I think you can make a case that a five-year-old ought to be protected from stories about brutal violence if it’s possible, and that furthermore you need to be careful, for their own safety and for the happiness of others around them, about how they’re introduced to potentially volatile language. “Niggas” is probably the most offensive word in American English when coming from the mouth of a white child. “Fuck them other niggas cause I’m down for my niggas!” is a sentiment devoid of compassion or positive sentiment for one’s fellow humans, and encourages an us-versus-them mentality.
GANGSTA RAP MADE ME DO IT INSTRUCT METAL FULL
The music Askia was listening to described guns, shootings (I figure that’s what “when the smoke settle” refers to), a world full of violence. Okay, Devil’s advocate time, since magellan’s not stepping up: I die for my niggas, fuck them other niggas!įuck them other niggas cause I’m down for my niggas, It sounds, though, that the inference may be that at some later age (when the child figures out what the lyrics mean) there could be damage.įuck them other niggas cause I’m down for my niggas!įuck them other niggas, I ride for my niggas, However, I must ask, at what point does does the child begin to understand and absorb the lyrics? Should we be concerned then? Zoe seems to say that the psyche of the child at this age would not be damaged. (Compare that with the trauma that the Katrina disaster had on the minds of five year old children, for example.) Certainly his psyche would not be damaged by the lyrics. Children at that age generally don’t absorb the meaning of the lyrics and would not be using them against anyone in meaningful context. If you have had sufficient training in developmental psychology and child psychology, you would not to be overly concerned about this five year old in this particular situation. So, I start this thread with the intention of gathering opposing views on the matter so we can come to some level headed agreement and hopefully back up our positions with some facts. This proof was something Magellan didn’t offer up, yet. It’s perfectly fine, no harm done, no harm will come, and further they would like to see Magellan prove that this type of music could harm a child and in what way. No condemnation of the mother of the child, who must be the one allowing her son to listen to it, no condemnation of the music itself. He is being piled on by the more liberal in the thread who take the position that it’s harmless, he’s overreacting, and they see nothing wrong with it.
In this thread, Magellan takes the position that a five year old child listening to gangsta (gangster) rap music will somehow be harmed by it.
0 kommentar(er)
