Jump to content
 

New Mark Interview with NY Post


Chewy030

Recommended Posts

people have to learn how to make informed decision about political and social issues on their own through independent and critical thinking. this is the responsibility of the person, not on the external influences that be. telling influential people like celebrities to shut it because they shouldnt be influencing naive people is akin to the ridiculous censorship in the media just to "protect" the eyes and ears of the "innocent". the answer isnt to silence the voices, the answer is to teach kids to learn to process the information they are exposed to. blaming people like tom for influencing kids politically is pointing the finger at the wrong person, and the kids will never learn.

I think Tom has every right to voice his political views, I just think he shouldn't.

Again, politics and music don't mix. It's not the right place to bring politics into a band. Add to that that Tom is totally clueless about politics. I guarentee you could sit him or Green Day or any other political musician down and they would get shredded. Basically all their nonsense goes totally unchallenged.

I really admire Mark for taking the stance he takes on politics. If it's a cause he really believes he is going to publically fight for it, otherwise he is just going to shut up cause it's not right to use his popularity to voice his political views.

Why isn't it right though? By saying it's not right makes it sound like some sort of ethical injustice. Basically the artist can write about whatever chooses. The only thing here is just preference, if you don't like hearing lyrical content about politics...but hey, that's preference, and that's the way of life with music..you either agree or you don't, it's a pointless suggestion to say that they shouldn't mix because one thing that you don't like could be the same thing another person does like.

I wouldn't say Tom is clueless..I'm not big on politics, but being clueless or not is relative. For example, I can readily admit that I'm probably more clueless than Tom is. And giving kids credit is important..maybe just talking about Politics makes kids think deeper about the issue and look into things themselves...not just mindlessly brainwash them. I mean look at the majority of the posters here...how many of us actually are this idealized "brainwashed tom-bot" that so many of you guys cry out against? Not many. Blink introduced me to a love of punk rock music, and consequently all types of music. They didn' t brainwash me into ONLY loving this kind of music and nothing else, they opened the door so that I could discover more things for myself, even if it eventaully led me away from the pop punk sound. The very same thing can happen with politics

With Mark using his popularity to voice his views, again, there is no absolute to "popularity". To any political opinion that is voiced, there will ALWAYS be some sort of external influencial factors, aesthetic factors, personal biases. Politicians have to dress nicely, commercials have to be done that are slick to sell a point, maybe teachers, parents, friends have opinions that are tethered with things like popularity, authority, etc. Maybe you are secretly influenced by somebody's attractiveness, or race, or gender, etc.

My point is that no political opinion is free of any additional subjective influence, so to say that Mark has any less right than somebody else to voice their opinions is a pointless debate. Again, it is much more constructive to teach a kid to think critically than it is to make Mark shut up. You can't shut up everybody, but you can make sure that you as a person realize how to make your own informed decisions. It's kind of like teaching somebody how to fish vs. giving them a fish.

This guy i the man!

except that he moved away from punk rock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

people have to learn how to make informed decision about political and social issues on their own through independent and critical thinking. this is the responsibility of the person, not on the external influences that be. telling influential people like celebrities to shut it because they shouldnt be influencing naive people is akin to the ridiculous censorship in the media just to "protect" the eyes and ears of the "innocent". the answer isnt to silence the voices, the answer is to teach kids to learn to process the information they are exposed to. blaming people like tom for influencing kids politically is pointing the finger at the wrong person, and the kids will never learn.

I think Tom has every right to voice his political views, I just think he shouldn't.

Again, politics and music don't mix. It's not the right place to bring politics into a band. Add to that that Tom is totally clueless about politics. I guarentee you could sit him or Green Day or any other political musician down and they would get shredded. Basically all their nonsense goes totally unchallenged.

I really admire Mark for taking the stance he takes on politics. If it's a cause he really believes he is going to publically fight for it, otherwise he is just going to shut up cause it's not right to use his popularity to voice his political views.

