I'm not being spineless! How am I being so? I am giving my opinion about something that I find to be offensive. As I said, it doesn't matter what the meaning of the word meant originally, but it is what it means now, especially in the context it is given, fictional or not. It is in the public domain. It is going to offend, just as any other kind of insult will do. Fair enough, the new meaning of the word may be a relitively recent imported insult, but it has caught on and is used as a term to insult gay people either directly or indirectly. I have had the term thrown at me before, and it is not nice. Again, the word in the song is not directed at me and it wasn't originally meant to mean homosexuallity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause offence now. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there have been plenty of songs in the past that have been sung by white people using terms such as the 'n' word, which are now either blanked out or banned even though they were popular back in the day. I am not suggesting the song we are discussing should be banned, and it should not be censored for private use either. It should, however, be censored for public use, as should any song using this kind of language.
For taking such easy offense at an old Irish folk song! It's truly pathetic that you would choose to read insult in this. You're just another victim ready to run crying to the watchdogs because someone said something you didn't like and you need someone to wrap a warm duvet around you and protect you from the nasty people who in this case do not exist.
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there have been plenty of songs in the past that have been sung by white people using terms such as the 'n' word, which are now either blanked out or banned even though they were popular back in the day
Yes but the 'n' word has always meant the same thing! I simply cannot get my head around the fact that you will now feel better when you hear this song simply because there is a small audio dip in which a word you know perfectly well used to reside. Are you going to feel like it never existed?
I'm sorry I'm coming off as a bull, but I think this is just something I will never understand.
What is this 'private and public use' thing that's suddenly appeared? Why should the government censor public broadcasts but allow privately-owned versions to be uncensored?
Oddment - you need a better reason than not liking the word to censor art. That's the thing that's angering me. You don't like the word? I don't care. Someone tries to be rude to you? I do care, very much. Someone attacks homosexuals verbally or physically? I do care.
But you have to try and understand a word is not a monolith, evil or acceptable regardless of context.
And for god's sake stop going on about racist language. It's not relevant at all.
I don't know that I feel better... I think this is more about equal treatment than getting some sort of smug satisfaction from having the word removed. My basic point has been 'why should gay people be treated any differently?' There are many groups who are not treated equally by many people, and sometimes by the law, but obviously I have more of an interest in the gay side of it, though I of course support equal rights for everyone.
Also, I haven't personally censored this song, and I haven't complained directly to anyone about it causing offence, but since this arguement has come up, I have agreed with it being edited. If certain rights are allowed to one group of people, why should they then not be allowed to another group? This could apply to many things, including marriage (just to divert, I mean the legal side of it, not religious. And yes, we have civil partnerships here now which is fantastic, so not complaining there, but it used to be an issue, and still is in places like America), and as a basic human right, all people, of all creeds, colours, genders, religions and sexuallities should be treated the same and be afforded the same rights.
You're coming off a tad bullish Nexus, but thats okay! You're just expressing your point of view. I'm not exactly a saint myself when it comes to discussions... or life, actually. Heh.
Don't want to be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fuck America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along to the age of paranoia.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
Don't want to be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
There're the lyrics for American Idiot. Now I want you to take this bit here:
Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
What is this 'private and public use' thing that's suddenly appeared? Why should the government censor public broadcasts but allow privately-owned versions to be uncensored?
Oddment - you need a better reason than not liking the word to censor art. That's the thing that's angering me. You don't like the word? I don't care. Someone tries to be rude to you? I do care, very much. Someone attacks homosexuals verbally or physically? I do care.
But you have to try and understand a word is not a monolith, evil or acceptable regardless of context.
And for god's sake stop going on about racist language. It's not relevant at all.
How is it not relevant? It is the same thing to me. And no, this one word isn't a MASSIVE deal, I admit that, but its part of a bigger problem. As for public and private, I will have to come back to racism again I'm afraid, as again, racist language, or for that matter generally abusive terms and bad language are for the most part censored from public radio, but will appear in purchasable format intact, sometimes with a parental advisory if deemed neccessary. Not at all saying this song should have such a label slapped on it, but it should be subject to the same censorship other pieces of art are subject to in the public domain. Otherwise, how is that promoting equality?
