UK graduate thrown out of gay club after "triggering" Blurred Lines is played

CruelCoin

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Greetings fellow homo sapien what is your desired label at the moment?

Don't be so insensitive.

Scientists have recently discovered that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were inter-breeding up untill (in the scale of things) quite recently.

How dare you label him/she/her/he without first asking what species blend they (?) ascribe as?

The King of Moo

tritium wrote: »

Would they have a bad reaction because of a) the lyrics, in which case just about any song is potentially off limits and we end up with an approach to free speech compatible to the Taliban, or b) because of all the ruckus and assorted bollocks raised about the song by certain groups pushing an agenda?

I'd say it's because of the lyrics, which are overtly misogynistic and have dodgy ideas about consensuality. Plus, the line "You know you want it" was also the line used by her rapist.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

"That wasn't hard" ?

You're missing the point: how the fcuk would the staff know what Georgia wanted to be identified as?? It's not about it being easy or difficult. It's about not having psychic abilities.

Like I said, I don't know why she expected the DJ to know which pronouns to use. I'm more getting at the amazement some people in the thread have at the idea that people can be more than purely straight or gay, or man or woman.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

lol. She just wanted to make a point?? In the middle of a DJ's set?? He's working ffs!! Write a letter c/o of the club the next day. You don't start whinging to DJs about how songs remind you of being raped. What absolute entitled nonsense.

I don't think it was a good idea, but I can imagine something like that happening in a student nightclub. Georgia may be obnoxious, and may have some silly ways to protest, but I don't think it's too surprising that something like this would happen in student culture. And if Georgia was upset after hearing the song (understandably enough), I wouldn't expect their actions to be completely logical.


The DJ's response was spot on. They (both of them, not just Georgia - yeah, this is real "easy") deserved to be told to fcuk off.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Can you read? They said: "I don’t want to hear this s***" to the DJ. They (Georgia, not both of them) were obnoxious and rude.

I don't doubt at all that they came across as obnoxious. Maybe they're both obnoxious people in general. But I still don't understand someone saying “**** off you silly bitch” over a microphone to a professed upset rape victim.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Also, Georgia is professional victim. Here's one of her recent tweets were she was causing trouble at another club:

https://twitter.com/GeorgiaG92/status/595226148675649536


Oh, and they told her to fcuk off as well.

And maybe Georgia is a pain in the ass, and maybe they do look for things to complain about (there are a few people like that, though their number is often vastly exaggerated), but I still think the DJ was out of order.
I don't think anyone comes out of this story well, but I think I can understand Georgia more (young person, doesn't conform to social norms, fresh out of college and wants to make a sociopolitical point due to a combination of genuine pain, idealism and vanity [maybe, I don't know them well enough]), than I do the DJ (d*ck).

Kev W

galljga1 wrote: »

Personally, I think Blurred Lines is one of the best pop songs of this decade.

I disagree. I think it's rubbish even without the lyrical content.

For the record, I think blurred lines is a terrible song and he's a sleazy c*nt.

galljga1

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Greetings fellow homo sapien what is your desired label at the moment?

I find that very toastist.

Tombi!

Deleted User wrote: »

That article is for transgender people. She identifies as non-binary, not transgender. Are they one in the same? To me, she seems to think they're not, otherwise she would have identified herself as such.

My evidence that it's ridiculous? How do you prove a personal opinion as opposed to something put forward as proof?

Way I understood those things and what always made sense to me was that transgendered people are literally the opposite mentall as they are phyiscally (ie male mind, female body or female mind, male body) and genderqueer etc all under the queer label are more "don't fit into gender stereotypes" which opens a new can of worms.

Personally I figure we're in a time were there's more of a "enjoy wtf you want, even if that means being a man that likes soaps or a woman that likes playing football". Course we're also in a time where people can rant and rave online for an audiance so... :pac:

QuinDixie

galljga1 wrote: »

Not sure. I thought SJWs were those who supported the outraged and easily offended.

So, this is the perfect thread.
Anyone who shows support for her on this thread can be classified as a SJW.
Everyone else can be classified as a norm.

CruelCoin

Kev W wrote: »

I feel sorry for you if the idea of politeness seems silly to you.

And you don't see it as impolite to ask every person you meet "How do you identify?"

