Apple Music scores another exclusive with Eminem's 'Phenomenal' music video

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 77
    trumptrump Posts: 5member

    As I said you have not read my statements. We, the people are equals. Even though you seem to have a problem understanding concepts and points, but don't worry, start with 3rd grade books, (if that's too hard, maybe try 1st grade?), then proceed to 4th grade and work your way up and you will do fine. The iPhone has many great apps for that! Start off in the kids section and build your intelligence! =D



    PS - Who said anything about credentials? "Black" is not my credential., though it may be my characteristic. I am who I am...





    Stop twisting words and make me proud! Bye my son. Daddy will always love you.

  • Reply 62 of 77
    xixoxixo Posts: 431member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post

     

    Theft. Always the first refuge of the cheapskates we call "techie boyz."


     

    Piracy ? Theft.

     

    If I take your bicycle, you can't ride it, because I now possess it, instead of you.

     

    If I copy your intellectual property, you can still use/sell/etc it, because we both have a copy.

     

    There are moral, legal, civil etc similarities between PiracyTheft but they are fundamentally different concepts.

     

    If I never intended to buy your song, pay to see your movie, subscribe to your cable channel to watch your show or purchase a license to use your software - that was never a sale you were going to make.

     

    So if I download your song/movie/TV show/software instead, it is not theft. It's piracy. But - if I download your stuff and I decide I like it, I might just buy/license a copy, or subscribe to a service that offers it - statistics/studies show this is an effect of piracy.

     

    If you make me jump through so many freaking hoops to buy/license your stuff that I never want to do business with you (ahem, ADOBE), whose failure is that?

     

    If you charge such a fundamentally high price for your stuff, beyond the perceived market value (ahem, COMCAST), that people want to pirate it instead, whose failure is that?

     

    And, finally, if you totally screw over the content creators who make the intellectual property that you, as a middleman in the marketplace, offer for sale (ahem, RIAA), whose moral failing is that?

     

    "Rip, Mix, Burn" was considered 'piracy' by the RIAA, back in the Napster days. Times change.

     

  • Reply 63 of 77
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,234member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    You're not even understanding your own words. You say that wigger is fine, because you didn't say nigger even though it means white nigger, and your stated reasoning is that it's because you are referring to a "white person" and not a "black person" as a nigger. It's the same context for nigger.

    That's a complete distortion of what I said.  You haven't understood anything.

  • Reply 64 of 77
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    trump wrote: »
    PS - "Black" is not my credential. Being me, under God, is my credential.

    And yet that's what you repeatedly used to back up your comments, and happens to be the antithesis of my point that such a designation shouldn't exist at all… especially behind a computer.
  • Reply 65 of 77
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    1) Of course he has.



    2) Eminem is what you consider a rational and fair measure as to who gets to use certain words, regardless of context? Really?



    3) So let me get this straight you are asserting that no one on this forum should use certain words because of an erroneous belief that Eminem doesn't use it. Whether Eminem uses it or not has no bearing on whether anyone can use words in a language or not. Are you saying that you get to decide this because you are self-proclaimed "black man, African-American man, Negro man"? Are you saying that no one else on this forum identifies as such which is why you can dictate what you deem to be proper lexicon usage? Do you not see how saying that one group of people are allowed to do something that another group of people can't do, based on "race", is a racist? it wasn't so sad I'd find it ironic.

     

    Have to enjoy how people pick what they want, ignore what they want, and twist what they want.

     

    1) I said, "Eminem never used the n-word, at least not in public and not since becoming famous, so neither should any of you." And he has not that I know of in a public forum or since becoming famous publicly. Never said he never used the word in private pre or post fame, only said in public since becoming famous.

     

    2) Never said he was the measuring stick for using the word or any words. Since this story is about him, I used him as an example. Believe I also mentioned Chris Rock and others, but hey, why pay attention to that right... it wouldn't fit your views. Never said any one race should or can use a word that others cannot, thanks for making up things in my comment. I said no one should use that word, no one - is that clear?

