Jump to content

LP9: WOTP Discussion/Speculation Thread


Jobby
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Citizen_Eraser said:

Idk who Laurence Fox is but on that specific topic, doctors were prescribing that drug.

It's a multi faceted drug that there are human doses and applications for. The whole narrative that a bunch of nuts are going to farm supply stores and buying horse de wormer off the shelf was spread by the same morons that thought people actually drank fish tanker cleaner (mistaken for hydroxy-chloriquine) and died.

 

Edit: But yeah, like Jobby said. Lets not get into talking about stuff like this here.

Well, you're right that Ivermectin can be used to treat animals, as well as humans. It seems a lot of people believe a dose of the former is the same as a dose of the latter, but that's incorrect. Having said that, though, it's an anti-parasitic drug which studies have consistently shown doesn't prevent COVID symptoms worsening from mild to severe. Also, most doctors won't prescribe it for said virus. Those that do are often times in telehealth/telemedicine. Lastly, while the occasions have been scarce (at least lately; I'm unsure on the frequency before this year and am too lazy to look it up at the moment lol), people have taken the horse-dewormer dose, which has resulted in severe illness, and even death.

As a side-note, I honestly had no idea who Laurence Fox was before seeing his name on this thread prompted me to look him up. That will probably be the last time I look him up for anything. Yikes.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-bottle-of-ivermectin-reveals-about-the-shadowy-world-of-covid-telemedicin

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/not-a-miracle-drug-experts-on-ivermectin-in-covid-19-treatment

https://www.koat.com/article/ivermectin-overdose-covid-19-new-mexico/37548538#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hopix said:

Eh, I usually get irritated by overt, ham-fisted political messaging, but in the music/arts scene it's usually establishment-pushing/left-leaning so Muse's approach to lyrics is feeling quite refreshing in this instance. There's been a lot of pressure, political, social and economical on people recently and I'm feeling the primal energy and no-nonsense vibe they're going for here.

Regarding stuff about the WEF, etc, it depends on how it's done really. The WEF does exist as a international body and does seem to have more influence than people might like to accept (Justin Trudeau for example is basically a WEF plant), and pretty radical plans in the pipeline (you'll own nothing and be happy, is the take-home line), so it's understandable to be wary of it.

Matt has some interesting opinions, and talks about some strange conspiratorial stuff, but I think most of the time he's just entertaining ideas, so I'm trying not to get too worked up about it.

You don't really have to be a "nutter" to see that things aren't quite right with the status quo at the moment, and also to see how massively demonised people are (like Laurence Fox for example) just for airing reasonable concerns and mirroring what the public are saying. We're heading into pretty unsettling and backward times, I reckon. Bring on the album for a bit of respite.

Here’s my issue with that. Phrases like ‘just entertaining the ideas’ and ‘just asking questions’ have been hijacked to become gateways into nefarious narratives that people are meant to stumble upon when they ‘do their own research’ surrounding these topics. 
 

So like I said earlier, questioning the Man and kicking against the establishment are very healthy sentiments and I only encourage it. But when you have a sizable audience like Matt does, you have a bit of a responsibility. Adopting and repeating certain phrases without considering their origins or adding any nuance might send people down information holes that are objectively harmful. Even if he himself hasn’t adopted any of the viewpoints or movements whose catchphrases he’s broadcasting. 

I know Matt’s not a CoVid-19 sceptic nutter. Or a Qanon follower, or an alt-right figure (do people still use that phrase?). And I’m sure there is plenty to be critical about when you consider the WEF, for example. Just like there was plenty to be critical about when Bush invaded Iraq. But not everyone critical of that war ended up on Infowars elevating Alex Jones’ dangerous self-enriching parade of harmful nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well well well, this is all very cheery! 😅

 

Is it at all possible Matt's going to try and write from there perspective of people he doesn't agree with?  Not like portray the "villain" (hate to be using that here we are talking about real people, however misguided, but for narrative purposes...) as the protagonist, but just singing from that misguided and militant perspective to try and better reveal the cracks in its own philosophy? Like maybe Will Of The People is about people protesting mask and vaccine mandates, but narratively the song will go in the direction of showing that this "Will Of The People" is informed by crackpot news anchors and conspiracists rather than science and compassion, and ends up leading many of those same people to their own demise?

