Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Music Discussion' started by ImNotAhab, Jul 10, 2018.
I’m incredibly intolerant of those who can’t source thier statements.
He is a famous guitarist in one of the very few popular rock bands today. The whole '80's thing' is their brand.
She is... absolutely nobody. Kicking up a fuss for her own publicity, and sadly people are giving it to her. I find it hard to believe anybody is genuinely offended by the name of a guitar pedal. It's just attention seeking and trying to boost her own profile.
Satchel, TC, and everybody else would be best served completely ignoring her fake outrage.
Seriously though....why is one woman’s feelings more important than another? You have one saying “this is offensive” and another one saying “being offended by that is completely stupid”.
Is it just those two recently magical words “I’m offended” that make it anything?
Dude I’m not saying I’m an insensitive person. I was raised by a woman, my best friend is a woman, I have a wife and an 18 yr old daughter. Asked each of them what they thought and they all pretty much replied that the entire thing was inconsequential.
The part where someone shouts “I’m offended” by whatever it is and all of a sudden their opinion HAS TO HAVE WEIGHT and everyone has to snap to is getting really old.
7 pages in 15 hours has to be some kind of record, right?
Sweet jebus, thread started yesterday and already at 7 pages? I don't have time to read this much internet nonsense, so instead I will add my out-of-context gut-reaction that may have already been brought up and torn down, but whatever.
And here it is:
I think we're only calling this "sexist" because someone somewhere decided that male expressions of sexuality are evil for some reason. This whole "how dare you put something sexual on a pedal" is just an attempt to demonize male sexuality "because what year is it, amirite?!?!". I don't care what year it is - we have to accept that men (and women too!) like sex. It's been mentioned already, but there would be zero outrage against a pedal with balls on it, or some other kind of phallic name or reference. I'm sure those exist somewhere. And we very frequently market things the other way around with zero outrage -> all kinds of marketing implies that using a particular product will give women some kind of sexual power over men. (See any cosmetics ad, music gear that's made "for women", etc. ... reaslisticaly, almost anything marketed at women. Or at anyone. Is 90% of marketing just "this will make you attractive?" Maybe it is.)
It's not offensive because it's "sexist" - there is zero sexism happening here, it's offensive because some people don't like to see anything empower men in any way. They've decided that men have enough power, and giving them anymore somehow takes that same power away from women, as if it's an absolute and finite resource that can only be held by one person at a time. It's the whole empowering-women-by-tearing-down-men approach, to my eyes.
And don't get me wrong, I get it. If I was a women who was sensitive to the whole sexual-power-dyanmics thing, for whatever reason, I'm sure I wouldn't be thrilled by this pedal or its marketing either - but there's got to be a line, IMO. Saying that this doesn't have a right to exist, or a place in the market, is over that line, as far I care according to my gut reaction this morning.
If this was a pedal that went much farther into *actually* offensive territory, I'd be on the other side of the conversation. If there was a very clearly implied removal of consent involved -like if it said something like "she'll no longer be able to say no! Go claim your property!" instead of "this will make you attractive! Isn't that a cool fantasy?" than you'd have a different story. If you added something in like "don't take no for an answer!" or something like that, then you'd have a case.
If she was looking for a boost, TC was a poor choice anyway. I'd recommend a Boss DS-1 or an Ibanez TS7 first.
I have a Spark, and I quite like it actually. I like how TC being in the spotlight instantly brings out the "their products must suck too" comments.
brb going to repaint my TC Eyemaster and call it the browneyemaster, with a nice big goatse img
We're a needy bunch. Mesa hasn't released a new model in months.
God, this situation is stupid.
I was gonna say something but people have already brought up Jordan Peterson so this thread is officially now about insecure young men.
"the professional boundaries enforced by society to ensure that no product offends"
Uhm... That's totally not A Thing...?
Let's remember this one also... just because someone doesn't get offended, it doesn't mean it cannot offend someone else. It's all about empathy.
Dammit dude! I read 7 goddamn pages of this thread to formulate a reply and then you literally wrote everything I was about to write before I could do it.
Yeah, I was thinking to pose some rhetorical question like is male heterosexuality always sexist? and then try to eek my way through some sort of probably less-than-intelligent explanation of how I feel, but damn if you didn't already do it for me in a much smarter way!
It's telling of the guitar community when we're the liberal forum
The best post among the 7 pages that I just read.
Some of you actually seem to insist on being offended over anything and everything just in order to get up on your soapbox and whine about it.
Gotta say, definitely disappointed in some people here.
Your SO/daughter/female friend not being offended by this means absolutely nothing. It's like trying to discredit climate change by pointing out this one day back in July last year when was unseasonably cool. It's an anecdote meant to distract from the point by arguing that someone is wrong for being offended. Guess what, maybe your SO/daughter/female friend is wrong for not being offended. Or maybe, just maybe, neither your SO/daughter/female friend *or* the woman who petitioned TC represent the homogenized whole of women. The fact is though, there clearly are women who are offended by this product. Saying that they're lying or looking for publicity because the sentiment doesn't agree with that of your SO/daughter/female friend (especially given that the only reason such an argument would be brought up is because, in the context of that discussion, that person is simply a convenient proxy for your own opinion because it's one they conveniently happen to share) is incredibly disingenuous. And hey, while we're at it, some women think that a woman's role is to be nothing but a baby factory who never leaves the kitchen. I heard it from a woman, so it must be true of all women, right?
Not even a little. No one said that male expression of sexuality is evil. However, the form of that expression on this product is one that denigrates women as nothing more than objects to be fucked, and that shit ain't cool.
What ever happened to either laughing at a joke, or not and moving on?
And how's that? Which part of phrase "pussy melter" denigrates women?
Does alluding to female genitals inherently imply that women are "nothing more than objects to be fucked"?
IMO it's a bit of a sticky one, because on one hand I do sort of "get it". I understand the whole premise of men being traditionally the wielders of power, and how that sets us up to want to push back against that. On the other hand, it's very clear (to me at least) that this kind of marketing is not meant in any way to hoist any really meaningful power over anyone. It's a combination of the 80's joke/callback to excess, mixed in with the being-ironic-but-also-not-ironic kind of "use this product at you'll be attractive" marketing that gets used everywhere and, yeah it's arguably a mix that doesn't go down well with the current state of modern values that some people hold.
My gut reaction is still what it is - I'm not a fan of just shutting down every male expression of sex by default. I'm not behind demonizing anyone's sexuality, even if it's the traditional white male sexuality that's kind of in a lot of activists crosshairs right now. But I think I get it. I get it in an "I understand why some don't like this" kind of way. I'll still argue that these products have a right to exist, and that people have a right to not like them at the same time. I don't know how to word it in a nice way, but I both understand the outrage and don't care at the same time. It's one thing to be upset- sure, I don't expect everyone to find this kind of marketing to be in good taste- but it's a whole other thing to try to tear down everything that doesn't fit within your values. Sometimes things will offend your sensibilities, or not be to your taste, or people will disagree with you - but those things have a right to be, so just let them go and move on.