540
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Since countering Aldean's claim the video only contains "real news footage," Destinee Stark has received a wave of hateful messages from defenders of the song.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean this song is dumb as fuck but the quote is misleading.

That last line is the start of a second verses focusing on how you can't take his granpappy's gun - it's not part of a continued threat from the first verse

OP definitely knew this, because the punctuation doesn't even line up as if it were the end of the verse. This is deliberately misleading, which is weird, because the song is obviously already ridden with shit lines.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 35 points 1 year ago

The entire thing is a threat of violence, see all the un-bolded parts. Like literally what is different about a small town in this song which forces people to stop burning flags, except that they will violently prevent you from exercising your first amendment rights?

Immediately mentioning a gun is specifying gun violence but threatening violence in reaction to free speech in general is illegal and an immoral call for vigilante justice.

[-] czech@no.faux.moe 27 points 1 year ago

Yes the implied violence and the introduction of grandpas gun are purely coincidental! How misleading of OP!

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is misleading. The second verse literally has its own implied threat.

Got a gun that my granddad gave me

They say one day they're gonna round up

Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck

This is just how songs, paragraphs, and language in general work.

[-] czech@no.faux.moe 11 points 1 year ago

Just because the second verse literally has its own implied threat does not mean the first verse is unrelated. In songs and paragraphs adjacent sentences are typically related- its how English works- but I can't speak for all languages.

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 16 points 1 year ago

It's not "unrelated". It's just not part of the same shitty statement. It's part of a different shitty statement.

[-] Oderus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Working hard defending this guy aren't you?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. I'm against people intentionally misleading others even when I agree with their general thrust.

If people stopped buying in when they were being obviously mislead, we wouldn't have had Trump

This really shouldn't be such a hard concept for you to grasp.

[-] Oderus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's a lot of words to say, 'yeah, I am spending a lot of personal, unpaid time to defend someone I don't know'.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Except I'm literally attacking both the song and the OP's lying comment.

Quit being stupid. It's a bad look.

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

Defenses of people don't normally include statements about how the person is shit lol

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Except that's not how songs are received. We don't read them. We listen to them. And the two topic dog whistle is as old as Jim Crow.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Imagine listening to music and not being able to tell where different verses are. Song must be confusing!

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Exactly.

Also, these motherfuckers can't see the joke in my comment. People be trippin hard lol

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
540 points (100.0% liked)

News

23413 readers
2158 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS