What the actual fuck.

[firerain]

I haven't been this pissed in a while.

I was discussing something with a friend of mine and he told me to go check out this groups MySpace page called Paranormal Circle and see how disgusted I get. So I went and had a look.

Basically they're a bunch of 20-30 year old obese, white morbid fucks.

He told me to listen to the song called 'Black Van'. This is where I fucking raged.

This song is fucking advocating the abduction, rape and torture of teenage girls. So after being thoroughly pissed off I decided to listen to another one of their shitastic white-trash, fanarchist pieces of shit they call music. I raged even harder.

I'm taking a bunch of flak from other "anarchists" about opposing it, they are saying they have the rights to say it. I said fuck no, they don't have a right to advocate that shit. They are equating me to a statist for saying I would beat the fuck out of those people, because I'm imposing my own moral values on them and essentially censoring them. Am I wrong to advocate violence toward people for advocating violence?

They definitely believe the act is wrong, but they believe speaking about it is alright. What the fuck? My argument is, is that Charles Manson is still a serial killer, even though he only talked about killing people.

I watch, and listen to, a lot of violent shit. I'm a fan of ultra violent media. Is there a difference and where is the boundary? Is it censorship to actively oppose them and get them shutdown? I mean Tipper Gore claimed to have the best interests of children at heart when she attacked Twisted Sister.

Like, I listen to the Misfits as an example. They have a song called Skulls where they talk about "hack the heads off little girls and put them on my wall." and yet I jam the fuck out to that song, but it's quirky and stupid, not graphic and seemingly real. It talks about cutting her throat as she cries for help, it's insane.

Here's the link for anyone who wants to listen, song is called 'Black Van':
http://www.myspace.com/paranormalcircleproductions


Here's the question I leave you with:

What justifies advocating the abduction and murder of teenage girls? Is there a difference and is there a boundary? Is it censorship to actively oppose them and get them shutdown?

[Arrow]

[Posting quote from IRC to stimulate discussion.]

23:34   Animus   Well firerain, it's like anything else
23:34   Animus   they're just talking.
23:34   Animus   If they did it for real, that would be another thing
23:34   Animus   but right now it's just words
23:35   Animus   if you censor them, you'd have to censor everything else that morally outraged people
23:35   Animus   "Are you There God? It's Me, Margaret" was removed from midwest schools for being offensive
23:35   Animus   namely becaused it discussed things related to female adolescence
23:35   Animus   from an audience of, well, female adolescents
23:36   Animus   what the book discussed didn't matter here, or the audience, but the fact that it upset someone
23:36   Animus   That someone was angry enough to get the book censored.
23:36   Animus   We're in much the same situation with this song
23:36   Animus   yeah, it's pretty bad.
23:37   Animus   But they're just talking. If you censor them, then you're saying it's okay to censor morally outrageous material altogether
23:37   Animus   including that song by Misfits you mentioned. It's in pretty much the same boat.
23:37   Animus   Now then, if they're actually -advocating- that behavior
23:38   Animus   motivating people to actually go out, kidnap, rape, and murder teenage girls, explicitly
23:38   Animus   and I stress explicitly, implying that someone should isn't enough
23:38   Animus   then that's a different line of discussion
23:39   Animus   The KKK is horrible, but we have to let them exist and speak their hatred because they have the right to as American citizens, and they must retain that right in order for us to retain our own.
23:40   Animus   Now, all that said, I really hate this song and I doubt I'll be listening to this band ever. I will excercise my right to speak in saying that the song is royally grade a fucked up bullshit and should be destroyed.

[firerain]

Forgot to mention these guys are 'anarchists'.

Arrow, I do agree with most of what you said, and being an anarchist myself, felt I needed to add this.

Anarchism is not a magic blanket that protects people who speak freely from accountability. Anarchism is all about individuals being accountable for what they do and say. We aren't going out and saying they can't speak freely, we're saying they can't advocate rape and murder without repercussion. I don't see the problem with advocating violence against people who advocate violence

[Holkeye]

Being a white suburban, there was a time that I considered myself "anarchist," even though I was basically just an angsty teen. Growing up, and learning how to learn, I soon discovered that anarchy has little to do with anger, and more to do with the idea of a lack of government. The first problem that I can see with this band's entire concept is that they're falsely labeling themselves. If I had to call them anything, I'd just call them plain old shock rock. My guess would be that these people just try to write the most absurd lyrics about the most offensive subjects to inspire people to do what you just did, ie. post about them. In this day and age, if you think about something, (and I mean anything,) there's most likely a website about it with at least 10 followers. This band is just another example of that mentality. The lightning-fast exchange of ideas that goes on guarantees that anything and everything can be shared. I'd play odds that this band is nothing new, it just has more exposure today than in the past, when scathing song topics were mainly kept to the underground, and the only way to hear it was to buy a cassette tape of it at a shitty show. Shit, I know bands have been talking about this kind of stuff. Remember Anal Cunt? They had songs like, "I Became A Rape Counselor Just So I Could Tell Women That They Deserved It."

In short, this band sucks regardless of their subject matter, and anyone who calls this "anarchist" needs to go back to 10th grade Social Studies.