I don't know that I feel better... I think this is more about equal treatment
Oh I see so you're attacking freedom of expression purely on grounds of equality. Well that's fantastic, but unfortunately this must be where I depart from the thread because you cannot have debate or serious discussion with a lunatic.
Don't want to be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fuck America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along to the age of paranoia.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
Don't want to be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
There're the lyrics for American Idiot. Now I want you to take this bit here:
Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
and tell me how it's an attack on homosexuals.
Wow, okay... where did this come from? I don't see that as offensive, and I never said I did. I can understand the context it is meant in. HOWEVER, if that word was replaced with the 'n' word (its the only example I can think of that makes my point, sorry to keep on with it), that word would be censored, even if in this context it is actually meant as a dig at racists. Do you see what I mean?
Further, how does removing the word "faggot" from the above quoted lyrics help anyone gay in any way? The explicit purpose behind usage of the word "faggot" in that context is to draw attention to the popularity of attacking people for being gay as a political strategy as well as a party-game in many states. Removing the word "faggot" from those lyrics removes any meaning from those two lines, removing the lyrics' ability to call attention to the very issues that you're pretending to promote with your nonsense argument in favor of baseless censorship of the public airwaves, the airwaves belonging to the public? This censorship you support is quite clearly an attack on homosexuals.
Don't want to be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind fuck America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along to the age of paranoia.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
Don't want to be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.
Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Where everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.
There're the lyrics for American Idiot. Now I want you to take this bit here:
Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
and tell me how it's an attack on homosexuals.
Wow, okay... where did this come from? I don't see that as offensive, and I never said I did. I can understand the context it is meant in. HOWEVER, if that word was replaced with the 'n' word (its the only example I can think of that makes my point, sorry to keep on with it), that word would be censored, even if in this context it is actually meant as a dig at racists. Do you see what I mean?
Would it? Is there a blanket ban on racist terminology across the whole world now?
After the whole Muhammad cartoon incidents, I feel reinforced in the notion that censorship, both self censorship and censorship from above (government, executives, whatever) especially in order to not offend others, is a bad thing. First of all, it creates an awful precedent, namely that if someone is offended by someone, they can claim that it should no longer appear anywhere where they can view it. Once this starts happen, more focus groups will claim they are being insulted/hurt by certain things (See also BBC and the Jerry Springer Opera), and what other option do you have then, except censor more? If you draw an arbitrary line, people will always complain about being just on the wrong side of the line. But if you don't draw a line, you solve the problem.
This doesn't mean that everyone should go around insulting everyone as a matter of course, but the idea is that if you let people speak freely, people only tend to listen to the people who say worthy things. If you forbid people from saying certain words, you don't really solve any problems. Such words can also become cool and edgy instead.
This incident is even weirder because the song wasn't even written to provoke, insult or hurt anyone. It uses a word that has changed meaning since it was written, but this is not exactly unheard of. Should all books written in the 19th century be edited for radio to remove words that nowadays can be deemed offensive (perhaps denigrating words for slaves/black man, or women, or homosexuals?), if they ever are to be read out or quoted? Is any current book or movie portraying a racist, bigot or homofobe, including their deeds and mode of speech, as they happen in the real world all the time, immediately offensive too, even if it was made to enlighten people of the stupidity of such people (I realize in the past the incredibly stupid have misinterpreted such things, like some neonazi's with american history X).
The whole "some words are so evil they must not be spoken aloud!" thing seems very odd to me in general. Words directed at someone can be insulting or hurtful, but the word itself is nothing. Fictional characters hurling insults at each other, so what.
It is a term used to put down homosexuals, it is a term that therefore defines homosexuality as being bad. To say it to a straight person means that you think being gay is a BAD thing to be, and therefore means you hate gay people. So what kind of message does that send out? The whole gay rights movement is about trying to bring about equality for homosexuals, and words such as this are a part of the problem. It means something to gay people on the whole, and is therefore offensive. It is generally used as an offensive term, and whether or not it is meant as such in this song, or anywhere else where it is heard in the public domain, it should be censored just like any other such language. Why is it so easy for you to go along with the censorship of other terms in the public media that cause offence, but not this term in this context? Heck, even in rap songs, sung by black people, the 'n' word is still censored out, and its not meant to cause offence to anyone in the way it is used there for the most part.