Why isn't it right though? By saying it's not right makes it sound like some sort of ethical injustice. Basically the artist can write about whatever chooses. The only thing here is just preference, if you don't like hearing lyrical content about politics...but hey, that's preference, and that's the way of life with music..you either agree or you don't, it's a pointless suggestion to say that they shouldn't mix because one thing that you don't like could be the same thing another person does like.

I wouldn't say Tom is clueless..I'm not big on politics, but being clueless or not is relative. For example, I can readily admit that I'm probably more clueless than Tom is. And giving kids credit is important..maybe just talking about Politics makes kids think deeper about the issue and look into things themselves...not just mindlessly brainwash them. I mean look at the majority of the posters here...how many of us actually are this idealized "brainwashed tom-bot" that so many of you guys cry out against? Not many. Blink introduced me to a love of punk rock music, and consequently all types of music. They didn' t brainwash me into ONLY loving this kind of music and nothing else, they opened the door so that I could discover more things for myself, even if it eventaully led me away from the pop punk sound. The very same thing can happen with politics

With Mark using his popularity to voice his views, again, there is no absolute to "popularity". To any political opinion that is voiced, there will ALWAYS be some sort of external influencial factors, aesthetic factors, personal biases. Politicians have to dress nicely, commercials have to be done that are slick to sell a point, maybe teachers, parents, friends have opinions that are tethered with things like popularity, authority, etc. Maybe you are secretly influenced by somebody's attractiveness, or race, or gender, etc.

My point is that no political opinion is free of any additional subjective influence, so to say that Mark has any less right than somebody else to voice their opinions is a pointless debate. Again, it is much more constructive to teach a kid to think critically than it is to make Mark shut up. You can't shut up everybody, but you can make sure that you as a person realize how to make your own informed decisions. It's kind of like teaching somebody how to fish vs. giving them a fish.

How does what I said make it an "ethical injustice"? Where the hell did you pull that out of?

It is only my opinion that politics should be kept out of music. But it is a view shared by many. Politics is a complicated thing and to me it seems foolish to make political statements using music. But again, that is my opinion. Some may like it. I don't. Not sure what the heck this "ethical injustice" is? But I guess it sounds good :)

I don't buy the theory that bands talking about politics will open kids minds. To me it will actually make them more close minded because they will tend to blindly follow one political ideology without questioning what the person is saying. The analogy you use with music is different. People are going to branch out and listen to different types of music. With political speech you generally are made to dislike the other viewpoints and remain close minded about them.

I think Tom is pretty clueless about politics. But there is no way of knowing cause he'd never sit down and actually have a real political debate. He is not up to that challenge, just like most other musicians aren't. They spout off political nonsense that goes unchallenged.

I don't have any problem with Mark. In fact I commended him on his stance. He believes politics is a personal thing and he isn't going to use Blink 182 to make any political statements. Where did I say I was trying to shut him or anyone up? I said they have the right to say what they want. But again, I don't think they should say anything because it is not the right place.

I am totally for people making informed decisions about the information they get, but in the case of politics in music most people don't have the information to prove that most of what they write in their songs is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people have to learn how to make informed decision about political and social issues on their own through independent and critical thinking. this is the responsibility of the person, not on the external influences that be. telling influential people like celebrities to shut it because they shouldnt be influencing naive people is akin to the ridiculous censorship in the media just to "protect" the eyes and ears of the "innocent". the answer isnt to silence the voices, the answer is to teach kids to learn to process the information they are exposed to. blaming people like tom for influencing kids politically is pointing the finger at the wrong person, and the kids will never learn.

I think Tom has every right to voice his political views, I just think he shouldn't.

Again, politics and music don't mix. It's not the right place to bring politics into a band. Add to that that Tom is totally clueless about politics. I guarentee you could sit him or Green Day or any other political musician down and they would get shredded. Basically all their nonsense goes totally unchallenged.

I really admire Mark for taking the stance he takes on politics. If it's a cause he really believes he is going to publically fight for it, otherwise he is just going to shut up cause it's not right to use his popularity to voice his political views.

Why isn't it right though? By saying it's not right makes it sound like some sort of ethical injustice. Basically the artist can write about whatever chooses. The only thing here is just preference, if you don't like hearing lyrical content about politics...but hey, that's preference, and that's the way of life with music..you either agree or you don't, it's a pointless suggestion to say that they shouldn't mix because one thing that you don't like could be the same thing another person does like.

