• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Jason Aldean controversy

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm guessing that you were raised in the small town to which you refer or else it wasn't in the South or Midwest. I've also had experience with both, having been born and raised in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and living in rural areas thereafter. My career began in rural California in the Inland Empire, where almost nobody there was born, and there was no problem getting to know one's neighbors. But in rural southeast Missouri, where most people who lived there were born, once an outsider always an outsider. You are never accepted, especially if you're from California.

My grandmother was born in rural Missouri, and I've found that they do accept you if you're a relative. It was the same where my grandfather was born in Louisiana, though the swamps were a bit too eerie for me. I've also lived in L.A. (including the Inland Empire), as well as a relatively small town in upstate NY. I didn't know it at the time, but the small town in New York where I lived had a bit of a reputation for the police being quite unfriendly to any outsiders or anyone who didn't look like they belonged. They didn't want any of those long-haired freaky people hanging around. In Los Angeles, it didn't really seem to matter, as anything goes in that city.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet, although I'm sure many of you heard about it by now.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/20/1188966935/jason-aldean-try-that-in-a-small-town-song-video
Of course, those who are calling the backlash "cancel culture" are the same ones who called for boycotts against Bud Lite, Target, Disney, Barbie, etc.

A bit of trivia; he was on stage during the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that occurred at a country music festival. Curiously, he nor anyone else in attendence used their "good guy with a gun" powers to prevent it.
Cancelling the right is proceeding full speed ahead. Remember when Georgia lost the baseball All-Star game to Colorado recently in protest over Georgia new voting laws? https://www.npr.org/2021/04/06/9847...-colorado-amid-uproar-over-georgia-voting-law

And just now, Alabama is losing a sweetheart deal over its US Senator Tuberville's decision to block high level military promotions because the military funds abortion expenses, although the official reason given was, "moving his headquarters now would jeopardize military readiness." Biden decides to keep Space Command in Colorado, rejecting move to Alabama

When I saw the controversial video, my first thought was, why would I want to be in a place dominated by these people? Message received. And it's not just a racist message. I consider these people just as hostile and dangerous to me being a white, liberal atheist.

And while others hope for a rapprochement between the left and right, I don't see that as realistic. The differences are irreconcilable, contempt is mutual, and as this song suggests, these people are proudly hostile and prone to violence, so I approve of what I see as a trend for liberals to leave red states.

This was circulating after the 2004 election, so the identification of states as red or blue is a little different and some of the entities named no longer exist, like Enron, but the sentiment is the same except stronger today:

FROM THE BLUE STATES TO THE RED

Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, Nouveau California.

We're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes the Pacific states except Alaska (California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii), the Great Lakes states except Indiana (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and yes, we’re taking Ohio back), New England (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island), the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and Maryland and Delaware.

We believe this split will be beneficial to both nations. For example, the residents of Nuevo California will be leaving Iraq at once. You’re “real Americans” in uniform from the Heartlands won’t have to fight beside elitists and intellectuals. If you need more people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have plenty of spare kids (they practice abstinence only and have no Planned Parenthood clinics). Oh, and good luck with those WMD’s.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh.

Since your Christian Coalition’s aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent higher than ours, you get a bunch of deadbeat dads, single moms and latch key kids. You can hire our big city lawyers, however.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 53 percent believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

We’ll take Old Glory since you already have enough Stars and Bars to go around. Will you be calling your country the Cunfederucy or Jeebusland? By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You’ll still have your meth labs.

We get the coasts
You get the fly over states

We get California and the nude beaches
You get Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of cowboy America

We get Manhattan and Chesapeake Bay
You get the Dukes of Hazards states like Alabama and Mississippi

We get Hollywood, Yosemite and the best beaches
You get Iowa, incest and swamps.

We get the resorts and golf courses
You get Graceland and Nascar.

We get the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge.
You get Dollywood, the Appalachians and the Ozarks.

We get Stanford, Columbia, Princeton and Harvard.
You get Ole' Miss, Bob Jones University, Clemson, the University of Georgia and Columbine High School.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and two-thirds of the tax revenue
You get the churches and people that that don’t believe in paying taxes.

We get entrepreneurs, Intel and Microsoft.​
You get WorldCom and Enron.

Peace out,

Blue States
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
I didn't listen or watch the thing. I'm of the opinion that people can simply choose to not watch/listen to things they find offensive. I just thought it was hypocritical and comical that conservatives were whining about "cancel culture" so shortly after their boycotts against But Light, Target, Disney, Barbie, drag shows, etc. They can't have it both ways.
Actually people can, and do have it both ways; they complain about what they don't like, and they support that which they do like. If you don't like what a corporation is doing, you have every right to refrain from buying their products. Do you have a problem with that?
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Yes. Of the many thousands of courthouses he could have chosen, he chose the one that he knew someone would recognize as a racial supremicist signal. And that would help sell records to redneck bigots. So would all the media controversy. In the end it's always about the money. And unfortunately, racism sells well among a certain demographic.
Really? You know what else they did that you forgot to mention?

