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?
That's hard.
Well I guess it's a good thing that it's easier to ban words than to unban them. Afterall words represent ideas and ideas are dangerous in the hands of those outside the Illuminati.
You're not setting a standard of equality though, you are wanting to change it. It is the SAME standard, only reversed. And equality means all are equal, not that some people are equal and some are not, which is what you suggest when you say that words such as faggot shouldn't be banned when others remain banned. If people can be persuaded to unban all offensive words very soon then fine, keep faggot as a useable word. However, it will take some time to be able to bring about a change of public concensus of this, and so until then, in the spirit of equality, words such as faggot should also be bleeped out during the day.
You're not setting a standard of equality though, you are wanting to change it. It is the SAME standard, only reversed. And equality means all are equal, not that some people are equal and some are not, which is what you suggest when you say that words such as faggot shouldn't be banned when others remain banned. If people can be persuaded to unban all offensive words very soon then fine, keep faggot as a useable word. However, it will take some time to be able to bring about a change of public concensus of this, and so until then, in the spirit of equality, words such as faggot should also be bleeped out during the day.
So the standard is defined by a single case and not the dozens of cases that have to be changed to match that single case. Huh. Wouldn't there be a better word to use there than "standard" maybe?
You're not setting a standard of equality though, you are wanting to change it. It is the SAME standard, only reversed.
Yes we are, we're saying that all words, regardless of perceived meaning, will be judged based on their context.
And equality means all are equal, not that some people are equal and some are not, which is what you suggest when you say that words such as faggot shouldn't be banned when others remain banned.
Who said the others should be banned? I see lots of people saying none of them should be banned, but not what you just said.
If people can be persuaded to unban all offensive words very soon then fine, keep faggot as a useable word. However, it will take some time to be able to bring about a change of public concensus of this, and so until then, in the spirit of equality, words such as faggot should also be bleeped out during the day.
I thank God this wasn't the attitude during the civil rights movement.
"Guys, the blacks say they're sick of being discriminated against."
"Well shit, let's give them equal rights by curtailing everyone else's."
If people can be persuaded to unban all offensive words very soon then fine, keep faggot as a useable word. However, it will take some time to be able to bring about a change of public concensus of this, and so until then, in the spirit of equality, words such as faggot should also be bleeped out during the day.
I thank God this wasn't the attitude during the civil rights movement.
"Guys, the blacks say they're sick of being discriminated against."
"Well shit, let's give them equal rights by curtailing everyone else's."
I think the world would be a more sensitive place if it was. I bet I could cuddle with strangers in that world.
You're not setting a standard of equality though, you are wanting to change it. It is the SAME standard, only reversed.
Yes we are, we're saying that all words, regardless of perceived meaning, will be judged based on their context.
And equality means all are equal, not that some people are equal and some are not, which is what you suggest when you say that words such as faggot shouldn't be banned when others remain banned.
Who said the others should be banned? I see lots of people saying none of them should be banned, but not what you just said.
If people can be persuaded to unban all offensive words very soon then fine, keep faggot as a useable word. However, it will take some time to be able to bring about a change of public concensus of this, and so until then, in the spirit of equality, words such as faggot should also be bleeped out during the day.
I thank God this wasn't the attitude during the civil rights movement.
"Guys, the blacks say they're sick of being discriminated against."
"Well shit, let's give them equal rights by curtailing everyone else's."
How are you curtailing rights by extending something already granted to some groups to all groups? How is YOUR freedom of speech being violated by certain words being blanked out during the day, as they are at the moment anyway? You are still free to think what you want, and protest whatever you want. You could say to me that you don't agree with homosexuallity, and that is your right. But to offend me by calling me a faggot is a different thing. It is the same for all other groups. With freedom of speech comes social responsibillity, and I am by no means approving of a governmental ban on using certain words, rather I am suggesting media organisations self censor as they currently do anyway, and extend that to other words that cause offense.
You're not setting a standard of equality though, you are wanting to change it. It is the SAME standard, only reversed.
Yes we are, we're saying that all words, regardless of perceived meaning, will be judged based on their context.
And equality means all are equal, not that some people are equal and some are not, which is what you suggest when you say that words such as faggot shouldn't be banned when others remain banned.
Who said the others should be banned? I see lots of people saying none of them should be banned, but not what you just said.
