I'm just saying that there's a reason that Bert and Ernie don't say fuck and shit, and the notion that it would be totally fine if they did is disturbing to me.
Bert and Ernie don't say it because they're a show produced for people who don't want their children exposed to that language.
This is an excellent case of self regulation, not imposed.
I'm sure there's a rule somewhere that daytime children's TV can't have any swears in it.
Actually, since Sesame Street is on PBS and thus (often) broadcast over public airwaves, it's subject to FCC regulation for content. It's not just because it's a children's show.
Now, when a show like The Shield opts not to include full-frontal nudity or the fuck-word, then that is a case of self-regulation...because to my knowledge cable isn't covered. Though it's probably more to do with advertisers, so still not quite self regulation.
Now, when a show like The Shield opts not to include full-frontal nudity or the fuck-word, then that is a case of self-regulation...because to my knowledge cable isn't covered.
Oh, definitely not. Weeds had full-frontal male nudity this past season.
I guess what I'm saying is I have no problem with a rule against "fuck" and "shit" and other "questionable content" on daytime TV. Yes, parents should monitor their kids' TV usage, but a parent can't be expected to sit down and watch every episode of Sesame Street to make sure nobody swears, so it's nice to know that there are some regulations in place.
Similarly, it's nice to know that kids won't be exposed to discriminatory slurs on publically accessible radio. I mean, let's be honest, if I had a kid, and my hypothetical 6 year-old kid casually turned on the radio and heard someone calling someone else a faggot, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off about it. Now you might argue "But your kid can go online and see all sorts of publically accessible depraved shit" which is true, but at least with the internet I have the option of putting up some kind of child filters. As far as I know there is no content filter for the radio.
I'm not denying any of that, I'm just saying the popularity of it comes from how saying some event is bullshit in school will get kids in trouble, saying it's gay will not. Even though in this context bullshit is the more appropriate and less-offensive term. Because HIYO, WORDBANS!
You can't get in trouble for saying fag in high school?
Where I'm from, saying bullshit would raise a red flag quicker than calling some a fag, I think. I can't think of an instance where someone in my classes ever said 'fag' loud enough for everyone in the room, teacher included, could hear it, though. I'm sure there were several occasions where a conversation went something like this though:
Kid: So, the test will multiple choice, right Mr. Guy?
Teacher: No, Timmy, it won't be multiple guess, all questions are essay format.
Kid: Man, that's gay.
The teachers didn't like it, I'm sure, but it was common enough that no one ever got disciplined for it.
I know one of my friends is pretty liberal and will sometimes say that, I tend to chalk it up to being a habit spawned from the environment.
When I was in school fag was pretty popular, but it was still never used around teachers because it would've earned you a quick in-school suspension, so I don't buy that as the reason for its popularity. And it still means what it what means when you use it negatively.
When I was in high school there were no rules against calling things gay and fag. That was a while back so they might have changed it since but the fact remains that a kid is going to get in a lot more trouble if a parent or teacher hears him say "fuck" than "fag".
Not really. And it still doesn't answer my original question anyways.
At one time saying Jehovah was punishable by death. At that time they didn't believe that to be unreasonable, just as you are now going along with guidelines society has set for you by following silly ideas such as the concept of bad words. Bloody is as horrible of a word in England as fuck is in America but I could walk around saying bloody this bloody that and no one would bat an eyelash at me, does that not seem ridiculous? How can something as horrible as the word fuck only be considered so depending on where you are geographically?
Fuck means to have sex.
Bitch means female dog.
Asshole means anus.
Shit means poop.
How can a word that has the exact definition (other than slang entries, that is) as another word be considered derogatory whereas the other word is not. It is completely baffling.
Now it all depends on how you say it. If you call someone a fucking asshole I agree that using it in that manner is derogatory but only because it is disrespectful and rude. It just doesn't make any sense for a child to get reprimanded for saying a certain word when s/he uses it to accentuate their feelings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The next few sentences are off topic but only because I felt the need to respond to something said earlier by another member of the board.
School is not for teaching children how to be an adult. A parents job is to teach their child how to function in the world. School should only be teaching children ideas and hopefully the ability to transform ideas into something tangible.
Not really. And it still doesn't answer my original question anyways.
Why choose "gay" instead of something else society holds in negative esteem? I don't see the "instead". Quit being such a girl.
Because faggot is what started this thread, and what was in the post I was replying to.
So then the question you mean to ask is why faggot is the one that's getting attention. I get the impression you've decided I'm defending homophobes though so I'm just going to drop it.