*In 1926 a black man was hung from a tree, and there was a tree in the video
*in 1954 a black man was dragged to death by the KKK using a dodge truck, and there was a dodge truck in the video
*in 1920 several black men were burned alive by the KKK and there was fire in the video.
*in 1921 during the Tulsa massacre, some of the perpetrators were wearing black hats; and there were guys wearing black hats in the video

How racist of them!!!
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
I didn't listen or watch the thing. I'm of the opinion that people can simply choose to not watch/listen to things they find offensive. I just thought it was hypocritical and comical that conservatives were whining about "cancel culture" so shortly after their boycotts against But Light, Target, Disney, Barbie, drag shows, etc. They can't have it both ways.
"I didn't listen or watch the thing. I'm of the opinion that people can simply choose to not watch/listen to things they find offensive"

Then why do you think its offensive?
Are you just following others with nothing to go on but "they said"
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Actually people can, and do have it both ways; they complain about what they don't like, and they support that which they do like. If you don't like what a corporation is doing, you have every right to refrain from buying their products. Do you have a problem with that?

Do you struggle with reading comprehension? I didn't say there was anything wrong with boycotts. I was pointing about the hypocrisy of complaining about "cancel culture" while engaging in it, or accusing others of being "sensitive snowflakes" before becoming one themselves.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
"I didn't listen or watch the thing. I'm of the opinion that people can simply choose to not watch/listen to things they find offensive"

Then why do you think its offensive?
I never said I did. Although I can understand why others might think so if the accusations are accurate.
Are you just following others with nothing to go on but "they said"
Nope.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Cancelling the right is proceeding full speed ahead. Remember when Georgia lost the baseball All-Star game to Colorado recently in protest over Georgia new voting laws? https://www.npr.org/2021/04/06/9847...-colorado-amid-uproar-over-georgia-voting-law

And just now, Alabama is losing a sweetheart deal over its US Senator Tuberville's decision to block high level military promotions because the military funds abortion expenses, although the official reason given was, "moving his headquarters now would jeopardize military readiness." Biden decides to keep Space Command in Colorado, rejecting move to Alabama

When I saw the controversial video, my first thought was, why would I want to be in a place dominated by these people? Message received. And it's not just a racist message. I consider these people just as hostile and dangerous to me being a white, liberal atheist.

And while others hope for a rapprochement between the left and right, I don't see that as realistic. The differences are irreconcilable, contempt is mutual, and as this song suggests, these people are proudly hostile and prone to violence, so I approve of what I see as a trend for liberals to leave red states.

This was circulating after the 2004 election, so the identification of states as red or blue is a little different and some of the entities named no longer exist, like Enron, but the sentiment is the same except stronger today:

FROM THE BLUE STATES TO THE RED


Dear Red States...


We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, Nouveau California.


We're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes the Pacific states except Alaska (California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii), the Great Lakes states except Indiana (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and yes, we’re taking Ohio back), New England (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island), the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and Maryland and Delaware.


We believe this split will be beneficial to both nations. For example, the residents of Nuevo California will be leaving Iraq at once. You’re “real Americans” in uniform from the Heartlands won’t have to fight beside elitists and intellectuals. If you need more people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have plenty of spare kids (they practice abstinence only and have no Planned Parenthood clinics). Oh, and good luck with those WMD’s.


With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT.


With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh.


Since your Christian Coalition’s aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent higher than ours, you get a bunch of deadbeat dads, single moms and latch key kids. You can hire our big city lawyers, however.


Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 53 percent believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11.


We’ll take Old Glory since you already have enough Stars and Bars to go around. Will you be calling your country the Cunfederucy or Jeebusland? By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You’ll still have your meth labs.


We get the coasts

You get the fly over states


We get California and the nude beaches

You get Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of cowboy America


We get Manhattan and Chesapeake Bay

You get the Dukes of Hazards states like Alabama and Mississippi


We get Hollywood, Yosemite and the best beaches

You get Iowa, incest and swamps.


We get the resorts and golf courses

You get Graceland and Nascar.


We get the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge.

You get Dollywood, the Appalachians and the Ozarks.


We get Stanford, Columbia, Princeton and Harvard.

You get Ole' Miss, Bob Jones University, Clemson, the University of Georgia and Columbine High School.


We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and two-thirds of the tax revenue

You get the churches and people that that don’t believe in paying taxes.


We get entrepreneurs, Intel and Microsoft.
You get WorldCom and Enron.

Peace out,

Blue States

Arizona is purplish these days, and New Mexico and Colorado are blue states (forget about Boebert's district). Baja Arizona has wanted to secede from Arizona, so this might be our chance.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Do you struggle with reading comprehension? I didn't say there was anything wrong with boycotts. I was pointing about the hypocrisy of complaining about "cancel culture" while engaging in it, or accusing others of being "sensitive snowflakes" before becoming one themselves.
You listed But Light, Target, Disney, Barbie.Those were all boycotts. They didn’t go after actual people, they boycotted corporations. When you go after a person to get them fired; that is cancel culture.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
But they didn't go after Dylan, they boycotted Bud light for featuring him. Their disdain was not directed at Dylan, it was directed at bud light.
Really, and how do you think that affected her? They didn’t boycott her because they had nothing to do with her, they could not boycott her directly so they boycotted her indirectly. They boycotted Bud and when she happened to be photographed near a certain “tiger“ they wanted to boycott Kellogg’s.

