National Anthem Atrocity

a reply to: nickyw

Those that support this behavior are greater than those that don't and that is a great fault in this nation.

a reply to: PorkChop96

The organization who invited her to sing needs to be examined. Could be anti-America, and potentially dangerous.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Why are people going to read this article and think it's okay?

Butchered Anthem

Because I value freedom of speech. Because I have plenty of complaints about how our nation is being run and I appreciate our right to complain about it. Because I know that in order to protect my free speech I MUST protect everyone's free speech even when I don't agree. Especially when I don't agree.

For someone to go up and completely BUTCHER our national anthem, then be praised for it is an outright travesty.

It's a song. Those who agree will agree. Those who disagree will disagree.

The virtue is in the freedom. And the virtue must be our priority -- not the substance.

If a white person had done this to the "Black National Anthem", there would be riots and people calling for their death.

Which is never okay. It's not wrong or right because of race, and just because some people will make it all about race, doesn't make it right.

Cases like this are what is furthering the "racial divide" in this country, but yet people want to applaud them and encourage others to do the same.

Race -- and therefore the racial divide -- is only a thing if we let it be a thing.

I don't care what race the singer is. It doesn't matter. She has a right to free speech (including lyrics) and I have no problem with that. We have a right to free speech. If only some people can speak freely, then it's a privilege and not a right. And that's not acceptable.

a reply to: dandandat2

From faux outrage straight to the victim role....

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: nickyw

Those that support this behavior are greater than those that don't and that is a great fault in this nation.

this is a repeating issue in anglosphere countries which it dates to the norman invasion and rifts between those with high and low church outlooks, the high love their virtue signalling and low with their reality, just look how the british Norman elite fawned over napoleon and hitler always trying to emulate the worst history has to offer while hating those they deemed scum of the earth (poor british)

when you can see it through that lens it's easy to see the reformation and counter reformation unfolding in front of us as it has been since they unleashed their high church crusades on the middle east..

a reply to: Boadicea

Free speech does have it's limits. I am all about free speech, but to disrespect and degrade the country that gives you that right, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Race is the only reason behind this action, that is all it ever is when it comes to cases such as this.

If we put a stop to things such as this, that is a step in the right direction to getting over the racial divide. But until all sides see it that way, we are doomed to sit on this endless loop of "it's always me" bullsnip.

originally posted by: PorkChop96


If we put a stop to things such as this, that is a step in the right direction to getting over the racial divide. But until all sides see it that way, we are doomed to sit on this endless loop of "it's always me" bullsnip.

Whoa! Pumps the breaks!

Limit free speech?

Now you're sounding like a democrat.

a reply to: Terpene

Such a lovely, useless, sentiment. You have no idea of what my true feelings are, they would probably get me banned from here pretty quick if I voiced them.

Care to add anything of actual substance to the thread?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Wow, that is the most hurtful thing you, or anyone else, have ever said to me....I am triggered

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wow, that is the most hurtful thing you, or anyone else, have ever said to me....I am triggered

Sorry, that was cruel.

a reply to: PorkChop96

The lyrics are not the original to the melody.

Therefore it's been " butchered " previously.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: PorkChop96

The lyrics are not the original to the melody.

Therefore it's been " butchered " previously.

It used to be a British drinking song.

We stole it.

AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA-Murca-HAHAHAHAHAHA

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: PorkChop96

The lyrics are not the original to the melody.

Therefore it's been " butchered " previously.

It used to be a British drinking song.

We stole it.

AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA-Murca-HAHAHAHAHAHA

Glad you did. It's sounds bloody aweful.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Boadicea

Free speech does have it's limits.

Sure it does. Predominantly, when it incites or encourages harm. Such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or such as the NYC official who encouraged protesters to “throw more bottles at cops” and to “torch more vans.” But that's not what we're dealing with here. Hurt feelings aren't an actionable offense.

I am all about free speech, but to disrespect and degrade the country that gives you that right, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Well, okay, you can feel however you want. But this nation does not give us our rights. Our rights are endowed by our Creator. The country's duty is to respect, protect and defend those rights.

And if our free speech does not allow for criticizing our nation, then it's not free speech. It's nothing.

I would much rather see folks use their own free speech to rebut her free speech... to dissect her tirade line by line, lyric by lyric.

Race is the only reason behind this action, that is all it ever is when it comes to cases such as this.

And you are playing right into it. Free speech is not about race unless and until someone makes it about race. I have not read the lyrics, and don't really plan to, so I don't know if or how she invoked race. But I don't need to know. I can support her right to free speech regardless. And I would do the same for any person of any race, creed or religion using their free speech to air their grievances.... also part of the same 1st amendment that enumerates our right to free speech.

If we put a stop to things such as this, that is a step in the right direction to getting over the racial divide. But until all sides see it that way, we are doomed to sit on this endless loop of "it's always me" bullsnip.

Nope. The racial divide does not rise and fall on free speech. And if free speech can be used to further the divide, then free speech can be just as effective at bridging the divide.

