Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Fairytale of New York
Comments
-
Very understated :-) :smiley:guinnessaddick said:
Essential watching. Great video great song. Remember seeing Kirsty & The Pogues at Brixton Academy, what a great night (as were all the Pogues gigs that I saw)
Thanks for posting hadn't seen this before
1 -
Well you didn't really answer my question as if you censor everything that somebody gets offended by there won't be much left. If you don't look at things in any sort of context it just becomes stupid.PaddyP17 said:
You'll have to excuse me as I'm likely to lay out some stuff I'm misremembering here. And this is going to be a long-winded answer.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
So what censorship are you okay with? Where should it start and end?PaddyP17 said:It is ridiculous it's a news story. But I did see a Tweet earlier from a non-straight man that said [paraphrasing] "I'm not bothered by the word, or the song, but I am bothered by the likes of Fox and legion other straight people getting angry at their inability to listen to and sing a slur in a song".
That sums it up. Storm in a teacup but if you're upset by this cEnSOrShIp, give your head a good old wobble.
Serious question as there are loads of offensive words and attitudes in art and literature and I'm curious how they are going to be policed in an objective manner?
Well, I generally subscribe to Popper's paradox of tolerance. Basically, if society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually compromised by intolerant views and thoughts. So you can't tolerate the intolerant.
This is fairly well rebutted by John Rawls in A Theory Of Justice wherein he lays out that a tolerant society should tolerate the intolerant - otherwise, society itself is intolerant. But, he qualified this by saying if the liberties of the "intolerant" are sufficiently oppressing/stifling the liberties of those who are "tolerant", then it's okay to limit those liberties.
In this instance I think it plausible that people are sufficiently upset by use of the word "f*ggot" in Fairytale of New York that it impacts on their wellbeing. Use of what is generally a pejorative term, also, is also not what I'd consider something someone is at liberty to do.
So it's a bit of a case by case basis, really. And I'm applying some very broad-brush thinking to this particular issue. And it depends on how you might define liberty; tolerance; freedom of expression; and similar.
And what I've said is probably better summed up by saying "don't be a dick". This doesn't even take into account that the word is censored only on Radio 1, and not by the BBC as a whole/the government/society as a whole. But, yeah, there are my thoughts on censorship, broadly speaking.
2 -
Instead of this tedious debate, why don't we all instead listen to the song that (deservedly) kept it from being 1987's Xmas #1?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDe60CbIagg
0 -
She didn't when I saw herpaulie8290 said:I read somewhere that Kirsty MacColl before she passed away when singing live changed the wording as she didnt like to say it either.
Also Shane MacGowan apparently doesnt like the word and only used it because it fitted the narrative of 2 arseholes arguing.
But as I said if The Pogues whose song it is don't care then why should it matter1 -
That's when they had Mahone after Pogue, anyway I hope TS says it to elliotttttHenry Irving said:Wait until you find out what the band's name means.
Fox getting "owned" as we kids say. Well said the Pouges.
Nothing too see here, made up storm in a tea cup over nothing. Coming soon - Muslims have banned Santa and schools aren't allowed to put on a nativity plays.
PS the Nips were better and wait till you find out what that was short for.
Nips
It's the cold ! 0 -
3 -
Would rather listen to Cardi B rap about literally anything including Crystal Palace's ongoing Premiership status than hear another peep out of that pipsqueak Grimes1
-
Forced to go and see The Pogues in Croydon once.
They were shite and I walked out after less than half an hour.1 -
It's a question I can't really give an answer to. Where I think censorship should start and end is not really the issue here, is it? I've tried as best I can to give you an insight into how I arrived at my opinion (or more accurately, why I agree with what someone else said), and you're now mischaracterising it as me saying we should censor something that everyone gets offended by. I have not said that. The start of my fourth paragraph even begins with "in this instance".hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Well you didn't really answer my question as if you censor everything that somebody gets offended by there won't be much left. If you don't look at things in any sort of context it just becomes stupid.PaddyP17 said:
You'll have to excuse me as I'm likely to lay out some stuff I'm misremembering here. And this is going to be a long-winded answer.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
So what censorship are you okay with? Where should it start and end?PaddyP17 said:It is ridiculous it's a news story. But I did see a Tweet earlier from a non-straight man that said [paraphrasing] "I'm not bothered by the word, or the song, but I am bothered by the likes of Fox and legion other straight people getting angry at their inability to listen to and sing a slur in a song".