How many obviously male/female people would be offended that you would even have any kind of doubt as to what they are. You're going to offend far fewer by not asking.

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Well if you are that sensitive then 90% of rap/hip hop is a no-no. A fair few of those poppy American gits aswell can have dodgy undertones mate. Just an idea to avoid your moral outrage.

It's nothing to do with sensitivity. it's a rubbish song.

ohnonotgmail

Kev W wrote: »

Yes, exactly! And then others are free to make a judgement on that opinion, even if that opinion is "you're being a prick!"

we have an accord then. I still would never ask somebody what their preferred pronoun is. If it isnt clear i just use their name. much simpler.

zeffabelli

Kev W wrote: »

Not quite, Alanis.

What "blurred lines" am I defending? If anything I'm on the side of clarity.

Your talking about gender as a spectrum, nothing clear in that. The blurred lines of gender.

As for calling me Alanis, at least you got the gender right. That's a good start.

galljga1

valoren wrote: »

This is classic attention seeking.

Are you referring to Kev W?

Kev W

CruelCoin wrote: »

And you don't see it as impolite to ask every person you meet "How do you identify?"

How many obviously males/females would be offended that you would even have any kind of doubt as to what they are. You're going to offend far fewer by not asking.

Where did I say it should be "every person you meet"? I specifically said if it wasn't obvious.

Kev W

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have an accord then. I still would never ask somebody what their preferred pronoun is. If it isnt clear i just use their name. much simpler.

That works too.

pmasterson95

CruelCoin wrote: »

Don't be so insensitive.

Scientists have recently discovered that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were inter-breeding up untill (in the scale of things) quite recently.

How dare you label him/she/her/he without first asking what species blend they (?) ascribe as?

****.

Hello Earthling? Does that offend aliens? Is nothing safe?

bucketybuck

galljga1 wrote: »

Give over man/woman. If she looks like a woman, I will address her as a woman. Mistakes may be made, but in general less offence will be given than asking everyone we meet whether they identify as male, female or whatever. Or do we have to do a Mick Dundee?

Can you imagine the ****storm when you ask some woman if she identifies as a woman, its guaranteed she will think you are taking the mick and saying she is so ugly that men can't tell if she is female or not. You will be called the biggest prick ever all because you tried to follow this gender labelling nonsense.

Carlos Orange

Kev W wrote: »

Where did I say it should be "every person you meet"? I specifically said if it wasn't obvious.

I'm sure no women are going to be offended by being asked to confirm their gender.

I get transgender people don't identify as their biological gender. Well, I don't, as someone who isn't, but I can take that as fact. But non-binary is identifying as no gender.

Kev W

zeffabelli wrote: »

Your talking about gender as a spectrum, nothing clear in that. The blurred lines of gender.

As for calling me Alanis, at least you got the gender right. That's a good start.

I'm talking about people being on different SPECIFIC points on that spectrum and being allowed to refer to themselves in that SPECIFIC way.

If the lines seem blurred to you, perhaps you need to focus better.

pmasterson95

Kev W wrote: »

It's nothing to do with sensitivity. it's a rubbish song.

Perhaps but you have decided its rapey. Which it simply isnt.

zeffabelli

Kev W wrote: »

I'm talking about people being on different SPECIFIC points on that spectrum and being allowed to refer to themselves in that SPECIFIC way.

If the lines seem blurred to you, perhaps you need to focus better.

It's not me that needs to focus. I'm not confused here.

Kev W

Deleted User wrote: »

I get transgender people don't identify as their biological gender. Well, I don't, as someone who isn't, but I can take that as fact. But non-binary is identifying as no gender.

No particular gender, yes. Going by that you seem to understand it just fine.

CruelCoin

pmasterson95 wrote: »

****.

Hello Earthling? Does that offend aliens? Is nothing safe?

Stop digging. Now you're classist against planetary type.

And don't get me started on systemal / galactical prejudices either!

speedboatchase

pmasterson95 wrote: »

****.

Hello Earthling? Does that offend aliens? Is nothing safe?

Ugh. Check your Earth privilege.

looksee

I was born with a genetic tendency to be tall. However I do not identify as tall, I feel as though I am about 5'5". For that reason I would like people to not look upwards when talking to me, as this is offensive to me, it goes against my personal identification.

