What You Need
What's Fair Lyrics


Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴  Line by Line Meaning ↴

Once is never enough
You need more
Do what it takes to make a steady hand
Something you know we'd never understand

Take it if it's what you need
You know what you need
So go on, go on honey, take it by all means

Making messes of lies
Stealing time
Licking the wounds that never seem to heal
One more could make everything just disappear

Take it if it's what you need
You know what you need
So go on, go on honey, take it by all means

I'm so idealistic, but this is nothing like how I imagined it
Every day I carry your load with my own and it's getting old
Sew the pieces back in
Straighten up, put on a face so real you fool the mirror
With enough sutures it all will disappear

Take it if it's what you need
You know what you need
So go on, go on honey, take it by all means

It's so masochistic
I'd take any blow then come right back for more of it




Every day I carry your load with my own
And it's getting old

Overall Meaning

The song "What You Need" by What's Fair is about addiction and enabling behaviors. The lyrics suggest that the person being addressed in the song is someone who is addicted to substances or toxic behaviors and needs more to satisfy their addiction. The singer recognizes that this behavior is destructive and something that they could never understand or condone, but they still continue to enable it.


The chorus of the song "Take it if it's what you need, you know what you need, so go on, go on honey, take it by all means" suggests that the singer is aware that the other person knows what they need to satisfy their addiction or behavior, but the singer is still encouraging them to take it despite the negative consequences. The lyrics "Every day I carry your load with my own and it's getting old" and "I'm so idealistic, but this is nothing like how I imagined it" suggest that the singer is growing tired and disillusioned with the situation, but still feels trapped and unable to break away from it.


In essence, the song is about the cycle of addiction and enabling, and how it can wear down even the most resilient and idealistic individuals. It is a powerful commentary on the destructive nature of substance abuse and other addictive behaviors, and the toll it takes on not just the individual, but those around them.


Line by Line Meaning

Once is never enough
You always want more and are never satisfied with just one thing


You need more
You have a constant desire for more


Do what it takes to make a steady hand
You will do anything necessary to achieve your desires


Something you know we'd never understand
Your desire for more is something that others cannot comprehend


Take it if it's what you need
You are encouraged to take whatever you desire


You know what you need
You are aware of your own desires and needs


So go on, go on honey, take it by all means
You are encouraged to take whatever you desire, without hesitation


Making messes of lies
You are constantly lying and creating chaos


Stealing time
You are taking time away from others selfishly


Licking the wounds that never seem to heal
You are dwelling on past hurts that continue to impact you


One more could make everything just disappear
You believe that obtaining one more thing could solve all your problems


I'm so idealistic, but this is nothing like how I imagined it
You used to have high hopes and expectations, but reality has not lived up to it


Every day I carry your load with my own and it's getting old
You are tired of supporting someone else and their needs, on top of your own


Sew the pieces back in
You are attempting to fix the problems in your life


Straighten up, put on a face so real you fool the mirror
You are trying to hide your pain and put on a façade of happiness


With enough sutures it all will disappear
You believe that by hiding your pain and problems, they will eventually go away


It's so masochistic
Your willingness to endure pain and suffering is self-destructive


I'd take any blow then come right back for more of it
You are willing to take on any challenge, even if it continues to hurt you




Contributed by Kaelyn G. Suggest a correction in the comments below.
To comment on or correct specific content, highlight it

Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found
Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Walter Clark

How about anarchy and philanthropy as cultural norms ?....
-All people are not created equal in skill... <--this is the "given"
No ganging up on the 1 percent or anyone else... <- the anarchy part
-The inferior people are taken care of by the superior people through "their own" philanthropy. Welfare as a hobby; not done as an activity done under duress.

On the theory that. . .
We are neither entitled to be unselfish at someone else's expense
Nor is there any merit in being unselfish if you have no choice.
F.A. Hayek



ForrestSCS

@DerAstrophysiker " those were not elections, those were crimes, acts of war, violence. "
Those were acts of violence justified and committed by U.S. majorities. Just like the ones committed more recently and today upon minorities within the US. What you chose to merely label them now offers no recourse. Theft of resources is a crime too, but thanks to your 'enlightening' post, we can all see exactly how crimes like that are justified by some. In fact, your post is quite insightful regarding the reasons why individuals should be extremely, extremely concerned with allowing you (and others) any say in the forceful control of thier resources. Not to mention 'justified' theft alone will require force to accomplish; an initiation of violence introduced upon society (a thought process responsible for many wars). There's nothing quite like getting your way with others and thier resources by pointing guns at them. To you, it's more fair for the 99% poorer nations merely band together, threaten and use force if necessary, to take the resources/labor/output of Americans, upto any amount the majority deems fair, and redistribute as the majority deems fit. It's more fair that a woman in a crowd of men be raped, should she be withholding the resource of sex, so long as the majority agree it fair to take. I can go on and on too with examples of theft, from time, to labor, to any and all other resources of value.

" If the MAJORITY actually gets to decide on the fate of the MAJORITY of the population, it is simply fairer for everybod "
As I've stated multiple times now, being a majority has nothing to do with right or righteous. You've offered no logical reasoning for why it's more fair merely because a larger group decides it so. It's not more right for Nazis to kill Jews just because they formed a large consensus to do so. I can again offer example after example after example proving that majority decision making has nothing to do with what's 'fair," let alone right or better. Repeating that it somehow is, doesn't justify it being so.

