5 ms·

If you have no objection to a band, song or album cover that degrades your mother or someone else you love and revere, then hey, maybe it should all be fair gam

If you have no objection to a band, song or album cover that degrades your mother or someone else you love and revere, then hey, maybe it should all be fair game. Do you understand where I'm getting at? That's how Christians feel with names like that. P.S. I don't think for a second that the name of someone you love should be degraded. Nor should someone I love either. That's my point.

GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
I am not quite sure that I do understand. Firstly I don't have any problem with art mocking my mother or anyone else. Secondly I think mocking my mother is more personal than mocking my religion so your argument doesn't quite work. Thirdly people of many religions listen to black metal, and are aware that often it is a parody of itself.
- breadnwater 14y ago
  I don't believe you. Ditto @Buzaga
  - booruguru 14y ago
    Well then there's nothing further to discuss.
Buzaga 14y ago
what happened to "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Yes, I don't object.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
user24 14y ago
Almost anything is offensive to some group or other. Who decides, a benevolent dictator?
pseut 14y ago
So, you want the "next big thing," but not the next sex pistols? I agree that you should encourage civil and thoughtful discussion on the site (can't check it out now because of HN load, I assume) but I'm sure you know lots of new important music is controversial. And it's easy to forget that some massively influential and accepted bands started out controversial. Controversial usually means "offensive to many" so you might want to reassess your decision here. And to address the quote specifically: >If you have no objection to a band, song or album cover that degrades your mother or someone else you love and revere, then hey, maybe it should all be fair game. I wouldn't want users to degrade me or my family. But I've got no problem with a band calling itself "kill the families of all the atheists" (wouldn't go out of my way to listen to them, but that's a separate issue -- I'm an atheist, btw, so I'll choose that example) and if they're good their music should be on any good music site. Depending on where you want to go with the project, it might be better to design the site to discourage participation by people who take band names and lyrics personally. Those people often don't have a lot to contribute to music discussions anyway... edit: typos. Also I realize now that this is addressed as though I'm replying to the author of the original service, but I'm probably not. Sorry for any confusion that causes.
dhugiaskmak 14y ago
So NBT is a site for Christians to find Christian music?
booruguru 14y ago
I don't care if you or anyone else is offended by thoughts. Lots of people offend me and I don't begrudge their right to do so. I believe 90% of music is unlistenable. Another 9 percent ranges from mediocre to acceptable. Most of the remaining 1% was produced years, if not decades, ago. I honestly don't understand how vocalizing one's desire to urinate on his "beoytch" constitutes music. But I'm not going to dictate to people "what is" and "is not" art. I mean, people screamed bloody murder about Elvis and the Beatles back in the day. And it wasn't too long ago rock & rock was a profane evil poisoning young minds. Twitter, Facebook, etc... can get by just fine with nothing but farmville marketing spam and lolcat videos. However, art and censorship don't mix. That's why the puritans at Apple label "explicit" music rather than ban it outright.

GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago

I am not quite sure that I do understand. Firstly I don't have any problem with art mocking my mother or anyone else. Secondly I think mocking my mother is more personal than mocking my religion so your argument doesn't quite work. Thirdly people of many religions listen to black metal, and are aware that often it is a parody of itself.

breadnwater 14y ago
I don't believe you. Ditto @Buzaga
- booruguru 14y ago
  Well then there's nothing further to discuss.

Buzaga 14y ago

what happened to "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Yes, I don't object.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

user24 14y ago

Almost anything is offensive to some group or other. Who decides, a benevolent dictator?

pseut 14y ago

So, you want the "next big thing," but not the next sex pistols? I agree that you should encourage civil and thoughtful discussion on the site (can't check it out now because of HN load, I assume) but I'm sure you know lots of new important music is controversial. And it's easy to forget that some massively influential and accepted bands started out controversial. Controversial usually means "offensive to many" so you might want to reassess your decision here. And to address the quote specifically: >If you have no objection to a band, song or album cover that degrades your mother or someone else you love and revere, then hey, maybe it should all be fair game. I wouldn't want users to degrade me or my family. But I've got no problem with a band calling itself "kill the families of all the atheists" (wouldn't go out of my way to listen to them, but that's a separate issue -- I'm an atheist, btw, so I'll choose that example) and if they're good their music should be on any good music site. Depending on where you want to go with the project, it might be better to design the site to discourage participation by people who take band names and lyrics personally. Those people often don't have a lot to contribute to music discussions anyway... edit: typos. Also I realize now that this is addressed as though I'm replying to the author of the original service, but I'm probably not. Sorry for any confusion that causes.

dhugiaskmak 14y ago

So NBT is a site for Christians to find Christian music?

booruguru 14y ago

I don't care if you or anyone else is offended by thoughts. Lots of people offend me and I don't begrudge their right to do so. I believe 90% of music is unlistenable. Another 9 percent ranges from mediocre to acceptable. Most of the remaining 1% was produced years, if not decades, ago. I honestly don't understand how vocalizing one's desire to urinate on his "beoytch" constitutes music. But I'm not going to dictate to people "what is" and "is not" art. I mean, people screamed bloody murder about Elvis and the Beatles back in the day. And it wasn't too long ago rock & rock was a profane evil poisoning young minds. Twitter, Facebook, etc... can get by just fine with nothing but farmville marketing spam and lolcat videos. However, art and censorship don't mix. That's why the puritans at Apple label "explicit" music rather than ban it outright.