I found this a rather interesting little article. It sums up exactly my standing on the entire Pogue's issue quite well (linkage to page here):
Why Radio One were right to censor 'Fairytale Of New York'
1. If a song recorded and released in 2007 by a current artist used the word 'faggot' as a term of abuse, would Radio 1 playlist it, or would they censor it? They'd censor it. They simply applied a 2007 sensibility to the song, in much the same way that racist elements are removed from repeats of 'Only Fools And Horses'. Arguments that "they've been playing it uncensored for twenty years" are irrelevant: society moves on, which is why women are allowed to vote, homosexuality is not a crime and slavery is illegal.
2. Just because the censoring of 'faggot' means Radio One have double standards with the whole Chris Moyles 'gay means bad' thing doesn't mean that the decision to censor 'faggot' was wrong- it just meant they had double standards.
3. For the last two decades 'Fairytale Of New York' has been held up by the Jo Whiley brigade as the 'alternative' to Christmas songs and 'the Christmas song it's alright to like'. A significant proportion of yesterday's uproar was attached to a sentimental and nostalgic view of the song and what the song signifies and it should not be overlooked that this emotional attachment has been amplified by the fact that Kirsty was A Nice Lady Who Died Too Soon.
4. If Radio One censor the word 'n****r' from 'Gold Digger' - when in that song it's not even being used as an insult - then a word like 'faggot' which is also used to persecute a minority and in this instance actually is used as an insult should definitely be censored.
5. It is absolutely true that the word makes sense in the context of the song, and in the context of the characters in the song. The song is a piece of art and it is a fair point that art should not be censored - but is there a place for uncensored art on daytime radio? 'Last Tango In Paris' is a good film - it doesn't mean the BBC should show some bird having a packet of Lurpack shoved up her bottom before the Lottery show on a Saturday evening. Again, nobody complained about 'Gold Digger' or 'Get The Party Started' being censored for daytime radio play. You're never going to get CBBC showing the 'beloved c*nt' episode of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'. That is just the way it is.
6. The 'in character' element certainly went over the heads of the boys at our school who, 20 years ago, ran around the playground shouting 'cheap lousy faggot' at some poor kid who made the mistake of being slightly camp.
7. Of course, there is the argument that "it was only 20 years ago, things don't change that much". Guess what - a lot can happen in 20 years. Twenty years before 'Fairytale Of New York' was written homosexuality was illegal.
8. Just because some gay people do not have a problem with the word 'faggot' being used as an insult on daytime radio does not mean no gay people have a problem with the word 'faggot' being used as an insult on daytime radio.
9. This was not political correctness gone mad - it wasn't banning bent bananas or whatever other rubbish the Richard Littlejohns of this world use to divert attention away from the real and important issues surrounding the support of minorities. It was Radio One believing - correctly - that some members of a persecuted minority would be offended by a word. It should never have become a big deal.
10. Uncensoring the song has now sent out an interesting message to The Public: Radio One are saying that actually, do you know what, it's alright to use the word 'faggot' as a term of abuse. They're saying 'silly us for thinking people might be offended - of COURSE nobody minds being called a faggot as an insult'. Basically the whole thing was horribly mismanaged from the word go and has diverted attention away from a song about Christmas, and Christmas isn't a time for discussion of homophobia - it's a time to celebrate Christianit... Oh.
The reason n* is always censored, while faggot is not, is that n* always refers to the same group, regardless of whether it is used as an insult or not. It is a word associated entirely with race-related activities, both negative and (arguably) positive, in the modern rap context.
Faggot means, and has meant, different things. My parents enjoy faggots for dinner every now and then, for example.
And by uncensoring the song Radio 1 are sending out the message that they listen to what the people who pay the bills want. They recieved huge public pressure to reverse their decision, and then did so.
If a song recorded and released in 2007 by a current artist used the word 'faggot' as a term of abuse, would Radio 1 playlist it, or would they censor it? They'd censor it. They simply applied a 2007 sensibility to the song, in much the same way that racist elements are removed from repeats of 'Only Fools And Horses'. Arguments that "they've been playing it uncensored for twenty years" are irrelevant: society moves on, which is why women are allowed to vote, homosexuality is not a crime and slavery is illegal.
I guess we should go back and edit all those old movies with people smoking in it, since nowadays we know smoking is detrimental to health and we try to discourage it.
The reason n* is always censored, while faggot is not, is that n* always refers to the same group, regardless of whether it is used as an insult or not. It is a word associated entirely with race-related activities, both negative and (arguably) positive, in the modern rap context.
Faggot means, and has meant, different things. My parents enjoy faggots for dinner every now and then, for example.