It's radio. Anyone can tune in. Censor what they want. I'll enjoy the uncut lyrics on my own. Bigoted terms, racist terms are fair game to take out. Rap constantly has the word removed from songs on the air (usually resulting in essentially an instrumental).
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
I oppose the censoring of rap songs too, but the situation in the US on n word is very weird (where black people can go around using it freely and white people are racist if they use it). I also must wonder, have you ever visited the SE++ board a little bit south from us? It's nothing but "fag" and "faggot" jokes at times (it has settled down a bit over the years, but it's still there). Using it in a humorous fashion, is that also offensive?
SanderJK on
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
And then they do it to someone who takes offense and get punched in the nose and immediately learn that it's not an okay thing to do. Live and learn.
After the whole Muhammad cartoon incidents, I feel reinforced in the notion that censorship, both self censorship and censorship from above (government, executives, whatever) especially in order to not offend others, is a bad thing. First of all, it creates an awful precedent, namely that if someone is offended by someone, they can claim that it should no longer appear anywhere where they can view it. Once this starts happen, more focus groups will claim they are being insulted/hurt by certain things (See also BBC and the Jerry Springer Opera), and what other option do you have then, except censor more? If you draw an arbitrary line, people will always complain about being just on the wrong side of the line. But if you don't draw a line, you solve the problem.
This doesn't mean that everyone should go around insulting everyone as a matter of course, but the idea is that if you let people speak freely, people only tend to listen to the people who say worthy things. If you forbid people from saying certain words, you don't really solve any problems. Such words can also become cool and edgy instead.
This incident is even weirder because the song wasn't even written to provoke, insult or hurt anyone. It uses a word that has changed meaning since it was written, but this is not exactly unheard of. Should all books written in the 19th century be edited for radio to remove words that nowadays can be deemed offensive (perhaps denigrating words for slaves/black man, or women, or homosexuals?), if they ever are to be read out or quoted? Is any current book or movie portraying a racist, bigot or homofobe, including their deeds and mode of speech, as they happen in the real world all the time, immediately offensive too, even if it was made to enlighten people of the stupidity of such people (I realize in the past the incredibly stupid have misinterpreted such things, like some neonazi's with american history X).
The whole "some words are so evil they must not be spoken aloud!" thing seems very odd to me in general. Words directed at someone can be insulting or hurtful, but the word itself is nothing. Fictional characters hurling insults at each other, so what.
Okay, I actually can see this from your perspective. You've placed out what you mean well. I do still feel it is hypocritical to have some words strictly forbidden from public airing, but some are completely fine.
I do suppose I am being a tad overbearing with what I've said, and having given more thought to it, not just because of this post but everything else people have said, I can understand why it would be bad to start censoring things such as this. However, I think what made me most mad were some of the comments I've read on the site I linked to and elsewhere, saying what an outrage it was for it to happen, and how could the word possibly offend anyone? I've even read people saying how completely disgusting homosexuallity is, and while thats their opinion, it does get to me.
But yes, Sander and all you others, perhaps I shouldn't be taking this all too seriously. Freedom of speech is very important in a society like ours, but as I say, it really does annoy me when its fine for people to say one thing but not okay for another, do you see what I mean? It is about equality in that respect, but there are other issues regarding that subject that need much more attention.
I oppose the censoring of rap songs too, but the situation in the US on n word is very weird (where black people can go around using it freely and white people are racist if they use it). I also must wonder, have you ever visited the SE++ board a little bit south from us? It's nothing but "fag" and "faggot" jokes at times (it has settled down a bit over the years, but it's still there). Using it in a humorous fashion, is that also offensive?
I personally would find it offensive, yes, as it is being used as a derogatory term.
And yeh Violent, we use the word fag for a cigarrette, but not the whole word faggot. Fag is a different word entirely. I guess its like having different words with different meaning, but spelt the same which happens quite often in the English language.
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
And then they do it to someone who takes offense and get punched in the nose and immediately learn that it's not an okay thing to do. Live and learn.
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality. It comes too close to the libertarian stance on things, and we know that libertarians are anti-social idiots who don't really understand how society operates and how people think and behave.