[Arrow]

But this returns me to what I pressed before: Are they explicitly advocating rape and murder? I feel that in order for justice to be served, they must first cross an mutually understood 'line'. Without a standard of measurement, so to speak, we'll be in a situation much similar to a witch hunt, devolving into he-said-she-said, what-they-were-really-saying-was garbage.

Furthermore violence begets violence, as has been proven time and again throughout not only American history but the history of the world. Advocating violence against those who advocate violence creates a never-ending loop of punishment. Perhaps advocating justice be done unto those who advocate violence is a more noble and reasonable effort?

EDIT: Holk is also quite right, and provides another angle of discussion to this debate that should certainly be appreciated.

[firerain]

Being a white suburban, there was a time that I considered myself "anarchist," even though I was basically just an angsty teen. Growing up, and learning how to learn, I soon discovered that anarchy has little to do with anger, and more to do with the idea of a lack of government. The first problem that I can see with this band's entire concept is that they're falsely labeling themselves. If I had to call them anything, I'd just call them plain old shock rock. My guess would be that these people just try to write the most absurd lyrics about the most offensive subjects to inspire people to do what you just did, ie. post about them. In this day and age, if you think about something, (and I mean anything,) there's most likely a website about it with at least 10 followers. This band is just another example of that mentality. The lightning-fast exchange of ideas that goes on guarantees that anything and everything can be shared. I'd play odds that this band is nothing new, it just has more exposure today than in the past, when scathing song topics were mainly kept to the underground, and the only way to hear it was to buy a cassette tape of it at a shitty show. Shit, I know bands have been talking about this kind of stuff. Remember Anal Cunt? They had songs like, "I Became A Rape Counselor Just So I Could Tell Women That They Deserved It."

In short, this band sucks regardless of their subject matter, and anyone who calls this "anarchist" needs to go back to 10th grade Social Studies.

I completely agree with this.

[spoiler=offtopic]
I just feel the need to explain myself. I'm not an anarchist because I want to be more "edgy, or that I'm an angsty teen. I understand anarchism, I've done tons of research on it. I know it's not about being angry and destroying everything in sight. Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. /offtopic[/spoiler]

But this returns me to what I pressed before: Are they explicitly advocating rape and murder? I feel that in order for justice to be served, they must first cross an mutually understood 'line'. Without a standard of measurement, so to speak, we'll be in a situation much similar to a witch hunt, devolving into he-said-she-said, what-they-were-really-saying-was garbage.

Furthermore violence begets violence, as has been proven time and again throughout not only American history but the history of the world. Advocating violence against those who advocate violence creates a never-ending loop of punishment. Perhaps advocating justice be done unto those who advocate violence is a more noble and reasonable effort?

EDIT: Holk is also quite right, and provides another angle of discussion to this debate that should certainly be appreciated.

I understand what you mean. And you're right, blow for blow never usually settles the score. As Nietsczhe put it, "Be careful when fighting monsters, lest you become one."

edit: Hang onnnnn

I dunno, maybe I'm reading it out of context, but it's coming off as you attempting to proclaim your moral is "more just" than mine.
Morality is subjective, justice is defined by your morality. I think it's well and just to choke those assholes to death. You're motivated by morality.
Your personal SUBJECTIVE morality. It is not more noble to shame someone than to kill them. It's a varying reaction to moral outrage based on subjective opinions formulated by our perception of reality.

[Arrow]

I can see where you would draw that conclusion, and that's my fault for wording my suggestion poorly.

We've established that the band's brand of violence is, by the moral standards of everyone here at least, bad.

To posit that we react to that violence with more of the same (murder unto murder, I assume) is suggesting that we make no move towards a more positive (subjectively or objectively) response.

My suggestion is that we make an attempt to find an alternative solution that is more subjectively moral, and possibly (hopefully) more objectively morale.

[Holkeye]

Just to jump back in and play Devil's Advocate, we also have to keep in mind that "murder" is, above all, a creation of humanity. The same goes for "revenge", "justice", and even morally praised creations like "love". These are all just labels that humans have given to things to fit into society. Without a system of laws, "murder" would not exist. Hell, even in our own legal system, "murder" is a relative term. I understand what arrow is trying to say in his post, but the truth is, "objective morals" don't exist. Morals ONLY exist because of subjective reasoning. Though there is an element of inherent instinct involved, the only way to prove that morals are/are not learned behavior would be to socially experiment with a group of humans born and raised away from any type of society, and learn from them. (Ironically, something that would most likely be viewed as immoral.)

[Arrow]

That's another very good point too... Something I hadn't considered before, and that is very relative. If all morality is subjective to religious or government alignment (in this case government), then as an anarchist one would logically ignore morality completely, wouldn't they?

[Holkeye]

Again, I don't know if I would try to generalize that much. I would say that morals are deeply subjective on a personal level, rather than a governmental/religious level. What I'm trying to say is that two anarchists that come from identical backgrounds could have vastly different morals, but that doesn't mean that they aren't both validly anarchists. It just means that their personal experiences have led them to different moral standings. A great example would be prostitution. Some people are vastly against it, and are disgusted by the thought. Some are forced into it by poverty or chemical dependancy. Some do it because it has the potential to be a very lucrative business.

As any argument isn't perfect, I realize that there is the argument of class-based society to my prostitution example, but I feel as if it explains my point decently enough.