I wouldn't say Tom is clueless..I'm not big on politics, but being clueless or not is relative. For example, I can readily admit that I'm probably more clueless than Tom is. And giving kids credit is important..maybe just talking about Politics makes kids think deeper about the issue and look into things themselves...not just mindlessly brainwash them. I mean look at the majority of the posters here...how many of us actually are this idealized "brainwashed tom-bot" that so many of you guys cry out against? Not many. Blink introduced me to a love of punk rock music, and consequently all types of music. They didn' t brainwash me into ONLY loving this kind of music and nothing else, they opened the door so that I could discover more things for myself, even if it eventaully led me away from the pop punk sound. The very same thing can happen with politics

With Mark using his popularity to voice his views, again, there is no absolute to "popularity". To any political opinion that is voiced, there will ALWAYS be some sort of external influencial factors, aesthetic factors, personal biases. Politicians have to dress nicely, commercials have to be done that are slick to sell a point, maybe teachers, parents, friends have opinions that are tethered with things like popularity, authority, etc. Maybe you are secretly influenced by somebody's attractiveness, or race, or gender, etc.

My point is that no political opinion is free of any additional subjective influence, so to say that Mark has any less right than somebody else to voice their opinions is a pointless debate. Again, it is much more constructive to teach a kid to think critically than it is to make Mark shut up. You can't shut up everybody, but you can make sure that you as a person realize how to make your own informed decisions. It's kind of like teaching somebody how to fish vs. giving them a fish.

How does what I said make it an "ethical injustice"? Where the hell did you pull that out of?

It is only my opinion that politics should be kept out of music. But it is a view shared by many. Politics is a complicated thing and to me it seems foolish to make political statements using music. But again, that is my opinion. Some may like it. I don't. Not sure what the heck this "ethical injustice" is? But I guess it sounds good :)

I don't buy the theory that bands talking about politics will open kids minds. To me it will actually make them more close minded because they will tend to blindly follow one political ideology without questioning what the person is saying. The analogy you use with music is different. People are going to branch out and listen to different types of music. With political speech you generally are made to dislike the other viewpoints and remain close minded about them.

I think Tom is pretty clueless about politics. But there is no way of knowing cause he'd never sit down and actually have a real political debate. He is not up to that challenge, just like most other musicians aren't. They spout off political nonsense that goes unchallenged.

I don't have any problem with Mark. In fact I commended him on his stance. He believes politics is a personal thing and he isn't going to use Blink 182 to make any political statements. Where did I say I was trying to shut him or anyone up? I said they have the right to say what they want. But again, I don't think they should say anything because it is not the right place.

I am totally for people making informed decisions about the information they get, but in the case of politics in music most people don't have the information to prove that most of what they write in their songs is bullshit.

Well by ethical injustice, you kept saying how it's not "right". Well what do you mean not right? Who's to say what's right or wrong, when it all comes down to preference. Sure people share your opinion about not preferring it, but like I said, there are also people who actually do prefer it. So it's a matter of preference, I don't think it's "right" to say that what they are doing isn't right.

And what you said about being close minded..well you pretty much disagreed with me by saying "no I don't think so" which okay, I can take, but why not? People can become more open minded just as easily as they become more close minded, and I don't see why you should just assume one thing without giving the other option a chance. Not like you've ever taken a formal poll or anything... and you're saying that it works that way for music but it doesn't work that way for politics...again, sure you can say that, but where's your justification? I mean if my analogy follows through perfectly logically, I'm kind of dumbfounded when you just say "yeah...I don't think so". Ok....good argument?

And replace what I said about Mark with the name Tom. My point still stands, regardless of the figure...it's that NO political opinion is devoid of additional subjective influences, and so to say that a celebrity shouldn't voice political opinions for that very reason is unfair. And my point wasnt saying that you wanted to "shut up" celebrities, per se, but that you are pointing the finger at the wrong person. Instead of saying it's not right that celebrities voice political opinions, one should be saying that it's not right for people to listen to any political opinion without thinking critically about it themselves.