I also resent having leg lengths on trousers specified (tall, normal, short), as this categorises me in a way I do not identify with.

I expect people to ask me how I height-identify before addressing me or asking me if it is cold up here.

Kev W

zeffabelli wrote: »

It's not me that needs to focus. I'm not confused here.

Am I? What about?

ohnonotgmail

Kev W wrote: »

I'm talking about people being on different SPECIFIC points on that spectrum and being allowed to refer to themselves in that SPECIFIC way.

If the lines seem blurred to you, perhaps you need to focus better.

when you say spectrum you need to be clear which spectrum you are referring to. Earlier you posted about sexuality as a spectrum and then referred to transgender. transgender is not on the sexuality spectrum. they are not related.

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

No particular gender, yes. Going by that you seem to understand it just fine.

Knowing what it is and understanding something are two completely different things, my friend.

(I'm not your friend, guy).

pmasterson95

Kev W wrote: »

I'm talking about people being on different SPECIFIC points on that spectrum and being allowed to refer to themselves in that SPECIFIC way.

If the lines seem blurred to you, perhaps you need to focus better.

Does this eejit not use two alternating pronouns? How does someone who actively uses multiple pronouns fit clearly in your spectrum? Or is it a seasonal spectrum?

ohnonotgmail

looksee wrote: »

I was born with a genetic tendency to be tall. However I do not identify as tall, I feel as though I am about 5'5". For that reason I would like people to not look upwards when talking to me, as this is offensive to me, it goes against my personal identification.

I also resent having leg lengths on trousers specified (tall, normal, short), as this categorises me in a way I do not identify with.

I expect people to ask me how I height-identify before addressing me or asking me if it is cold up here.

i have always hated that. I feel your pain.

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Does this eejit not use two alternating pronouns? How does someone who actively uses multiple pronouns fit clearly in your spectrum? Or is it a seasonal spectrum?

"They" as a pronoun works for anyone. Unless you object to being referred to as "they" then you yourself allow for alternating pronouns by your own definition.

pmasterson95

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Knowing what it is and understanding something are two completely different things, my friend.

(I'm not your friend, guy).

Did you ask this mass of living cells if they want to be called "guy"?

You insensitive labelling bigot.

pmasterson95

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i have always hated that. I feel your pain.

So it is cold then?

galljga1

pmasterson95 wrote: »

****.

Hello Earthling? Does that offend aliens? Is nothing safe?

Yeah, you need to go broader than that. From time to time a few visitors, not of this planet, frequent boards.

ohnonotgmail

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So it is cold then?

*wibble*

ohnonotgmail

galljga1 wrote: »

Yeah, you need to go broader than that. From time to time a few visitors, not of this planet, frequent boards.

its a lot more frequent than that.

The King of Moo

Liamario wrote: »

Is she having a laugh. I'm sure there are people out there traumatised by nursery rhymes, should we ban them as well. Silly individual.

Suggesting an announcement before it's played is a bit much, but...
the lyrics of the song are particularly obnoxious, and there's no ambiguity about whether they suggest that no doesn't always mean no.
For me, it goes beyond the usual misogyny of lots of rap and hip hop and gets into some very creepy territory.
I can totally understand why some people are repulsed by it. I find it repulsive (if musically catchy, but we can probably thank Marvin Gaye for that), so I can understand if lots of women and rape victims find it even more repulsive.
I don't think it should be banned, but I can understand some clubs refusing to play it, and I don't think there's any harm in drawing people's attention to its creepiness, as lots of people don't really listen to they lyrics of pop songs.

Everybody get up, WOO!
Everybody get up, WOO!
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
WOO!
Hey, hey, hey
WOO!

[Verse 1 - Robin Thicke:]
If you can't hear what I'm trying to say
If you can't read from the same page
Maybe I'm going deaf
Maybe I'm going blind
Maybe I'm out of my mind
[Pharrell:] Everybody get up

[Bridge - Robin Thicke:]
Ok, now he was close
Tried to domesticate you
But you're an animal
Baby, it's in your nature
Just let me liberate you
You don't need no papers
That man is not your maker
And that's why I'm gon' take a

[Hook - Robin Thicke:]
Good girl
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
You're a good girl
Can't let it get past me
You're far from plastic
Talk about getting blasted
I hate these blurred lines
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
But you're a good girl
The way you grab me
Must wanna get nasty
Go ahead, get at me
[Pharrell:] Everybody get up

[Verse 2 - Robin Thicke:]
What do they make dreams for
When you got them jeans on
What do we need steam for
You the hottest bitch in this place
I feel so lucky,
Hey, hey, hey
You wanna hug me
Hey, hey, hey
What rhymes with hug me?
Hey, hey, hey
Hey!