If people can be persuaded to unban all offensive words very soon then fine, keep faggot as a useable word. However, it will take some time to be able to bring about a change of public concensus of this, and so until then, in the spirit of equality, words such as faggot should also be bleeped out during the day.
I thank God this wasn't the attitude during the civil rights movement.
"Guys, the blacks say they're sick of being discriminated against."
"Well shit, let's give them equal rights by curtailing everyone else's."
The point being made was that if a right was worth having, everyone should have it, and if not, they shouldn't, rather than selective allowance of rights to different peoples. If the word 'faggot' is as offensive as words like, for example, 'n*****', then it should be treated on an equal footing with them - whether banning them, restricting them or allowing them.
How are you curtailing rights by extending something already granted to some groups to all groups? How is YOUR freedom of speech being violated by certain words being blanked out during the day, as they are at the moment anyway?
Mine? Not especially, I don't own a radio station. However, DJs and musicians and voice actors count as people too. Their rights are being curtailed. The issue here is that you're seeing censorship of things that upset you as a right, which you shouldn't.
You are still free to think what you want, and protest whatever you want. You could say to me that you don't agree with homosexuallity, and that is your right. But to offend me by calling me a faggot is a different thing.
Did anyone say this should be done? I don't recall anyone encouraging people get to call other people discriminatory names over broadcasts. I did see others state that the context should decide whether it was offensive. Could you maybe point out where I said otherwise so I can appropriately amend it?
It is the same for all other groups. With freedom of speech comes social responsibillity, and I am by no means approving of a governmental ban on using certain words, rather I am suggesting media organisations self censor as they currently do anyway, and extend that to other words that cause offense.
Or, and do what you say you want them to do, which is stop putting blanket bans on words which you say is the better option and seem to believe that in England is within their power.
That's a dreadful argument - the point being made was that if a right was worth having, everyone should have it, and if not, they shouldn't, rather than selective allowance of rights to different peoples. If the word 'faggot' is as offensive as words like, for example, 'n*****', then it should be treated on an equal footing with them - whether banning them, restricting them or allowing them.
First, edit that. It's not allowed on these forums.
Second, you're acting as if censorship of words is a right people are entitled to. It's not and shouldn't. Yet regardless of this, rather than work to ensure none of them banned as equal treatment, oddment would rather ALL offensive words were banned. So rather than encourage free speech he'd rather curtail it. My analogy works perfectly well.
Third, read my or VC's post history. We've stated, repeatedly, none of them should be banned. Hell, I said it no more than one page ago.
You are a big boy. You can protect yourself from radio shows that use dirty words. As far as children go I honestly don't think they even enough listen to the radio to be affected by it and they're just as likely to hear it there as they are walking down the street.
I thought you people used it to refer to cigarettes?
Gandalf "thrusts his fag into the fire" in The Hobbit at one point. Sadistic bastard. (Also, in the old Swedish translation the dwarves are jerking off their beards.)
A quick google appears to indicate that the Tin tin got moved to adult sections of libaries and bookstores in quite a few countries
The Swedish translations had Haddock drinking not whisky but "funlemonade" well into the 90s. :P
That probably had the reverse effect on me. I'd sniffed whisky bottles and never understood why anyone would drink that, but funlemonade? Yeah, that seemed like good stuff!
First, edit that. It's not allowed on these forums.
Second, you're acting as if censorship of words is a right people are entitled to. It's not and shouldn't. Yet regardless of this, rather than work to ensure none of them banned as equal treatment, oddment would rather ALL offensive words were banned. So rather than encourage free speech he'd rather curtail it. My analogy works perfectly well.
Third, read my or VC's post history. We've stated, repeatedly, none of them should be banned. Hell, I said it no more than one page ago.
You are a big boy. You can protect yourself from radio shows that use dirty words. As far as children go I honestly don't think they even enough listen to the radio to be affected by it and they're just as likely to hear it there as they are walking down the street.
Apologies, edit made.
From his posts, I read oddments position as 'This word is offensive, and it is unfair to not ban it when all these other words are banned. We aren't going to get these other words unbanned, so we should ban this one too.'(apologies if i have misread). Your point didn't really address the issue of equality - the implied attitude was that it's better to have more free speech, even if discrimination is the result - like being against censorship of religious insults, so support a law that allows Christians to mock Buddhists but not vice versa. More free speech, but more discrimination.