     

    3) Also in bold in big font I said I, not you, not anyone else... ME and only me and these are MY thoughts. You don't have to agree, I really do not care, but I'm entitled to my opinion and thoughts. I truly do not care what you or anyone thinks or says, you can use the word all day everyday at work, in school, with your friends & family, in the mall -- I do not care! I personally hate the word and feel no one should ever use it and believe since I was born and raised in the US of A I'm entitled to think and feel that word is abhorrent. I know other African-Americans use this site, great, I'm not here to befriend them or anyone else, I'm here to read tech news about Apple. If you or anyone else feels comfortable using that word here, have it, but I think anyone who uses that word is lacking self-awareness and a certain amount of intelligence. People should be able to communicate their thoughts and feelings without cursing endlessly and using offensive language. That word was and is still used as one of a large number of ways to keep a race of down and belittle them. I've got into heated debates with my "Black" friends who use that word regularly, and they know how I feel and they still use it. That's fine, I'm not here to change others, I can only control myself. Would anyone go up to a Mexican, Jew, Native American Indians, Chinese and use any of the many racist terms to their face? Anyway... do/think/say as you all want, I choose to think higher.

     

    This will along with the murders in the South Carolina church and many endless examples will forever keep from using these words, because he was not an n'. He was a strong man who was forced to live a life no human should have to endure. You like to use it, even put an "a" at the end instead of an "er," have at it and have fun. To each his own. I'm done on this subject.

     

     

     

  • Reply 66 of 77
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    I said, "Eminem never used the n-word, at least not in public and not since becoming famous, so neither should any of you." And he has not that I know of in a public forum or since becoming famous publicly. Never said he never used the word in private pre or post fame, only said in public since becoming famous.

    What part of HE HAS USED IT IN PUBLIC is hard to understand. Furthermore, you could have spent 5 seconds checking before you posted that BS argument as a fact.


    [VIDEO]

    I said no one should use that word, no one - is that clear?

    That's very clear, which is why I'm annoyed at you and people like you to think an arbitrary word is the problem and not the context in which a word is used. I even gave many examples as to how racists comments are used without saying any of these taboo words.
    but I'm entitled to my opinion and thoughts.

    You are, and I support your right to have your opinions and thoughts, but you don't sound like you support my ability to have options and thoughts about your myopic and blatantly false comments.
    That word was and is still used as one of a large number of ways to keep a race of down and belittle them.

    And it always have that ability if people like you keep blindly giving it the power regardless of context.
    Would anyone go up to a Mexican, Jew, Native American Indians, Chinese and use any of the many racist terms to their face?

    If the situation called for me to recite a racial slur that was written or spoken previously I would do so. Let's say here x-race abusing y-race (your race is undetermined). You then go to the police to report this abuse and one or more of the cops are y-race. Do you change your story because you're speaking to y-race or do you tell them what happened? I would be honest with them. I would hope that you would, too.
    I've got into heated debates with my "Black" friends who use that word regularly, and they know how I feel and they still use it.

    And part of the problem is that you have to mention "my' Black' friends" instead of simply stating that you have gotten into debates of its usage in modern society with your friends or peers. When you understand why making that a factor is a big reason why racism will persist I suspect you'll stop wording your comments that way.
  • Reply 67 of 77
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,150member

    As long as Jules is talking to Marcellus Wallace, he can always say "Shit Negro, that's all I wanted you to say".

  • Reply 68 of 77
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Once you start seeng past race you'll understand that a contextually derogatory statement affects everyone in a society. You think the string of letters is what's "evil" when that is the chance act though the evolution of language, not something that endures though all time and space. Words have no special powers unless you choose to make it so.

    How about letting go of this notion of race as being as absurd as organizing people by height, hair color, eye color, or anything else that is simply a variation of human variety?

    You're approaching this from the point of view that race isn't any more a valid identifier than hair color so you can use a racial epithet. That's just something you decided. You can dismiss male/female identifiers the same way, they are just some biological groups and then claim to be able to use offensive terms about women.

    Ethnicity is a strong part of your identity. Some people assimilate an identity that is different from their native appearance. That was the case with the woman who put on fake tan and permed her hair and she identifies herself as black:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/16/rachel-dolezal-today-show-interview
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3126774/Investigation-Rachel-Dolezal-s-roots-reveals-no-black-relatives-dating-1671-ancestors-came-Europe-no-bloodlines-linking-slaves-Africa.html

    There was a commenter on this story that suggested that people can be transgender so put forward the possibility that people can be transethnic. Ethnicity shows up in DNA testing to prove some genetic inheritance but if you trace ancestry back far enough, every person alive has a common ancestor. By that measure everyone is the same race but words have meanings purposefully to delineate different characteristics. Geography helped create strong differences between people, aesthetically and culturally and ease of travel is helping to blur those differences. It's possible that a white parent and black parent could have one black child and one white child and one would be criticized for using the n-word and the other not, despite sharing the same parents. As I say though, we give meaning to words on purpose to define differences and the n-word was never used to define white people.

