SJWs Invade Music!

A few days ago, I read an interesting article that was linked up from the BC Musician magazine Facebook page, called I Was a Polaris Juror and it Sucked. Having been a Polaris juror myself several years ago, I found the article an interesting look back into the world I had left. When I was a juror, I was called in due to my position as music director at CFBX and enjoyed the opportunity to help determine the best music in Canada, regardless of commercial success. I only stayed as a juror for one year, since I found a lot of the discussion fairly off-putting, as the article above points out. The politicking, sometimes harsh (if passionate) arguing and name calling often drowned out the actual discussion about the music. I kind of shrugged the rest of the article off as sour grapes, finding the tokenism of the author wanting to include more diverse voices as a point of social commentary, rather than a discussion of music.

That is until this happened:



The very same band the author of the article was campaigning against has changed their name, due to pressure from outside sources. I understand why the band did it, to silence people complaining about the band rather than talking about their music, but it's a shame they were forced to do so. They didn't choose the name because it was offensive (though that would be a totally post-punk/middle finger kind of thing for a band like this to do), but because it resonated with them. Today I realized, after watching the hilarious and spot on portrayals of SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) as bullying frat boys from Monday's season opener of South Park, that SJWs are beginning to infiltrate the music industry. And it sucks.

The SJW movement has it's roots in something noble, the feminists movement, but has turned into something extremely offensive and often unintentionally hilarious. Check out the TumblrinAction subreddit for the type of thing I'm talking about. Yes, the rights of the trans-gendered, the gay and otherwise marginalized members of society should be protected. No, just because you think you're a wolf in a human body (or even more ridiculous things like a galaxy in a human body, or a colour in a human body (yes, that's apparently a thing), does not make you special nor deserving of special treatment. Because you think you have a mental illness and you are "triggered" by someone saying you're not special does not make you special. It makes you delusional. Real people with mental illnesses don't brag about their illnesses, they instead work through them. And when they're triggered (actually triggered, not whatever you think being triggered is), they curl up in a ball in the corner, a quivering mess of uncontrollable anxiety or depression. They don't blog about it. Nor do they whine on the internet, unless they're looking for attention. Like most of these otherkin folk on Tumblr.

Yes, Johnnie Regalado, Viet Cong's name could be seen as offensive. But does that in any way reduce how good their music is? Fuck no. Their debut album is one of the best albums of the year so far, and I'd be pretty proud if the Polaris Prize went to them. Grant Lawrence is completely right pointing out that you don't seem to have any problems with other bands that have offensive names. The Dead Kennedys, named after the assassination of John Kennedy, are one of the most respected punk bands in the world. Joy Division are named after the group of "pleasure ladies" used to service Nazi leaders, and are one of the most important post-punk bands ever. Gang of Four are named after the repressive inner circle of Mao's revolutionary government in China, but still made several amazing and highly influential dance punk albums. The Lee Harvey Oswald Band, Marilyn Manson, Anal Cult, The Fucking Champs, The Dwarves. The list goes on and on of bands with offensive names that are making great music. Yet Viet Cong somehow twists your nipples and twisted a bunch of other people so hard that the band were forced to change their name because they got all offended by the choices they made. What right do you have to say that the band is wrong? How punk is it to knuckle down and bow to public pressure? Not very punk at all. And it robs the band of their ability to make an artistic statement.

This reminds me so much of the PMRC debates that happened back in the 80s, back when some morally upright politicians and their wives were openly complaining about depravity in the music industry. This was back when people were afraid that kids were killing themselves due to listening to heavy metal albums. The hearings that followed were amusing in a lot of ways, with Frank Zappa making the most poignant speech of the hearings. It's interesting to note that Zappa's Jazz from Hell album ended up with a parental advisory sticker on it, even though the album contained no lyrics, and there was nothing offensive on the album sleeve or liner notes. And Zappa was a staunch conservative. And, John Denver, who the establishment thought would for sure stand up for the depravity in the music industry, actually stood up for artistic expression.

Get your stinking moral high ground out of art and music. That sort of judgement stunts the artistic process and damages art and music. Viet Cong should not be forced to change their name.

FYI, here's Zappa's speech. It's a bit long, but worth listening to.