I see very little if any difference between being against government intervention in markets for the sake of market forces determining everything, and being against government intervention in free speech for the sake of people determining, by trial and error, what is okay behavior and what is not.
After the whole Muhammad cartoon incidents, I feel reinforced in the notion that censorship, both self censorship and censorship from above (government, executives, whatever) especially in order to not offend others, is a bad thing. First of all, it creates an awful precedent, namely that if someone is offended by someone, they can claim that it should no longer appear anywhere where they can view it. Once this starts happen, more focus groups will claim they are being insulted/hurt by certain things (See also BBC and the Jerry Springer Opera), and what other option do you have then, except censor more? If you draw an arbitrary line, people will always complain about being just on the wrong side of the line. But if you don't draw a line, you solve the problem.
This doesn't mean that everyone should go around insulting everyone as a matter of course, but the idea is that if you let people speak freely, people only tend to listen to the people who say worthy things. If you forbid people from saying certain words, you don't really solve any problems. Such words can also become cool and edgy instead.
This incident is even weirder because the song wasn't even written to provoke, insult or hurt anyone. It uses a word that has changed meaning since it was written, but this is not exactly unheard of. Should all books written in the 19th century be edited for radio to remove words that nowadays can be deemed offensive (perhaps denigrating words for slaves/black man, or women, or homosexuals?), if they ever are to be read out or quoted? Is any current book or movie portraying a racist, bigot or homofobe, including their deeds and mode of speech, as they happen in the real world all the time, immediately offensive too, even if it was made to enlighten people of the stupidity of such people (I realize in the past the incredibly stupid have misinterpreted such things, like some neonazi's with american history X).
The whole "some words are so evil they must not be spoken aloud!" thing seems very odd to me in general. Words directed at someone can be insulting or hurtful, but the word itself is nothing. Fictional characters hurling insults at each other, so what.
Didn't they try banning "Tin Tin in Africa" (kuifje in Afrika) over here because it was racist?
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality. It comes too close to the libertarian stance on things, and we know that libertarians are anti-social idiots who don't really understand how society operates and how people think and behave.
I see very little if any difference between being against government intervention in markets for the sake of market forces determining everything, and being against government intervention in free speech for the sake of people determining, by trial and error, what is okay behavior and what is not.
That's exactly how society works though. Especially with children. They're supposed to be guided by their parents on how to use correct behavior but are inevitably going to mess it up anyway and learn from their mistakes. Be it from imitating foul language they hear on the radio, dangerous/violent acts they see on television, or derogatory language they learn from the internet.
Edit: Which does not mean there should be no government intervention in free speech, but the belief that they should censor the language in public broadcasts meant for everyone because children might hear those words and use them inappropriately doesn't work. Children use lots of things they see and hear inappropriately.
Quid on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
And then they do it to someone who takes offense and get punched in the nose and immediately learn that it's not an okay thing to do. Live and learn.
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality.
It works, though. Has worked, for thousands of years. "Ooh, fire pretty, me touch. Ooh, fire hot, me no touch". Sure, you can tell someone not to do X, but chances are they'll do it anyway because drugs are cool. But if they get a bad reaction to it or end up selling their kidneys while high or something, they just might figure out that X is bad and they shouldn't do it anymore.
Of course there are a lot of people who won't figure out that things are bad for them and continue to do them anyway, but that's just nature's way of weeding out the retards.
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality. It comes too close to the libertarian stance on things, and we know that libertarians are anti-social idiots who don't really understand how society operates and how people think and behave.
I see very little if any difference between being against government intervention in markets for the sake of market forces determining everything, and being against government intervention in free speech for the sake of people determining, by trial and error, what is okay behavior and what is not.
That's exactly how society works though. Especially with children. They're supposed to be guided by their parents on how to use correct behavior but are inevitably going to mess it up anyway and learn from their mistakes. Be it from imitating foul language they hear on the radio, dangerous/violent acts they see on television, or derogatory language they learn from the internet.
You're establishing a false dichotomy. Just because kids learn some things by trial and error does not mean we should let them figure everything by trial and error. Would you like your kid to fall off his bike and crack his skull on the sidewalk so he learns -- the hard way -- that he should wear a helmet, or would you like to make him wear one so he doesn't get hurt in the first place?
