Money for Nothing, except to pay fines

Big Ev wrote:I'm sorry, but do fat women get upset when they hear "Fat Bottomed Girls" by Queen?

This has been blown out of proportion, and it's all because of some woman in the Maritimes who has nothing else to do but call into radio stations to complain about a word that probably doesn't even relate to her.

If it were Fat Bottomed C Word then yes, they would get upset.

If this song was released today people would be shocked if it wasent censored.

spader wrote:For the record, if my example of "That's so happy" seems odd, understand that the language police politically correct device filter altered the original word that once meant happy but now is generally taken to mean something entirely different.

We had a Scottish kid back in highschool. I remember I think it was math class, he was sitting there smiling to himself and obviously not paying attention to the teacher. The teacher asked him "Are you happy" to which he replied "Oh, yes, I'm very g-a-y."

Well, that was the end of that class.

spader wrote:Without getting too much into this topic, I +1'd BD's original comment because I reacted emotionally to the word itself, as I do to many of the other words mentioned above (beginning with "N", "C", "K", etc). I just want to say that I think I should have taken a second before reacting. I don't care for the conflation of homosexual-specific terminology with negativity ("That's so happy" etc) anymore than I care for female-specific terminology conflated in a similar way. Blah, blah, blah. The point is, I don't know the song; I don't understand the context, and I shouldn't have commented at all.

Rant complete.

If you ever went shopping for a CD player when they first came out, you would have heard the song. In fact, you probably have heard it -- it has Sting singing "I want my MTV" in the background. It was *the* demo track for showcasing CD audio. If you got a brand, spanking new CD player and wanted to show it off to your buddies who were still listening to vinyl, *that* is what they would hear.

For me, it was what The Fifth Element is to DVD.

Bramlet07 wrote:If this song was released today people would be shocked if it wasent censored.

I guess you don't listen to (c)rap, eh?

wprager wrote:

Bramlet07 wrote:If this song was released today people would be shocked if it wasent censored.

I guess you don't listen to (c)rap, eh?

2 Live Crew.

Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

Is the term "fag" viewed as being as offensive as "faggot" then?

wprager wrote:Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

Should you not be happy that you no longer have to censor it for your kids anymore?

shabbs wrote:Is the term "fag" viewed as being as offensive as "faggot" then?

Unless you mean a cigarette i would say yes.

Bramlet07 wrote:

wprager wrote:Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

Should you not be happy that you no longer have to censor it for your kids anymore?

Eventually my kids will grow up. I have to admit, when I was in grade 3 or 4 we went to a museum and some of the statues made me giggle a little. But does that mean that Venus de Milo should have been outfitted with pasties?

wprager wrote:

Bramlet07 wrote:

wprager wrote:Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

Should you not be happy that you no longer have to censor it for your kids anymore?

Eventually my kids will grow up. I have to admit, when I was in grade 3 or 4 we went to a museum and some of the statues made me giggle a little. But does that mean that Venus de Milo should have been outfitted with pasties?

I'd say hard-core porn should be censored where children are concerned. I think that censoring nudity (in contexts like that of Venus de Milo) actually causes problems in children. The body isn't something we should teach our children to be ashamed of.

wprager wrote:

Bramlet07 wrote:

wprager wrote:Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

Should you not be happy that you no longer have to censor it for your kids anymore?

Eventually my kids will grow up. I have to admit, when I was in grade 3 or 4 we went to a museum and some of the statues made me giggle a little. But does that mean that Venus de Milo should have been outfitted with pasties?

Familiar with the Catholic Church? They went through a period where they either covered genitals with "leaves" or just cut them off.

The real problem with censorship is where is the line drawn. How many people need to find something offensive in order for censorship to take place? I don't like being called me chief, buddy or especially boss. I find it highly offensive. Can we ban those too? Or perhaps those inconsiderate bunghole who leave a Cussing car length between them and the car in front of them at the drive-thru. That drives me mental. Can we ban that practice?

hemlock wrote:

wprager wrote:

Bramlet07 wrote:

wprager wrote:Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

Should you not be happy that you no longer have to censor it for your kids anymore?

Eventually my kids will grow up. I have to admit, when I was in grade 3 or 4 we went to a museum and some of the statues made me giggle a little. But does that mean that Venus de Milo should have been outfitted with pasties?

Familiar with the Catholic Church? They went through a period where they either covered genitals with "leaves" or just cut them off.

The real problem with censorship is where is the line drawn. How many people need to find something offensive in order for censorship to take place? I don't like being called me chief, buddy or especially boss. I find it highly offensive. Can we ban those too? Or perhaps those inconsiderate bunghole who leave a Cussing car length between them and the car in front of them at the drive-thru. That drives me mental. Can we ban that practice?

There is a fairly clear difference between buddy and faggot. I'm all for free speech, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I am confused about the timing of this song (being 25 years later and all) but have no issue if the word is banned from radio versions.

To quote Mr. Garrison: "Hey there Dung Dung fag fag, Dung Dung fag fag, how do you do?"

Too bad that they don't use words like that in ads. Maybe it wouldn't take as long to get the CRTC to act:

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has received hundreds of complaints from the public who are outraged they need to reach for the remote control each time television advertisements appear in order to reduce their seemingly louder volume.

“It is an issue that we are cognizant of and not indifferent to,” a CRTC official told QMI Agency.

An announcement isn’t ready yet but “stay tuned,” the official added.

The Consumers’ Association of Canada’s Bruce Cran called it a “chronic complaint” his group receives.

It's a chronic complaint. Although maybe it hasn't been going on25 years.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/01/16/16908776.html

wprager wrote:Look, BD, I provided a very objective source (Merriam-Webster) which clearly shows there are differences between the two terms. To be perfectly truthful, I don't use the term, and when I played it for the kids in the car I very quickly turned the volume down at the right times (just like I did for Pink Floyd's "Money" and other songs). So I realize that the word is not one to be spoken in "good company"; that said, I don't agree with the decision to censor it.

The problem with using an objective source like Merriam Webster is that they are a dictionary, and they deal with words, not with sociology, anthropology, and people. But if that's not enough for you the American Heritage Dictionary says the word "faggot" is disparaging and offensive. MSN Encarta defines the word as "an offensive term for a happy man". Cambridge American English dictionary, as well as their Advanced Learner's dictionary, states that "faggot" is an offensive word. The Oxford Advanced Learner's as the word "faggot" as an "offensive word for a male homosexual." All of these are objective sources, which shows that yes, this word is offensive.

And even if one were to use Merriam-Webster as the end all of the discussion, I don't believe in waiting around and keeping a word public until it becomes offensive according to them. You know the word N***** was once widely accepted. In 1939, Agatha Christie's book And Then There were None was originally entitled Ten Little N*****s.

What I don't seem to understand is why you are supporting the use of a word that has become highly offensive to homosexuals. I have friends who have been called that, and it's pretty powerful stuff. It is offensive. This I'm telling you. Now if you would rather not pay attention to that at all, and continue the support the use of it (by others, not yourself) because Merriam Webster says it's not offensive, then that's your decision.

Now the Government(CRTC) is asking them to reconsider the ruling, and why some people in radio dont like that.

http://exploremusic.com/wtf/so-the-crtc-asks-the-cbsc-to-reconsider-money-for-nothing-decision-this-bothers-me-a-lot/