The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Offensive Lyrics Discussion
oddment
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Here in the good old United Kingdom, there is a bit of a hoo-haa going on involving Fairytale Of New York by The Pogues and Kirsty MacColl. Basically, Radio 1 have decided to edit out the word 'faggot' from the song 20 years after its initial release, with no previous attempts to do so, as it may cause offence to some listeners. Here is a link to the story and comments from Radio 1 listeners (I have submitted a comment which they have yet to put up, but if they do it will be under the name of 'Andrew').
I myself agree that this word should be edited out of the song when played on national daytime radio. It is an offensive term to gay people, and other offensive terms would never be allowed to air on radio. Yet many people see this as being 'too politically correct'. I always find this said when it comes to issues regarding homosexuallity. No-one stands for racism in this day and age (and we shouldn't stand for it!), so even older films/music/tv shows are edited accordingly or not shown at all if they are deemed to be racist. Yet if it is a homophobic term there is uproar that people are being silly and going too far. I totally agree with free speech, but there are some things that are just not appropriate. Even though I am myself gay, I would stand up for anyones right to think that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural - that is their point of view and its fine. However, derogatory terms (which Fairytale of New York uses - the word 'faggot' is an offensive term in this context, and so would the word 'gay' if it is used to put someone down - I often hear people calling stupid things gay, denoting that gay people are stupid) and inciting hatred is NOT fine.
Everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but everyone is also entitled to equal treatment, respect and the same rights.
I could go on and on about this, as I feel quite strongly about gay rights in general, as well as human rights, but I shall leave this open for discussion now. If my comment is posted on the site I linked to, I shall quote it on here, as I think I was a tad more coherant on there.
So go on then, discuss!
I myself agree that this word should be edited out of the song when played on national daytime radio. It is an offensive term to gay people, and other offensive terms would never be allowed to air on radio. Yet many people see this as being 'too politically correct'. I always find this said when it comes to issues regarding homosexuallity. No-one stands for racism in this day and age (and we shouldn't stand for it!), so even older films/music/tv shows are edited accordingly or not shown at all if they are deemed to be racist. Yet if it is a homophobic term there is uproar that people are being silly and going too far. I totally agree with free speech, but there are some things that are just not appropriate. Even though I am myself gay, I would stand up for anyones right to think that homosexuality is wrong or unnatural - that is their point of view and its fine. However, derogatory terms (which Fairytale of New York uses - the word 'faggot' is an offensive term in this context, and so would the word 'gay' if it is used to put someone down - I often hear people calling stupid things gay, denoting that gay people are stupid) and inciting hatred is NOT fine.
Everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but everyone is also entitled to equal treatment, respect and the same rights.
I could go on and on about this, as I feel quite strongly about gay rights in general, as well as human rights, but I shall leave this open for discussion now. If my comment is posted on the site I linked to, I shall quote it on here, as I think I was a tad more coherant on there.
So go on then, discuss!
PSN Sig Hidden Within!*
*Thanks Thanatos!
*Thanks Thanatos!
oddment on
0
Posts
Not at all.
But basically, the comments on there (except one tiny comment) are all saying how stupid it is to edit out the word. I've visted several other sites with this news story aswell, and every comment there has been the same. It irritates me greatly!
*Thanks Thanatos!
"Zomg, outrage!"
"It's a Christmas song for God's sake!"
"The world has gone too PC."
People are fucking stupid sometimes.
While the original intent of the lyrics may not have been associated with homosexuality, I see nothing wrong with changing the lyrics for an audience who now associate faggotry with homosexuality.
The Ronan Keating cover has the alternative lyric "You scumbag you maggot, you're cheap and you're haggard", which still fits the sense.
When you say "I totally agree with free speech, but there are some things that are just not appropriate", that sort of contradicts itself, to me at least. I see free speech as complete freedom of expression, not as freedom of expression, but with predetermined limits.
While homophobia is something that the planet would be much better off without, I don't see how we can have a free speech environment when certain words or ideas are off limits.
