Spotify has removed offensive imagery associated with a controversial song by Christian rapper Tyson James and his 11-year-old son Toby James, following a complaint by GLAAD.
However, the song “Still 2 Genders,” criticized for its transphobic lyrics, continues to be available on the platform. Meanwhile, no changes have been made to Apple Music’s platform.
Earlier this month, The Advocatereported that the song was accessible on major music streaming platforms, including Spotify and Apple Music, despite its derogatory lyrics towards transgender individuals, including a slur to describe them. The situation caught the attention of GLAAD, which then took up the issue with Spotify’s trust and safety team.
In an updated statement provided to The Advocate, a spokesperson from GLAAD emphasized the importance of enforcing hate speech policies by companies.
“Companies have hate speech policies to protect all users from toxic content and especially from content that incites violence against marginalized people. When these policies are violated, it is important to see companies enforce them,” the statement read.
GLAAD’s statement highlighted the grave real-world implications of hateful rhetoric and imagery connecting it to a tragic incident.
“The terrible murder of Lauri Carlton, an ally who had hung a Pride flag outside her store, is connected to a suspect who had an image of a burning Pride flag pinned to his Twitter profile,” the statement added.
The spokesperson further noted, “Rhetoric, images, and targeting of LGBTQ people encourages real-world harms. Companies and brands must continue to recognize their responsibility to people’s safety and public safety and immediately act to avoid facilitating anti-LGBTQ hate and violence.”
Spotify responded by removing the album cover and video imagery that included a burning Progress Pride flag GLAAD noted to The Advocate. Despite these steps, the song itself, carrying an anti-trans slur and dehumanizing transgender people as “demons,” remains live on Spotify’s platform.
Both Spotify and Apple Music have policies in place to moderate content on their platforms. Apple Music for Artists’ terms of service stipulates that all lyrics provided to the platform must be “correct, accurate, and do not contain hate speech.” On the other hand, Spotify’s Dangerous Content policy bars “content that incites violence or hatred towards a person or group of people based on race, religion, gender identity or expression.”
Despite these policies, Apple Music has yet to make any changes or respond to inquiries regarding the song’s availability on its platform.
In a prior response, GLAAD had stressed the digital sphere’s struggle with hate speech moderation, especially concerning anti-LGBTQ+ content, which extends beyond the realm of music streaming platforms. Their concern was not only about the derogatory lyrics but also the inconsistency in enforcing content policies by these platforms, which undermines the safety and inclusivity of all users.
As the scrutiny continues, both Spotify and Apple Music remain unresponsive to multiple inquiries from The Advocate regarding this issue. This scenario underscores a broader discussion concerning digital content moderation on streaming platforms, especially around anti-LGBTQ+ content.
link: https://www.advocate.com/news/spotify-transphobic-song-glaad
archive link: https://archive.ph/tz9FX
I don’t know this song. I won’t listen to this song. I don’t care about it.
But it becomes a slippery slope when censorship gets blown up like this. I’d rather it all be on there and I can choose to not listen to it than for them to tell me what I’m allowed to listen to on their platform. Are they going to start banning Bloodhound gang or Eminem for homophobia and violence? What about Rotting Christ for anti religion? Dying Fetus?
It should stay on the platforms and collect dust instead of being shared by articles. I probably would have never even heard of this, but now I’m worried that some of the music I listen to will be collateral.
I mean, I agree with your sentiment, but I do feel as if we’re walking into a trap here.
Whenever there’s a push to remove bigoted or otherwise harmful content it’s always “censorship”.
When conservatives want to remove content they find objectionable they are “exercising their free speech” in calling for the removal.
So, no, I’m not going to pretend I’m some freeze peach champion when that rhetoric is exclusively used to harm me and the people I care about.
On the flip side, I don’t see how I can protest book banning and simultaneously call for song banning.
Yes, conservatives are hypocritical and morally bankrupt. That doesn’t mean I should be, too.
