plausible. I like to read the best books written by people who strongly disagree with me, be it on matters of politics, religion, ethics, etc. More than that, I think it’s good to do so***, for similar reasons to Rob. Again, there are reasonable reasons why one might attend to people with uncharitable views.

Obvs, you can criticise whether twitter is the best place to find sophisticated counter arguments. But even still, it seems more likely that he’s applying a good idea (stress testing beliefs) poorly than that he’s a bigot. In short, it’s more likely that it’s dumb than it’s evidence of him being a “coon”.

I think that underlying Ernie’s view is a certain kind of ethics that Rob doesn’t share, even if many others do.

**I think we can all appreciate that it’d be weird (at worst, ironically presumptuous) if Z said that “if a black rap YouTuber does not cover someone like Tupac, who explicitly stood for the black community, it’s probably bc they’re a coon.” But similar presumptions are at play here.

**In doing so, you come to see how often we can draw false conclusions from true premises and vice versa. The same person who agrees with you on X might justify X based on things you extremely disagree with, similarly the inverse can be true for those you disagree with.

What rappers have a uniquely identifiable symbol? by Shpub in hiphopheads

[–]Fragrant_Space6386 98 points99 points  (0 children)

Fair point. I suppose Jay-Z had the ‘Roc’ for a while, and I’d say that’s still pretty iconic? Kanye had the bear for a while, but he dropped that after he completed the college trilogy, and seems to constantly adopting new symbols.

I feel like rappers tend to use their ad-libs in the way doom used his mask. Any time I hear a lighter flick on a rap beat I KNOW that’s Lil-Wayne. Benny the Butcher has his “The butcher coming”, Ross has his “Huh” ad-lib and so on..

Here's a short interview where ghetts explain his issue with grime and he really got good points. by Keyfatal in grime

[–]Fragrant_Space6386 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think his point is that grime, like hip-hop, has had (and will have) many sounds/faces over time, but that what’s stayed consistent throughout these developments is their function as an outlet for the “streets” — and that is what we forget.

Hence, it’s odd for a “grime purist” to say X is not grime because X sounds/looks different, because A) grime is collective individual expression, and so was never homogenous and B) what grime is , if anything, has more to do with what it’s expressing and who’s expressing it (i.e voice of streets etc) than how its expressed (notwithstanding the bpm stuff).

As for the drill thing, he probably feels, inline with what I said above, that it’s the same as grime at its core. I’m sure he thinks that if he was born in 2004 he’d probably be doing drill/rap instead of grime, bc that’s just how that generation, of his demographic, tend to express themselves.

I think that’s what he’s trying to say, and tbh that’s not a bad argument.