There is experiential training, and there is preventive training. Both are equally important tools in the development of a child. You can't rely on your kid learning everything by experience, just like you can't always prevent him from behaving in certain ways.
A quick google appears to indicate that the Tin tin got moved to adult sections of libaries and bookstores in quite a few countries, and that a Congoleze man tried to get it outlawed in Belgium. I can understand moving something that now pretty much comes across as racist out of childrens way (It shows the sentiment that congoleze are backwards, slow and lazy). It's not the same as censorship. Trying to get it banned, that's silly and again, in my opinion, stupid and counterproductive though. (The related case of rewriting the strip to have a rhino run off instead of killed without remorse irks me more because you change the strip because the actions then are no longer moral today, instead of making clear times were different then).
As an immediate show of why such controversies are counterproductive, the sales of that particular book rose by 4000% when the controversy hit. A related thought, I bet by now a billion people have seen the danish cartoons, which were intended for a local newspaper (normally seen by 100k people maybe?)
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
And then they do it to someone who takes offense and get punched in the nose and immediately learn that it's not an okay thing to do. Live and learn.
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality.
It works, though. Has worked, for thousands of years. "Ooh, fire pretty, me touch. Ooh, fire hot, me no touch". Sure, you can tell someone not to do X, but chances are they'll do it anyway because drugs are cool. But if they get a bad reaction to it or end up selling their kidneys while high or something, they just might figure out that X is bad and they shouldn't do it anymore.
Of course there are a lot of people who won't figure out that things are bad for them and continue to do them anyway, but that's just nature's way of weeding out the retards.
Just like we shouldn't have any seat-belt laws to let the retards weed themselves out, right?
Yeah, no. Your type of mentality does not lead to a well-functioning society.
You're establishing a false dichotomy. Just because kids learn some things by trial and error does not mean we should let them figure everything by trial and error. Would you like your kid to fall off his bike and crack his skull on the sidewalk so he learns -- the hard way -- that he should wear a helmet, or would you like to make him wear one so he doesn't get hurt in the first place?
I, as his parent, would make him wear a helmet. Though actually most places have helmet laws anyway because not wearing one can get you killed. Saying faggot does not.
There is experiential training, and there is preventive training. Both are equally important tools in the development of a child. You can't rely on your kid learning everything by experience, just like you can't always prevent him from behaving in certain ways.
But you haven't demonstrated why bad words should be censored over public broadcasts other than kids are dumb. They see and hear way worse things than the word fuck. Power Rangers encourages to solve their problems through violence, Ronald McDonald encourages them to eat fatty high sugar foods, and Bratz states that the most important thing is how you look. And these are all media marketed directly at children. This says nothing of shows like House, Nip/Tuck, Lost, or any other shows shown during prime time. I won't even go into morning radio talk shows. There's no reason that they should be aired on public airwaves but not an expletive.
What does 'promoting' bigotry mean? Do you really think some fictitious people insulting each other in a pop song makes bigotry more prevalent?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
And then they do it to someone who takes offense and get punched in the nose and immediately learn that it's not an okay thing to do. Live and learn.
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality.
It works, though. Has worked, for thousands of years. "Ooh, fire pretty, me touch. Ooh, fire hot, me no touch". Sure, you can tell someone not to do X, but chances are they'll do it anyway because drugs are cool. But if they get a bad reaction to it or end up selling their kidneys while high or something, they just might figure out that X is bad and they shouldn't do it anymore.
Of course there are a lot of people who won't figure out that things are bad for them and continue to do them anyway, but that's just nature's way of weeding out the retards.
Just like we shouldn't have any seat-belt laws to let the retards weed themselves out, right?
Yeah, no. Your type of mentality does not lead to a well-functioning society.
Oh so words kill people now, do they? If some innocent child hears the word "faggot" on the radio they're going to be hurled through a sheet of glass into a tree.
So are you saying that no drama or art should ever show someone being mean to another person in case a child emulates it?
Nice strawman.
If the art or drama in question is on public television where any child can tune in any time, then I'm in favor of censoring out the violent parts as well as the derogatory language.
In non-public avenues though, I don't think censorship has a place.
So are you saying that no drama or art should ever show someone being mean to another person in case a child emulates it?