The act of book banning itself isn’t the real issue. The issue is the homophobia/transphobia motivating the conservative book banning.
The fact that you are referring to this as calling for song banning means you have bought into their frame lock stock and barrel.
Stop doing their work for them.
What is it then?
You are offering your views on a piece of art. The very essence of free speech.
You can criticize a piece of art without calling for it to be banned. This article calls for it to be banned.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Opening the post in the browser does show the word, so it’s lemmy.world that censors it for you.
It’s the N word.
deleted by creator
I agree, removing them automatically even makes moderation harder if they do it when federating because then the mods can’t see what they’re moderating.
It’s a frequent occurrence in Reddit that I read a typed out “Letter-word”, not knowing what swear/slur as the same letter could mean multiple different words in my regional English dialect.
What frustrates me is that words that could harm require effort to ensure the context is clear and respectful, people who just swap it with a Letter-word don’t care enough to treat what they are saying with importance.
I’ve previously asked what a comments letter-word was referring to as I couldn’t even find it via Google, the responses where downvotes and being told I should know what it means.
Hurtful words either shouldn’t be said at all, or if being referred to need to be treated with delicacy and respect as if their harm matters, saying them while not saying them is the laziest and most disrespectful way of handling that.
“Hurtful words either shouldn’t be said at all”
Where is this though? As a queer person, I’m not removing words from my vocabulary which refer to people like myself. Just as I wouldn’t tell POC to not use the n-word.
I meant in the case where it would be hurtful, obviously it wouldn’t be reasonably hurtful to say it in a context which it isn’t, that was the point of what I was saying.
I would say the same words if I had a reason to discuss whichever word, neither of us are directing it to a person with an explicit intent to cause harm.
It’s almost impossible to police that though.
The slur filter on lemmy world is very limited. There is an f-word and an n-word. And the reason I added it to the slur-filter was because we had spam accounts posting PAGES full of these words. And even when that stopped we kept those two words in our slur-filter. As the times they would be used “academically” would be far less than their use as an insult.
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it makes sense from a moderation standpoint. I know there’s been a lot of spam with slurs. I think it does hurt real conversations and I don’t like it but it’s not like it’s unjustified. It makes sense.
There are still ways to make clear which word you mean without using the actual word IMO. Glad I could clear things up a bit :)
If course there are. But if someone is unaware of the fact that a word is censored and still writes it, the conversation can be derailed into a discussion about which word it is and why words are removed instead. But those are things one has to weigh against one another.
deleted by creator
Tidal is a great option. They even give the best pay per stream for artists compared to Spotify or even Apple music
Dance with the Devil by Immortal Technique
No it doesn’t. Last I heard Spotify isn’t a branch of government. Until such time as we nationalize them. They’re free to deplatform anyone and everyone they want within reason.
The problem is, they’re only out for money and have no moral compass. Combine that with the burgeoning fascism problem we have in the US for instance. You get this. There’s money to be made marketing and appealing to bigots and their ilk. And they’re gonna keep doing it till it costs them. Expect no meaningful action.
Feel how you want, but Spotify has a very clear policy on hateful content. And sure, maybe you won’t listen to it, but do you know who will? Bigoted psychos that will go out and commit a hate crime. Allowing content like this on a popular platform will lead to hate crimes. There is nothing wrong with private platforms choosing to not platform certain kinds of content and it is entirely within their right.
Spotify has the right to deplatfom hateful content and doing so is the ethical thing to do.
Smash the fash
I literally don’t care if songs or artists perpetuating bigotry get “censored”, the world is better without them.
Just listen to something else and quit whining.
Just listen to something else and quit whining.
This is actually step one, and the only step.
That is quite literally what he’s doing, he’s listening to something else.
You don’t care until “bigotry” means what you think it means and not what someone else thinks, or until the same principle is pushed by other groups who happen to not care if “songs or artists perpetuating ____ get censored”.