That sums it up. Storm in a teacup but if you're upset by this cEnSOrShIp, give your head a good old wobble.
Serious question as there are loads of offensive words and attitudes in art and literature and I'm curious how they are going to be policed in an objective manner?
Well, I generally subscribe to Popper's paradox of tolerance. Basically, if society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually compromised by intolerant views and thoughts. So you can't tolerate the intolerant.
This is fairly well rebutted by John Rawls in A Theory Of Justice wherein he lays out that a tolerant society should tolerate the intolerant - otherwise, society itself is intolerant. But, he qualified this by saying if the liberties of the "intolerant" are sufficiently oppressing/stifling the liberties of those who are "tolerant", then it's okay to limit those liberties.
In this instance I think it plausible that people are sufficiently upset by use of the word "f*ggot" in Fairytale of New York that it impacts on their wellbeing. Use of what is generally a pejorative term, also, is also not what I'd consider something someone is at liberty to do.
So it's a bit of a case by case basis, really. And I'm applying some very broad-brush thinking to this particular issue. And it depends on how you might define liberty; tolerance; freedom of expression; and similar.
And what I've said is probably better summed up by saying "don't be a dick". This doesn't even take into account that the word is censored only on Radio 1, and not by the BBC as a whole/the government/society as a whole. But, yeah, there are my thoughts on censorship, broadly speaking.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Listen to Classic FM like I do. You don't understand the lyrics anyway.
Love faggots and peas pudding2 -
Should be banned forever, worse than any naughty wordSporadicAddick said:
Whatever your thoughts on Fox, labelling him a Nazi (as the Pogues have effectively done) is loathsome. I do wonder if they know what the Nazis stood for or did.Anna_Kissed said:A flea in the ear for Loathesome Fox.
By the by, not my favourite Christmas song by some margin. God knows why, but love "simply having a wonderful Christmas time" by McCartney and Wings.
( Sorry SA)3 -
Addickhead86 said:Should have seen these geezers when Wet Ass Pussy got censored for radio play. Livid.Dave Rudd said:I am reminded of the Sex Pistols' 'Pretty Vacant'.
Mr Rotten would use an excellent delivery style on (eg) 'Top of the Pops' to emphasise the fact that 'vacant' is a two-syllable word.
It's time that we purged history of all such filth. The only question that worries me: What are we doing today that will be unacceptable in 20 years time?Addickhead86 said:
Had to google it. Will this be on Top of the Pops on Christmas Day ?Should have seen these geezers when Wet Ass Pussy got censored for radio play. Livid.0 -
Remember when the Kinks had to record a different version of "Lola" replacing Coca cola with Cherry Cola?
And you'll never guess what song is actually about.
And who remembers Walk on the Wild side by his devine majesty Lou Reed?
"Never lost his head, even when he was given head"0 -
I haven’t listened to Radio 1 since a particularly sad ‘Our Tune’ on the Simon Bates show caused me to have an emotional breakdown so this non story won’t affect me.2
-
"Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life" - Life's a bit of SHIT when you think of it...0
-
....where's the soap0
-
It's designed to make you angry.
You're supposed to be angry that they did it, or angry that people are angry that they did it.
Then you go online, and watch other people getting angry at each other, minor celebrities and the like. Find a couple of extreme examples and make them representative of everyone you disagree with...
I don't know why but I feel like all media is constantly trying to turn us into overly opinionated furious people. All media.
And for so many people it's working.13 - Sponsored links:
-
Always nice when you carefully explain your entire posting styleHuskaris said:It's designed to make you angry.
You're supposed to be angry that they did it, or angry that people are angry that they did it.
Then you go online, and watch other people getting angry at each other, minor celebrities and the like. Find a couple of extreme examples and make them representative of everyone you disagree with...
I don't know why but I feel like all media is constantly trying to turn us into overly opinionated furious people. All media.
And for so many people it's working.
1 -
Haven’t been this mad since they started making gingerbread people.SantaClaus said:I haven't been this angry since Gregg's brought out that vegan sausage roll.0 -
Conspiracy mate. First they take away our pubs and bars, now they're stopping us listening to Kirsty McCall sing faggot.Huskaris said:It's designed to make you angry.
You're supposed to be angry that they did it, or angry that people are angry that they did it.