I know that internet forums tend to be strongly pro-free speech - so am I. However, that doesn't make censorship inherently evil. Censorship of words may not be a clad in stone right, but I would still expect the library of a primary school to not be packed with erotic novels, for example. As with most rights, it is a case of balancing freedom with the harm that the freedom could cause. Personally I don't have a problem with the words discussed, as long as they aren't used in a targeted, malicious way. But I can see why people would.
As for children listening to the radio, it's hardly uncommon, particularly on car journeys. I personally don't think it would affect them much either - but I still wouldn't go around swearing in a primary school.
I think this is another interesting article about the meaning of the word and its popular usage as a term for homosexual today in Britain.
Originally confined to the United States, the homosexual sense of "fag" and "faggot" has been spread by American popular culture to other English-speaking countries, where it has partly displaced terms such as "queer" or the British "poof" as colloquial or abusive terms for gay men, particularly among heterosexual youth. However, the continuing use of "fag" and "faggot" with other meanings in the British isles has severely limited adoption of the American usage there.
I think this is another interesting article about the meaning of the word and its popular usage as a term for homosexual today in Britain.
Originally confined to the United States, the homosexual sense of "fag" and "faggot" has been spread by American popular culture to other English-speaking countries, where it has partly displaced terms such as "queer" or the British "poof" as colloquial or abusive terms for gay men, particularly among heterosexual youth. However, the continuing use of "fag" and "faggot" with other meanings in the British isles has severely limited adoption of the American usage there.
Wow. It must be horrible.
It is still an offensive term though, and it is used. I have heard it used many times, and it has been used against me in the past. Just because it is one of many words used as a term of abuse does not mean it still shouldn't be censored in particular circumstances. It is still an offensive term no matter how widespread the usage is. I think its usage has become more widespread as time has gone on in this country at any rate.
From his posts, I read oddments position as 'This word is offensive, and it is unfair to not ban it when all these other words are banned. We aren't going to get these other words unbanned, so we should ban this one too.'(apologies if i have misread).
They are. However, a bad policy should not encourage others.
Your point didn't really address the issue of equality - the implied attitude was that it's better to have more free speech, even if discrimination is the result - like being against censorship of religious insults, so support a law that allows Christians to mock Buddhists but not vice versa. More free speech, but more discrimination.
I've stated several times already that blanket bans of words is a bad thing and context is what matters.
I know that internet forums tend to be strongly pro-free speech - so am I. However, that doesn't make censorship inherently evil. Censorship of words may not be a clad in stone right, but I would still expect the library of a primary school to not be packed with erotic novels, for example.
I would expect that not to happen because there's generally not anything useful for a child a seven year old can learn from a book of erotica, to say nothing about possible traumatization.
As with most rights, it is a case of balancing freedom with the harm that the freedom could cause. Personally I don't have a problem with the words discussed, as long as they aren't used in a targeted, malicious way. But I can see why people would.
That's just it, the people who do ignore the context. If someone jumps on the radio and starts screaming "Burn the Jews!" with no consequence to the exclamation, then by all means, ban it. But banning words because someone who isn't paying attention might be offended if they never bother to find out why it was said? It doesn't work. There are lots of words that fall under this realm.
As for children listening to the radio, it's hardly uncommon, particularly on car journeys. I personally don't think it would affect them much either - but I still wouldn't go around swearing in a primary school.
Children listening to the radio in the car aren't going to be able to listen to anything they want because, I would hope, their guardian is in the car as well.
It is still an offensive term though, and it is used. I have heard it used many times, and it has been used against me in the past. Just because it is one of many words used as a term of abuse does not mean it still shouldn't be censored in particular circumstances. It is still an offensive term no matter how widespread the usage is. I think its usage has become more widespread as time has gone on in this country at any rate.
That's a problem of encouraging the incorrect attitude, not DJs being able to say faggot. They can still easily spread a hateful attitude towards a group if they want to and the words they use do not hamper it.
That's just it, the people who do ignore the context. If someone jumps on the radio and starts screaming "Burn the Jews!" with no consequence to the exclamation, then by all means, ban it. But banning words because someone who isn't paying attention might be offended if they never bother to find out why it was said? It doesn't work. There are lots of words that fall under this realm.
Those popular "internet filters" are especially stupid when they do this. Like banning pages mentioning Hitler (lol Godwin) in schools. Bet that made history research about WW2 interesting.
They've also banned political parties as "hate speech" (and we're not talking racist "patriot" parties here) and sex ed pages as "hardcore porn".
