Why is Kendrick Lamar trying to claim OJ Simpson and Jussie Smollett are heroes in his new music video?

he wasn't innocent, the defense just fucked up with the evidence
there is not a soul alive that believes OJ didn't do it

Kendrick looks old and sick lol

never realized Kobe with dreads looks like Bob Marley

>american education

but kobe bryant was a rapist

aren't most male nogs though?

Why the fuck are matt stone and trey parker given special thanks to in the description

Attached: FSRuHAzWYAA0dc9.jpg (749x455, 29.76K)

Deep Voodoo is their deep fake studio that Kendrick used for this video. Apparently, the South Park guys plan on using the deep fake studio for comedy films, sketches, etc.

thought that was cp3 at first shoutsout cipitio boutta get eliminated in the second round by a fat yuro

>Kendrick looks old and sick lol

He's 35

It’s respect—but then tomorrow, put my back against the wall
How many leaders you said you needed then left ‘em for dead?
Is it Moses? Is it Huey Newton or Detroit Red?
Is it Martin Luther? JFK? Shooter—you assassin
Is it Jackie? Is it Jesse? Oh, I know it’s Michael Jackson—oh

When shit hit the fan, is you still a fan?
When shit hit the fan, is you still a fan?
That nigga gave us "Billie Jean," you say he touched those kids?
When shit hit the fan, is you still a fan?

they already used it for some web series that i already forgot the name of

cringe

Attached: GEO-MISSING-THE-POINT.jpg (350x232, 11.71K)

kek it was personal

kendrick is missing the point. because mj is a black hero he refuses to even consider he's a child molester

Dumb on purpose?

The line is meant as an exasperation of yet another black celebrity becoming a fallen idol.
The point of the song is the immense pressure he feels to live up to expectations after experiencing an unexpected rise to stardom and exploring the complexity of the black community having to face the fact that many of their heroes are bad people - what does this mean for people wanting to look up to someone and what does this do to a person when people they look up to fail.

the line about left em for dead casts judgement on the fans for abandoning them though

Again, the point being about idolizing and looking up to someone only for them to fail.
The line prior is about "saying you needed them" but how easy it was to turn away from them when it was inconvenient.
Do people need to idolize others in such a way? Or can we appreciate something they offer, such as political insight or art, without putting the individual on a pedestal?

how easy was it to turn away from someone who raped kids? you can't separate the art from the artist, it's impossible. the art is an extension of the artist, the artist resides in the art

I don’t like either absolutist side of this issue. It’s is not difficult to enjoy Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal as well-constructed pop songs. None of MJ’s crimes bleed into those records. I’ve never had a hard time acknowledging an artist”s wrongdoings while still enjoying the good they have done.

it's always there in the back of your mind though. also mj has some seeds of doubt, but what if it was proven? i don't think it would be quite so easy for you

This is a silly argument, of course you can separate art from an artist - if you can't, then that's a you problem.

no you can't, you might think you can but in the back of your mind it's there. the power of association is incredibly strong

I’ll tell you right now I could still enjoy the song. We may be different in that regard. Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl, but Chinatown is still a really excellent movie. Phil Spector murdered a woman, but his production discography is highly enjoyable. I don’t have a problem separating art from artist.

>doesn't even alter the sample

chinatown sucks regardless of polanski being a creep, but i still don't believe you that there's not the slightest bit of conflict or discomfort that you have to quiet down while watching it. people just suppress it but it's still there

Why did he turn into Osama Bin Laden

>slightest bit of conflict or discomfort
Sure, but so what? I still enjoy these things. I can appreciate the value of a work, even if I have issues with the creator. A “slight bit of discomfort” doesn’t invalidate an artistic achievement.

i didn't say you couldn't appreciate it, i just said it's impossible to fully separate the art from the artist, which you admit. it does require active suppression of moral conflict though

The enjoyment of the art isn’t affected though. So it’s really a moot point.

