this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
208 points (80.6% liked)
Dank Memes
6140 readers
1 users here now
This is the place to be on the interweb when Reddit irreversibly becomes a meme itself and implodes
If you are existing mods from r/dankmemes, you should be mod here too, kindly DM me on either platform
The many rules inherited from
- Be nice, don't be not nice
- No Bigotry or Bullying
- Don't be a dick!
- Censor any and all personal information from posts and comments
- No spam, outside links, or videos.
- No Metabaiting
- No brigading
- Keep it dank!
- Mark NSFW and spoilers appropriately
- NO REEEEEEE-POSTS!
- No shitposting
- Format your meme correctly. No posts where the title is the meme caption!
- No agenda posting!
- Don't be a critic
- Karma threshold? What's that?
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tell me you don't understand art without telling me you don't understand art.
It's not my interpretation it's literally his words that are sourced above this shouldn't even be an argument.
Writes a song he explicitly states in the above sourced interview that it's specifically about killing his baby momma.
Says don't take it literally but also that he wanted to do it at the time.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong I'm saying it is exactly what it is and meant exactly what he meant it to mean art or not, but in this case why aren't you willing to trust the artists word.
Think about it. If the only purpose was a desire to kill the person, why write a song, why not actually do it? The obvious answer is, because he knows that would be wrong, so writing a song about it instead is a way to vent and express emotions.
The topic of the song is literally about killing someone, but that is not why it was made (how could it be, writing a song doesn't kill someone) and it's not why people listen. There is more to art than the literal subject matter.
I didn't say it was right or wrong, I said trust his words and stop arguing against the artist as I'm pretty sure they knew what they meant and why.
I think what you're missing is that just because many people don't threaten those kinda actions doesn't mean that nobody wants to do it.
No, I get that.
That isn't however the issue I responded to, all I said is there is no nuance to it that will excuse the behavior. People may feel that way from time to time, not many of us will have written a multi million dollar earning song. He felt so shitty about it he would later write a song specifically saying that he talks about violent shit and no one should take it too much to heart and act a fool in their own life.
So if you're aware that this is not meant to be taken literally and that enough people relate to that feeling, what are you complaining about? Nobody is trying to excuse murder.
I think the issue is you didn't know what I was responding to.
They said the song was more nuanced, it isn't. He's right it's a drug addict with relationship issues theorizing the murder of his baby momma. It doesn't need to be more nuanced than reality and the fact that it isn't makes it actually genuine.
The fact that so many people ignore what I'm replying to and instead imply I'm making moral judgement and laying platitudes is incredible and incredibly incorrect.
Describing feelings and situations is one way to understand and handle them. For oneself, of course, and for others dealing with similar stuff. That's why people write diaries, for example. This is one basic function of communication.
Absolutely, in this case he communicated the fact that at one point he wanted to kill his baby momma and meant it.
I'm not saying anything new and you have the source, the outage about it is just strange.
Lol wow doubling down on not understanding art and then explaining exactly what you don't get is peak irony, and frankly simply hilarious.
It's literally the artists words, does the artist know the artists work well enough to judge it?
My opinion on it does not appear in any way shape or form.
Waaait guys, folks, hold up easy solution to this dilemma:
Why don't you give us the lyrics you are referring to. That should clear this all up, right?
A murderous ode to his on-again-off-again relationship, “97 Bonnie and Clyde” brings father and daughter together to dispose of Scott’s dead body in the ocean. For extra authenticity, Eminem brought Hailie to the studio to record a vocal part for the track. “I lied to Kim and told her I was taking Hailie to Chuck E. Cheese that day,” he remembered in Rolling Stone. “But I took her to the studio. When she found out I used our daughter to write a song about killing her, she f—ing blew. We had just got back together for a couple of weeks. Then I played her the song, and she bugged the f— out.”
LYRICS: C’mon Hai-Hai, we going to the beach Grab a couple of toys and let Dada strap you in the car seat Oh, where’s Mama? She’s taking a little nap in the trunk Oh, that smell? Dada must’ve runned over a skunk Now, I know what you’re thinking It’s kind of late to go swimmin’ But you know your Mama, she’s one of those type of women That do crazy things And if she don’t get her way, she’ll throw a fit Don’t play with Dada’s toy knife, honey, let go of it!
Yes, the lyrics are about wanting to kill his wife, and about his feelings at the time.
But neither of those things is wrong. You're allowed to want to do those things, the important part is what you actually do. Such as writing a song about it instead. The entire point of art, or at least one of them, is to take these strong, raw emotions and do something with them besides the strong, raw thing you truly want to. These violent lyrics don't mean he believes murder is right or others should murder. If he thought that, he'd probably have murdered his wife, instead of writing a fantasy, a fiction, about it.
Now, we can make an argument that using Hailey in the song is a bit off, sure. That is not, and has never been, your argument however.
Indeed.
Point to where I said anything about it's morality, I'll wait.
No part of your speech was ever my point or even mentioned by me.
If it's not wrong, what's your point? Why's it got you all in a twist if it's not wrong? People don't put in such a show condemning a thing if they don't think it's wrong, so either grow a spine and stand by what you're clearly projecting into the world, or stop moaning.
This shit is art, not a literal retelling of a thing that happened. Even if it does mirror the thoughts and feelings at the time, it's absolutely still embellished, and even if it wasn't, no one was hurt (except arguably Hailey, again different argument) so I really don't see the problem.
My point was it is not more nuanced then that, that's all. Stand by your bullshit argument and point to where I condemned it or shut the fuck up big man.
No one says it is always literal, in this case the very post your commenting on has the artist admitting that is the way he actually felt at the time so in this case it's quite literal.
You don't know what you're even arguing about but I do enjoy the unearned confidence.
What does it matter if it's literal? That's the entire point I'm making. People say and feel things that they shouldn't act on all the time.
So, what's the point in saying he actually felt those things at the time? If I'm missing it so broadly, fill me in. Why does it matter that he said those things?
You brought it up, if you don't know what you said how can I know what you meant.
Because that was my point, the fact you don't know your point means I don't expect you to know mine.
Ed: can't help but notice you have yet again failed to quote me to prove your argument, so who doesn't have a spine again?