Iced Earth

CrimsonEmotions said:
Perhaps the most startling thing is that Schafer was dumb enough to think that his actions would not have any consequences, not only to himself but to his bandmates.
Click to expand...
Not to be contrarian, but I’m pretty sure he was fully expecting consequences for his actions. I’m sure said consequences were more along the lines of, “We’re going to take back our country, bring back freedoms for the American people, be labeled as heroes for what we’ve done, and Iced Earth will become the big name in music as proud, patriotic, hardworking metal gods.” :P
 
I'm late to the conversation

I normally try to separate politics from Music, but this is something I really disagree with, and as someone just getting into the band it makes me reconsider going further although I have come to really appreciate the music, I suspect I will be giving them a break for a while.
 
I’ve mixed up condemn and condone before, that part I don’t have a problem believing. It does feel like he was trying to go for the both sides angle initially though which is... an uninformed position at best.
 
I'm fine with it. I don't know if he expected it to go the way it did, or if he was referring to people actually trying to lynch lawmakers, but a lot of fringe people who were kinda onboard with MAGA are now rethinking that. If we reject them, then we push them back to MAGA. He apologized, let's move on.
 
I also think that it's okay to accept it - I can also imagine someone liking the idea of a riot, but disliking when it turns violent, I guess?
(not me, I'm generally strictly against mob stuff, whether it's the BLM or the MAGA crowd)

However, I found interesting that condemning/condoning stuff - I also misread that sentence at first and I just wanted to ask - is it just the fact English is not my native tongue and my limited grasp thereof or would the sentence actually make more sense/feel more natural as "Are you condoning what happened?"
It just feels very weird if you are asking about the condemnation in this way (with "condoning" it feels like a disbelief and a request for clarification, with "condemning" that sentence feels like a demand that comes out of nowhere, possibly?), but like I said - you native speakers please tell me.
 
It feels to me like he had no actual idea of what was going on at the time and when he realized the scale of the event, he regretted the post and backtracked, hoping for a certain damage limitation. It doesn't sound 100% sincere to me - it's easier to claim misunderstanding than admitting you fucked up. I could be wrong, of course.

JudasMyGuide said:
However, I found interesting that condemning/condoning stuff - I also misread that sentence at first and I just wanted to ask - is it just the fact English is not my native tongue and my limited grasp thereof or would the sentence actually make more sense/feel more natural as "Are you condoning what happened?"
It just feels very weird if you are asking about the condemnation in this way (with "condoning" it feels like a disbelief and a request for clarification, with "condemning" that sentence feels like a demand that comes out of nowhere, possibly?), but like I said - you native speakers please tell me.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that long ago that Black Wizard, I think, insisted on me condemning something. I really don't remember what it was. I find it really weird that a random person should be asked to condemn something equally random, particularly when they have nothing to do with said thing. Maybe it's a native speaker thing indeed.
 
I disagree that it’s a weird sentence, as it’s grammatically correct and I’ve seen it a lot in today’s world as people seem to become more polarized with each other in politics and such. But I do agree that it’s not something that should be demanded of people left and right, as it often misses the nuance of the issue, like Wiz vs Ariana in the Pantera discussion.

As far as the apology goes, it’s not my place to debate Stu’s intentions. This is his statement, and he’s apologized, so that’s the way I’m gonna take it. Regardless of where his head was originally, he’s very public about what he feels now.
 
I mean that the form is weird - "Are you condoning this?" would make sense, so would "Let me clarify - you are (still) condemning this, right?".

But the "Are you condemning this?" just feels weird. The structure of the sentence implies incredulity, which doesn't make sense in this context - he wasn't behaving as if he was condemning anything. That was my point.

A lot of stuff is grammatically correct, but doesn't make it less weird.

So misreading it as "Are you condoning this?" actually makes a lot sense to me, whether you usually confuse condemn/condone, because of the implied disbelief regarding Stu actually seemingly condoning something. IMHO.
 
I don't see where the confusion lies. To condone is to approve, to condemn is to disapprove. So how can it make more or less sense to ask someone if they approve of something rather than if they disapprove of something?
 
Onhell said:
I don't see where the confusion lies. To condone is to approve, to condemn is to disapprove. So how can it make more or less sense to ask someone if they approve of something rather than if they disapprove of something?
Click to expand...

See my previous post.

Or:

Because if you seemingly behave as if you're supportive of something, then the sentence that implies incredulity (which the basic question without further ado kinda does in this context) should be formed towards the approval, not disapproval.

Like, his gung-ho post regarding something rather wrong and unpopular really begs the reaction "Are you (actually) condoning this?" or "You are (still) condemning this/what they did, right?"

If he was disparaging something or the post would seem primarily negative towards something generally perceived as good, the reactions that'd make sense would be "Are you (indeed) condemning this (good thing)?" or "You are still condoning/approving of this, right?"

I can feel the difference in the sentences very strongly, but obviously other native speakers don't (or some do and some don't) - that's where I was doubting myself and my grasp of English.

Combined with the fact condemn and condone share letters and look kinda similar, I was just saying that at least to me it is believable that he indeed misread the sentence with "condone" (which he claims), because its structure in this particular context would make you read (or at least expect) "condone" more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top