And by uncensoring the song Radio 1 are sending out the message that they listen to what the people who pay the bills want. They recieved huge public pressure to reverse their decision, and then did so.
And yet faggot relates to, for the majority of the time, in society today, homosexuallity. Yes, a faggot is a food, and a fag is a cigarrette, but those uses are exceedingly easy to spot. Using the word as an insult or a put down is always going to have homosexual connotations. It's like the word bitch. You know when it is being used in its original sense, and you know when it is being used to offend. The word bitch is still blanked out on radio and television in the day. As is the word ass. As are words like shit, fuck, bastard, bollocks, etc. Do you not see the difference here? I am not at all saying that the word should be taken out of the english language, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be used when referring to other things it can also represent. I am saying when it can be seen as causing offence, it should be blanked, JUST like every other word on British radio and television.
Whether you like it or not, faggot is an offensive term to gay people, and we should be given the same consideration as other people when it comes to such things.
If a song recorded and released in 2007 by a current artist used the word 'faggot' as a term of abuse, would Radio 1 playlist it, or would they censor it? They'd censor it. They simply applied a 2007 sensibility to the song, in much the same way that racist elements are removed from repeats of 'Only Fools And Horses'. Arguments that "they've been playing it uncensored for twenty years" are irrelevant: society moves on, which is why women are allowed to vote, homosexuality is not a crime and slavery is illegal.
I guess we should go back and edit all those old movies with people smoking in it, since nowadays we know smoking is detrimental to health and we try to discourage it.
Smoking is a choice. Homosexuallity is not. And I never said we should edit out things from fiction UNLESS they are being shown pre-watershed on public television or on radio or whatever. It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
Whether you like it or not, faggot is an offensive term to gay people, and we should be given the same consideration as other people when it comes to such things.
Agreed. You just shouldn't get the same consideration when they're getting stupid consideration that doesn't actually achieve anything other than them not possibly being offended at a word they hear out of context. Instead the stupid consideration should stop and work should be done on improving the ideas being transmitted.
@Medopine: What if your child turned on a radio and heard someone say "And God caused Katrina because homosexuals are allowed to live!" Would you demand that the government intervene and disallow people from stating on the radio what a made up deity did?
If a song recorded and released in 2007 by a current artist used the word 'faggot' as a term of abuse, would Radio 1 playlist it, or would they censor it? They'd censor it. They simply applied a 2007 sensibility to the song, in much the same way that racist elements are removed from repeats of 'Only Fools And Horses'. Arguments that "they've been playing it uncensored for twenty years" are irrelevant: society moves on, which is why women are allowed to vote, homosexuality is not a crime and slavery is illegal.
I guess we should go back and edit all those old movies with people smoking in it, since nowadays we know smoking is detrimental to health and we try to discourage it.
Smoking is a choice. Homosexuallity is not. And I never said we should edit out things from fiction UNLESS they are being shown pre-watershed on public television or on radio or whatever. It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
Smoking is a choice that kills innocent bystanders faster and in greater numbers than it kills the smoker. That's easily the most offensive thing I can think of to show children. So I should never see a cigarette on broadcast TV nor hear allusions to smoking on the radio.
It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
It's been twelve pages and you still have not proven this.
Bloody is as horrible of a word in England as fuck is in America
I don't think this changes your point at all, but just so people know, it really isn't. I think you can get away with saying 'bloody' in primary school. It's like 'damn', which is Britain doesn't really mean anything either.
If a song recorded and released in 2007 by a current artist used the word 'faggot' as a term of abuse, would Radio 1 playlist it, or would they censor it? They'd censor it. They simply applied a 2007 sensibility to the song, in much the same way that racist elements are removed from repeats of 'Only Fools And Horses'. Arguments that "they've been playing it uncensored for twenty years" are irrelevant: society moves on, which is why women are allowed to vote, homosexuality is not a crime and slavery is illegal.
I guess we should go back and edit all those old movies with people smoking in it, since nowadays we know smoking is detrimental to health and we try to discourage it.
Smoking is a choice. Homosexuallity is not. And I never said we should edit out things from fiction UNLESS they are being shown pre-watershed on public television or on radio or whatever. It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
Smoking is a choice that kills innocent bystanders faster and in greater numbers than it kills the smoker. That's easily the most offensive thing I can think of to show children. So I should never see a cigarette on broadcast TV nor hear allusions to smoking on the radio.
You know what, on British daytime television and radio, I don't think I've ever seen anyone smoke, or heard them discuss smoking except when talking about how bad it is and how to give it up. Advertising smoking is now against the law here, and has been for quite some time. There are notices on all cigarrette packets to say how deadly it is to smoke. There are adverts everywhere about aid to help you give up smoking. Smoking has been banned in all public indoor areas.