 

Or is that too difficult of a tightrope lyric for Matt to write, and instead he's just going to try and blend a variety of social issues into one song with some gestural slogans and easy to misinterpret references to the unrest that has become our society's daily life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember people use to get really aggy about Muselive's slogan, 'rock for clever people'. Muse make rock for dumb people, that just so happens to be just complex and intriguing enough to snare more clever people. We're the problem, I think.

Matt's pseudo-scientific/theoretical bollocks has been laughable for the best part of two decades now, since BH&R. Showbiz was raw, angsty and immature, Origin was a mushroom trip, Absolution a (loose) political awakening, all three of which reflected the band's age and development at that time.

At some stage, the development stopped and we got stuck in this feedback loop of extremely limited, shallow critical thinking. BH&R may as well have been called Exo Politics and 10 other conspiracy theories for beginners. Rinse and repeat that for the next 15+ years. Remember Terrorstorm on the t-shirt at Reading? In retrospect, that was a total embarrassment. But Matt somehow seems impervious to this stuff. But as I said on the last page, none of his writing comes across as him lampooning any of this nonsense, rather it comes over as egging it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to not read too much into lyrics, for me music is about the music first, then the lyrics. Sometimes I enjoy a song without paying attention to the lyrics at all, or if it is in a language I don‘t understand I don‘t care. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bohemian-Cygnus-Running-Out said:

Well well well, this is all very cheery! 😅

 

Is it at all possible Matt's going to try and write from there perspective of people he doesn't agree with?  Not like portray the "villain" (hate to be using that here we are talking about real people, however misguided, but for narrative purposes...) as the protagonist, but just singing from that misguided and militant perspective to try and better reveal the cracks in its own philosophy? Like maybe Will Of The People is about people protesting mask and vaccine mandates, but narratively the song will go in the direction of showing that this "Will Of The People" is informed by crackpot news anchors and conspiracists rather than science and compassion, and ends up leading many of those same people to their own demise?

 

Or is that too difficult of a tightrope lyric for Matt to write, and instead he's just going to try and blend a variety of social issues into one song with some gestural slogans and easy to misinterpret references to the unrest that has become our society's daily life?

I've been wondering that too. In the band's latest photo, promoting "Compliance," I see on Chris's jacket the words "there's one in every family." Sure, that could mean a lot of things, but given what we know about the album thus far and what Matt has said about COVID, Black Lives Matter, Trump, etc., I have to wonder if said words refer to the "nutter" in every family - you know that guy the rest of the family secretly refers to as Crazy Uncle Frank after he leaves Thanksgiving dinner drunk in an Uber, due to all the conspiracies he shared while chugging his 13th Busch Light, with gravy dripping from his chin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, That Little Animal said:

Here’s my issue with that. Phrases like ‘just entertaining the ideas’ and ‘just asking questions’ have been hijacked to become gateways into nefarious narratives that people are meant to stumble upon when they ‘do their own research’ surrounding these topics. 
 

So like I said earlier, questioning the Man and kicking against the establishment are very healthy sentiments and I only encourage it. But when you have a sizable audience like Matt does, you have a bit of a responsibility. Adopting and repeating certain phrases without considering their origins or adding any nuance might send people down information holes that are objectively harmful. Even if he himself hasn’t adopted any of the viewpoints or movements whose catchphrases he’s broadcasting. 

I know Matt’s not a CoVid-19 sceptic nutter. Or a Qanon follower, or an alt-right figure (do people still use that phrase?). And I’m sure there is plenty to be critical about when you consider the WEF, for example. Just like there was plenty to be critical about when Bush invaded Iraq. But not everyone critical of that war ended up on Infowars elevating Alex Jones’ dangerous self-enriching parade of harmful nonsense. 

Okay, and I'm guessing if he were inquired about it today, Matt would say he regrets appearing on "The Alex Jones Show." Said interview occurred 16 years ago. How much has changed since then? I know I've changed. He made a mistake; has illustrated progression since then; and as I always say, "One shouldn't be judged for the person they were, but for the person they've become."

I do think there's a stark difference between intentionally spouting specific disinformation like, say Joe Rogan has with regard to COVID, and writing/singing vague lyrics, which can be interpreted in numerous ways. In the former example, the purpose of the speaker's message is to misinform his listeners and provide them with specific fabrications to either spread to others or try for themselves (or both). In the latter example, however, that's not the writer's/singer's intent. How can he help how a listener interprets a song? Let's be honest; even if he were to elaborate on the message and inspiration of a song in an interview, there will be some who deny his words and interpret the song as they so choose. It's like with anything nowadays. Provide a "flat-earther" with consistent scientific and visual evidence that the earth is indeed round and what are the odds he/she will suddenly see the light and believe said fact? Given my experience, very low.