There is already a problem with monopoly in terms of which music is available, I can’t wait to have those companies decide even more which songs can be published based on totally arbitrary principles and without any accountability. I am pretty sure that articles about this trash song will have the consequences of generaring more listens than if this was just ignored. I, for once, would have never known this song existed without this article, and now I am fairly curious to go check the lyrics to make a better idea about the article itself. Straisand effect and all…
100%. These people cannot return to being “acceptable” to exist. Purge them from society and force them to retreat to the dark corners from which they’ve been hiding since the end of WWII.
There’s plenty of really offensive music out there, and you can’t put one group on a pedestal and say ‘but these guys you can’t ridicule.’ … Except…
Thinking about it, the offensive music is towards people with bat-shit crazy belief systems etc, rather than criticising people for what they are. I don’t think I would be ok with racist music for example, or music that targets… idk, bald people, because it’s something they can’t change.
So actually, I agree, ban the song. Let’s go back to ridiculing Christians, Scientologists, Muslims, Hindus, communists, etc because those are all belief systems that people can change.
Simple, all it takes is to take the Book of Wrong Ideas, which is notoriously objective and shared across the world.
Removed by mod
I met someone who had such a thought about hatespeech and how you should be fined until I pointed out he and his friends call eachother retarded removeds on discord all the time and asked how much he should have to pay in fines. He stopped supporting the idea of fines
Did you just censor yourself or am I about to change instances?
I did not censor myself it was some retard who didnt like my words
Damn, gross.
Unfettered hate speech leads to hate crimes.
Prohibition doesn’t make things go away. It only makes them more sneaky.
Good, let them be sneaky out of the public eye. Let the proper authorities who monitor those channels do their jobs. No need for children or anyone else to listen to garbage.
Fun fact: the German military sent someone to monitor the national socialist party to determine if they were a threat to the Republic. His name was Adolf Hitler.
That’s the end of the thought process. It doesn’t need to be removed, it just needs to be removed from their line of sight. As long as they don’t know about it, it doesn’t exist. Problem solved.
I don’t disagree necessarily, but people can be intolerant of hate speech without the force of government.
The government was not in any way involved in this story. Its 2 companies and an anti-hate advocacy group.
Some things should be censored, and I don’t think that’s too hot of a take, either. Any material that encourages intolerance of others should not be accepted in any civil culture.
Allowing fascism to spread is allowing censorship. Choosing not to censor fascism is choosing to allow intolerance to become mainstream.
You call for a utopia of free speech where even Nazis can live happily alongside the minorities whose deaths they call for. Such a utopia does not exist. It’s impossible. The fascists will go around to all other members of this “utopia” and by force coercion and indoctrination convince them to come together to murder the minorities. Then having done so they will censor all thought that does not align with their hatred and their conspiracies.
Tolerating fascism is the same thing as propagating it.
Holy cow man, chill, this discussion is about censoring a song about 2 genders, not a fascist manifesto.
This song does not exist in isolation. It’s creator, the man not the 11 year old singing, spreads outspoken hatred about LGBT minorities. That in and of itself is absolutely a part of the present day neofascist movement.
The creator is an awful person and likely to be a future family annihilator. He is truly terrifying.
deleted by creator
Tolerating fascism is the same thing as propagating it.
This is literally and factually false.
As bad as propagating it? Go for it. But you should be aware that making statements like you did makes it really easy for people to dismiss you offhand.
It is functionally the same. Allowing fascist thought to exist allows it to spread. Fascism doesn’t require specific endorsement to spread. Saying “it is alright if someone says something fascist, there’s nothing we should do about that” actually does more to spread it in many situations than explicitly endorsing it yourself.
Fascism is esoteric at its fringes. It is religious in its narrative. It spreads in societies that tolerate it. How you prevent fascism is by correctly punishing fascists. Fascists cannot be given the legitimacy of a debate, they can’t be allowed to speak in the first place. If fascists are in your government, if they’re in your media, if they speak freely in public, then you’ve already lost.