However, in fiction, smoking is still allowed because it may be a part of the character. In modern fiction on television, someone usually objects to the smoking, or the person makes an effort to give up (see Sex And The City), and in older fiction that I have seen, there is no blatant advertisement of smoking, the characters just happen to smoke.
So, overall, smoking is not tolerated, at least in Britain, as much as it once was. It is a stigma to smoke, and you are no longer really allowed to smoke around other people who do not smoke. It is not promoted in any way, especially in the day time. So I would say non-smokers who are offended by smoking are given MORE rights than gay people, who still have to put up with homophobia every day.
It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
It's been twelve pages and you still have not proven this.
If you can't understand why the word is offensive in various contexts (not all, but the majority) after 12 pages, then I think you're just choosing to ignore everything I, and other people have said, because you don't want to believe it is. I am a gay person who is offended by this word, who knows other gay people offended by this word, who is aware of many many more gay people and gay rights groups who are offended by this word (and I have given examples), and I have told you that it is offensive to us. It has been used to put us down and make fun of us, to verbally abuse us and to make us feel ashamed. If you cannot see that this is like the use of words such as the 'n' word, then you're being purposefully ignorant.
Smoking is a choice that kills innocent bystanders faster and in greater numbers than it kills the smoker. That's easily the most offensive thing I can think of to show children. So I should never see a cigarette on broadcast TV nor hear allusions to smoking on the radio.
You know what, on British daytime television and radio, I don't think I've ever seen anyone smoke, or heard them discuss smoking except when talking about how bad it is and how to give it up. Advertising smoking is now against the law here, and has been for quite some time. There are notices on all cigarrette packets to say how deadly it is to smoke. There are adverts everywhere about aid to help you give up smoking. Smoking has been banned in all public indoor areas.
I'm not talking about commercials but those commercials for the quitting aids should be banned to because children aren't retarded, they'll figure out that if there's a way to quit smoking there must be a way to start and so they'll do it.
However, in fiction, smoking is still allowed because it may be a part of the character. In modern fiction on television, someone usually objects to the smoking, or the person makes an effort to give up (see Sex And The City), and in older fiction that I have seen, there is no blatant advertisement of smoking, the characters just happen to smoke.
What happens when those "fictions" get put on broadcast television? Then we're exposing kids to smoking which is inherently offensive (see unlike the word "faggot", fags actually kill people, mostly non-smokers). I assert that those are bad characters. And yet you have characters who are supposed to be good-guys smoking. What message does this send to kids? It sends the message that suffocating random innocent bystanders to death is okay, that's what. I can't believe you're defending these monsters.
So, overall, smoking is not tolerated, at least in Britain, as much as it once was. It is a stigma to smoke, and you are no longer really allowed to smoke around other people who do not smoke. It is not promoted in any way, especially in the day time. So I would say non-smokers who are offended by smoking are given MORE rights than gay people, who still have to put up with homophobia every day.
This part doesn't make any sense so I'm just going to leave it alone.
It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
It's been twelve pages and you still have not proven this.
If you can't understand why the word is offensive in various contexts (not all, but the majority)
You see that right there? That makes the word not inherantly bad and your point moot.
It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
It's been twelve pages and you still have not proven this.
If you can't understand why the word is offensive in various contexts (not all, but the majority) after 12 pages
If you can't quit waffling between these two positions after 12 pages shut the fuck up.
For what feels like the millionth time, and without being aggressive like you are becoming, I will once again explain something you can't seem to get your head around. Go ahead and try and get all words uncensored. That would be fine by me, but good luck, because I don't see it happening. In the meantime, why should we not be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
I am not going backwards and forwards between two positions... the word faggot is inherrantly bad in the usage we have been discussing. Yes, it can mean other things, but it is very rarely used to talk about other things, and when it is, it is absolutely clear if you are referring to food or a cigarrette. At all other times, it is absolutely as bad as using the 'n' word. Once again, I refer you to the word bitch, which when used to refer to a female dog is fine, but when used as an insult to a person is not fine, and would be censored on daytime television.
For what feels like the millionth time, and without being aggressive like you are becoming, I will once again explain something you can't seem to get your head around. Go ahead and try and get all words uncensored. That would be fine by me, but good luck, because I don't see it happening.
Why? Tit used to be censored. Others used to be as well.
The rest of your post is just whining that you want to encourage stupid decisions because one will slightly benefit you or a while.
