AGREE TO DISAGREE with Dave and Raphael
Dave Segal writes a blog about rap music. Raphael Bob-Waksberg writes this blog that you are reading right now. They are good friends who often disagree about things on Facebook (like the below conversation). This is… AGREE TO DISAGREE.
Dave: GLAAD going after Tyler, the Creator over lyrics is ridiculous. He’s equal opportunity in his offensiveness. He’s not just homophobic and misogynistic, he’s also racist, beastialic, masochistic, incestuous, and so on and so on. That’s the whole point. It’s like getting mad at a SAW movie because there were scenes that bothered people with a fear of needles. Do you really expect sympathy for that?
When you listen to intentionally offensive things and then write about how offended you were by them, you might as well just start out with, “Congratulations!” cause you’re just affirming their success.
(Or like me getting upset about a GLAAD blog post about Tyler, the Creator! Was I expecting the post to call him a hero? Come on! Know what you’re getting into, Dave!)
Raphael: It’s kind of like your SAW example, if people who had a fear of needles made up 10 percent of the population, and people who had a fear of needles were constantly harassed, often to the point of suicide, and if there was an organization whose very purpose was to look out for people who had a fear of needles and to call out those who are making their lives more difficult, so hopefully the world can be a less ugly place for people who have a fear of needles, and maybe we as a culture can stop deifying people who spew hate, ESPECIALLY if spewing hate is “the whole point.”
Adam Conover: I agree with both of you, so I’m just going to point out that I think it’s funny that the only thing people ever “spew” is hate. Just once, I’d like to see someone spew, say, a math lecture.
Dave: I think part of looking out for people who have a fear of needles is to choose your targets wisely. Choose those who are actually defaming needle-fearers, instead of those who are using needles to scare people in conjunction with every other fear you can think of. If you ignore the broader context and focus on the part that bothers you, you risk diminishing your other, more important, claims because you come to be known as a knee-jerk reactionary organization who can’t differentiate attacks on and harassment of needle-fearers from art and poetry whose intent is to examine that which people are scared of.
Tyler is delving into the dark side of his own teenage mind, and other people getting upset about what he finds, to me, shows that they don’t understand what he’s talking about. It’s more Dostoevsky than it is Limbaugh.
Raphael: I guess we just have different reads on GLAAD’s statement because I don’t find it reactionary or knee-jerk at all. If GLAAD isn’t saying things like “Tyler’s attempts to be provocative as well as his indifference towards the consequences of his actions are irresponsible,” and “words matter; slurs have the power to fuel intolerance,” then I don’t know what the point of GLAAD is.
Tyler, the Creator IS actually defaming women and homosexuals, even if it’s in the name of “examining that which people are scared of,” an excuse that to me reads as ridiculous and empty as GLAAD’s statement reads to you. There is nothing subversive or satirical about calling people “faggots” (lots of teenagers do this) or joking about rape and violence against women (lots of teenagers do this too), nor is it a particularly new and fresh conceit to claim these things are subversive or satirical. (As far as writers go, Tyler seems to be more Bret Easton Ellis than Dostoevsky.)
Saying horrible things just to get a rise out of people, or just because you think it’s funny are not in my book good enough reasons to say horrible things. You accuse GLAAD of ignoring the broader context, but I think one of the major critiques against Tyler (even from Odd Future defenders) is that it’s unclear what the broader context is. Of course I believe that Tyler doesn’t actually want to cut up women’s clitorises with broken bottles, but I’m not sure there’s an intent behind his lyrics more sophisticated than “saying this stuff is taboo and therefore it’s funny.” Him saying things in interviews like “I’m not homophobic. I just say ‘faggot’ and use ‘gay’ as an adjective to describe stupid shit” doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.
The “If you don’t like it, just look away” strategy only works if you don’t want anything to change. In today’s environment, where teen bullying is still a major problem and 1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted, I’d much rather organizations like GLAAD stay on the offensive.
Dave: What I take issue with in their statement is “Using hateful language, regardless of the context, is unacceptable.” Their stated dismissal of context, in my opinion, undercuts their ability to be taken seriously in terms of public debate.
If all they want to do is make a point about the offensiveness of his usage of “fag” and “gay” as substitutes for “dumb” I’m fine with that. It’s certainly a bigger issue than him, but I’m fine calling that out, and agree with the point.
It’s when they cross the line into the lyrics that are intended to shock and disturb that I find it to be a waste of their platform. I agree that he’s being irresponsible, homophobic, and everything else they’re calling him — but it’s pointing out the obvious. It’s pointing out the intended. To say that you’re shocked by the shocking isn’t really saying anything except that it was effective.