The last thing you said sums it up pretty well. Most people don't have the information to prove what's right and wrong in a song...so the solution is for the artist to not write songs anymore? No..the solution is for those naive listeners to go out and find the right information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people have to learn how to make informed decision about political and social issues on their own through independent and critical thinking. this is the responsibility of the person, not on the external influences that be. telling influential people like celebrities to shut it because they shouldnt be influencing naive people is akin to the ridiculous censorship in the media just to "protect" the eyes and ears of the "innocent". the answer isnt to silence the voices, the answer is to teach kids to learn to process the information they are exposed to. blaming people like tom for influencing kids politically is pointing the finger at the wrong person, and the kids will never learn.

I think Tom has every right to voice his political views, I just think he shouldn't.

Again, politics and music don't mix. It's not the right place to bring politics into a band. Add to that that Tom is totally clueless about politics. I guarentee you could sit him or Green Day or any other political musician down and they would get shredded. Basically all their nonsense goes totally unchallenged.

I really admire Mark for taking the stance he takes on politics. If it's a cause he really believes he is going to publically fight for it, otherwise he is just going to shut up cause it's not right to use his popularity to voice his political views.

Why isn't it right though? By saying it's not right makes it sound like some sort of ethical injustice. Basically the artist can write about whatever chooses. The only thing here is just preference, if you don't like hearing lyrical content about politics...but hey, that's preference, and that's the way of life with music..you either agree or you don't, it's a pointless suggestion to say that they shouldn't mix because one thing that you don't like could be the same thing another person does like.

I wouldn't say Tom is clueless..I'm not big on politics, but being clueless or not is relative. For example, I can readily admit that I'm probably more clueless than Tom is. And giving kids credit is important..maybe just talking about Politics makes kids think deeper about the issue and look into things themselves...not just mindlessly brainwash them. I mean look at the majority of the posters here...how many of us actually are this idealized "brainwashed tom-bot" that so many of you guys cry out against? Not many. Blink introduced me to a love of punk rock music, and consequently all types of music. They didn' t brainwash me into ONLY loving this kind of music and nothing else, they opened the door so that I could discover more things for myself, even if it eventaully led me away from the pop punk sound. The very same thing can happen with politics

With Mark using his popularity to voice his views, again, there is no absolute to "popularity". To any political opinion that is voiced, there will ALWAYS be some sort of external influencial factors, aesthetic factors, personal biases. Politicians have to dress nicely, commercials have to be done that are slick to sell a point, maybe teachers, parents, friends have opinions that are tethered with things like popularity, authority, etc. Maybe you are secretly influenced by somebody's attractiveness, or race, or gender, etc.

My point is that no political opinion is free of any additional subjective influence, so to say that Mark has any less right than somebody else to voice their opinions is a pointless debate. Again, it is much more constructive to teach a kid to think critically than it is to make Mark shut up. You can't shut up everybody, but you can make sure that you as a person realize how to make your own informed decisions. It's kind of like teaching somebody how to fish vs. giving them a fish.

How does what I said make it an "ethical injustice"? Where the hell did you pull that out of?

It is only my opinion that politics should be kept out of music. But it is a view shared by many. Politics is a complicated thing and to me it seems foolish to make political statements using music. But again, that is my opinion. Some may like it. I don't. Not sure what the heck this "ethical injustice" is? But I guess it sounds good :)

I don't buy the theory that bands talking about politics will open kids minds. To me it will actually make them more close minded because they will tend to blindly follow one political ideology without questioning what the person is saying. The analogy you use with music is different. People are going to branch out and listen to different types of music. With political speech you generally are made to dislike the other viewpoints and remain close minded about them.

I think Tom is pretty clueless about politics. But there is no way of knowing cause he'd never sit down and actually have a real political debate. He is not up to that challenge, just like most other musicians aren't. They spout off political nonsense that goes unchallenged.