The only "it's always me" bullsnip I see is coming from those who want to say what they will while putting a stop to other people saying what they will. White or Black or purple polka dot, free speech is a right, and belongs to everyone.

a reply to: PorkChop96

At least she was inline with the message and reality of black people's experiences from the 1900s lyrics 'Lift Every Voice':

Come to the place for which our fathers sighed?

We have come over a way that with tears has been watered,

We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered,

Out from the gloomy past,

vs. her new lyrics for the Anthem:

“Oh say can you see by the blood in the streets / That this place doesn’t smile on you colored child / Whose blood built this land with sweat and their hands / But we’ll die in this place and your memory erased / Oh say, does this truth hold any weight / This is not the land of the free, but the home of the slaves!”

I suppose with certain states wanting to re-educate or re-term the meaning/historical accuracy of what slavery was, such as re-terming it from slavery to involuntary re-location may ruffle a few feathers.

www.texastribune.org...

a reply to: quintessentone

Black people of history perhaps, but not of today. There is not a person alive today in the US that is, or was, a slave.

What other states are trying to "re-term" slavery in their education systems? I do think that changing how history is taught to make it a little less kid friendly isn't a very good idea. history ought to be taught as it happened as to keep the facts and weight of the matter valid.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Black people of history perhaps, but not of today. There is not a person alive today in the US that is, or was, a slave.

What other states are trying to "re-term" slavery in their education systems? I do think that changing how history is taught to make it a little less kid friendly isn't a very good idea. history ought to be taught as it happened as to keep the facts and weight of the matter valid.

But that isn't what is happening today as I exampled with changing the term 'slavery' to 'involuntarily relocated'. Which other states are doing this specific re-terming? none that I can find, however the states that limit teaching black history or won't teach black history altogether:

FutureEd has identified 47 bills introduced or prefiled this year in 23 state legislatures that limit teaching on these topics. Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have enacted 11 of these bills, signed into law by their Republican governors. And another bill is awaiting signature from Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey.

Some of the bills, like Arkansas House Bill 1218, explicitly preclude the teaching of The New York Times’ 1619 project, which frames American history in the context of slavery, or critical race theory, including South Carolina House Bill 4325. Others, like West Virginia Senate Bill 558, prohibit teaching “divisive concepts,” including racism and sexism, those that make students feel guilty because of their race, or those that make a student feel inherently racist because of their race. And two Wisconsin bills limit training on racism and sexism for K-12 and higher education educators.

www.texastribune.org...

Teaching how American history really happened is in the eye of the victor and in the case of black history that would be the white man's historical perspective.

The idea that no living black person today is a slave is conveniently disregarding the impact historical slavery had on these descendants of slaves. That is the message I am getting from the black community as well as the government who seems bent on administering reparations to descendants of slavery or for that matter all black or African Americans.

So black history matters in the context of ongoing talks of reparations so all Americans are educated on this matter, which is not going away.

These divided Congress members come from a family of slaveholders:

Some of the leading voices on the matter, both for and against, have a personal connection to the issue: They have one or more ancestors who were slaveholders.

Among them are three prominent Democrats who have co-sponsored reparations bills: senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen, and Representative Lloyd Doggett. Opponents include Republican senators Tommy Tuberville and John N. Kennedy, and former Representative Louie Gohmert.

www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: PorkChop96


If we put a stop to things such as this, that is a step in the right direction to getting over the racial divide. But until all sides see it that way, we are doomed to sit on this endless loop of "it's always me" bullsnip.

Whoa! Pumps the breaks!

Limit free speech?

Now you're sounding like a democrat.

To be fair, ACTUAL freedom of speech and ACTUAL freedom of expression ended some time ago although both are supposed to be protected by International Human Rights law.

If somebody calls me an idiot it's all good, but if I call somebody from the LBGTQ + (insert the other 4000 letters) an idiot I get called something something phobic.

If somebody burns the American flag it's ok, If somebody burns the pride or trans flag it's hate.

Good to see you

a reply to: Imbackbaby

To be fair, ACTUAL freedom of speech and ACTUAL freedom of expression ended some time ago although both are supposed to be protected by International Human Rights law.

If somebody calls me an idiot it's all good, but if I call somebody from the LBGTQ + (insert the other 4000 letters) an idiot I get called something something phobic.

If somebody burns the American flag it's ok, If somebody burns the pride or trans flag it's hate.

That's sounds exactly like ACTUAL free speech in action. Everyone saying what they want to say. Or saying nothing at all.

No one has to agree. No one has to disagree.

Free speech baby!

There is, despite pretty words to the contrary, no such thing as "Freedom of Speech, or Expression". Never has been.

Consequences are very much in play where that is concerned. Whether governmental, or we as private citizens getting worked up...

Ignore this into oblivion, while working to fix the very real problems that exist.

Fight the fights that need fighting. Not the ones that are of superficial importance.

I just woke up, so it's a bit disjointed...