I think he means it should not be shown to children, and taken out of the public domain where children have easy access to it. This is what ratings are for, and a good example of censorship working correctly. Things should be kept intact, but if they do involve 'being mean' then they should only be allowed to be seen/heard by people deemed by the law capable of handling such things. It's kind of like the whole Manhunt 2 issue. Yes, it is probably a very violent game that allows you to do terrible things to people, and therefore it is not meant for children and is rated as such. If you wanted COMPLETE freedom of speech and expression, there wouldn't be ratings to protect people from offence in this way. This then relates back to what I have been talking about.
So are you saying that no drama or art should ever show someone being mean to another person in case a child emulates it?
Nice strawman.
If the art or drama in question is on public television where any child can tune in any time, then I'm in favor of censoring out the violent parts as well as the derogatory language.
In non-public avenues though, I don't think censorship has a place.
It seemed to be a logical conclusion of the opinions you were espousing.
I've still yet to see a good example of the difference between reduction ad absurdum and strawmanning btw.
So no violence or 'derogatory language' (how do we decide what this includes btw?) on television?
Or are you expressing yourself imprecisely?
Ach - you and oddment like censorship, I hate it. We're not going to see eye to eye.
You're establishing a false dichotomy. Just because kids learn some things by trial and error does not mean we should let them figure everything by trial and error. Would you like your kid to fall off his bike and crack his skull on the sidewalk so he learns -- the hard way -- that he should wear a helmet, or would you like to make him wear one so he doesn't get hurt in the first place?
I, as his parent, would make him wear a helmet. Though actually most places have helmet laws anyway because not wearing one can get you killed. Saying faggot does not.
But it does promote the use of derogatory language towards gays.
How is making your child wear a helmet any different than not letting him listen to a song with the N word in it so that he doesn't say it to some guy the next day and gets his face caved in? In both cases you're trying to prevent your child meeting a negative outcome.
Also, I'd like to point out that in some parts of the country, using the wrong word at the wrong time can get you killed, whereas not wearing a helmet isn't always fatal or even disabling.
But you haven't demonstrated why bad words should be censored over public broadcasts other than kids are dumb. They see and hear way worse things than the word fuck. Power Rangers encourages to solve their problems through violence, Ronald McDonald encourages them to eat fatty high sugar foods, and Bratz states that the most important thing is how you look. And these are all media marketed directly at children. This says nothing of shows like House, Nip/Tuck, Lost, or any other shows shown during prime time. I won't even go into morning radio talk shows. There's no reason that they should be aired on public airwaves but not an expletive.
You're right. TV is fucked up.
That doesn't mean derogatory language should not be censored.
Posts
*Thanks Thanatos!
For taking such easy offense at an old Irish folk song! It's truly pathetic that you would choose to read insult in this. You're just another victim ready to run crying to the watchdogs because someone said something you didn't like and you need someone to wrap a warm duvet around you and protect you from the nasty people who in this case do not exist.
Yes but the 'n' word has always meant the same thing! I simply cannot get my head around the fact that you will now feel better when you hear this song simply because there is a small audio dip in which a word you know perfectly well used to reside. Are you going to feel like it never existed?
I'm sorry I'm coming off as a bull, but I think this is just something I will never understand.
Oddment - you need a better reason than not liking the word to censor art. That's the thing that's angering me. You don't like the word? I don't care. Someone tries to be rude to you? I do care, very much. Someone attacks homosexuals verbally or physically? I do care.
But you have to try and understand a word is not a monolith, evil or acceptable regardless of context.
And for god's sake stop going on about racist language. It's not relevant at all.
Also, I haven't personally censored this song, and I haven't complained directly to anyone about it causing offence, but since this arguement has come up, I have agreed with it being edited. If certain rights are allowed to one group of people, why should they then not be allowed to another group? This could apply to many things, including marriage (just to divert, I mean the legal side of it, not religious. And yes, we have civil partnerships here now which is fantastic, so not complaining there, but it used to be an issue, and still is in places like America), and as a basic human right, all people, of all creeds, colours, genders, religions and sexuallities should be treated the same and be afforded the same rights.
You're coming off a tad bullish Nexus, but thats okay! You're just expressing your point of view.