You could say to me that you don't agree with homosexuallity, and that is your right. But to offend me by calling me a faggot is a different thing
So you are more bothered by the flippant use of an insult in a song written before meaning than you are a premeditated point of view?
You can have a point of view, so long as you are not inciting hatred or trying to take away rights. Telling me that you don't agree with homosexuallity is an opinion. I don't like a lot of stuff. I do not however go around offending the things I do not like and I don't try to take away rights. The 'flippant' use of an insult is hate speech, and should have no place in putting across feelings on an issue.
That's just it, the people who do ignore the context. If someone jumps on the radio and starts screaming "Burn the Jews!" with no consequence to the exclamation, then by all means, ban it. But banning words because someone who isn't paying attention might be offended if they never bother to find out why it was said? It doesn't work. There are lots of words that fall under this realm.
Those popular "internet filters" are especially stupid when they do this. Like banning pages mentioning Hitler (lol Godwin) in schools. Bet that made history research about WW2 interesting.
They've also banned political parties as "hate speech" (and we're not talking racist "patriot" parties here) and sex ed pages as "hardcore porn".
The important thing is that oddment isn't casually looking at these sites oblivious to their context and being offended by them.
But to offend me by calling me a faggot is a different thing.
Excuse me, but when did anyone call you a faggot? I assume we're still talking about the song and/or general radio usage. The song doesn't, and no radio station that I know of would allow their DJs to use the word when referring to a group or person on air.
You're right. Using derogatory language when addressing a group should not be accepted in public broadcast. People are right to complain about Chris Moyles attitude towards homosexuals, as he does on (admittedly rare) occasion use such language. And he's a dick. But this is not what this is. This is the use of a word without intentional connection to the usage of the word you are offended by.
They are very diffeent things, and as such should be (and currently are) in this case, treated differently.
You could say to me that you don't agree with homosexuallity, and that is your right. But to offend me by calling me a faggot is a different thing
So you are more bothered by the flippant use of an insult in a song written before meaning than you are a premeditated point of view?
You can have a point of view, so long as you are not inciting hatred or trying to take away rights. Telling me that you don't agree with homosexuallity is an opinion. I don't like a lot of stuff. I do not however go around offending the things I do not like and I don't try to take away rights. The 'flippant' use of an insult is hate speech, and should have no place in putting across feelings on an issue.
What are you talking about? You can absolutely use your right to free speech to take away rights. You're trying to do it to take away the right to say "faggot" right now, it has already been used to take away the right to settle down with someone and have a normal life from homosexuals all over the U.S., it has been used to take away business-owners' rights to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their business which is owned by them not by the public, it is being used in Ohio to try to take away women's right to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies (including rape-victims), and it was used to take away employers' rights to discriminate in hiring based on age race and sex. This isn't anywhere near as simple as you want it to be cap'n.
Agreed with racist/sexual/offensive statements being banned, but not necessarily the words themselves.
Context is key, in my opinion. I think I should be able to use the "n-word" in an appropriate context, and not as a racial slur. Banning a word in general, or making it a social taboo just gives it more power to the people who do use the word in an insulting and derogatory manner.
The problem with n*, and the reason it is treated as it is, is that it isn't anything but a racial slur. Even the way rappers use it in songs relies upon the awareness of the word's other associations.
edit: It's a combatative use. Damn, wish I coud phrase this better.
The problem with n*, and the reason it is treated as it is, is that it isn't anything but a racial slur. Even the way rappers use it in songs relies upon the awareness of the word's other associations.
edit: It's a combatative use. Damn, wish I coud phrase this better.
It's a way of taking it and using it to say "yeah what of it, ace?". At least that's how I interpret it.
Yes, and I think we need to take that nature of the word away from it. How we do that though, is the question since it's already ingrained so much into our society that it is a purely racial slur.
From his posts, I read oddments position as 'This word is offensive, and it is unfair to not ban it when all these other words are banned. We aren't going to get these other words unbanned, so we should ban this one too.'(apologies if i have misread).
They are. However, a bad policy should not encourage others.
This is just one policy - whether to ban offensive words at certain times. Regardless of whether you agree with a rule or not, it is wrong to selectivly enforce it.
Your point didn't really address the issue of equality - the implied attitude was that it's better to have more free speech, even if discrimination is the result - like being against censorship of religious insults, so support a law that allows Christians to mock Buddhists but not vice versa. More free speech, but more discrimination.