I don't mind a word as hurtful as faggot being removed from the radio, but it's sort of strange to me why it took 20 years for someone to get the initiative to remove it.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
And yes TehSpectre, the comments on the site are ridiculous, and I'm quite annoyed they've not posted anything OTHER than comments by people who are oppossed to the edit. Even if I'm the only person who has made a comment supporting it, they still should post the comment to give an equal balance to what is being said.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
But thats the thing, they're yelling INSULTS. Why should faggot be classed as an insult? It denotes that being gay is a bad thing. They don't yell racially abhorrent terms at each other, and I know faggot in this song probably wasn't meant as a slang for gay at the time, but it does now, and that should be taken into consideration. Every other insult slung in this song isn't prejudiced to a certain group of people so theres no problem there.
And yeh, Einhander, it does seem a bit strange it took 20 years, but is that really such a big deal? And I can see how I might be a bit contradictory with what I said about free speech, but is it not a general rule that racism of any kind will not be tolerated even in countries where freedom of speech exists? It is not stood for, so then why should prejudice towards gay people be tolerated? People can think what they like, and I don't even mind that Christians I know have told me I'm going to hell because I am gay, because that is their belief. But to call someone by a derogatory term isn't acceptable at any time, neither is inciting hatred, violence, or denying people equal rights due to them being 'different'.
*Thanks Thanatos!
I don't know if I buy that ignorance of actual intent and meaning is a very good reason to be justifiably offended.
If a person with a poor vocabulary hears me call someone Niggardly, am I suddenly promoting hate speech?
It will be assumed you are, and even if it's later found that you weren't, you'll be asked to step down from your position.
This has happened many times with teachers and public officials.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I remember the words - things like 'you're an old slut on junk'. This is targeting specific groups - addicts, women etc.
The word faggot is, as far as I know, an insult directed at gay people, or more usually at straight people to insult by implying they're gay (and indirectly insult gay people again).
There are several mistakes you make :
that this insult is directed at a specific group but others aren't (don't all insults target a particular group?) -
that hate speech is not tolerated despite freedom of speech laws/principles (free speech should mean just that - not just speech you don't agree with)
that anyone is being insulted in this song (these are fictional characters insulting one another within a narrative)
Your argument is quite naive - have you heard of 'The Merchant of Venice'? That's anti-semitic. In-numerable works of art, from games through songs to movies, feature characters insulting each other in ways we wouldn't be happy to hear directed at us.
Why is this any different?
If a group of people wanted to show similar distaste for homosexuals, they'd be allowed to. You can't give any group of people "less" freedom of speech than anyone else, or else the whole idea falls apart.
If I come across a racist, or a homophobe, or a misogynist, or a religious nut, I just have to accept that they have ideals that are different from mine. I have no more right than them to express my thoughts. No one can decide what is appropriate for everyone.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Because free speech appalls you?
Yes, people can change the station, they can change the channel, etc... but thats not always the case. Radios played in stores being one example.
As for the comment you made, Poshniallo, about other insults (I assume you mean in the song at this point) not being directed to a certain group... in this song, no. Slut isn't exclusive to women, and it is used on an individual level, whereas the word faggot, while being directed at an individual, is also offensive to a larger group of people due to another comment you made:
I'm at work, so I'm backwards and forwards on PA, but keep the discussions coming. I think its good to hear all the different opinions. What I have said is just what I believe of course, and theres no way I can enforce that on others and wouldn't want to, but I would hope my opinions have some merit. I do find the term faggot offensive, I find it offensive in Fairytale Of New York, even if it wasn't originally intended that way, especially played on national live radio. I also believe that, in Britain at any rate, casual homophobia has become too much of a norm, and it should not be the case.
Anywho, look forward to reading more posts!
*Thanks Thanatos!
Aha, but, who are you to judge what is appropriate for the rest of Britain? Can anyone really hold that responsibility? Can you really allow a suit at a radio station decide what is appropriate for an entire nation without a thought?