" They are ready to change their lives for the sake of the environment "
Isn't that funny. If people are ready to change, then all they need to do is individually change thier actions. Stop driving thier cars so much or at all; pay for alternative transportation. Stop using so much home electricity; or pay for alternatives like solar or wind at home. Work for or create new companies that do better for the environment; prove it can be done better by offering the tools to others which enable them to do so with less or no greater sacrifice. Educate yourself and create better technologies that actually enable people to obtain the change desired.
People don't need useless documents to prove they are ready to change. They prove they are ready to change by directing thier personal resources (time, labor, and labor valued) towards the things they believe offer that change. You don't need to steal from others to put your resources where your mouth is. Anything less is just scapegoating and complacency. A useless document doesn't create the technology and services required either. A minority does, taking risks with thier personal resources long before a majority is even aware, let alone convinced, of it's need or market desire.
While the majority may purportedly "be ready" for a better environment, it's a minority like me who's actually done it. I own a fully electric car. I installed a 6.5kw solar array on my home. And I run my business as green as possible, despite it's extra costs. And thanks to a minority like me, it's us who's driven the market thus far. If the majority had it thier way up until the point they are purportedly "ready to change," you'd have stolen my wealth and directed to the things majorities buy before they are ready for change, leaving minorities like me with no money to invest in the businesses and tech that now exist today due to our minority investments long before this point.
So tell me all about your "majority change" based on some document, while I drive down the road and continue to see at least 95% new cars as gasoline, few if any cyclists, and a city bus consisting most only of homeless and poor people.

Well, you may have the last word. I've got to move along and feel the time I've invested here is more than fair. Granted, you and others may not agree, but thankfully you have no power to enforce otherwise.



ForrestSCS

@go minic "  we all should just run around like animals "
You're telling me that Gov't is what provides you (and everyone you surround yourself with) with morals, purpose, and reason? Else you'll run around like an animal?
Dubious.

" this country was founded on power to the people not one group of people everyone "
I assume you're talking about the USA? A classic example of purported "power to the people" (which mind you committed mass genocide and stole land as part of it's founding while physically enslaving minorities for over a century) turned power to the rich... just as I previously stated. Even a most limited Gov't isn't safe from the persistence of those desiring power via instituted Force. And of course those with the most resources will find most success in such endeavors; human nature. It merely takes time. No law or piece of paper has prevented, nor will prevent, that.
"I killed the banks", declared Andrew Jackson. Oh wait, nope, not true. The bankers just needed more time, laying wait for the right opportunity, and of course most important, the institution to enforce thier will when that time came.
Facts are, the general public's majority is in no better position to dictate what is best for me over me. No more than the rich, or the political elite... and same goes for you. Replacing an immoral system with another immoral system isn't progress... regardless if you believe the later benefits you.

Anyway, I'm merely stating that what was suggested as a needed solution, is no solution at all, but rather a recipe for more failure; time tested. Of course, you can fancy yourself into believing what you may.



All comments from YouTube:

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky

Although it is fair to give a larger reward to the more productive individuals, we have a very poor system of determining who is "more productive." The "productivity" of CEOs is highly over estimated, as compared to the average worker.

Richard Melcher

+George Cataloni haha, thank you. you are correct, I fumbled my point.

Navneet Krishnan

+Richard Melcher Well, your scenario is debatable. A doctor saves lives (or improves them) while the worker builds stuff. By one token, one who saves lives should be more valuable. However, if these construction workers didn't build, the doctor wouldn't have the buildings in which they work, nor the facilities to help those in need. So in a way, the workers contribute more - knowledge may be power, but it's useless without the ability to use it. So do we reward the one who saves lives more, or the one who enables them to do so?

Jon Derrick

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky

You are worth EITHER the smallest amount that you are willing to accept as compensation for your time OR the largest amount someone else is willing to provide as compensation for your time.

The former is your self-worth, and the latter is your worth according to your employer. Your self-worth can never be higher than your compensation (because you would never accept less than your self-worth).

If the average worker were truly worth more, then they wouldn't be working for what they're making. Instead, they'd either form unions to bring compensation in line with self-worth or they would simply quit.

Phindog10

No it's not one average worker is payed as one average worker one average worker is payed little but as a whole group average workers are usually pay almost as much or more as CEO because one CEO is more important to the company than one average worker remember scarcity equals price

CODcanbefornoobs

+millenniumdragn there are always equally skilled workers that are in need of job, you can be easily replaced depending on what skills you have. A computer scientist is harder to replace than a grocer and more skilled and more productive therefore he has earned a wage that is significantly higher than the grocer's. it's personal freedom and equality, if you choose to you can work better and harder than the guy next to you so you can lead a more fulfilling and comfortable life. this is how the world should work. reward those who take the next step, build competition so we can further society with technological improvements. the only reason why you are in the 1% of the world with your smartphone is because capitalism paved the way. quit bitching you greedy dickhead, and tell me why you deserve to be paid more.

6 More Replies...

ZeratultheDark

Equality would likely make things far more fair in the long run as opposed to the opposite. Not everyone has the starting advantage, so if you make things equal first then it would likely help make things fair.

CrypticCalamari

Merit based systems are an ideal that are rarely implemented in practice to be based purely on merit. Either there ends up being cronnyism or the metrics by which merit is determined are rigged to give the illusion of merit whilst hamstringing those competing within the system.

Zooney L

In order to have fairness and justice, we need objective morality. As for fairness vs equality, i think fairness is more important: as long as i get 10, i can accept getting 6+4 instead of 5+5.

Arte da Matema

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Marx, Karl

More Comments

More Versions