    There are some videos here with rappers discussing their feelings:









    Jennifer Lopez who is Hispanic used the n-word in a song written by the man in the first video and she was criticized for using it. They mention the white female rapper V-Nasty using it and in her interview she says that she got a lot of criticism for it but she was raised in that environment - she has black children too. There was someone latino there who was justifying their use of it but also said he'd been criticized. They generally seem to agree that the rap environment is exempt because the terms are being used creatively but V-Nasty decided to stop using it.

    Louis C K is talking about the use of offensive words here suggesting using the proxy terms like n-word are equivalent to using them outright:



    It's all down to human behavior. If you think that words can exist without weight when they are widely known, that euphemisms are meaningless and ethnicity is irrelevant then you're fooling yourself because you're denying your own associations and varied reactions to these things no matter where you put the terms. As an individual, your own desire to instantly remove the weight that words carry doesn't cause that to happen.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    If the situation called for me to recite a racial slur that was written or spoken previously I would do so.

    There are certain outlets (this forum being one of them) where the excessive use of bad language is not welcome, regardless of whether you are just saying words in a descriptive way. You wouldn't fill posts with other expletives like the c-word or homosexual slurs so why do it with this particular one? You mentioned neutral contexts but when any person communicates something in a certain place and in a certain form, that defines a specific context. When you are asked to fill out ethnicity on a form, I doubt you're marking it unknown, you identify yourself with a group. If you identify with one group and use offensive terms to describe another then it's not as a sign of affinity.

    You could only be expecting one of two outcomes here. Either you expect that black people should be prevented from using the term or everyone should be ok to use it. Given that you question why white people can't use it more than why black people can, I suspect you'd rather that everyone could use it freely but I don't see why either outcome matters. Outside of the rap environment, I can't imagine that it causes many conflicts. Inside the rap environment, it would be more inclusive to replace it with a term like brother/sister/homie. It sounds stupid when the terms are blanked out:




    The other terms don't rhyme with gold-digger of course. This choice on how to treat the word in that environment is up to each artist depending on the outcome they want. The level of offensiveness associated with the terms used is determined by the recipients, not the sender. The same goes for imagery, you can justify posting crude drawings or photos in a referential context but they still convey a meaning to people.
  • Reply 69 of 77

    Now that thread went off the rails... How an exclusive Eminem video on Apple Music can steer up a discussion about racism is beyond me. There are plenty of forums for that kind of discussion. This is just about music and Apple.

  • Reply 70 of 77
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    Marvin wrote: »
    You're approaching this from the point of view that race isn't any more a valid identifier than hair color so you can use a racial epithet. That's just something you decided.

    I expect this from other people, like [@]Apple ][[/@] and [@]Benjamin Frost[/@], but not you. If I asked you if you'd ban books or if I asked you if you were against freedom of speech I'm guessing you'd say no to both, and yet here you are arguing for the banning of an arrangement of letters and phonemes that have no meaning or effect until we choose to assign it. Do you not realize how you perpetuate the problem by bannng words, or worse, with your "corrective racism" to say that certain words in the English language need to be segregated from use baed on "race"?

    The only way these terms get defused is when you no longer allow them to be bombs. Ever notice how a child will naturally pick up and use swear words when they want attention? The reason is simple, it's the words that cause the most reaction around them? Do you remember the HBO show Deadwood? If not, it's a 19th century western that the writers tried to make authentic but had replace all of the curse words within because the authentic language would have been too comical for their audience and therefore not have the right gravitas. These offensive terms simply mean nothing today because they lost their effect and then then they could have caused a lot of problems. Why do you think they are no longer offensive today?

    Are you also then with Hillary Clinton with the banning of the Confederate flag? Do you really think that it's so hurtful that it shouldn't even be taught or shown in history books because it's negative? How the **** do you argue that McGraw-Hill gets offs on posting images of the Confederate flag simply because it's a part of a history lesson? How about we keep it from being flown at state capitals and then let it be used in it proper context as a apart of history.

    If we stop being reactionary by blindly getting emotional over something arbitrary, and instead start analyzing the context in which something is being used we wouldn't have these issue, otherwise we're just as foolish and shortsighted as the asshats that banned books because they felt they be harmful to society and said that teaching kids about safe se would lead to devious behaviour.
  • Reply 71 of 77
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    [@]SolipsismY[/@], for some reason this came to mind. I don't think it completely applies in this case, but then again if one makes a mockery of a word it will lose the power it has against you.

