Submitted 1 day ago by Varyk@sh.itjust.works to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
listening to some presidents of the United States of America.
peaches, specifically.
but I’ve been thinking about this point with a lot of bands, and songs I love, lately.
I always viewed PUSA as a more original rock flavored Weird Al. Similar energy, but they did their own thing.
Fun fact, the lead singer went on to write many albums of children’s music as Caspar Baby Pants.
They also did one of the poke “raps” ! It’s one of my favorites besides the OG and BDG’s
Millions of peaches!
also, they are free.
Awareness of the audience is a critical factor in multiple hits and successful communication
lump definitely sat alone in a boggy marsh
Does Peaches have some sort of deeper meaning that I’ve never noticed? Isn’t it about… You know… Peaches?
i always figured with the “woman” cry and all the talking about bulges and fingering that it was about sex.
I don’t know it’s depth measurement, but I don’t think…the song is strictly about the peach fruit.
I’ll upvote any PUSA reference, but I agree that a lot of lyrics seem meaningless, as they refer to bugs and balloons and whatever. Or are they?
Anyway, the music is great if you like rock, and I’ll take lyrics about Matchbox cars over lyrics about bitches and bling.
LOOKOUT!
Christ ever since that shit post about a moth on the price is right it feels like Lemmy is nothing but presidents of the United States @ptz@dubvee.org
RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It doesn’t matter what I say
So long as I sing with inflection
That makes you feel that I’ll convey
Some inner truth of vast reflection
But I’ve said nothing so far
And I can keep it up for as long as it takes
And it don’t matter who you are
If I’m doing my job then it’s your resolve that breaks
Pudutr0n@feddit.cl 1 day ago
It’s scary, really, how manipulable we are through cheap trickery.
shneancy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
fascinating how far we’ve gotten in the science of abusing every aspect of human psychology
there’s so, so many ways to influence others
recently i’ve been binging some true crime, two videos by two different youtubers, same topic. A mother murdered by her adopted teen son
video 1: the mother is presented as a flawed saint, not perfect but with a big heart. the teen is presented as a sociopathic monster, troubled, ungrateful, heartless. the second to last fight he broke her arm. the last fight he killed her. when he spoke of how his mother abused him the youtube comments sang “what a monster, to try to slander his mother after he killed her”
video 2: a few more details appear, the focus shifts towards the mother. she once had two adopted sons, the second she adopted so “[her son] can experience having a sibling”, some time later CPS had to intervene as the second kid had bars in his windows and a bucket for a toilet. he was deemed troubled and ultimately ran away from home. she had a tendency to fight with her remaining son, degrade him on the basis of his race “if i hadn’t adopted you, you’d be standing on the border with the rest of those people” (she might’ve said “idiots” but i can’t be bothered to check). she felt like her teenage son owed her money for phone bills. the narrator here goes into detail how antisocial personality disorders can be caused by both genetic and environmental factors, they can be learnt behaviours. the remaining son often left home and lived with others after he fought with his mother, mostly about money. here the fact he broke her arm in a fight is ommited, just mentions how he lived with another person and thought long if he should come back. he’s presented as a troubled teen abused by his mother who taught him heartlessness and who ultimately snapped and killed her. the youtube comments sang “what a terrible woman, how could she treat him like that”
same situation, two videos giving you the “correct” interpretation of the events. if i hadn’t accidentally found the other one i wouldn’t even have known there was more to the story, it seemed very matter of fact, very objective, just reporting on what happened & the context that caused it.
it’s really that simple, all it takes is to pick the facts that suit your narrative and present them, you’re not really lying that way, but who would consider it truth either
and that’s one tactic amongst many