Boycotting any product a person is connected with, for the sole reason that they are connected with that product, is trying to cancel that person, it is an attempt to get them fired, or put them out of business, or ruin their career.

The people who boycotted Bud Light because of her did it because they want to cancel her. And they will do everything they can to accomplish that, to cancel her and every transgender person.




And don’t misunderstand me, people have the right to boycott. But I have the right to criticize them. And if the only reason they are boycotting something is because they are horrible bigots, I will point out that they are horrible putrid hateful bigots.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Really, and how do you think that affected her? They didn’t boycott her because they had nothing to do with her, they could not boycott her directly so they boycotted her indirectly. They boycotted Bud and when she happened to be photographed near a certain “tiger“ they wanted to boycott Kellogg’s.

Boycotting any product a person is connected with, for the sole reason that they are connected with that product, is trying to cancel that person, it is an attempt to get them fired, or put them out of business, or ruin their career.

The people who boycotted Bud Light because of her did it because they want to cancel her. And they will do everything they can to accomplish that, to cancel her and every transgender person.
Nobody cared about Dylan until companies began to back him; and it wasn’t Dylan that they had a problem with but what he represented. They would have reacted the same for any other Trans person representing their beer.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
They would have reacted the same for any other Trans person representing their beer.
Exactly, it was pure anti-trans bigotry.
But it wasn't cancel culture.
Yes, it was. They wanted to cancel Dylan Mulvaney. And the fact that the only reason they wanted to cancel her is that she is trans doesn't change that fact. The fact that they would have cancelled any other trans person changes nothing. They wanted to cancel her. And I believe they had a significant negative effect on her career.


But that is not the only people who were cancelled.


Hundreds of people lost their jobs. And scum like Boebert celebrate this fact.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Really? You know what else they did that you forgot to mention?

*In 1926 a black man was hung from a tree, and there was a tree in the video
*in 1954 a black man was dragged to death by the KKK using a dodge truck, and there was a dodge truck in the video
*in 1920 several black men were burned alive by the KKK and there was fire in the video.
*in 1921 during the Tulsa massacre, some of the perpetrators were wearing black hats; and there were guys wearing black hats in the video

How racist of them!!!
The point is that someone had to recognize the image as a signal for white supremacy. A tree, a truck, and a fire wouldn't do it. And an actual photo of these kinds of racial violence would have been too obvious. The intent is to 'signal' white supremacy without actually proclaiming it. It's a trick republicans have been using for decades, now.

But you aren't going to read this to learn anything, are you. You're just reading it to object by whatever silly idea you can think of. What a waste of time. Why do you (and some others here) do that? Is it just to keep telling yourself how right you think you are? Some kind of weird game of "You can't defeat me so I win, I'm right!"? And you never win anyway, to anyone but you. As the arguments you present are pathetically lame (like the one above). But I guess that doesn't matter to you. So long as you can keep objecting, and never actually learn anything.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
But they didn't go after Dylan, they boycotted Bud light for featuring him. Their disdain was not directed at Dylan, it was directed at bud light.
Really, and how do you think that affected her? They didn’t boycott her because they had nothing to do with her, they could not boycott her directly so they boycotted her indirectly. They boycotted Bud and when she happened to be photographed near a certain “tiger“ they wanted to boycott Kellogg’s.

Boycotting any product a person is connected with, for the sole reason that they are connected with that product, is trying to cancel that person, it is an attempt to get them fired, or put them out of business, or ruin their career.

The people who boycotted Bud Light because of her did it because they want to cancel her. And they will do everything they can to accomplish that, to cancel her and every transgender person.




And don’t misunderstand me, people have the right to boycott. But I have the right to criticize them. And if the only reason they are boycotting something is because they are horrible bigots, I will point out that they are horrible putrid hateful bigots.

Apparently she's been receiving death threats, has been ridiculed in public and has been afraid to leave her house.

 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Nobody cared about Dylan until companies began to back him; and it wasn’t Dylan that they had a problem with but what he represented. They would have reacted the same for any other Trans person representing their beer.
And now? She's received death threats, been ridiculed in public and has been afraid to leave her house.
It seems people care about her now.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
And now? She's received death threats, been ridiculed in public and has been afraid to leave her house.
It seems people care about her now.
Yeah; that’s kinda messed up; To boycott the beer company is one thing; but to threaten Dylan; there’s no reason for that. Hopefully those types are the exception not the rule

But concerning the OP (Jason Aldean controversy) I looked up several black people doing youtube reactions to the video, and I didn't see a single black person who said the song was racist or offensive; they sorta asked what was all of the fuss. I wonder who is really behind this controversy.
 
Top