I've never really understood the whole "I was offended by this, so it must be removed or altered so I can never be offended by it again!" mindset so seemingly prevalent these days.
I kind of feel sorry for someone who's in such a mentally fragile headspace that a single word in a song on the radio can so upset them. They've got bigger problems than the song, I'd think.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
If your opinion is "sure, why not?" then you are being consistent and you don't mind that black people would seriously be offended.
If your opinion is "Woah, that's over the line"... then where DO you draw the line? Offending blacks is bad, offending gays... well, that's okay.
And if you are going to argue intent of the artist, that becomes a very murky area. I would agree with you if everyone tried to understand what is being said... but how many people actually LISTEN to the lyrics of songs to understand the artists intent?
If your opinion is "sure, why not?" then you are being consistent and you don't mind that black people would seriously be offended.
If your opinion is "Woah, that's over the line"... then where DO you draw the line? Offending blacks is bad, offending gays... well, that's okay.
I would say Johnny Rebel is over the line obviously, but have you heard most rap songs created by black rappers? It is filled with hate and slurs toward their own.
What I find over the line about banning Money for Nothing, is that it took just a single complaint to cause this ripple effect across the whole country. The over political correctness continues....
I get a bit resentful towards groups or individuals who decide what I can or can't listen too or watch or read because they get offended.
What ever happened to be accountable for your own tastes and sensibilities? If you don't like it don't listen to it, turn the f$$$$$$ dial. Don't pick up Tom Sawyer.
This is utterly ridiculous, considering that whoever this person is they didn't even bother listening to the lyrics or maybe trying to figure out the context. Oh no my freaking ears.
Its the same with people that bitch about violent shows on T.V., oh no its going to warp little Jimmy into a monster. Turn the god damned T.V. off, or maybe watch the show with your kid and discuss it instead of acting as a societal censor.
In the old days art used to be up for interpretation of the general masses as was literature. But not now, I don't like it so you don't have a right to decide if its for you or not.
As a society we're getting whimpier instead of better.
I'm resentful about the dire straits thing, but I'm more resentful that its suddenly ok to mutilate a work of great American Literature because it hurts someones feelings.
These people are no better then the book burners in the Nazi empire (yay Godwin) or the extreme Christians who burned books.
F%%% I hate people.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I think the difference is the context. If it's hateful, then obviously I would ban it but if they decided that Goldigger, for example, could be played with the N-word instead of "broke, broke" I would be fine with that.
Then shouldn't we be going after artists like Ice T and Eminem first who are closer in context to hatred and incitement then this song.
The person that complained for lack of a better word is mentally ######ed, she reacted to a word and not the context of the lyrics. And the people that decided to ban the song are the worst kind of lazy morons.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I'm a big Knopfler fan but I actually hate the Money for Nothing song. Maybe it's the horrid music video with the prehistoric computer animated movers and the neon painted-on guitars.
What the bloody hell, isn't bad music videos with out dated animation and neony things from the 80's exactly what turns your crank?
I get a bit resentful towards groups or individuals who decide what I can or can't listen too or watch or read because they get offended.
.......
These people are no better then the book burners in the Nazi empire (yay Godwin) or the extreme Christians who burned books.
F%%% I hate people.
They're not stopping you from listening to the song, just not playing in on the radio unedited. Huge difference there. To compare it to Nazi empire is juvenile, all you got to do is look how easy it is to get the full song to see how asinine that comment is. http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/dire-straits/id648427 A buck 29 is all it will cost you and no one would care if you played it in your car or at home. That's a huge difference to the censorship you're trying to perceive this as and with some of these comments I would expect to have found out that Dire Straits have been sent up north to some Gulag.
Also, why did you edit out that word in the last sentence? Is it because of those wimpy CP owners?
I don't agree with the decision either, I just realize this isn't something to get our panties in a bunch over the same way I don't cry everytime I watch a movie on TV that's been "edited for content." As long as there's some reasonable way for me to watch/read/listen to the original I don't think it's a big fuss.
And now to be completely hypocritical, if there should be a thread on censorship I think it should be about the new edition of The Adventures of Hucklebery Finn that has replaced the word ###### with Slave.
As a society we're getting whimpier instead of better.
I think as a society we are becoming more tolerant of other races, genders and sexualities. And that upsets those who wish to see those groups confronted with hateful messages.
I think as a society we are becoming more tolerant of other races, genders and sexualities. And that upsets those who wish to see those groups confronted with hateful messages.
I would buy that if the song and the lyrics was a hateful message about homosexuals.
As it was the reason why this action took place was because a lazy simple minded moron heard one word in a song and fixated on it instead of taking the time to actual look at the lyrics.
Someone said earlier that this is fine because there still a radio worthy version of the song, I call that bullsh%t. I call that lazy thinking.
Should we only hang up censored versions of the Mona Lisa because there's the slight hint of cleavage that might upset some prude that took a 10 second look at the picture in a museum.
I find it funny that they're forcing the cleanup of this song, yet I still hear songs that are rampantly anti gay and anti police and pro violent.
The person who phoned in the complaint had a simple choice, thats to turn off the radio.
I think that its a poor argument that we're equating this action with some message of tolerance where the song in its truest context has absolutely nothing to do with fighting intolerance in our society.
And I stand beside what I said before, if people are too stupid to separate art and entertainment from the fight for tolerance of oppressed or discriminated groups then not only is our society wimpy but its ridiculously simple minded.
I find it hard to fathom that anyone thinks that its the right thing to edit Huck Finn a book written in 1884, a American classic written by an iconic author that reflects the subject of the matter at the time.
I find it incredible that one person ONE person has the power to force the play of a tamed version of a song because she's offended not by the meaning of the song, but by a single word.
I'd like you respectfully to show me how the message in Money is for nothing is hateful towards anyone but a rockstar being talked about by a couple of blue collar laborers.
Just because you have high minded ideals, doesn't mean that they are the right ideals.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
If your opinion is "sure, why not?" then you are being consistent and you don't mind that black people would seriously be offended.
If your opinion is "Woah, that's over the line"... then where DO you draw the line? Offending blacks is bad, offending gays... well, that's okay.
And if you are going to argue intent of the artist, that becomes a very murky area. I would agree with you if everyone tried to understand what is being said... but how many people actually LISTEN to the lyrics of songs to understand the artists intent?
I don't see how intent is a "murky area." You're either trying to be hateful or you're not.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission says it has received more than 250 letters from Canadians on the issue, most of them questioning why the song would be banned.
Artists were among those who questioned the song's ban, including well-known gay Canadians such as Scott Thompson from comedy troupe Kids in the Hall.
“Shakespeare would be rolling over in his g-word,” Thompson told QMI Agency.
Rick Mercer, host of CBC’s Rick Mercer Report, said, “The song doesn’t offend me, because it’s all about context, and it’s a character line spoken by an ignorant person who is jealous of a glam rock 'n' roll star.”