To use a trolley problem metaphor, what they are saying is not pulling the lever is the same as allowing five people to die. If fascism is progressing and you do not stop it, you are allowing it to progress. Whether you consider that propagation comes down to your ethical framework, but from a consequentialist view it is accurate
If we want to outlaw tasteless and offensive music, we’ll be here all day.
Guys, I hate it too. But we can’t just remove every single piece of art we find objectionable. Yes, I am using the word Art liberally. Do you really want to live in that world?
We can remove hate speech though, and conflating hate speech with “every single piece of art we find objectionable” is dodgy af.
Eminem has a lot of homophobic lyrics. Think you’re going to get him removed? Music has always pushed the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Sometimes that’s a good thing, other times it’s not. But I think an artists freedom of expression overrides your feelings.
There’s homophobic remarks and there are songs that are nothing but homophobia from start to end.
Yes but MTV was never obligated to play Eminem’s videos and quite often censred them. Hell Walmart is responsible for at least two decades of CD censorship. Is Spotify obligated to host offensive songs/images? I don’t think there’s a great answer to that question, but it bugs the crap out of me trying to figure it out. The only thing that I’ve seen that sort of hoodwinks the issue is the fediverse, and I don’t think there’s a federated music platform.
They can host it. I’m just not going to pay them to do so.
If he’s still posting homophobic music, then yeah, that shit needs to be removed.
Said f*ggot in his recent track with Busta Rhymes, says he still hates them. I complain about this all the time. It’s a big problem in hip hop. Even up and coming rappers like Token use the slur in their lyrics and it annoys me to no end. A lot of these people are fairly intelligent. It’s just so deeply rooted in the culture as a way to insult masculinity.
Not only homophobia. Rap music has a huge problem with sexism and misogyny.
And then there’s bands like Cannibal corpse.
Not saying that transphobia is OK, but there’s a lot of weird and questionable music out there.
What does Cannibal Corpse say? Other than stuff like I cum blood.
https://www.radiox.co.uk/features/how-eminem-elton-john-friends-sponsor-story/
I don’t think he hates gay people. But his music is controversy, that’s its selling point. And I think your last sentence is spot on. For your typical “masculine” man, being called gay is an insult. It shouldn’t be, but unfortunately that’s the way it is.
It’s okay for people to express their opinions even if you consider them bad opinions
It’s ok for people to hate on gay folk says the person who isn’t gay
imagine thinking this is an own. you aren’t special because you are gay, and don’t get to dictate how the world works either.
deleted by creator
That’s the great thing: they never said they weren’t nor tried to silence someone for Wrong Thinking. But the other person is. The other person said offensive works should be banned.
I sense the spirit of Joseph Lieberman in this thread.
deleted by creator
Having an opinion (even a controversial one) isn’t hate speech. Does the song actually call for anything hateful?
It’s only two genders, you’re parents are jackin’ you up
They might as well put some crack in your cup
You came out innocent, now you’re corrupt
Now, you stand on the bridge, and you just wanna jump, heh
Got these pink-haired devils
Teachin’ the kids in the school, they are vessels
Used by the enemy, he’s just a rebel
Let’s turn up the kettle
When God gets ahold of 'em, he won’t be gentle (he won’t be gentle
Yes, it does.
That’s no call to action, all those lyrics are saying is that the author believes God will punish them, he’s not telling everyone else to do the same.
The problem is that there are people who think that God has called to them to punish the “sinners,” so lyrics like that can very easily be the encouragement those people need to commit to action.
It’s dangerous to talk about a group of people that way. It’s dehumanizing.
This is legit a similar argument to the satanic panic or attempts to ban metal and violent video games.
Hold bad doers responsible.
How are people so knowledgeable on a song that they dislike. Don’t listen move on…
It took me a minute to read through the lyrics so that I could be informed about exactly what’s in the controversial song.
It’s easy to have an informed opinion.
Or don’t read and then you don’t get outraged. Move on.