While you might not find anything worthwhile in their expression of their own dark sides, it doesn’t mean there’s nothing there. Certainly, if you’re looking for a sophisticated message, you’re not going to find one. They’re not offering up any ideas they want you to incorporate into your life, and their topics aren’t original (even in the context of rap, it’s not). When I listen to Odd Future, which, to be totally upfront, isn’t really often at all, what grabs my attention is that this is their expression of rebellion. This is how they express, “I hate the world that’s been left for me”, how they say “you don’t get me.” Are there more sophisticated, responsible ways of saying that? Of course. But music and art don’t have to be sophisticated or responsible or unoffensive. They don’t have to have a point. They can simply provoke, and if all someone’s doing is trying to provoke you, it’s best to understand them in that context. This is their way of provoking and making those statements of rebellion. They express their carnality originally, eloquently, and musically. And I find that pretty fascinating.
On your last point, I’m not saying, “if you don’t like it, look away.” I’m saying approach things with an appreciation of their context if you want to deal with them effectively. Otherwise you risk sounding shrill and being sidelined which I’d hate to see happen to GLAAD.
Raphael: I think we agree more than we disagree. I grant you GLAAD’s blanket refusal to acknowledge context is problematic and weakens their overall argument. In fact, I think it’s precisely the context, or lack thereof, that makes Tyler, the Creator’s music so odious.
You say art doesn’t have to have a point, and I’m not sure I buy that. Certainly, paintings of butterflies don’t need to have a point, but if you’re creating art about raping pregnant women, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask that you have a point, other than provocation for the sake of provocation. It isn’t an act of rebellion to rampage against those who have less power than you do. Tyler’s sexist and homophobic lyrics aren’t examples of a kid fighting back against the establishment, as you try to frame them, but a person using his privilege to denigrate others and further entrench himself within the establishment; I don’t consider it edgy or avant-garde to borrow a page from Eminem’s playbook from ten years ago.
If Tyler is interested in starting a dialogue about these themes, he’s made no effort to make this clear through the art itself or in any of the several interviews I’ve read with him. Rather than engage in these debates, he repeatedly retreats to excuses like “I just think it’s funny.” That’s bad, and I find it disappointing and alarming how many music fans and journalists bend over backwards to let him off the hook. GLAAD isn’t looking for things to complain about; Tyler, the Creator is unavoidable these days — I don’t follow hip-hop at all, and I can’t stop hearing about him — and most of the coverage of him talks about how daring and controversial he is, without any sort of real critical analysis.
Perhaps GLAAD comes off as shrill, but I think it’s a bit grotesque to publicly belittle a group of individuals who have been harassed and disenfranchised all their lives, make millions off that abuse, and then ask the oppressed to “try to understand the context.”
Dave: I’m glad you agree that GLAAD’s dismissal of context is problematic as that’s what sent me off on this in the first place, but it seems that a lot of what follows that agreement is about how you, personally, don’t think that what he makes is particularly good, which is fine, but not necessarily germane.
My point isn’t that you or anyone else should LIKE Tyler’s music — my point is that taking out the lyrics that are offensive towards women and homosexuals, does nothing to alter the offensiveness of the songs. They’d still be a bunch of disgusting, violent, racist, bestial raps that were engineered to be offensive.
I think GLAAD had two options that were better, both of which would recognize context.
#1 Don’t say anything because intentionally offensive and irresponsible horror-core rap is not where people get their values, it’s where they take temporary retreat from the pressure of those values. And any campaign that targets people’s escape mechanisms is destined to fail.
#2 Show some moral backbone and stand up for more than your own interest group so you don’t look myopic in your outrage. The idea that GLAAD, or anybody else, would be more “okay” with Tyler’s lyrics if their group was omitted really bothers me. Perhaps that’s a beef I have with all anti-defamation groups, but it’s one that really drives me nuts.
Some quick point by points:
- “Certainly, paintings of butterflies don’t need to have a point, but if you’re creating art about raping pregnant women, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask that you have a point”. I think that’s completely unfair. It’s an inconsistent definition that you’re partially basing on what you, personally, find offensive. Maybe that works as a definition for you, but it’s certainly not one I’m okay with going down in the books. The question of whether or not there should be a moral clause in defining what is and isn’t art is a whole other debate — one that I think we’ll look ridiculous having here.
- “Tyler’s sexist and homophobic lyrics aren’t examples of a kid fighting back against the establishment … but a person using his privilege to denigrate others and further entrench himself within the establishment”. I think you and he probably have different ideas of what the “establishment” is. Yours seems to be comprised, at least in some part, of homophobes and misogynists, I presume he would think of the establishment more as parents and teachers. That seems to account for your differences in what rebelling should entail.
- “I find it disappointing and alarming how many music fans and journalists bend over backwards to let him off the hook.” Who’s letting him off the hook? Have people been saying that it’s not gross and offensive? Those are honest questions. I don’t read as much pop-culture writing as you do.
And in summary:
I think what bothered you initially was my SAW analogy. Looking back at it, I can see how it probably read to you and others as unfairly reductive, and demeaning to the larger fight for acceptance of homosexuality. That certainly wasn’t my intent, but it’s an understandable reading. I should have been more clear or maybe thrown in some disclaimers.
But, then again, I’m also glad that we got into this whole thing because you’re one of my favorite people to debate. You’re smart, passionate, and almost always on the opposite side from me. I like that. It forces each of us to more closely examine our beliefs, and to me that can only result in good.