I write satire, and there have admittedly been times when I've been approached by a reader or listener who had misinterpreted a message I was attempting to convey through my work. Now, there are times when the interpretation is so out in left field, yet not antithetical to my general message, I find the creative thinking to be fascinating, and won't necessarily correct them, unless they ask for me to do so. On the other hand, there have also been times when an interpretation has run so contrary to my intent, as to become offensive, I've felt the need to be completely upfront and say, "Eh, no, here's how it actually is." At the end of the day, though, how much control can I realistically have over how others interpret my work? Similarly, how much control can Matt have over how others interpret his?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, EternallyPissed said:

Okay, and I'm guessing if he were inquired about it today, Matt would say he regrets appearing on "The Alex Jones Show." Said interview occurred 16 years ago. How much has changed since then? I know I've changed. He made a mistake; has illustrated progression since then; and as I always say, "One shouldn't be judged for the person they were, but for the person they've become."

I do think there's a stark difference between intentionally spouting specific disinformation like, say Joe Rogan has with regard to COVID, and writing/singing vague lyrics, which can be interpreted in numerous ways. In the former example, the purpose of the speaker's message is to misinform his listeners and provide them with specific fabrications to either spread to others or try for themselves (or both). In the latter example, however, that's not the writer's/singer's intent. How can he help how a listener interprets a song? Let's be honest; even if he were to elaborate on the message and inspiration of a song in an interview, there will be some who deny his words and interpret the song as they so choose. It's like with anything nowadays. Provide a "flat-earther" with consistent scientific and visual evidence that the earth is indeed round and what are the odds he/she will suddenly see the light and believe said fact? Given my experience, very low.

I write satire, and there have admittedly been times when I've been approached by a reader or listener who had misinterpreted a message I was attempting to convey through my work. Now, there are times when the interpretation is so out in left field, yet not antithetical to my general message, I find the creative thinking to be fascinating, and won't necessarily correct them, unless they ask for me to do so. On the other hand, there have also been times when an interpretation has run so contrary to my intent, as to become offensive, I've felt the need to be completely upfront and say, "Eh, no, here's how it actually is." At the end of the day, though, how much control can I realistically have over how others interpret my work? Similarly, how much control can Matt have over how others interpret his?

"One shouldn't be judged for the person they were, but for the person they've become."

Yeah and Matt is still writing the exact same lyrical content as then. And while dismissing the conspiracy nutters in interviews, he still acts as if his own words have no effect on the world whatsoever, while also wishing for his lyrics to inspire people. You don't really get to mirror the statements of the conspiracy nuts who these days have proven to be quite dangerous to society, while also claiming that you have no part in the spread of their propaganda. 

Also don't really buy your argument that since it doesn't matter if you provide a flat-earther with evidence, you might as well give into the discourse and use it in the same way they do...but just remove the words "flat earth", so you can pretend to sit on the fence while supplying fuel for the fire. 

Now, maybe Matt surprises us all and comes out with the most poignant dismantling of these matters that we've ever seen. But your argument that he can't help how a listener interprets a song is just...flawed. Sure, even Rage Against The Machine have some right-wing nutters thinking they're talking about the modern left, but don't you think that crowd would have been slightly bigger if RATM actually intended to write for right-wing nutters? Or do you really think that it doesn't make a difference?

Let me put it like this: Muse's social media comment sections these past few days have been full of people going "So true. The governments have already kept us locked inside for 2 years under the guise of fear. And they're still pushing their supposed "vaccines"". But for some reason...I don't see these comments on the social media sites of my other favourite artists...

Edited by Hat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hat said:

"One shouldn't be judged for the person they were, but for the person they've become."

Yeah and Matt is still writing the exact same lyrical content as then. And while dismissing the conspiracy nutters in interviews, he still acts as if his own words have no effect on the world whatsoever, while also wishing for his lyrics to inspire people. You don't really get to mirror the statements of the conspiracy nuts who these days have proven to be quite dangerous to society, while also claiming that you have no part in the spread of their propaganda. 