I've stated several times already that blanket bans of words is a bad thing and context is what matters.
Of course context matters - it always does. But you need to set a base standard as to what is accceptable and what is not. Blanket allowance of offensive material isn't a big improvement.
I know that internet forums tend to be strongly pro-free speech - so am I. However, that doesn't make censorship inherently evil. Censorship of words may not be a clad in stone right, but I would still expect the library of a primary school to not be packed with erotic novels, for example.
I would expect that not to happen because there's generally not anything useful for a child a seven year old can learn from a book of erotica, to say nothing about possible traumatization.
Many such books could be said to have genuine artistic and historical merit - as much as the Pogues anyway. Besides, the point is that the harm caused by censorship was balanced against the harm caused by allowing the books in, and censorship won the day.
As with most rights, it is a case of balancing freedom with the harm that the freedom could cause. Personally I don't have a problem with the words discussed, as long as they aren't used in a targeted, malicious way. But I can see why people would.
That's just it, the people who do ignore the context. If someone jumps on the radio and starts screaming "Burn the Jews!" with no consequence to the exclamation, then by all means, ban it. But banning words because someone who isn't paying attention might be offended if they never bother to find out why it was said? It doesn't work. There are lots of words that fall under this realm.
But there is very rarely a situation where the word both adds significant artistic merit to a song or other work, and could not just as easily be replaced by a less offensive (and in the case of radio plays, periodic) term. Besides, in this case we have someone who was paying attention, found out why the word was said, and is STILL offended.
Regardless, you agreed that certain insults, in an offensive, unmeritful context should be banned. Now it is just an issue of deciding level of offensiveness and level of merit.
As for children listening to the radio, it's hardly uncommon, particularly on car journeys. I personally don't think it would affect them much either - but I still wouldn't go around swearing in a primary school.
Children listening to the radio in the car aren't going to be able to listen to anything they want because, I would hope, their guardian is in the car as well.
If the parents were tuning in to a discussion show with inflammatory panelists, you would have a point. But Radio 1, the primary nationwide radio station with a family friendly image? There is .a reasonable expectation that swear words and similar will be removed at pre-watershed times
People can easily get offended at the drop of a hat. Is the "War on Christmas" raging in the U.S. this year?
I'm offended at your cavalier attitude towards declaring the occasional invective off-limits, oddment.
I've not said it should be off limits all the time, just off limits as other offensive terms are at the moment. They are not outright banned, but they are censored at certain times in the media. My 'cavalier' attitude is the policy ALREADY in effect, in Britain at least. It is just an extension of this to other words. I do not want to give homophobic slur any more power than any other offensive word, but as it stands it does have power, and it is equal to other words used to cause offence which are currently blanked out in the daytime today.
The problem with n*, and the reason it is treated as it is, is that it isn't anything but a racial slur. Even the way rappers use it in songs relies upon the awareness of the word's other associations.
edit: It's a combatative use. Damn, wish I coud phrase this better.
It's a way of taking it and using it to say "yeah what of it, ace?". At least that's how I interpret it.
Yeah, but while that could be interpreted as a positive step, removing the stigma from the word, it does preserve the old meaning of the word at the same time.
I wish there was a way to just wipe useless words from the face of the earth. It isn't even a nice sounding one. We would be better off without it.
That and 'chillax'. God I hope that doesn't catch on.
The problem with n*, and the reason it is treated as it is, is that it isn't anything but a racial slur. Even the way rappers use it in songs relies upon the awareness of the word's other associations.
edit: It's a combatative use. Damn, wish I coud phrase this better.
It's a way of taking it and using it to say "yeah what of it, ace?". At least that's how I interpret it.
Yeah, but while that could be interpreted as a positive step, removing the stigma from the word, it does preserve the old meaning of the word at the same time.
I wish there was a way to just wipe useless words from the face of the earth. It isn't even a nice sounding one. We would be better off without it.
That and 'chillax'. God I hope that doesn't catch on.
Haha. I don't think that word will ever catch on here, though I've heard it a few times on the telly thanks to American bought shows. Unfortunatley the phrase 'take a chill pill!' caught on, and I have heard several mothers, including my own, use it. It was an odd experience, believe you me!
Many such books could be said to have genuine artistic and historical merit - as much as the Pogues anyway. Besides, the point is that the harm caused by censorship was balanced against the harm caused by allowing the books in, and censorship won the day.
I agree that that's what happened, but for argument's sake wouldn't you say that Timmy probably wouldn't understand the feminist themes demonstrated through the story as women take on traditionally dominant positions? I'm sure he's a bright kid, but that sort of reasoning in even nonexplicit books is usually left for high school at the earliest.
But there is very rarely a situation where the word both adds significant artistic merit to a song or other work, and could not just as easily be replaced by a less offensive (and in the case of radio plays, periodic) term. Besides, in this case we have someone who was paying attention, found out why the word was said, and is STILL offended.
Regardless, you agreed that certain insults, in an offensive, unmeritful context should be banned. Now it is just an issue of deciding level of offensiveness and level of merit.
If people are still offended when the context is made clear than they should get over it. Period. I'm sorry, but someone being offended by a word because of the word is not thinking in a sound manner. It's the equivalent of demanding the a radio station not use the word tubby because it hurts your feelings.
And the problem with deciding the offensiveness here is that there's thousands of different places the word has been used. Generally, though, most of us have agreed that using it in a hateful or derogatory manner without consequence to the speaker is a good time to censor it.
If the parents were tuning in to a discussion show with inflammatory panelists, you would have a point. But Radio 1, the primary nationwide radio station with a family friendly image? There is .a reasonable expectation that swear words and similar will be removed at pre-watershed times
It depends on your views of what family friendly. I know several families whose children know that some words are adult words and not to be used by them and I think it'd be better to stress that to children rather than seeing how long you can go before they find out. They probably already know words and attitudes that are impolite in public anyway and have been taught by their parents not to use them.
I agree that that's what happened, but for argument's sake wouldn't you say that Timmy probably wouldn't understand the feminist themes demonstrated through the story as women take on traditionally dominant positions? I'm sure he's a bright kid, but that sort of reasoning in even nonexplicit books is usually left for high school at the earliest.[\QUOTE]
Exactly. The harm caused by censoring in that case is minimal, while the potential for harm is great. In the case of the song, a 2 second gap with no lyrics is balanced against using the term "faggot" as an insult. The harm on either side is minimal,
If people are still offended when the context is made clear than they should get over it. Period. I'm sorry, but someone being offended by a word because of the word is not thinking in a sound manner. It's the equivalent of demanding the a radio station not use the word tubby because it hurts your feelings.
True, but only if, as you said before, the context is reasonable. Somebody accidentaly dropping the n bomb while reading of mice and men should not cause offence, but when the context is a deliberate racist insult, you would have every right to be offended.
And the problem with deciding the offensiveness here is that there's thousands of different places the word has been used. Generally, though, most of us have agreed that using it in a hateful or derogatory manner without consequence to the speaker is a good time to censor it.
Lets face it though, even if you banned the word no-one would get sacked for referring to meatballs or bundles of sticks - the major problem is the use of the term as a childish insult rather than a specifically homophobic one. A word with similar problems would be 'spastic' - a former medical term, turned discrimnatory insult, turned playground heckle. To many, being called a spastic would be a minor insult, but for a disabled person, the term would be deeply offensive.
Posts
Well I guess it's a good thing that it's easier to ban words than to unban them. Afterall words represent ideas and ideas are dangerous in the hands of those outside the Illuminati.
*Thanks Thanatos!
So the standard is defined by a single case and not the dozens of cases that have to be changed to match that single case. Huh. Wouldn't there be a better word to use there than "standard" maybe?
Who said the others should be banned? I see lots of people saying none of them should be banned, but not what you just said.
I thank God this wasn't the attitude during the civil rights movement.
"Guys, the blacks say they're sick of being discriminated against."
"Well shit, let's give them equal rights by curtailing everyone else's."
I think the world would be a more sensitive place if it was. I bet I could cuddle with strangers in that world.
How are you curtailing rights by extending something already granted to some groups to all groups? How is YOUR freedom of speech being violated by certain words being blanked out during the day, as they are at the moment anyway? You are still free to think what you want, and protest whatever you want. You could say to me that you don't agree with homosexuallity, and that is your right. But to offend me by calling me a faggot is a different thing. It is the same for all other groups. With freedom of speech comes social responsibillity, and I am by no means approving of a governmental ban on using certain words, rather I am suggesting media organisations self censor as they currently do anyway, and extend that to other words that cause offense.
*Thanks Thanatos!
The point being made was that if a right was worth having, everyone should have it, and if not, they shouldn't, rather than selective allowance of rights to different peoples. If the word 'faggot' is as offensive as words like, for example, 'n*****', then it should be treated on an equal footing with them - whether banning them, restricting them or allowing them.
Did anyone say this should be done? I don't recall anyone encouraging people get to call other people discriminatory names over broadcasts. I did see others state that the context should decide whether it was offensive. Could you maybe point out where I said otherwise so I can appropriately amend it?
Or, and do what you say you want them to do, which is stop putting blanket bans on words which you say is the better option and seem to believe that in England is within their power.
Second, you're acting as if censorship of words is a right people are entitled to. It's not and shouldn't. Yet regardless of this, rather than work to ensure none of them banned as equal treatment, oddment would rather ALL offensive words were banned. So rather than encourage free speech he'd rather curtail it. My analogy works perfectly well.
Third, read my or VC's post history. We've stated, repeatedly, none of them should be banned. Hell, I said it no more than one page ago.
You are a big boy. You can protect yourself from radio shows that use dirty words. As far as children go I honestly don't think they even enough listen to the radio to be affected by it and they're just as likely to hear it there as they are walking down the street.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Gandalf "thrusts his fag into the fire" in The Hobbit at one point. Sadistic bastard. (Also, in the old Swedish translation the dwarves are jerking off their beards.)
The Swedish translations had Haddock drinking not whisky but "funlemonade" well into the 90s. :P
That probably had the reverse effect on me. I'd sniffed whisky bottles and never understood why anyone would drink that, but funlemonade? Yeah, that seemed like good stuff!
Apologies, edit made.
From his posts, I read oddments position as 'This word is offensive, and it is unfair to not ban it when all these other words are banned. We aren't going to get these other words unbanned, so we should ban this one too.'(apologies if i have misread). Your point didn't really address the issue of equality - the implied attitude was that it's better to have more free speech, even if discrimination is the result - like being against censorship of religious insults, so support a law that allows Christians to mock Buddhists but not vice versa. More free speech, but more discrimination.
I know that internet forums tend to be strongly pro-free speech - so am I. However, that doesn't make censorship inherently evil. Censorship of words may not be a clad in stone right, but I would still expect the library of a primary school to not be packed with erotic novels, for example. As with most rights, it is a case of balancing freedom with the harm that the freedom could cause. Personally I don't have a problem with the words discussed, as long as they aren't used in a targeted, malicious way. But I can see why people would.
As for children listening to the radio, it's hardly uncommon, particularly on car journeys. I personally don't think it would affect them much either - but I still wouldn't go around swearing in a primary school.
It is still an offensive term though, and it is used. I have heard it used many times, and it has been used against me in the past. Just because it is one of many words used as a term of abuse does not mean it still shouldn't be censored in particular circumstances. It is still an offensive term no matter how widespread the usage is. I think its usage has become more widespread as time has gone on in this country at any rate.
*Thanks Thanatos!
I've stated several times already that blanket bans of words is a bad thing and context is what matters.
I would expect that not to happen because there's generally not anything useful for a child a seven year old can learn from a book of erotica, to say nothing about possible traumatization.
That's just it, the people who do ignore the context. If someone jumps on the radio and starts screaming "Burn the Jews!" with no consequence to the exclamation, then by all means, ban it. But banning words because someone who isn't paying attention might be offended if they never bother to find out why it was said? It doesn't work. There are lots of words that fall under this realm.
Children listening to the radio in the car aren't going to be able to listen to anything they want because, I would hope, their guardian is in the car as well.
So you are more bothered by the flippant use of an insult in a song written before meaning than you are a premeditated point of view?
Those popular "internet filters" are especially stupid when they do this. Like banning pages mentioning Hitler (lol Godwin) in schools. Bet that made history research about WW2 interesting.
They've also banned political parties as "hate speech" (and we're not talking racist "patriot" parties here) and sex ed pages as "hardcore porn".
You can have a point of view, so long as you are not inciting hatred or trying to take away rights. Telling me that you don't agree with homosexuallity is an opinion. I don't like a lot of stuff. I do not however go around offending the things I do not like and I don't try to take away rights. The 'flippant' use of an insult is hate speech, and should have no place in putting across feelings on an issue.
*Thanks Thanatos!
You wouldn't like oddment when he's sad.
I'm offended at your cavalier attitude towards declaring the occasional invective off-limits, oddment.
I sincerely get offended when people start attacking free speech. It is my only sacred cow, the linchpin of our free society.
Excuse me, but when did anyone call you a faggot? I assume we're still talking about the song and/or general radio usage. The song doesn't, and no radio station that I know of would allow their DJs to use the word when referring to a group or person on air.
You're right. Using derogatory language when addressing a group should not be accepted in public broadcast. People are right to complain about Chris Moyles attitude towards homosexuals, as he does on (admittedly rare) occasion use such language. And he's a dick. But this is not what this is. This is the use of a word without intentional connection to the usage of the word you are offended by.
They are very diffeent things, and as such should be (and currently are) in this case, treated differently.
What are you talking about? You can absolutely use your right to free speech to take away rights. You're trying to do it to take away the right to say "faggot" right now, it has already been used to take away the right to settle down with someone and have a normal life from homosexuals all over the U.S., it has been used to take away business-owners' rights to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their business which is owned by them not by the public, it is being used in Ohio to try to take away women's right to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies (including rape-victims), and it was used to take away employers' rights to discriminate in hiring based on age race and sex. This isn't anywhere near as simple as you want it to be cap'n.
Context is key, in my opinion. I think I should be able to use the "n-word" in an appropriate context, and not as a racial slur. Banning a word in general, or making it a social taboo just gives it more power to the people who do use the word in an insulting and derogatory manner.
edit: It's a combatative use. Damn, wish I coud phrase this better.
It's a way of taking it and using it to say "yeah what of it, ace?". At least that's how I interpret it.
This is just one policy - whether to ban offensive words at certain times. Regardless of whether you agree with a rule or not, it is wrong to selectivly enforce it.
Of course context matters - it always does. But you need to set a base standard as to what is accceptable and what is not. Blanket allowance of offensive material isn't a big improvement.
Many such books could be said to have genuine artistic and historical merit - as much as the Pogues anyway. Besides, the point is that the harm caused by censorship was balanced against the harm caused by allowing the books in, and censorship won the day.
But there is very rarely a situation where the word both adds significant artistic merit to a song or other work, and could not just as easily be replaced by a less offensive (and in the case of radio plays, periodic) term. Besides, in this case we have someone who was paying attention, found out why the word was said, and is STILL offended.
Regardless, you agreed that certain insults, in an offensive, unmeritful context should be banned. Now it is just an issue of deciding level of offensiveness and level of merit.
If the parents were tuning in to a discussion show with inflammatory panelists, you would have a point. But Radio 1, the primary nationwide radio station with a family friendly image? There is .a reasonable expectation that swear words and similar will be removed at pre-watershed times
I've not said it should be off limits all the time, just off limits as other offensive terms are at the moment. They are not outright banned, but they are censored at certain times in the media. My 'cavalier' attitude is the policy ALREADY in effect, in Britain at least. It is just an extension of this to other words. I do not want to give homophobic slur any more power than any other offensive word, but as it stands it does have power, and it is equal to other words used to cause offence which are currently blanked out in the daytime today.
*Thanks Thanatos!
Yeah, but while that could be interpreted as a positive step, removing the stigma from the word, it does preserve the old meaning of the word at the same time.
I wish there was a way to just wipe useless words from the face of the earth. It isn't even a nice sounding one. We would be better off without it.
That and 'chillax'. God I hope that doesn't catch on.
Haha. I don't think that word will ever catch on here, though I've heard it a few times on the telly thanks to American bought shows. Unfortunatley the phrase 'take a chill pill!' caught on, and I have heard several mothers, including my own, use it. It was an odd experience, believe you me!
*Thanks Thanatos!
If people are still offended when the context is made clear than they should get over it. Period. I'm sorry, but someone being offended by a word because of the word is not thinking in a sound manner. It's the equivalent of demanding the a radio station not use the word tubby because it hurts your feelings.
And the problem with deciding the offensiveness here is that there's thousands of different places the word has been used. Generally, though, most of us have agreed that using it in a hateful or derogatory manner without consequence to the speaker is a good time to censor it.
It depends on your views of what family friendly. I know several families whose children know that some words are adult words and not to be used by them and I think it'd be better to stress that to children rather than seeing how long you can go before they find out. They probably already know words and attitudes that are impolite in public anyway and have been taught by their parents not to use them.