Christians refusing to listen to certain bands...

[Blind Guardian]

Maybe it isn't out of fear it will poision your mind though, maybe it feels like pissing on your own beliefs. Picture if a black guy likes the music of Rahowa, and then finds out about their message, i doubt he could still like them.

 

[Zephyrus]

Maybe it isn't out of fear it will poision your mind though, maybe it feels like pissing on your own beliefs. Picture if a black guy likes the music of Rahowa, and then finds out about their message, i doubt he could still like them.

By that rationale a Jew won't listen to Wagner.

But I've dwelt on this issue, and I suppose a line can be drawn between active extremism and the majority tongue-in-cheek thematic trends of extreme metal. I believe there was a similar thread about NSBM.

 

[AchrisK]

^Not an exact match, as there are no lyrics. Yes, it could influence some Jews, but it may not bother others, because they will not be subjected to lyrics which may offend them.

 

[swizzlenuts]

As I said before, it shows weakness of faith to fear this music...

Whoa, you made a good point.

 

[Dak]

Whoa, you made a good point.

LOL. That's as absurd as arguing a straight guy should get fucked in the ass regularly to prove he isn't "weak in his heterosexuality".

 

[Thoth-Amon]

By that rationale a Jew won't listen to Wagner.

But I've dwelt on this issue, and I suppose a line can be drawn between active extremism and the majority tongue-in-cheek thematic trends of extreme metal. I believe there was a similar thread about NSBM.

My composition teacher was half-Jewish and he said he was apprehensive about listening to Wagner for that very reason.

 

[Carcassian]

LOL. That's as absurd as arguing a straight guy should get fucked in the ass regularly to prove he isn't "weak in his heterosexuality".

No it isn't. It would be as absurd as a straight guy fearing hearing a homosexual talk about his love of homsexuality. I don't think King Diamond is going to be kicking the doors in at Zephs friends house and forcing him into a black mass anytime soon.

Mind you, he hasn't released any music in ages, so that crazy Dane could be up to anything. Sneaky bastard Satanists.

 

[J.]

this is just like those morons who refuse to listen to NS music because they disagree with lyrical content.

they exist. no sense in getting butthurt over it

if you really want this guy to listen to king diamond, just tell him it will make his faith stronger becuase he will know Satan's music so as to warn others not to listen. keep your enemies closer and all that....

 

[Thoth-Amon]

No it isn't. It would be as absurd as a straight guy fearing hearing a homosexual talk about his love of homsexuality. I don't think King Diamond is going to be kicking the doors in at Zephs friends house and forcing him into a black mass anytime soon.

Mind you, he hasn't released any music in ages, so that crazy Dane could be up to anything. Sneaky bastard Satanists.

he put out an album last year

 

[Carcassian]

Like I said, fucking sneaky bastard Satanists.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

If there was this awesome heavy metal band that sang about introducing Sharia laws and muslim values into secular European societies and so on, I probably wouldn't listen to it.

 

[Dak]

No it isn't. It would be as absurd as a straight guy fearing hearing a homosexual talk about his love of homsexuality. I don't think King Diamond is going to be kicking the doors in at Zephs friends house and forcing him into a black mass anytime soon.

Mind you, he hasn't released any music in ages, so that crazy Dane could be up to anything. Sneaky bastard Satanists.

Fair enough, so I am weak in my heterosexuality just because any conversation about gay sex (particularly M+M)is practically vomit inducing and offensive in general? I think not.

As far as the music/conversations etc go, it might be possible that it would be rejected due to weakness, but to just assume that is pretty shortsighted.

If there was this awesome heavy metal band that sang about introducing Sharia laws and muslim values into secular European societies and so on, I probably wouldn't listen to it.

But dude, what if it's really awesome music? You could be missing out because of stupid opposing personal beliefs!

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Like I said, fucking sneaky bastard Satanists.

carc always brings the lolz

 

[Carcassian]

Fair enough, so I am weak in my sexuality just because any conversation about gay sex (particularly M+M)is practically vomit inducing and offensive in general? I think not.

As far as the music/conversations etc go, it might be possible that it would be rejected due to weakness, but to just assume that is pretty shortsighted.