*Thanks Thanatos!
There're the lyrics for American Idiot. Now I want you to take this bit here: and tell me how it's an attack on homosexuals.
How is it not relevant? It is the same thing to me. And no, this one word isn't a MASSIVE deal, I admit that, but its part of a bigger problem. As for public and private, I will have to come back to racism again I'm afraid, as again, racist language, or for that matter generally abusive terms and bad language are for the most part censored from public radio, but will appear in purchasable format intact, sometimes with a parental advisory if deemed neccessary. Not at all saying this song should have such a label slapped on it, but it should be subject to the same censorship other pieces of art are subject to in the public domain. Otherwise, how is that promoting equality?
*Thanks Thanatos!
Oh I see so you're attacking freedom of expression purely on grounds of equality. Well that's fantastic, but unfortunately this must be where I depart from the thread because you cannot have debate or serious discussion with a lunatic.
By the way, it's only one radio station of the BBC that's censoring the song. It still goes out unedited on Radio 2.
Wow, okay... where did this come from? I don't see that as offensive, and I never said I did. I can understand the context it is meant in. HOWEVER, if that word was replaced with the 'n' word (its the only example I can think of that makes my point, sorry to keep on with it), that word would be censored, even if in this context it is actually meant as a dig at racists. Do you see what I mean?
*Thanks Thanatos!
What does this mean?
'Promoting'?
I don't see any logic, thought or realism in your views, just 'I don't like that word so I don't want to hear it'.
Would it? Is there a blanket ban on racist terminology across the whole world now?
And so what?
Ach I think I give up.
This doesn't mean that everyone should go around insulting everyone as a matter of course, but the idea is that if you let people speak freely, people only tend to listen to the people who say worthy things. If you forbid people from saying certain words, you don't really solve any problems. Such words can also become cool and edgy instead.
This incident is even weirder because the song wasn't even written to provoke, insult or hurt anyone. It uses a word that has changed meaning since it was written, but this is not exactly unheard of. Should all books written in the 19th century be edited for radio to remove words that nowadays can be deemed offensive (perhaps denigrating words for slaves/black man, or women, or homosexuals?), if they ever are to be read out or quoted? Is any current book or movie portraying a racist, bigot or homofobe, including their deeds and mode of speech, as they happen in the real world all the time, immediately offensive too, even if it was made to enlighten people of the stupidity of such people (I realize in the past the incredibly stupid have misinterpreted such things, like some neonazi's with american history X).
The whole "some words are so evil they must not be spoken aloud!" thing seems very odd to me in general. Words directed at someone can be insulting or hurtful, but the word itself is nothing. Fictional characters hurling insults at each other, so what.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Have you read ANY of the posts arguing with you?
Yes, absolutely.
It gives impressionable people -- young people, mostly -- the impression that the act of insulting people and groups with derogatory and often racist language is acceptable behavior.
And then they do it to someone who takes offense and get punched in the nose and immediately learn that it's not an okay thing to do. Live and learn.
I thought you people used it to refer to cigarettes?
Okay, I actually can see this from your perspective. You've placed out what you mean well. I do still feel it is hypocritical to have some words strictly forbidden from public airing, but some are completely fine.
I do suppose I am being a tad overbearing with what I've said, and having given more thought to it, not just because of this post but everything else people have said, I can understand why it would be bad to start censoring things such as this. However, I think what made me most mad were some of the comments I've read on the site I linked to and elsewhere, saying what an outrage it was for it to happen, and how could the word possibly offend anyone? I've even read people saying how completely disgusting homosexuallity is, and while thats their opinion, it does get to me.
But yes, Sander and all you others, perhaps I shouldn't be taking this all too seriously. Freedom of speech is very important in a society like ours, but as I say, it really does annoy me when its fine for people to say one thing but not okay for another, do you see what I mean? It is about equality in that respect, but there are other issues regarding that subject that need much more attention.
*Thanks Thanatos!
I personally would find it offensive, yes, as it is being used as a derogatory term.
And yeh Violent, we use the word fag for a cigarrette, but not the whole word faggot. Fag is a different word entirely. I guess its like having different words with different meaning, but spelt the same which happens quite often in the English language.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Look, I really dislike this "let people figure it out" mentality. It comes too close to the libertarian stance on things, and we know that libertarians are anti-social idiots who don't really understand how society operates and how people think and behave.
