5 ms·
Well, it is dangerous. In classic right wing fashion, it starts off talking about economic elites, but pretty quickly starts running off into welfare abusers a
by rjbwork 3y ago
Well, it is dangerous. In classic right wing fashion, it starts off talking about economic elites, but pretty quickly starts running off into welfare abusers and people who don't know how to properly feed themselves using benefits, as if this is any significant fraction of the ills plaguing our society. Half the song is about resentment towards other poor/working class people.
- kup0 3y agoExactly, "Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half" is the best way to describe this song. If the target of the song didn't change from an actual source of problems (the rich/economic elite) to conservative scapegoats (other poor/working class people) it would have resonated far more with me and actually could have been a song that might have had a chance of finding more common ground between people that typically disagree vehemently. It's no surprise the entire song resonated with a lot of people, plenty of which I'm sure, as they always have, are okay allowing the the "rich men north of richmond" to turn them against themselves and others like them with that scapegoating
- GlibMonkeyDeath 3y agoYou nailed it - singing about low pay, hard conditions, and evil bosses is a folk music tradition. But bitching about the obese on welfare eating fudge are decidedly NOT common themes in this style of music. Here is another version of the music video that illustrates the message (substitute "fudge" for "cookies")..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlL2sKWHaQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlL2sKWHaQ0