For what feels like the millionth time, and without being aggressive like you are becoming, I will once again explain something you can't seem to get your head around. Go ahead and try and get all words uncensored. That would be fine by me, but good luck, because I don't see it happening. In the meantime, why should we not be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
I am not going backwards and forwards between two positions... the word faggot is inherrantly bad in the usage we have been discussing. Yes, it can mean other things, but it is very rarely used to talk about other things, and when it is, it is absolutely clear if you are referring to food or a cigarrette. At all other times, it is absolutely as bad as using the 'n' word. Once again, I refer you to the word bitch, which when used to refer to a female dog is fine, but when used as an insult to a person is not fine, and would be censored on daytime television.
Once again, without making assumptions about you emotional state like you're doing, "we should do this retarded thing in order to be consistently retarded" is not a terribly swaying policy argument.
Heh, you can take christ out of the courthouses without blinking but you start an uproar about the word "Faggot" in a song. This is one screwed up world.
Don't worry, eventually everyone will hate homophobes as much as we hate christ, and things will be even.
He's just arguing the "let's do this retarded thing for the sake of being consistently retarded" line. And he's "gobsmacked" that people are more likely to voice their opinion about something close to home where their opinion is given weight than about the horrible things that happen outside of Radio 1 and indeed the very Crown's control?
But the crunch issue is double-standards. I challenge those who defend the use of the word faggot in these lyrics to state publicly that they would also defend the right of white singers to use the n-word as a term of abuse in a song. They won't and that makes them cowardly homophobic hypocrites.
Damn right they won't! Fucking cowardly homophobic hypocrites, right Quid?
Edit: Though to be fair I'm operating from his working-definition of "term of abuse", which would also include the use of the word "faggot" in American Idiot from what he's saying.
Yeah that's a real balanced view. The only way I could be opposed to censorship is if I'm also opposed to laws against hate speech, slander and libel. And if I'm not, I'm a hypocrite.
And for the record, yes, I'm perfectly fine with there be no censorship on certain words. If a white singer wants to commit career suicide by making a racist song, he can go right ahead. Don't say it can't exist either, because over here in the Netherlands, it doesn't. I cannot think of a single word that is not uttered on national TV or radio. (There are decency laws preventing you from showing to much sex before 21.00, I think that's about it).
But the crunch issue is double-standards. I challenge those who defend the use of the word faggot in these lyrics to state publicly that they would also defend the right of white singers to use the n-word as a term of abuse in a song. They won't and that makes them cowardly homophobic hypocrites.
Damn right they won't! Fucking cowardly homophobic hypocrites, right Quid?
It is ironic that he uses unsupported generalizations to justify his views.
But the crunch issue is double-standards. I challenge those who defend the use of the word faggot in these lyrics to state publicly that they would also defend the right of white singers to use the n-word as a term of abuse in a song. They won't and that makes them cowardly homophobic hypocrites.
Damn right they won't! Fucking cowardly homophobic hypocrites, right Quid?
It is ironic that he uses unsupported generalizations to justify his views.
Also that it's only bad if a white person says the n-word, but "faggot" is apparently not okay regardless of who says it.
A few points - first, i don't buy the argument that because only a majority of gay people are offended by a word, the word is not offensive - I've known a couple of disabled people who weren't offended by some pretty foul words that could be used against them, but it still ain't right to use them.
Second, time does play a factor here - if a term was acceptable at the time the song was written, then part of me feels it should be left in, if only because we should be aware of the standards of previous generations. For example, if a TV station were to show an old episode of the Black and White Minstrel Show, we should see the truth of what the show was. Admittedly, 20 years is barely on the cusp of when this can start to apply, but it's worth thinking about.
Third, the vocab used was not an unlikely choice of word to be thrown out in such an argument at the time of recording.Not every character on TV has to be PC, why are songs different? Say that the argument held in the song was between a homosexual and a member of the KKK, would the word still be offensive, or would the fact that such a word would almost certainly be thrown out repeatedly in real life make it necessary for a realistic depiction of the situation?
Finally, there are levels of offensiveness. There is hate speech encouraging violence and terrorism, there is directed, malicious, discriminatory insults that should be censored from most radio and tv programming, and there is what I refer to as 'being a dick'. The non targeted use of faggot here certainly doesn't fit group one, and I can't really see it making it as far as group two.
Truth be told, it comforts me a little to see such a big deal being made over this. In America, people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter spout offences a thousand times worse than this every other day. The fact that we take this comparitivly small issue so seriously shows how passionately Britain feels both about equality and free speech.
A few points - first, i don't buy the argument that because only a majority of gay people are offended by a word, the word is not offensive - I've known a couple of disabled people who weren't offended by some pretty foul words that could be used against them, but it still ain't right to use them.
Second, time does play a factor here - if a term was acceptable at the time the song was written, then part of me feels it should be left in, if only because we should be aware of the standards of previous generations. For example, if a TV station were to show an old episode of the Black and White Minstrel Show, we should see the truth of what the show was. Admittedly, 20 years is barely on the cusp of when this can start to apply, but it's worth thinking about.
Third, the vocab used was not an unlikely choice of word to be thrown out in such an argument at the time of recording.Not every character on TV has to be PC, why are songs different? Say that the argument held in the song was between a homosexual and a member of the KKK, would the word still be offensive, or would the fact that such a word would almost certainly be thrown out repeatedly in real life make it necessary for a realistic depiction of the situation?
Finally, there are levels of offensiveness. There is hate speech encouraging violence and terrorism, there is directed, malicious, discriminatory insults that should be censored from most radio and tv programming, and there is what I refer to as 'being a dick'. The non targeted use of faggot here certainly doesn't fit group one, and I can't really see it making it as far as group two.
Truth be told, it comforts me a little to see such a big deal being made over this. In America, people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter spout offences a thousand times worse than this every other day. The fact that we take this comparitivly small issue so seriously shows how passionately Britain feels both about equality and free speech.
I don't disagree that the use of the word in the context of the song is part of a fictional characters use and may have meant something completely different than it means now. I don't disagree that it should be allowed to be uncensored in recordings you can purchase or at a time when you can choose when to hear the song (after watershed). But it can be misconstrued as being an offence to homosexuals in this song if someone is not aware of its previous use (and today, hearing someone call a straight man a 'faggot' is offensive due to the fact that it could mean she is suggesting being homosexual is a bad thing) and so, just like ANY other offensive word, it should be bleeped out in the day.
Yes, if all words were allowed, then faggot should also be allowed. If some offensive words are not allowed, as is the case now and for the forseeable future, then all offensive words used during the day on public media should also be banned until such a time when all words are fine to use. Once we have set a standard of equality in terms of how things are at the present time, then we can go about changing that standard of equality, but I don't believe you can do, or should be able to do this until everyone is on the same footing.
So wouldn't it make more sense to unban one word than to go and ban about a dozen new words? Since we're trying to set a standard of equality, not change the standard of equality? And hey huge surprise you still can't decide whether you're in favor of a blanket ban or not and you still haven't explained why "faggot" can only be used to attack people for being gay and you still haven't given any reasoning to back up the assertion that we should do more retarded shit in order to be consistently retarded, nor that being consistently retarded is even a good thing.
So wouldn't it make more sense to unban one word than to go and ban about a dozen new words? Since we're trying to set a standard of equality, not change the standard of equality?
Posts
Actually, since Sesame Street is on PBS and thus (often) broadcast over public airwaves, it's subject to FCC regulation for content. It's not just because it's a children's show.
Now, when a show like The Shield opts not to include full-frontal nudity or the fuck-word, then that is a case of self-regulation...because to my knowledge cable isn't covered. Though it's probably more to do with advertisers, so still not quite self regulation.
Oh, definitely not. Weeds had full-frontal male nudity this past season.
I guess what I'm saying is I have no problem with a rule against "fuck" and "shit" and other "questionable content" on daytime TV. Yes, parents should monitor their kids' TV usage, but a parent can't be expected to sit down and watch every episode of Sesame Street to make sure nobody swears, so it's nice to know that there are some regulations in place.
Similarly, it's nice to know that kids won't be exposed to discriminatory slurs on publically accessible radio. I mean, let's be honest, if I had a kid, and my hypothetical 6 year-old kid casually turned on the radio and heard someone calling someone else a faggot, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off about it. Now you might argue "But your kid can go online and see all sorts of publically accessible depraved shit" which is true, but at least with the internet I have the option of putting up some kind of child filters. As far as I know there is no content filter for the radio.
Not really. And it still doesn't answer my original question anyways.
Why choose "gay" instead of something else society holds in negative esteem? I don't see the "instead". Quit being such a girl.
At one time saying Jehovah was punishable by death. At that time they didn't believe that to be unreasonable, just as you are now going along with guidelines society has set for you by following silly ideas such as the concept of bad words. Bloody is as horrible of a word in England as fuck is in America but I could walk around saying bloody this bloody that and no one would bat an eyelash at me, does that not seem ridiculous? How can something as horrible as the word fuck only be considered so depending on where you are geographically?
Fuck means to have sex.
Bitch means female dog.
Asshole means anus.
Shit means poop.
How can a word that has the exact definition (other than slang entries, that is) as another word be considered derogatory whereas the other word is not. It is completely baffling.
Now it all depends on how you say it. If you call someone a fucking asshole I agree that using it in that manner is derogatory but only because it is disrespectful and rude. It just doesn't make any sense for a child to get reprimanded for saying a certain word when s/he uses it to accentuate their feelings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The next few sentences are off topic but only because I felt the need to respond to something said earlier by another member of the board.
School is not for teaching children how to be an adult. A parents job is to teach their child how to function in the world. School should only be teaching children ideas and hopefully the ability to transform ideas into something tangible.
Because faggot is what started this thread, and what was in the post I was replying to.
So then the question you mean to ask is why faggot is the one that's getting attention. I get the impression you've decided I'm defending homophobes though so I'm just going to drop it.
*Thanks Thanatos!
The reason n* is always censored, while faggot is not, is that n* always refers to the same group, regardless of whether it is used as an insult or not. It is a word associated entirely with race-related activities, both negative and (arguably) positive, in the modern rap context.
Faggot means, and has meant, different things. My parents enjoy faggots for dinner every now and then, for example.
And by uncensoring the song Radio 1 are sending out the message that they listen to what the people who pay the bills want. They recieved huge public pressure to reverse their decision, and then did so.
I guess we should go back and edit all those old movies with people smoking in it, since nowadays we know smoking is detrimental to health and we try to discourage it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And yet faggot relates to, for the majority of the time, in society today, homosexuallity. Yes, a faggot is a food, and a fag is a cigarrette, but those uses are exceedingly easy to spot. Using the word as an insult or a put down is always going to have homosexual connotations. It's like the word bitch. You know when it is being used in its original sense, and you know when it is being used to offend. The word bitch is still blanked out on radio and television in the day. As is the word ass. As are words like shit, fuck, bastard, bollocks, etc. Do you not see the difference here? I am not at all saying that the word should be taken out of the english language, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be used when referring to other things it can also represent. I am saying when it can be seen as causing offence, it should be blanked, JUST like every other word on British radio and television.
Whether you like it or not, faggot is an offensive term to gay people, and we should be given the same consideration as other people when it comes to such things.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Smoking is a choice. Homosexuallity is not. And I never said we should edit out things from fiction UNLESS they are being shown pre-watershed on public television or on radio or whatever. It is done for other offensive words, why not this one? Why do you have trouble accepting this word, and other derogatory terms for homosexuallity, are inherrantly offensive just like the 'n' word is to us.
*Thanks Thanatos!
@Medopine: What if your child turned on a radio and heard someone say "And God caused Katrina because homosexuals are allowed to live!" Would you demand that the government intervene and disallow people from stating on the radio what a made up deity did?
Even though I don't really agree with it.
Smoking is a choice that kills innocent bystanders faster and in greater numbers than it kills the smoker. That's easily the most offensive thing I can think of to show children. So I should never see a cigarette on broadcast TV nor hear allusions to smoking on the radio.
It's been twelve pages and you still have not proven this.
I don't think this changes your point at all, but just so people know, it really isn't. I think you can get away with saying 'bloody' in primary school. It's like 'damn', which is Britain doesn't really mean anything either.
You know what, on British daytime television and radio, I don't think I've ever seen anyone smoke, or heard them discuss smoking except when talking about how bad it is and how to give it up. Advertising smoking is now against the law here, and has been for quite some time. There are notices on all cigarrette packets to say how deadly it is to smoke. There are adverts everywhere about aid to help you give up smoking. Smoking has been banned in all public indoor areas.
However, in fiction, smoking is still allowed because it may be a part of the character. In modern fiction on television, someone usually objects to the smoking, or the person makes an effort to give up (see Sex And The City), and in older fiction that I have seen, there is no blatant advertisement of smoking, the characters just happen to smoke.
So, overall, smoking is not tolerated, at least in Britain, as much as it once was. It is a stigma to smoke, and you are no longer really allowed to smoke around other people who do not smoke. It is not promoted in any way, especially in the day time. So I would say non-smokers who are offended by smoking are given MORE rights than gay people, who still have to put up with homophobia every day.
*Thanks Thanatos!
You have to be gay in designated areas only?
If you can't understand why the word is offensive in various contexts (not all, but the majority) after 12 pages, then I think you're just choosing to ignore everything I, and other people have said, because you don't want to believe it is. I am a gay person who is offended by this word, who knows other gay people offended by this word, who is aware of many many more gay people and gay rights groups who are offended by this word (and I have given examples), and I have told you that it is offensive to us. It has been used to put us down and make fun of us, to verbally abuse us and to make us feel ashamed. If you cannot see that this is like the use of words such as the 'n' word, then you're being purposefully ignorant.