  • Reply 72 of 77
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
  • Reply 73 of 77
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    solipsismy wrote: »
    If I asked you if you'd ban books or if I asked you if you were against freedom of speech I'm guessing you'd say no to both, and yet here you are arguing for the banning of an arrangement of letters and phonemes that have no meaning or effect until we choose to assign it.

    It depends on what you mean by banning books e.g punishment for owning. If you mean removing from mainstream publication then there are books that I doubt you'd support:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/phillip-greaves-author-of_0_n_845795.html

    Freedom of expression allows people to express harmful commentary. It would be like having a forum where nobody ever got banned nor censored. Is that a discussion forum you'd be in favor of? You said earlier you were tired of the racism people expressed over Beats.

    I didn't suggest banning the word (whatever that means anyway) but I put it on a similar level to other expletives.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Do you not realize how you perpetuate the problem by bannng words, or worse, with your "corrective racism" to say that certain words in the English language need to be segregated from use baed on "race"?

    The only way these terms get defused is when you no longer allow them to be bombs.

    You're not proposing a way of reliably defusing the term. If your proposal was that the term from now on refers to a pickle and we use that word to now and forever more refer to a pickle then sure that will help defuse the term. It won't if you continue to use it to define someone of a certain race or culture. Your suggestion is as ridiculous as trying to defuse the word Nazi by going around calling people 'my Nazi' and putting the Swastika everywhere until people stop being offended by it. You can't erase history that way. What you can do is relegate things to history by taking things out of mainstream use and generations will forget over time. Given enough time, people won't recognize the association.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Are you also then with Hillary Clinton with the banning of the Confederate flag? Do you really think that it's so hurtful that it shouldn't even be taught or shown in history books because it's negative? How the **** do you argue that McGraw-Hill gets offs on posting images of the Confederate flag simply because it's a part of a history lesson? How about we keep it from being flown at state capitals and then let it be used in it proper context as a apart of history.

    If she suggested removing the flag from history books then I wouldn't agree with that but removing it from mainstream use makes sense to avoid it being promoted.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    If we stop being reactionary by blindly getting emotional over something arbitrary, and instead start analyzing the context in which something is being used we wouldn't have these issue.

    People exchange words, people have ethnicity, that's a context. When people use terms that are ethnically divisive in that context, it creates division between the people exchanging words. If you make absolutely clear you mean it in a different way then you can get away with it (I think the way the guy presented himself in the following video helped):



    If you don't make it clear you're using the term in a harmless way and your ethnicity is clearly white then the outcome isn't good:



    Chris Rock's take on it is here:



    'Get your Dre on, get your Jay on, get your Kanye on, it's all good but it's got to be in the song... oh there's some exceptions...'

    I understand where you're coming from on this and in general I'm not a supporter of actions that promote racial or gender division in reverse and there was a time that I didn't like the idea of not being able to use terms that others could but I quickly realised I had no need to use them and when you view the wide range of terms that vary in how they are received by who uses them, it's not something that can be undone simply by using them more i.e let them hate it until they get used to it. People have been increasing the frequency they use expletives in everyday language and while it softens how they come across, they still mean the same things they have for decades.

    To get the change you want anyway, you have to convince the majority of the target group that it's ok.
  • Reply 74 of 77
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    This thread needs some comic relief.

     

    I agree. Lets all turn our hymnals to YouTube and sing along as George Carlin leads us in a rousing list of words you can't say on TV.

     

  • Reply 75 of 77
    jackdgjackdg Posts: 4member
    I missed that interview with Eminem! Is there a way to replay that in Beats 1 Radio or do they even replay programs?
  • Reply 76 of 77
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    Lets all turn our hymnals to YouTube and sing along as George Carlin leads us in a rousing list of words you can't say on TV.

    Here's a rap video with someone doing one of Eminem's songs:


    [VIDEO]

    jackdg wrote: »
    I missed that interview with Eminem! Is there a way to replay that in Beats 1 Radio or do they even replay programs?

    There's a Beats1 channel on Youtube, I'm not sure if it's official but they have the Eminem interview:


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 77 of 77
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,393member
    Marvin wrote: »
    There's a Beats1 channel on Youtube, I'm not sure if it's official but they have the Eminem interview:


    [VIDEO]

    Sure looks like it's official.


    There's also an official Beats by Dre channel. From appearances it seems Apple may be seeing the value of Google's multi-platform roll-outs, at least with their new music efforts.
Sign In or Register to comment.