Then you go online, and watch other people getting angry at each other, minor celebrities and the like. Find a couple of extreme examples and make them representative of everyone you disagree with...
I don't know why but I feel like all media is constantly trying to turn us into overly opinionated furious people. All media.
And for so many people it's working.
Hope it snows this year, so i can kick my snowperson on the penina3 -
Haven’t naughty words been censored for years on end on the radio/TV? I’m lost, why is this an issue? I have kisstory on in the motor and they pause out words of all the decent rap tunes and it makes no difference whatsoever, chill out right wing snowflakes you’ll be fine.4
-
Fake culture war bullshit designed to make people angry and more divided12
-
I don't often agree with Dianne Abbott but she had a point about how divide and rule is used to control our society.jacob_CAFC said:Fake culture war bullshit designed to make people angry and more divided
2 -
Exactly this, there’s a different one every 3/4 days to get mad about, the Mail/Sun stick the story out there, Piers Morgan and Talk Radio discuss and stir it, public gets angry at an invisible army of do gooders, to which you’ll be lucky to ever in real life.Huskaris said:It's designed to make you angry.
You're supposed to be angry that they did it, or angry that people are angry that they did it.
Then you go online, and watch other people getting angry at each other, minor celebrities and the like. Find a couple of extreme examples and make them representative of everyone you disagree with...
I don't know why but I feel like all media is constantly trying to turn us into overly opinionated furious people. All media.
And for so many people it's working.
Ironically, those that aren’t angry about a slight change to things, are labelled as the sensitive ones.
2 -
But the point is it's on both sides. You're supposed to be angry about people getting angry, lets not forget it takes two to argue... Regardless of who is right, everyone is angry.BR7_addick said:
Exactly this, there’s a different one every 3/4 days to get mad about, the Mail/Sun stick the story out there, Piers Morgan and Talk Radio discuss and stir it, public gets angry at an invisible army of do gooders, to which you’ll be lucky to ever in real life.Huskaris said:It's designed to make you angry.
You're supposed to be angry that they did it, or angry that people are angry that they did it.
Then you go online, and watch other people getting angry at each other, minor celebrities and the like. Find a couple of extreme examples and make them representative of everyone you disagree with...
I don't know why but I feel like all media is constantly trying to turn us into overly opinionated furious people. All media.
And for so many people it's working.
Ironically, those that aren’t angry about a slight change to things, are labelled as the sensitive ones.
I guarantee you 99% of people wouldn't notice or care about it until it is chucked in front of them and presented.
You're branded either a snowflake or a bigot.
It's the same with so many things, amplify the people who are making noise on a cesspit like twitter and watch people who previously wouldn't have given a shit get sucked in.
All the media is fueling it, left and right, even boring papers like the independent. It's how you get clicks and sell papers.4 -
Agreed it takes two to tango but I think it’s a lot more prominent from the right wing press. That’s just how I see it and I’m not particularly biased to one side, probably because they’ve a bigger market reach.Huskaris said:
But the point is it's on both sides. You're supposed to be angry about people getting angry, lets not forget it takes two to argue... Regardless of who is right, everyone is angry.BR7_addick said:
Exactly this, there’s a different one every 3/4 days to get mad about, the Mail/Sun stick the story out there, Piers Morgan and Talk Radio discuss and stir it, public gets angry at an invisible army of do gooders, to which you’ll be lucky to ever in real life.Huskaris said:It's designed to make you angry.
You're supposed to be angry that they did it, or angry that people are angry that they did it.
Then you go online, and watch other people getting angry at each other, minor celebrities and the like. Find a couple of extreme examples and make them representative of everyone you disagree with...
I don't know why but I feel like all media is constantly trying to turn us into overly opinionated furious people. All media.
And for so many people it's working.
Ironically, those that aren’t angry about a slight change to things, are labelled as the sensitive ones.
I guarantee you 99% of people wouldn't notice or care about it until it is chucked in front of them and presented.
You're branded either a snowflake or a bigot.
It's the same with so many things, amplify the people who are making noise on a cesspit like twitter and watch people who previously wouldn't have given a shit get sucked in.
All the media is fueling it, left and right, even boring papers like the independent. It's how you get clicks and sell papers.2 -
I do hope no harm came to the fleaAnna_Kissed said:A flea in the ear for Loathesome Fox.1
https://youtu.be/TUSNzqqLFT0