I don't have any problem with Mark. In fact I commended him on his stance. He believes politics is a personal thing and he isn't going to use Blink 182 to make any political statements. Where did I say I was trying to shut him or anyone up? I said they have the right to say what they want. But again, I don't think they should say anything because it is not the right place.

I am totally for people making informed decisions about the information they get, but in the case of politics in music most people don't have the information to prove that most of what they write in their songs is bullshit.

Okay then, how about a band like Bad Religion, who actively encourage finding out and making your own choices about the world we live in? Or organisations such as Punkvoter, trying to encourage voting amongst youth? Do they have no place in Oliver's little twisted idealic world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people have to learn how to make informed decision about political and social issues on their own through independent and critical thinking. this is the responsibility of the person, not on the external influences that be. telling influential people like celebrities to shut it because they shouldnt be influencing naive people is akin to the ridiculous censorship in the media just to "protect" the eyes and ears of the "innocent". the answer isnt to silence the voices, the answer is to teach kids to learn to process the information they are exposed to. blaming people like tom for influencing kids politically is pointing the finger at the wrong person, and the kids will never learn.

I think Tom has every right to voice his political views, I just think he shouldn't.

Again, politics and music don't mix. It's not the right place to bring politics into a band. Add to that that Tom is totally clueless about politics. I guarentee you could sit him or Green Day or any other political musician down and they would get shredded. Basically all their nonsense goes totally unchallenged.

I really admire Mark for taking the stance he takes on politics. If it's a cause he really believes he is going to publically fight for it, otherwise he is just going to shut up cause it's not right to use his popularity to voice his political views.

Why isn't it right though? By saying it's not right makes it sound like some sort of ethical injustice. Basically the artist can write about whatever chooses. The only thing here is just preference, if you don't like hearing lyrical content about politics...but hey, that's preference, and that's the way of life with music..you either agree or you don't, it's a pointless suggestion to say that they shouldn't mix because one thing that you don't like could be the same thing another person does like.

I wouldn't say Tom is clueless..I'm not big on politics, but being clueless or not is relative. For example, I can readily admit that I'm probably more clueless than Tom is. And giving kids credit is important..maybe just talking about Politics makes kids think deeper about the issue and look into things themselves...not just mindlessly brainwash them. I mean look at the majority of the posters here...how many of us actually are this idealized "brainwashed tom-bot" that so many of you guys cry out against? Not many. Blink introduced me to a love of punk rock music, and consequently all types of music. They didn' t brainwash me into ONLY loving this kind of music and nothing else, they opened the door so that I could discover more things for myself, even if it eventaully led me away from the pop punk sound. The very same thing can happen with politics

With Mark using his popularity to voice his views, again, there is no absolute to "popularity". To any political opinion that is voiced, there will ALWAYS be some sort of external influencial factors, aesthetic factors, personal biases. Politicians have to dress nicely, commercials have to be done that are slick to sell a point, maybe teachers, parents, friends have opinions that are tethered with things like popularity, authority, etc. Maybe you are secretly influenced by somebody's attractiveness, or race, or gender, etc.

My point is that no political opinion is free of any additional subjective influence, so to say that Mark has any less right than somebody else to voice their opinions is a pointless debate. Again, it is much more constructive to teach a kid to think critically than it is to make Mark shut up. You can't shut up everybody, but you can make sure that you as a person realize how to make your own informed decisions. It's kind of like teaching somebody how to fish vs. giving them a fish.

How does what I said make it an "ethical injustice"? Where the hell did you pull that out of?

It is only my opinion that politics should be kept out of music. But it is a view shared by many. Politics is a complicated thing and to me it seems foolish to make political statements using music. But again, that is my opinion. Some may like it. I don't. Not sure what the heck this "ethical injustice" is? But I guess it sounds good :)

I don't buy the theory that bands talking about politics will open kids minds. To me it will actually make them more close minded because they will tend to blindly follow one political ideology without questioning what the person is saying. The analogy you use with music is different. People are going to branch out and listen to different types of music. With political speech you generally are made to dislike the other viewpoints and remain close minded about them.

I think Tom is pretty clueless about politics. But there is no way of knowing cause he'd never sit down and actually have a real political debate. He is not up to that challenge, just like most other musicians aren't. They spout off political nonsense that goes unchallenged.