Yeah it’s making fun of people. That doesn’t make it hate speech. Most of the world believes there are two genders, people are allowed to make fun of people who disagree with them.
Quoting from the song, “LGBTQ, Let God Burn Them Quickly” Does that qualify?
No. You can’t call god to incite violence. God doesn’t exist, if they did I’d like to think that they’d be inclusive.
I hear China is lovely this time of year
deleted by creator
Man, I can say “The sky is blue” and someone will say it’s hate speech.
deleted by creator
Blind people. Really offensive to say something that other people can’t experience themselves.
Show us a single blind person who actually believes that.
deleted by creator
saying “there are two genders” is not hate speech. You are allowed to make fun of people in a song, that doesn’t make it hate speech.
Quoting from the song, “LGBTQ, Let God Burn Them Quickly” Is that not hate speech?
He’s saying gay people will go to hell. Not hate speech but rather an accurate reflection of what he believes.
deleted by creator
It doesn’t cross that line, I think it well within free speech, its just that normal christian moralism bullshit.
It’s not hate speech to hate on trans folk, insists the person who isn’t trans
Not everything has to follow your agenda. And those who are not agree with your agenda, definitely, not a bigot or transphobic.
It’s not hate speech to hate on trans folk, insists the person who isn’t trans
Acting like broken record is a sign of mentally ill people, though. So don’t
Its the whole “don’t speak if it doesn’t directly involve you” argument which IMO only stifles progress, this person isn’t worth arguing or debating with in any way.
this is just a slightly repackaged version of the typical “If I cant say the N word then its a slippery slope and before you know it its 1984” argument freeze peach absolutists use.
China’s first speech law was about racism, y’all want to kill free speech, it just Boggles the mind. it never stops with “Hate speech”
“hate speech” is just a Trojan horse
it never stops with “Hate speech”
Except for every time it does stop with hate speech. Like do you think Germany arrests people that insults its politicians?
Sucks to suck. Imagine not getting into art school
deleted by creator
Just checked. Seems like Where The Hood At by DMX is still there. Is this really any worse?
Honestly that song is absolutely wild and more wild that it’s just totally accepted as ok. Like it’s the homophobic anthem ffs.
It really is. The beat, the hook… All great. It’s a legit fantastic song if it wasn’t for the absolute dog shit content of the lyrics.
Yeah 100% I love the song. Just can’t get past the lyrics.
No different than 95% of all hip hop made in the 90s.
True. This song is current and plays very outspoken into a hate narrative that is tolerated by mainstream culture and is having real impacts on people today. Not that homophobia isn’t also a part of this same thing but. This song was written with only the purpose of promoting this specific fascist hate movement. Fascist media shouldn’t be tolerated anywhere by anyone. Tolerating them is the first step towards legitimizing them. A tolerant society must excise fascism from its roots wherever it should grow. We have already failed in this, but the least we can do is condemn fascists and the organizations that harbor their content.
Legitimately curious, what makes this hate media fascist?
EDIT: From your other comments it appears that this is fascist because being against LGBT rights is a common aspect of the modern neofascist movement.
No it’s fascist because it is specifically media created to propagate a fascist conspiracy theory about queer people being pedophiles who should be restricted from public life and who should face medical legal and social discrimination across all levels of society.
It’s fascist because it’s literally part of a fascist movement. I’m not using that word liberally, I am literally saying that this media and the movement it’s a part of is fascist. That it is comparable to media produced by Nazi Germany about queer people. That it is comparable in narrative structure to Nazi conspiracy theories, and other fascist narratives from fascist Italy and fascist Japan.
I’m old enough to remember when it was the Christians getting music they thought was offensive pulled from the public eye, not the other way around.
They still do. Also, get actual books banned from public libraries.
Don’t let them distract you into taking your eyes off the ball with fake “BUT THE INTOLERANT LEFT” concern trolling.
I still remember them spouting about the “gay agenda” and nobody I asked knew what exactly this “gay agenda” was.