>literally living rent free in your head

and suppression of moral conflict makes people immoral. thats the whole goal here. The normalisation of immorality, the inversion of our society

i was actually gonna add that to that post but i didn't, but yeah exactly. you cannot separate the art from the artist, that's impossible, what a person does instead is separates themselves from their moral code and thinks it's the same thing. all to get that dopamine hit

and then selective morality becomes a habit

What a silly idea.
>it’s immoral to enjoy a song by an artist who did a bad thing
Explain precisely how a good song is made bad by the artist’s actions. Do you only enjoy music because you presume that the artist is morally flawless? Please.

What is a prototype Kendrick fan? People go to Kanye for beats, Drake is for fuckboys and fuckgirls, Future/YG/Cardi for the strip club, all the Young's and Lil's do the zoomer thing...who the fuck listens to this guy?

Attached: download.jpg (259x194, 14.49K)

because the art serves as a constant reminder of the artist, and if his actions are abhorrent the art would serve as a reminder of that like a pavlovian response. do you think anyone can watch a polanksi film without at some point thinking about what he'd done? like i'm trying to watch this movie but now i'm thinking about kids being raped by hollywood. that's the normal response before you switch off your morality in order to enjoy the movie

>N-no you can’t enjoy music by anyone who is less than perfect
>It’s impossible you can’t like that song or you’re a bad person
>BECAUSE I SAID SO THAT’S WHY

Attached: 290F18EA-A025-4FCF-B4AB-19FBF893EB1A.jpg (785x731, 100.76K)

Pseudointellectuals

>kanye for the beats
lol, people have been kanye fans since the beginning for his lines too, give me a break.

>because the art serves as a constant reminder of the artist
For you. I listen to Billie Jean and I dance. I’m sorry you can’t do the same.
>you need to switch off your morality
That’s not required. Billie Jean is just a song. Chinatown is just a movie. Just because you are incapable of this mindset, doesn’t mean it’s “impossible” or I am “immoral.”

holy based

Attached: 1613792429954.webm (1280x720, 2.19M)

but you already admitted you have a slight discomfort, unless you're someone else who jumped in. you do have a moral issue you just ignore it

He wants to be Drake so bad

Attached: 03f225157140cd08bbe9c12a82675623.600x600x1.jpg (600x600, 63.14K)

A slight discomfort with the person, not the work. I don’t bracket my morality to enjoy a piece of art. It’s very simple. You say shit like:
>because the art serves as a constant reminder of the artist
A constant reminder? Not really dude. It’s moreso something I consider once, and then realize it’s not all that important. Billie Jean didn’t change when Michael went on trial. Your argument relies on the idea that everyone thinks the exact same way you do. I really think you should stop asserting that your perspective is a universal fact.

pure condensed cringe
Kendrick's done it again
he's able to be bland and political and cringe at the same time
its almost an art-form at this point

>It’s moreso something I consider once, and then realize it’s not all that important
translation: it's a moral conflict that presents itself, and then you decide to suppress it
otherwise you wouldn't even have to decide

I don’t agree that a moral conflict is present. Both my moral issue with the artist and my enjoyment of the work are simultaneously present. They are not in competition with one another and nothing suppressed. It’s a false dichotomy.

what i mean is that if you truly separated the art from the artist, that thought wouldn't even come up at all. your "realization" is just a cope for your cognitive dissonance, it's a choice to suppress your morals

>I don’t agree that a moral conflict is present.
if it wasn't you wouldn't even have to consider it at all. your "realization" wouldn't happen, it wouldn't even be a question in your mind

>In a land where hurt people hurt more people fuck calling it culture
>Face changes to Will Smith
KINO

Attached: 9B41AF55-6666-4771-9195-50858B5CB05C.jpg (750x1154, 734.68K)

I don’t consider it at all. It isn’t a question in my mind. You are presenting a false dichotomy. You have falsely equated an artist with their works. The author is dead.

How did he get away with this??

Attached: 1492025830505.png (709x677, 78.94K)

you said
>It’s moreso something I consider once, and then realize it’s not all that importan
the question itself comes from the moral conflict. if you truly 100% separated the art from the artist you wouldn't have said that because you wouldn't have considered it

is this legit?

I 100% separate art from artist. An artist is not equivalent to their work. They exist separately from one another.