*Thanks Thanatos!
You KNOW what I meant by my example! Don't be a dick about it.
*Thanks Thanatos!
I'm not talking about commercials but those commercials for the quitting aids should be banned to because children aren't retarded, they'll figure out that if there's a way to quit smoking there must be a way to start and so they'll do it.
What happens when those "fictions" get put on broadcast television? Then we're exposing kids to smoking which is inherently offensive (see unlike the word "faggot", fags actually kill people, mostly non-smokers). I assert that those are bad characters. And yet you have characters who are supposed to be good-guys smoking. What message does this send to kids? It sends the message that suffocating random innocent bystanders to death is okay, that's what. I can't believe you're defending these monsters.
This part doesn't make any sense so I'm just going to leave it alone.
If you can't quit waffling between these two positions after 12 pages shut the fuck up.
I am not going backwards and forwards between two positions... the word faggot is inherrantly bad in the usage we have been discussing. Yes, it can mean other things, but it is very rarely used to talk about other things, and when it is, it is absolutely clear if you are referring to food or a cigarrette. At all other times, it is absolutely as bad as using the 'n' word. Once again, I refer you to the word bitch, which when used to refer to a female dog is fine, but when used as an insult to a person is not fine, and would be censored on daytime television.
*Thanks Thanatos!
The rest of your post is just whining that you want to encourage stupid decisions because one will slightly benefit you or a while.
Once again, without making assumptions about you emotional state like you're doing, "we should do this retarded thing in order to be consistently retarded" is not a terribly swaying policy argument.
Don't worry, eventually everyone will hate homophobes as much as we hate christ, and things will be even.
Linkage.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Damn right they won't! Fucking cowardly homophobic hypocrites, right Quid?
Edit: Though to be fair I'm operating from his working-definition of "term of abuse", which would also include the use of the word "faggot" in American Idiot from what he's saying.
And for the record, yes, I'm perfectly fine with there be no censorship on certain words. If a white singer wants to commit career suicide by making a racist song, he can go right ahead. Don't say it can't exist either, because over here in the Netherlands, it doesn't. I cannot think of a single word that is not uttered on national TV or radio. (There are decency laws preventing you from showing to much sex before 21.00, I think that's about it).
Also that it's only bad if a white person says the n-word, but "faggot" is apparently not okay regardless of who says it.
Second, time does play a factor here - if a term was acceptable at the time the song was written, then part of me feels it should be left in, if only because we should be aware of the standards of previous generations. For example, if a TV station were to show an old episode of the Black and White Minstrel Show, we should see the truth of what the show was. Admittedly, 20 years is barely on the cusp of when this can start to apply, but it's worth thinking about.
Third, the vocab used was not an unlikely choice of word to be thrown out in such an argument at the time of recording.Not every character on TV has to be PC, why are songs different? Say that the argument held in the song was between a homosexual and a member of the KKK, would the word still be offensive, or would the fact that such a word would almost certainly be thrown out repeatedly in real life make it necessary for a realistic depiction of the situation?
Finally, there are levels of offensiveness. There is hate speech encouraging violence and terrorism, there is directed, malicious, discriminatory insults that should be censored from most radio and tv programming, and there is what I refer to as 'being a dick'. The non targeted use of faggot here certainly doesn't fit group one, and I can't really see it making it as far as group two.
Truth be told, it comforts me a little to see such a big deal being made over this. In America, people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter spout offences a thousand times worse than this every other day. The fact that we take this comparitivly small issue so seriously shows how passionately Britain feels both about equality and free speech.
I don't disagree that the use of the word in the context of the song is part of a fictional characters use and may have meant something completely different than it means now. I don't disagree that it should be allowed to be uncensored in recordings you can purchase or at a time when you can choose when to hear the song (after watershed). But it can be misconstrued as being an offence to homosexuals in this song if someone is not aware of its previous use (and today, hearing someone call a straight man a 'faggot' is offensive due to the fact that it could mean she is suggesting being homosexual is a bad thing) and so, just like ANY other offensive word, it should be bleeped out in the day.
Yes, if all words were allowed, then faggot should also be allowed. If some offensive words are not allowed, as is the case now and for the forseeable future, then all offensive words used during the day on public media should also be banned until such a time when all words are fine to use. Once we have set a standard of equality in terms of how things are at the present time, then we can go about changing that standard of equality, but I don't believe you can do, or should be able to do this until everyone is on the same footing.
*Thanks Thanatos!