They should thank you all for the free advertisement. I had no idea this was a thing until this thread.
Bullshit. You’ve heard of Spotify.
OK, and? That music just isn’t on my radar, therefore the algorithm never suggests it to me. What’s your point?
Are you saying this post prompted you to listen to the song?
Eh, just curious to see what the fuss was all about. Forgive me, I think I made the artist $.00000005
If there is an argument to be made here, it’s whether or not the song calls for intolerance à la the paradox of tolerance. There’s plenty of pornogrind, slam, and other brutal death metal on Spotify that’s thematically horrific. While the subject is definitely about really sadistic shit, there’s no overt message to go out and do that or that there are classes of people that deserve that. If this is just bullshit biblical propaganda, whatever, slam is gnarlier than Lot’s daughters. If this is advocating for the removal of a class of people, it might be warranted.
I didn’t read or search for the lyrics because fuck driving traffic to this garbage.
I mean, there’s plenty of songs about murder/gang shit that is serious and encouraging it
Hmm… You know, every argument I can come up with about why that might be okay could be just as easily applied by the trans-phobes.
“Well maybe we need to consider whether people might actually act on it”. In the case of gangs, they definitely do. Gang violence is as bad as ever. Meanwhile, I suspect this antitrans song will provoke far less action than some diss tracks.
“Yeah but it’s somewhat of a cultural thing, if we take it away from them it’s going to start a whole big thing”… Black inner city culture / white country boy culture… They’ll both react the same way.
Is it just the quantity of it? There’s more gang rap so it’s become normalized? That doesn’t bode well for what we can expect from these country folk.
Seriously, I can’t think of a good reason why gang rap that encourages violence should be allowed while this isn’t.
Probably the ol’ prejudice+poweroo
I listen to a lot of death metal including brutal death metal that has lyrics that many would find objectionable. I guess the key difference is that death metal is not expressing the views of the artist. Still, there are plenty of artists with objectionable views whose songs are not deplatformed.
Could be that it’s just general death and mayhem in your lyrics vs targeted, destructive lyrics about how a certain particular outgroup is “demonic”.
It’s a tough distinction to make though. I would say let’s label it as objectionable content, maybe even ban it from being “promoted” (which honestly I hate that bands can pay to be forced on my home screen anyway) and call it a day.
Nah man, let’s hash it out: if your song is about attacking something other people don’t really have a choice in, say skin color, orientation, or health conditions, I’d say it falls under speech that should be shamed.
People just want to live without really having to fight to exist, and I support that idea.
The strongest argument I can come up with for why this should go is that it violates Spotify’s explicit policy on hate speech, inciting hatred against trans people. They remove other stuff that violates, and they were aware this did, as they removed them album artwork, so them deliberately not removing the song isn’t a lack of action, but an action of discrimination in and of itself
If others want to argue that shouldn’t be Spotify’s policy, we can have that discussion, but if we only have that discussion when trans people are brought up then the discussion was never about free speech and thus arguing platforms, censorship, and tolerance paradoxes is moot. It’s just tone policing
deleted by creator
I was trying to find the lyrics to the song and came across another one of his song’s lyrics that is arguably worse
https://genius.com/Tyson-james-pedofiles-lyrics
I mean, holy shit “L-G-B-T-Q, Let God Burn Them Quickly” is one of the lines.
This guy’s music should not be played anywhere.
Oh but didn’t you know that’s just a slippery slope argument and he’s really just a cool dude and who doesn’t encourage hate or violence? /s
A whole lotta people in this thread who don’t want to acknowledge that this dude is trash, no matter how good or bad their music is.
I find it amazing how just generalized human thought is, that just because one false slippery slope has been identified as fallacious, that any argument about a slippery slope is therefore a fallacy and less valid. I do not think Humanity will be saved by the existence of any philosophy or movement, because we will always find some way to pervert the movement or apply the teachings in terrible ways.
Slippery slope arguments are usually fallacious because they assert that the slope is slippery while providing zero evidence to support their claim.