[Bridge]

[Hook]

[Verse 3 - T.I.:]
Hustle Gang Homie
One thing I ask of you
Lemme be the one you back that ass up to
From Malibu to Paris boo
Had a bitch, but she ain't bad as you
So, hit me up when you pass through
I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two
Swag on 'em even when you dress casual
I mean, it's almost unbearable
In a hundred years not dare would I
Pull a Pharcyde, let you pass me by
Nothin' like your last guy, he too square for you
He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that
So I'm just watching and waitin'
For you to salute the true big pimpin'
Not many women can refuse this pimping
I'm a nice guy, but don't get confused, this pimpin'

[Breakdown - Robin Thicke:]
Shake your rump
Get down, get up-a
Do it like it hurt, like it hurt
What you don't like work
Hey!

[Verse 4 - Robin Thicke:]
Baby, can you breathe
I got this from Jamaica
It always works for me
Dakota to Decatur
No more pretending
Cause now you're winning
Here's our beginning
I always wanted a

[Hook - Robin Thicke]

[Outro - Pharrell & Robin Thicke:]
Everybody get up, WOO!
Everybody get up
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

jungleman

I just find the story laughable to be honest.

I work a hateful retail job while I'm finishing my postgrad, and although I hate it, if anyone came up to me and asked me to stop selling a particular item because it "triggers" them, I'd tell them to f*ck off as well.

As far as the whole "binary" part of the story goes, I just think it's grossly stupid. How dare someone not refer to me as a lamp, don't they know that I identify as a lamp??!! It's laughable.

The two morons need a reality check. And a clip around the ear.

The Corinthian

Kev W wrote: »

Complete consistency in fact. Since it's impossible for a living person to be Napoleon Bonaparte as he is dead, the fact of Bonaparte's death is sufficient proof that anyone claiming to be him is at the very least lying or delusional.

No, you are inconsistent. Your problem is that you are happy to allow self-identification when it suits, yet not when it does not. Identify is subjective, but only when you say so.

As to evidence, all you've managed to muster up is that sexuality and orientation is on a sliding scale (if you actually bother to read what you've posted), not actual gender. And even if gender were, you've yet to show where it can be self-identified and be considered accurate or even sane to do so. In fact, it has long been known that not all that identify as transsexuals are in fact transsexuals, which is why they need to go through a process of psychological evaluation before any treatment can commence.

All you appear to be doing is defending some, frankly, spoilt middle-class college girl and a current fashion for people to self-identify.

pmasterson95

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

*wibble*

:P

hatrickpatrick

galljga1 wrote: »

Not sure. I thought SJWs were those who supported the outraged and easily offended.

Pretty much, but also those who feel that certain content should be censored for everyone because it offends them, which is exactly what all this berating DJs for playing certain music amounts to.

ohnonotgmail

The King of Moo wrote: »

Suggesting an announcement before it's played is a bit much, but...
the lyrics of the song are particularly obnoxious, and there's no ambiguity about whether they suggest that no doesn't always mean no.
For me, it goes beyond the usual misogyny of lots of rap and hip hop and gets into some very creepy territory.
...


A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

I think you need to listen to more rap and hip hop.

pmasterson95

jungleman wrote: »

I just find the story laughable to be honest.

I work a hateful retail job while I'm finishing my postgrad, and although I hate it, if anyone came up to me and asked me to stop selling a particular item because it "triggers" them, I'd tell them to f*ck off as well.

As far as the whole "binary" part of the story goes, I just think it's grossly stupid. How dare someone not refer to me as a lamp, don't they know that I identify as a lamp??!! It's laughable.

The two morons need a reality check. And a clip around the ear.

