Susaga

joined 1 year ago
 

"But you ARE a lawyer."

"Yeah, so where's my present?"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

We don't even know if you even read about it. Unless I have experience of what you're talking about, I can't say you're wrong. Heck, even if I have experience, I don't know that you didn't just have a different experience.

You can find a good source for your claims, or some supporting evidence, or someone else can come along and back you up. I still wouldn't know, given how easily you can fake sources on the internet, so you could still be lying.

At a certain point, you just need to take it on faith.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not American. I don't know what those terms mean. I just have a skybox.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (4 children)

My TV lets me pause live TV, so I pause, leave the room for a bit, come back and fast forward through the ads.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What wrong thing am I repeating? Where did you address the lyrics themselves and not the context the lyrics were written in? Why is my interpretation flawed? Why is your interpretation the only one allowed? How does the first portrayal of a song supporting my interpretation of the song make that a problem?

And as I asked before, yet you ignored, why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Jesus fuck, this is some bad faith. I was ignoring nothing. I was asleep. You waited 7 hours to reply to me, and you couldn't let me sleep for 5 without me "ignoring what you don’t want to hear". Waking up and seeing three extremely long comments that amount to re-explaining the historical context of the song while not actually addressing how the song is about pressuring someone into staying over didn't really seem worthy of reply.

Plus, the idea that you copied someone else's comment as spam just makes it worse.

If you're allowed to use "it's an old song" as your argument, then I'm allowed to use the first presentation of the song to the public as mine. And since the presentation of the song has ALWAYS been one person pressuring another into staying over despite their protests, it's always been rapey.

The only real defence in pointing out historical context is to say that a rapey song was not unacceptable for the time period. So what?

The song is a problem for people who don't want to hear someone pressuring someone into illicit relationships. It's not "willfully ignorant", and your idea that someone not liking something is just because they don't understand it is DEEPLY troubling.

If it's okay to be bothered by the song, as you directly state, then why the fuck are you complaining about someone being bothered by the song?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

You provided historical context while not actually addressing the contents of the song. There's really nothing to respond to. Plus, I can't have been ignoring anything since I was asleep. There is no point in spamming this.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (9 children)

...No she fucking isn't. She never says she wants to stay.

I simply must go (Baby, it's cold outside)
The answer is, "No" (But, baby, it's cold outside)

She says no. He ignores her. I don't give a fuck what was intended, I only care about what was said. What was said was a violation of consent. If you want the intent to reflect in the song to a modern ear (which are the only ears we have) then change the lyrics.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

I understand that the film was not problematic for the time period, and it was seen as romantic. I also understand that the fact it was not seen as a problem was a fucking problem. And I understand that the only way to overcome a problem is to acknowledge that there is one. Hindsight is a fucking benefit, and with the benefit of hindsight, that song is pretty fucking rapey.

Once again, the song was played TWICE in the movie, and the second one was sung with a man being convinced to stay. It was not about reputation. It was about not wanting to be there.

Why are you so insistent that the woman saying no actually wanted it?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (13 children)

And the version where they tried to tone down the rapey elements was in 2019, shortly after the #MeToo movement. We are also having this conversation today, and not in 1949.

If you're saying the standards of the time make it acceptable, I say that reflects really badly on the standards of the time. By the standards of the time, black people had fewer rights than white men. I hope to fuck we can improve upon the standards of the 1940s.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I didn't know that. Looked it up. It was only publicly released around the film, and only sung at parties before that. Also, he sold the song without his wife's consent and it almost ended their marriage.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't know that. So I looked it up, and it seems the intent of the song is to tell their guests to leave. Also, he sold the song without his wife's consent, and it almost ended their marriage.

 

So they can hide in cherry trees.

Alright, why don't you ever see elephants hiding in cherry trees?

Because they're very good at it.

 

He couldn't see that well.

 

Real person, fictional character, or even just hypothetical: I wanna hear it!

view more: next ›