Also don't really buy your argument that since it doesn't matter if you provide a flat-earther with evidence, you might as well give into the discourse and use it in the same way they do...but just remove the words "flat earth", so you can pretend to sit on the fence while supplying fuel for the fire. 

Now, maybe Matt surprises us all and comes out with the most poignant dismantling of these matters that we've ever seen. But your argument that he can't help how a listener interprets a song is just...flawed. Sure, even Rage Against The Machine have some right-wing nutters thinking they're talking about the modern left, but don't you think that crowd would have been slightly bigger if RATM actually intended to write for right-wing nutters? Or do you really think that it doesn't make a difference?

Let me put it like this: Muse's social media comment sections these past few days have been full of people going "So true. The governments have already kept us locked inside for 2 years under the guise of fear. And they're still pushing their supposed "vaccines"". But for some reason...I don't see these comments on the social media sites of my other favourite artists...

This post is so filled with informal fallacies, I'm not going to even touch it. It should be the subject of a community college critical thinking course for the class to dissect. Feel free to continue with your fallacies. I'm done here, for I must complete a poem I started, where I will specifically detail what my intent is and how others should interpret it within the writing, because isn't that the joy of art? Being told what to think and feel when subjected to it?

Edited by EternallyPissed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EternallyPissed said:

This post is so filled with informal fallacies, I'm not going to even touch it. It should be the subject of a community college critical thinking course for the class to dissect. Feel free to continue with your fallacies. I'm done here, for I must complete a poem I started, where I will specifically detail what my intent is and how others should interpret it within the writing, because isn't that the joy of art? Being told what to think and feel when subjected to it?

If your point is that art is supposed to create a thought process or discussion, rather than spell out exact viewpoints, then welcome and engage in the discussion, don’t dismiss it. I’m seeing so much cancel culture-flopping these days, where people lob up some controversial viewpoint and then complain about being cancelled or silenced when they merely face a counter argument.  
 

No one is saying Matt should do this or say that or the other. Personally, I’m merely discussing the responsibility that comes with lobbing up talking points and catch phrases uttered by extremists and the fact that Matt seems to be unaware or dismissive of this responsibility. As a fan, I’m expressing the wish that he takes this responsibility rather than to give the impression of on one hand trying to appeal to and encourage a group that adheres to certain viewpoints through his art and on the other hand dismiss those viewpoints in his private communications. I consider some of those viewpoints harmful. And if he doesn’t agree with them I’m worried he’s either broadcasting them by mistake, or deliberately to profit from them. 
 

I don’t mean to speak for others, but I think some are also making the point that Matt is not a strong enough lyricist or has created the right persona to handle controversial topics. To me this has nothing to do with being PC or a need for artists to explain themselves. For example, Rammstein (or Lindemann), unapologetically sing from the perspective of murderers, rapists, racists, populists, capitalists, communists, romantics, lovers, sex addicts, assholes, pedophiles, you name it. But I never get the sense that they didn’t think about it before recording it. Quite the contrary. By being explicit they encourage discussion, they encourage outrage, disgust and examination of human behavior. They don’t lob up borrowed phrases that originate with and might lead you to trolls and conspiracy theorists who mean to deceive you and harm the truth. They don’t leave you with a blank to be filled in by others than yourself. 

Edited by That Little Animal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EternallyPissed said:

This post is so filled with informal fallacies, I'm not going to even touch it. It should be the subject of a community college critical thinking course for the class to dissect. 

You shouldn't be too hard on your own writing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EternallyPissed said:

This post is so filled with informal fallacies, I'm not going to even touch it. It should be the subject of a community college critical thinking course for the class to dissect. Feel free to continue with your fallacies. I'm done here, for I must complete a poem I started, where I will specifically detail what my intent is and how others should interpret it within the writing, because isn't that the joy of art? Being told what to think and feel when subjected to it?

Something doesn't become a fallacy just because you don't want to acknowledge the argument. And you're doing quite a good job of providing your own fallacy at the end there. Matt doesn't have to do anything, but if he writes shit that panders to conspiracy theorists, I'm gonna criticise him. Oh the horror!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, That Little Animal said:

You make me feel like it’s Halloween!! Damn, I was still puzzling on that one. 

Getting new kind of kick vibes, but make meeeeeee aaaaaah, make me scream your dreams!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • JessicaSarahS changed the title to LP9: WOTP Discussion/Speculation Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...