Of course, the BBC works considerably differently than private broadcast companies in other countries (so I may be out of my element), but it still comes down to a small group of individuals making a decision that affects the rest of the country. The individual should be responsible for deciding what ideals they'd like to be presented with.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Christ in a courthouse is a Church and State issue, which is an entirely different thread of worms.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
In the song, slut is directed at one person, faggot at the other. Slut absolutely is usually applied to women. The usage may be changing, but it's definitely still primarily aimed at women. Also promiscuous people. The word 'bum' is used to insult homeless people. The fact that you are not a member of these particular groups and have no problem with these negative words being used reflects poorly on you - why should you only care about insults directed at a group you are a member of? Or do you just deny that they are insults directed at people full stop?
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent? Or do you require people to comply with the most shallow interpretation of unbigoted regardless of whether it has any effect at all?
I don't think you're really engaging with the posts here - I think you should read the posts a little more clearly.
At most the word should be edited from songs produced today when played pre-watershed in the same way 'fuck' would be. Anything else is further over-reactionary bullshit from the nancypants PC brigade, a group of people so spineless and petty as to make me be ashamed that I share citizenry with them.
Edit: And there's nothing at all strange that this took 20 years. It hasn't been a bloody insult for the past 19! This is some stupid American import that I have not once heard in regular discourse.
I don't understand why you think 'public assets' are more subject to censorship than others. Censorship is necessary, beneficial and good depending on the effect it has. Why would the fact that it is government-owned change the principles concerned?
This connects on another point - this kind of censorship doesn't help gay people. It just makes the people doing it seem so petty and disconnected from reality, that it diminishes the battle against real bigotry.
This is opening a massive can of worms though. To summarise, I'm not saying that I can judge what is right for the whole of Britain, but when things like racism and religious intollerance are not acceptable on public media, why should homosexual intollerance be acceptable? This is what I mean by casual homophobia. People don't throw around the 'n' word or associate it with being stupid or bad (and rightly so, that is racism), yet the word faggot is allowed, and I might add that people like Chris Moyles (a Radio 1 DJ) has in the past used the word 'gay' as a word to describe something as stupid or bad, which is totally derogatory. In the public media, this should not be allowed. I completely agree with what electrictylikesme has said.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Because you have to understand, people, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it's words that are most offensive, not ideas. The use of the word "faggot" in American Idiot is very clearly meant as an attack on homosexuals and not an attack on homophobic hill-jacks.
Congratulations, censorship has once again solved nothing.
And the acceptance or lack of acceptance of other words isn't relevant - why should this word be censored?
Also you conflate 'racism' and other kinds of bigotry with 'someone using a particular word'. This is an astonishing over-simplification.
And censorship angers me deeply. You need a much better reason than 'I don't like that word' to censor it. What effect does the use of the word have here? Not some made-up sort-of-connected thing that Chris Moyles might say. This word. In this song.
Censoring this word because others are censored? Is it really that simple for you?
surely this is on par with calling someone a "faggot" as an insult as well?
I still feel that in this case, the censorship is justified. I don't know why it has taken 20 years to happen, but I know that I have been offended by this when I have heard it before, just like when I've heard the word used elsewhere as a negative term when in the public domain.
And Nexus, you say 'moderatley insulting'? It is one of the worst words that can be directed at a gay person in my view, and so it is by no means moderate. If you want to listen to the song uncensored, you are free to do so because the song hasn't been censored for private consumption as elictricitylikesme has said. It has just been censored publically, and thus far only on Radio 1.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Yes, except that not even the fundiest of fundies think that being born a girl is a choice. So arguably worse. But only with context, and context isn't important to deciding what to censor. We censor based on the idea that every word is an island, a complete thought with meaning and usage and direct-objects fully contained within itself.
I've already explained that this hasn't been an insult for 20 years, let alone 5. It is an American import that didn't make it's way over here until recently.
Fair enough, 'moderately' was a bit snarky of me. But in this instance you are pathetically projecting meaning upon a word that has none. Look, even I wince when Jedi Mind Tricks say "it's unnatural, like the love between faggots." In fact, I feel slightly guilty for listening. This is not that. You have tragic personal issues if you feel better for this song's censorship. It wasn't directed at you, it wasn't directed at homosexuality.
Stop.
Being.
Spineless.