I love lamp

zeffabelli

The King of Moo wrote: »

Suggesting an announcement before it's played is a bit much, but...
the lyrics of the song are particularly obnoxious, and there's not ambiguity about whether they suggest that no doesn't always mean no.
For me, it goes beyond the usual misogyny of lots of rap and hip hop and gets into some very creepy territory.
I can totally understand why some people are repulsed by it. I find it repulsive (if musically catchy, but we can probably thank Marvin Gaye for that), so I can understand if lots of women and rape victims find it even more repulsive.
I don't think it should be banned, but I can understand some clubs refusing to play it, and I don't think there's any harm in drawing people's attention to its creepiness, as lots of people don't really listen to they lyrics of pop songs.

A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

Music dance and art has always been dirty, sexy, filthy, earthy and playing with boundaries. That's what makes them so much fun.

Should we ban elvis because of his pelvic choreography? Shakespeare for his dirty jokes? Rodin? Egon Schiele?

Music and dance has always been rebellious to sexual codification. Because they are tied into the body in a way other forms aren't.

The sender police and feminists are like the new nuns for the 21st century.

hatrickpatrick

Kev W wrote: »

Personally I don't know why anyone would want to but I wouldn't want it banned as I don't believe banning things really helps. Letting it exist and allowing people to have their say about it is a better solution.

This. But the new breed of radical SJW / "feminist" (quotes intentional) type does not believe in this, they believe that anything which offends anybody should be censored, and that anyone who objects to it is guilty of the same crime that the content is guilty of. So in other words, by objecting to Blurred Lines being banned, you and I are not merely believers in free speech, but actual rape apologists in their eyes. And anyone who objects to the censoring of racial slurs, is themselves automatically a racist.

galljga1

The King of Moo wrote: »

Suggesting an announcement before it's played is a bit much, but...
the lyrics of the song are particularly obnoxious, and there's no ambiguity about whether they suggest that no doesn't always mean no.
For me, it goes beyond the usual misogyny of lots of rap and hip hop and gets into some very creepy territory.
I can totally understand why some people are repulsed by it. I find it repulsive (if musically catchy, but we can probably thank Marvin Gaye for that), so I can understand if lots of women and rape victims find it even more repulsive.
I don't think it should be banned, but I can understand some clubs refusing to play it, and I don't think there's any harm in drawing people's attention to its creepiness, as lots of people don't really listen to they lyrics of pop songs.


A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

Little Jack Horner sat in a corner
Because he had a square ar$e

jungleman

@King of Moo

I'm not going to quote your comment because all of the scrolling would drive everyone mad.

It's a sleazy song but the way everyone lost their minds over it was a bit much. It's a song. Just a song. People have become so egotistical and self obsessed that a song is enough to send them into a frenzy.

People need to get outside, go for a walk, and get their sense of perspective back.

The King of Moo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you need to listen to more rap and hip hop.

If a lot of it's at the level of "Blurred Lines" I'd rather not.
Even if there are worse songs lyrically, it doesn't justify the awfulness of "Blurred Lines'" lyrics.

@GeorgiaG92

She posted a conversation between herself and the club manager / promoter on her twitter

I can't link, but it's from the 4th of May.
@GeorgiaG92

There's 5/6 screenshots of their messages.
Read them, and figure it out yourself. Incredible stuff really.

tritium

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'd say it's because of the lyrics, which are overtly misogynistic and have dodgy ideas about consensuality.

Misogynistic, possibly though that songs writers have a different view than the outrage posse who saw a chance to get some headlines off someone else's creative work. Dodgy on consent? Well only if you ascribe to a very narrow interpretation given by agenda groups pushing outrage and ignore a significant amount of the songs lyrics that don't fit that narrative...

Plus, the line "You know you want it" was also the line used by her rapist.

And his does this equate to a right of censorship? Should a club, catering to thousands of people get it's song list approved by all patrons? How far should we take this? Can I object to certain national anthems at sports events because they trigger memories of colonial oppression? Can I insist certain movies are never shown because they trigger memories of the death of a loved one? Or should we expect people to be adults and maybe just go to the bar when these come on?

My point that you responded to was actually a general one. Should we put the protection of precious little flowers ahead of everything else? Should one person be able to restrict others just to satisfy their own needs? Let's say I really want to hear that song because it reminds me of a good or special time in my life, why would I be any less deserving if being accomodated here?