Since countering Aldean’s claim the video only contains “real news footage,” Destinee Stark has received a wave of hateful messages from defenders of the song.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    76
    ·
    1 year ago

    You got it wrong.

    The implied threat to use a firearm comes after that, in regards to trying to take the firearm in question, not in regards to the section quoted.

    If you’re going to point out hypocrisy, point to the accurate hypocrisy :)

    • zaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Flag burning is protected and threatening gun violence is a crime. What the gun violence is a reaction to is irrelevant.

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It matters in this case because the quoted lyrics imply the gun is linked to the flag portion of the song but it’s the start of a different verse. Not getting the facts straight devalues the (valid) criticisms and allows people to dismiss the whole thing outright. The point can be made without being misleading or being inaccurate, so why undermine it?

        • diablexical@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But the section about having a gun immediately follows one about burning the flag? Comes across to me as hero fantasies of the flag burner escalating and giving the gun holder a justified reason to shoot them.

    • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      See how far you make it down the road because he has a gun… which he will use the politely direct you elsewhere.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I mean this song is dumb as fuck but the quote is misleading.

        That last line is the start of a second verses focusing on how you can’t take his granpappy’s gun - it’s not part of a continued threat from the first verse

        OP definitely knew this, because the punctuation doesn’t even line up as if it were the end of the verse. This is deliberately misleading, which is weird, because the song is obviously already ridden with shit lines.

        • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The entire thing is a threat of violence, see all the un-bolded parts. Like literally what is different about a small town in this song which forces people to stop burning flags, except that they will violently prevent you from exercising your first amendment rights?

          Immediately mentioning a gun is specifying gun violence but threatening violence in reaction to free speech in general is illegal and an immoral call for vigilante justice.

        • czech@no.faux.moe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes the implied violence and the introduction of grandpas gun are purely coincidental! How misleading of OP!

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It is misleading. The second verse literally has its own implied threat.

            Got a gun that my granddad gave me

            They say one day they’re gonna round up

            Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck

            This is just how songs, paragraphs, and language in general work.

            • czech@no.faux.moe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just because the second verse literally has its own implied threat does not mean the first verse is unrelated. In songs and paragraphs adjacent sentences are typically related- its how English works- but I can’t speak for all languages.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not “unrelated”. It’s just not part of the same shitty statement. It’s part of a different shitty statement.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No. I’m against people intentionally misleading others even when I agree with their general thrust.

                If people stopped buying in when they were being obviously mislead, we wouldn’t have had Trump

                This really shouldn’t be such a hard concept for you to grasp.

                • Oderus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s a lot of words to say, ‘yeah, I am spending a lot of personal, unpaid time to defend someone I don’t know’.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Defenses of people don’t normally include statements about how the person is shit lol

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Except I’m literally attacking both the song and the OP’s lying comment.

                    Quit being stupid. It’s a bad look.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that’s not how songs are received. We don’t read them. We listen to them. And the two topic dog whistle is as old as Jim Crow.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Imagine listening to music and not being able to tell where different verses are. Song must be confusing!

    • CannaVet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Really speaks to Republicans actual priority when the only take they can apply to anything in society is “It’s my god given American right to ensure everybody at all times knows exactly how hard my dick gets thinking about murdering them”

    • starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that this is down voted… hey guys maybe listen to the actual song so you can hear how this is very obviously an entire new verse, and the gun is not related to the flag burning? Why do we care more about bashing the song than being actually correct?

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        this is very obviously an entire new verse, and the gun is not related to the flag burning?

        One story or one argument can very much span multiple different verses. Plenty of songs will use different verses to each provide a similar argument to the core point of the song, and plenty will tell a single story across all verses.

        And looking through the lyrics, the entire song is at any point either listing actions or hinting at consequences. Which honestly makes it worse since that effectively suggests protected first amendment expression deserves the exact same vigilante violence as armed robbery and carjacking?

        maybe listen to the actual song

        Honestly I’d rather not. Mostly because country is one of the few music genres I absolutely can’t stand. Just whatever it is, the style absolutely grates on me to where I struggle to make it through a single song.

        Also it’s lyrically pretty lazy. Write some sentences, change words around so the syllable count matches the tempo and verse structure, throw in some loose rhymes, an identifiable chorus and some callbacks to earlier in the song and you’ve got lyrics for a song. It would be entirely forgettable if it wasn’t so disgustingly racist. And worse than just being racist, it’s all painfully obvious dogwhistles which is just insulting the listener’s intelligence

      • Ghostc1212@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Modern society cares more about fighting perceived evil than they do about being good, or honorable. Even the truth must not stand in the way of the wrath of the angry mob of keyboard warriors.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Knee jerk, probably. People see the first line and don’t bother to read the rest without carrying over the initial reaction.

        Which, that’s the humor of it. You start out with a jarring intro, switch to a lighthearted part, and finish with a wink and a smile. Alas, a lot of people can’t let go of their first reaction in text like they would in person. Kinda silly, but this is the internet lol.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, that’s not what it implies at all. No one was talking about 2A or taking guns away. He’s literally mentioning the gun in direct response to the last infraction (burning the flag). Read it again.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Read the lyrics to the actual song again

        Edit: the relevant verse is emphasized

        Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk Carjack an old lady at a red light Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store Ya think it’s cool, well, act a fool if ya like

        Cuss out a cop, spit in his face Stomp on the flag and light it up Yeah, ya think you’re tough

        Well, try that in a small town See how far ya make it down the road Around here, we take care of our own You cross that line, it won’t take long For you to find out, I recommend you don’t Try that in a small town

        Got a gun that my granddad gave me They say one day they’re gonna round up Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck

        Try that in a small town See how far ya make it down the road Around here, we take care of our own You cross that line, it won’t take long For you to find out, I recommend you don’t Try that in a small town

        Full of good ol’ boys, raised up right If you’re looking for a fight Try that in a small town Try that in a small town

        Try that in a small town See how far ya make it down the road Around here, we take care of our own You cross that line, it won’t take long For you to find out, I recommend you don’t Try that in a small town

        Try that in a small town Ooh-ooh Try that in a small town