I think that current (politically correct) thinking is that a dislike for this kind of conversation would imply a fear of sexuality or potential homesexual tendencies which you are suppressing - hence my minor change and emboldening in your text. (I quickly add that I do not subscribe to that theory, but there you go). Yes, the whole analogy is rather stretched!

You are also right in saying that assuming it is fear that motivated this fellow to switch off the stereo is short sighted. He may just have found it offensive; this is something which had not occurred to me when I read the first post. Satanism (to me) is an even more ridiculous notion, something akin to an evil pantomime. As an atheist, the one thing I find more bemusing than belief in God is that someone would (in real life) support Satan. I also find the Christian belief in Satan really rather incredible. My wife, as a Christian for example, believes in Satan.

That aside, I suppose that if I were forced to listen to music where the lyrics were something like "Carcassian and all his family are a bunch of fucking cunts" over and over again, I might switch the iPod off too.

 

[skeptik]

Everyone ignored my previous quote, so maybe a shorter, more to the point Dickie quote (actually, more of a paraphrase) will suffice:

Aesthetic and moral aspects of works of art are not mutually exclusive. If a work has a false moral vision, then something is lacking within the work itself and is thus an aesthetic fault. Moral coherence is an aesthetic category, part of the work...To judge a moral vision to be morally unacceptable is to judge it defective and this amounts to saying that the work of art has a defective aspect.

 

[Dak]

That aside, I suppose that if I were forced to listen to music where the lyrics were something like "Carcassian and all his family are a bunch of fucking cunts" over and over again, I might switch the iPod off too.

Good analogy.

 

[challenge_everything]

I agree with Zeph.

This is basically a function of the Christian slave morality which decrees that one should remove the source of temptation and sin, rather than learning to overcome the urge inside oneself. Who does Christianity hold up as its exemplars? People like St Benedict, St Jerome and St Augustine, and so on, who all at some stage lived as ascetics and hermits, as they believed that they would be corrupted by the vices of humanity, sex, wealth, gluttony, and this included all forms of art and science. In a sense, the highest virtue becomes abstinence and these people live lives motivated almost solely by the fear of sin. There's no sense that these so-called sins are challenges to test one's fortitude and faith, despite the fact that a Christian could live a perfectly moral life surrounded by the utmost depravity. It's the same for Muslims who believe that women should be covered to avoid the men being tempted.

 

[challenge_everything]

Aesthetic and moral aspects of works of art are not mutually exclusive. If a work has a false moral vision, then something is lacking within the work itself and is thus an aesthetic fault. Moral coherence is an aesthetic category, part of the work...To judge a moral vision to be morally unacceptable is to judge it defective and this amounts to saying that the work of art has a defective aspect.

What is this polemic? There is no rational support for such a view, or at least, no argument was made in your quote. In fact, such an argument is almost impossible to sustain because it requires acceptance of a universal objective standard by which to measure art. If I say I like an album despite deeply disagreeing with its moral foundations, that alone is enough to disprove any such argument. I would accept that "aesthetic and moral aspects of works of art are NOT NECESSARILY mutually exclusive" but it all comes back to what criteria are important (to the beholder) when assessing the art.

 

[Zephyrus]

My composition teacher was half-Jewish and he said he was apprehensive about listening to Wagner for that very reason.

That's because he's a poser Jew trying to make up for his non-Jewness by acting overly Jewish.

 

[skeptik]

You are not reading it correctly if that is the conclusion you're coming up with. What it's basically saying is what Cythraul said, namely that it's acceptable to discount a work of art on moral grounds. It's not saying that it's required that you reject a work of art if it goes against your moral principles. The "necessarily" is implied, otherwise he would have said "aesthetic and moral aspects of works of art are mutually inclusive." Just because a work of art has a fault or "blemish" in it does not mean that one cannot enjoy it, whether this is a moral fault or a fault in songwriting, playing, production, etc. All Dickie is claiming here is that moral judgment is one more facet of aesthetics upon which artworks are judged, which is too frequently dismissed. The fact that you were obliged to use the word "despite" indicates that you actually agree with what he said.