Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Except that it would make the opposite of his point... that's why this narrative makes no sense (and therefore seems highly unlikely).
Yes, I think a number of people do think that.
So you have gained respect for Bill Peters as a result of this incident?
If so, and it was references to homosexuality that Peters (or "Bill") found offensive, can you please explain again why Bill would refer to it as n##### music? I'm lost.
|
I guess we have to disagree here. Referring to a thing as a thing, to me, appropriate. In this case, the thing was ‘######’ use in a song. I can’t imagine ever quoting a piece of art and changing the word because I’m uncomfortable with it.
Likely people do (again, I personally have had it said to me). But this is in no way what is at question here. I don’t believe whether ###### was actually being said in the songs is even at debate here
No, I was not there or do I know the facts for it to have any effect on my opinion of Peters. Allowing a word, in and of itself, to be forbidden regardless of context or the issue at hand is asinine.
He never called it ‘###### music’. The difference is, to me, quite clear. ‘###### ####’ when referring to music that’s full of ‘######’ is pretty clearly directed at the lyrical content. If he did refer to it as ‘###### music’, that’s something all together different.
Again, I think this distinction is much more than trivial. The nuance of the use in this case is incredibly important to consider.
Sure, be outraged that someone said the word. But ignore context? That’s whack.