Yes, but the fact that slippery slope is taught as fallacy is a problem, because it creates bro dudes who do not actually debate or connect with the material, but merely want to fulfill their fallacy bingo card.
I call this erroneous bullshit the fallacy fallacy. Which is the fallacy that labeling fallacies is all you need to prove your intelligence and win a debate it creates this scenario.
“My doctor says I need to change my diet or I may become diabetic”
The dude bro could then state that this is an appeal to authority fallacy, because our friend here is taking the doctor’s word for it. This conversation could continue and our friend here may say something like
“My aunt ignored her doctor and died of cancer. I best follow my doctor’s advice regardless.”
The dude broke then claim that this is purely anecdotal and is not real evidence of anything.
Obviously this is an extremely ridiculous example, but I wanted to demonstrate what I was talking about.
Pseudoskeptics are very dangerous people, but they get listened to simply because they are quick to denounce new age bullshit, and are very likely to not be religious. When in actuality, they are little better then your average QAnon member when it comes to being able to reliably digest information or worse, acting as a source of misinformation.
Spotify plays a fun game. They kept GG Allin’s less racist songs, got rid of Skrewdriver. To be a fly on the wall in those corpo meetings.
The only people who might like songs like this are people who hate the targets of the lyrics already. Therefore I don’t think cancelling them makes any sense. It just feeds into their “they’re cancelling us!” echo chamber.
And consider the negative effects: Now way more people know this dumbass exists. Like myself. Even though I don’t think he’ll be getting new converts, he will most probably get more listeners (=money) due to people clutching their pearls like this.
“We can have a little bigotry, for a treat”
I dislike journalism that gives you their conclusions, but not the evidence by which they drew the conclusions. Quoting a single word is not the same as quoting the lyrics and the context around them so that we could either agree with the conclusion or not.
Let people be damned by their own actions and their own words, no need to editorialize evidence.
Here are the actual lyrics https://genius.com/Tyson-james-2-genders-lyrics
Not a great take, not a great song, but where was the slur?
Also no reference to “demons” in these lyrics. Maybe I have the wrong lyrics?
Ah I see where you went wrong. That’s the hit song 2 Genders by Tyson James. What this article is about is the hit song Still 2 Genders by Tyson James.
Thanks for pointing that out! The original article had linked to the lyrics it would have reduced the confusion…
I couldn’t find the lyrics for " still two genders ", but I found the music video on YouTube.
Here’s the video ID, you can put that in the YouTube manually, but I’m not going to link it directly for obvious reasons. Twhftjwdi-k
They did say demons, " all these demons are going to burn for it"
And they did call the president a Pedo.
I didn’t catch everything they said, some of it was a little mumbled, I didn’t catch any other slurs.
It’s not great, these are not good people. It’s like 4chan made a music video. With the same production values. Even talking about them is winning. Any media attention they get is good for them, they’re so tiny.
Oh man, those lyrics are cringe AF.
Yep, just seems like an ordinary rap song to me.
Thank you for posting the actual lyrics. I agree with you, the song is cringe AF, but I don’t see any slurs. A gender critical position is not inherently a derogatory position. The song seems to be arguing for two biological sexes rather than gender (identity) based on its language.
There isn’t one, as far as I can tell. The song is cringe as hell and asinine but I don’t see any slurs.
Is this a religion they’re insulting here? Because the response to it is very reminiscient of how ultra conservative religious people respond to their beliefs being challenged.
Do yourselves a favor and grow a thicker skin, people. It’s just an incredibly stupid joke, and the world will never be rid of incredibly stupid jokes, unfortunately.
I believe that restrictions on creative freedom are morally wrong, even if the intent is to prevent hurtful or offensive content. Art is meant to be provocative and make a statement after all.
That said after reading some of the lyrics, it is clear that this song is actually advocating murder via burning of queer individuals, which is both wrong morally and not protected speech under us law.
Spotify took a similar policy to R Kelly.