I see very little if any difference between being against government intervention in markets for the sake of market forces determining everything, and being against government intervention in free speech for the sake of people determining, by trial and error, what is okay behavior and what is not.
Edit: Which does not mean there should be no government intervention in free speech, but the belief that they should censor the language in public broadcasts meant for everyone because children might hear those words and use them inappropriately doesn't work. Children use lots of things they see and hear inappropriately.
It works, though. Has worked, for thousands of years. "Ooh, fire pretty, me touch. Ooh, fire hot, me no touch". Sure, you can tell someone not to do X, but chances are they'll do it anyway because drugs are cool. But if they get a bad reaction to it or end up selling their kidneys while high or something, they just might figure out that X is bad and they shouldn't do it anymore.
Of course there are a lot of people who won't figure out that things are bad for them and continue to do them anyway, but that's just nature's way of weeding out the retards.
You're establishing a false dichotomy. Just because kids learn some things by trial and error does not mean we should let them figure everything by trial and error. Would you like your kid to fall off his bike and crack his skull on the sidewalk so he learns -- the hard way -- that he should wear a helmet, or would you like to make him wear one so he doesn't get hurt in the first place?
There is experiential training, and there is preventive training. Both are equally important tools in the development of a child. You can't rely on your kid learning everything by experience, just like you can't always prevent him from behaving in certain ways.
As an immediate show of why such controversies are counterproductive, the sales of that particular book rose by 4000% when the controversy hit. A related thought, I bet by now a billion people have seen the danish cartoons, which were intended for a local newspaper (normally seen by 100k people maybe?)
Just like we shouldn't have any seat-belt laws to let the retards weed themselves out, right?
Yeah, no. Your type of mentality does not lead to a well-functioning society.
But you haven't demonstrated why bad words should be censored over public broadcasts other than kids are dumb. They see and hear way worse things than the word fuck. Power Rangers encourages to solve their problems through violence, Ronald McDonald encourages them to eat fatty high sugar foods, and Bratz states that the most important thing is how you look. And these are all media marketed directly at children. This says nothing of shows like House, Nip/Tuck, Lost, or any other shows shown during prime time. I won't even go into morning radio talk shows. There's no reason that they should be aired on public airwaves but not an expletive.
Oh so words kill people now, do they? If some innocent child hears the word "faggot" on the radio they're going to be hurled through a sheet of glass into a tree.
Nice strawman.
If the art or drama in question is on public television where any child can tune in any time, then I'm in favor of censoring out the violent parts as well as the derogatory language.
In non-public avenues though, I don't think censorship has a place.
I think he means it should not be shown to children, and taken out of the public domain where children have easy access to it. This is what ratings are for, and a good example of censorship working correctly. Things should be kept intact, but if they do involve 'being mean' then they should only be allowed to be seen/heard by people deemed by the law capable of handling such things. It's kind of like the whole Manhunt 2 issue. Yes, it is probably a very violent game that allows you to do terrible things to people, and therefore it is not meant for children and is rated as such. If you wanted COMPLETE freedom of speech and expression, there wouldn't be ratings to protect people from offence in this way. This then relates back to what I have been talking about.
*Thanks Thanatos!
It seemed to be a logical conclusion of the opinions you were espousing.
I've still yet to see a good example of the difference between reduction ad absurdum and strawmanning btw.
So no violence or 'derogatory language' (how do we decide what this includes btw?) on television?
Or are you expressing yourself imprecisely?
Ach - you and oddment like censorship, I hate it. We're not going to see eye to eye.
*Thanks Thanatos!
I don't - and that's enough anecdotal evidence to prove anything.
But it does promote the use of derogatory language towards gays.
How is making your child wear a helmet any different than not letting him listen to a song with the N word in it so that he doesn't say it to some guy the next day and gets his face caved in? In both cases you're trying to prevent your child meeting a negative outcome.
Also, I'd like to point out that in some parts of the country, using the wrong word at the wrong time can get you killed, whereas not wearing a helmet isn't always fatal or even disabling.
You're right. TV is fucked up.
That doesn't mean derogatory language should not be censored.