I don't have any problem with Mark. In fact I commended him on his stance. He believes politics is a personal thing and he isn't going to use Blink 182 to make any political statements. Where did I say I was trying to shut him or anyone up? I said they have the right to say what they want. But again, I don't think they should say anything because it is not the right place.

I am totally for people making informed decisions about the information they get, but in the case of politics in music most people don't have the information to prove that most of what they write in their songs is bullshit.

What's your opinion of Bob Dylan or The Beatles?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well by ethical injustice, you kept saying how it's not "right". Well what do you mean not right? Who's to say what's right or wrong, when it all comes down to preference. Sure people share your opinion about not preferring it, but like I said, there are also people who actually do prefer it. So it's a matter of preference, I don't think it's "right" to say that what they are doing isn't right.

I think you are trying to play semantics games with me now. All I meant was I don't think that they should be talking politics. Period. I have never meant to imply that they didn't have the right to do it or that it was an "injustice" that they did do it.

But speaking of injustice. Do you think it's right that Tom Delonge blames his own government for the attack on 9/11 withou so much as a shred of proof? I take offense to that. I work for the government and I know people who lost lives on 9/11 and that is an INSULT to the victims on that tragety.

He needs proof if he is going to make such foolish statements. Which is the main reason I think they should stop talking about politics. THEY ARE CLUELESS.

And what you said about being close minded..well you pretty much disagreed with me by saying "no I don't think so" which okay, I can take, but why not? People can become more open minded just as easily as they become more close minded, and I don't see why you should just assume one thing without giving the other option a chance. Not like you've ever taken a formal poll or anything... and you're saying that it works that way for music but it doesn't work that way for politics...again, sure you can say that, but where's your justification? I mean if my analogy follows through perfectly logically, I'm kind of dumbfounded when you just say "yeah...I don't think so". Ok....good argument?

Poltics and music are two totally different things. One is simply entertainment and the other deals with very serious issues that we face. I am all for opening up people's mind's to politics but I don't think listening to Tom Delonge express his opinion is going to open up any minds. It will make people more close minded because Tom is expressing only ONE SIDE of it and his politics are very radical in nature.

And replace what I said about Mark with the name Tom. My point still stands, regardless of the figure...it's that NO political opinion is devoid of additional subjective influences, and so to say that a celebrity shouldn't voice political opinions for that very reason is unfair. And my point wasnt saying that you wanted to "shut up" celebrities, per se, but that you are pointing the finger at the wrong person. Instead of saying it's not right that celebrities voice political opinions, one should be saying that it's not right for people to listen to any political opinion without thinking critically about it themselves.

I agree with that last point. But most don't. I really don't think it is unfair for me to think it's wrong that musicians are political. There is a time and place for that and music is simply not that place. I have no problem with them voicing their opinions actually. But they should do it without using their fame.

The last thing you said sums it up pretty well. Most people don't have the information to prove what's right and wrong in a song...so the solution is for the artist to not write songs anymore? No..the solution is for those naive listeners to go out and find the right information.

The solution is for artists to not write hypocritical political songs when they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

But I support people who are willing to go out and find out their own information on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your opinion of Bob Dylan or The Beatles?

Neither are that political.

Beatles certainly weren't.

John Lennon got political in the 1970's but he was more about preaching Love and Peace and that's cool. It would never happen obviously, but it was a nice thought.

The Beatles had revolution and stated their opinions in war and on marihuana issues, but they weren't that political.

But Bob Dylan? Come on, if you search "political music" on google, you'll probably find a picture of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your opinion of Bob Dylan or The Beatles?

Neither are that political.

Beatles certainly weren't.

John Lennon got political in the 1970's but he was more about preaching Love and Peace and that's cool. It would never happen obviously, but it was a nice thought.

The Beatles had revolution and stated their opinions in war and on marihuana issues, but they weren't that political.

But Bob Dylan? Come on, if you search "political music" on google, you'll probably find a picture of him.

Hmmmmm.....not a big dylan fan. So I guess I misspoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...