So I was listening to the radio the other day, and I heard a familiar song. But the radio version goes like this:

"If you're havin' girl problems, I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a _____ ain't one."


Now, does anybody NOT know what word they bleeped out? If little bobby the 5-year old son of a devout churchgoing family is listening to this, are his prescious moral standards going to remain unchanged as a result of hearing this song? If little bobby's mommy hears him playing with his trains and singing, "i got 99 problems but a _____ ain't one", will she be thankful that the good ol' radio censors did their job?

Come on! Get real! What's the point?? Little bobby's going to get exposed to this sort of thing either way. The only way to totally prevent it would be to ban all rap music from the airwaves. I'm sure some people would like to do that, but as Americans we have a fundamental right to free expression and you can't mess with that. If little bobby's parents don't want him to hear anything that objectifies women, they shouldn't own a radio!

O.K. what is the word bleeped out? My music tastes date to the 60's 70's.

b!tch

Radio sucks real bad. I don't kow about cursing or censorship, but I am definitely offended by fifteen-minute blocks of commercials followed by the re-playing of the same five or six songs repeated ad nauseam on most FM stations.

I haven't listened to anything but public radio in years.

It doesn't even have to be about some "churhgoing" family.

Censorship is rampant. It is PC to rename things. The idea that anything should go in the name of "art" is what is stupid.

Much more serious censorship is going on in relation to these silly cartoons than has ever gone on by people like Tipper Gore.

But Howard Stern and his ilk will keep you all distracted from these debates with their infantile "piss christ" displays and Maplethorpe claptrap hoohas.

The right started hating Howard after he jumped off the Bush bandwagon (a lonely wagon indeed, these days).

I still like Howard Stern. I started hating him when he left free radio. lol

My point is that the false discussion of "censorship" are the problem. The self-censorship that American media has demonstrated regarding these cartoons is far more egregious than is the censorship of the word bitch.

It doesn't even have to be about some "churhgoing" family.


I spelled it properly in the OP.


Censorship is rampant. It is PC to rename things. The idea that anything should go in the name of "art" is what is stupid.


Wait, are you for or against censorship?

I spelled it properly in the OP.

I put it in quotes because I was quoting you.

Wait, are you for or against censorship?

I am absolutely against censorship. I just don't think that the censoring of the word bitch is something that I am going to worry about. I think that I would rather spend my time getting media to pay attention to more important issues than whether or not some rapper can say n***er or n***a or bitch.

Just today some right-wing British historian was convicted and sentenced to 3 years for Holocaust denial. Now, those who deny the Holocaust are complete and total friggin morons, but it shouldn't be illegal to write a book about it.

The more things like that are criticized the more they will go underground.

I am absolutely against censorship. I just don't think that the censoring of the word bitch is something that I am going to worry about.

But if it were up to you, the word bitch wouldn't get censored. Correct?

I wouldn't let most of what passes for "music" even get ON the radio!!

I have no problems with censorship based on the market. I have no problems with societal censorship. The only censorship I am against is that forcibly placed on us by government.

Mobile Vulgus is right. FM radio is a shining exmaple of free markets at work, performing their miracles. Oh, the glory!

*snicker*

Only pirate radio is free market. FCC.

Mobile Vulgus is right. FM radio is a shining exmaple of free markets at work, performing their miracles. Oh, the glory!

*snicker*

We really don't need to turn this into a debate about socialism vs. capitalism.

I would oppose the censorship of the word bitch.

I agree with Mobile on this. Censorship that is based on the market is fine. That is the way we live. Censorship on the part of government is stupid.

Although, just like J. Jackson's titty it is plain silly.

We really don't need to turn this into a debate about socialism vs. capitalism.

You're the one who posted it in "Political Debates". I'm trying to extrapolate any kind of political significance from some crappy FM station censoring the word "bitch" from a Jay-Z song.

And yes, it basically does boil down to issues of money, markets and/or government control.

But the government control is the frightening and concerning aspect of censorship not the market based censorship.

I tend to agree. I think the system is pretty okay as it is.

As long as they keep at least a couple bands open publicly so I can have my precious NPR and public jazz station, The Market Monster can have the rest of the god-forsaken airwaves.

so I can have my precious NPR

You want your communists at NPR? Good FUND IT YOURSELF and leave my taxes OUT of it!!!

censorship is fine as long as it's not government censorship.

You want your communists at NPR? Good FUND IT YOURSELF and leave my taxes OUT of it!!!

No, I think I'll keep your tax dollars in it, thanks.

No, I think I'll keep your tax dollars in it, thanks.statist worshipper :hi:

Damn, I'm listening to some public radio right now...mm-MMM, that's good state-sponsored communist radio.

Thanks guys! We couldn't do it without your tax money.

Geez, I really should be looking for a job today...but this publc radio programming is just too good. Think I'll just kick back at home and order a pizza with my food stamp card.

No, I think I'll keep your tax dollars in it, thanks.

Funny though that a conservative Republican was recently forced out of the PBC because of his conservative views.

I guess his sin was trying to hire Tucker Carlsen. Somethime in the distant past Carlsen's father was on the PBC board.

NPR and PBS are controlled by leftist, but not all the people are lefties. How come they can't represent a broad spectrum of views? Why is it that there can only be the left's view on NPR and PBS>

Please don't try to say that it is not a haven for leftist slime either.

Tucker Carlson is on of my favorite pundits, too. It's true I was sad to see him go. They they replaced him with Fareed Zakaria, who's about as interesting as watching paint dry.

But that's a price I'm more than willing to pay. Let's see: shows about politics, nature, arts, crafts, etc. or inane garbage like Blind Date and American Idol? Pretty easy choice for me.

So anything that doesn't kiss the GOP's ass is leftist propaganda, right? Ok...that makes no sense outside of whatever context created the idea. But, I digress...
I am against censorship of any kind. However, I think the censorship, such as that on radio, is simply a symptom of a bigger problem, one that jimmyjude touches upon with his PC complaints.
The real problem is that our culture thinks everytime a group of people is offended, we all must respond and do something about it. If we could just agree that sometimes we're going to be offended and that's just the way it is, life would be much better for all of us.

Oh, by the way, the "conservative Republican" whom Jimmy mentioned was fired for deliberately trying to use the publicly-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting to promote GOP talking points.

The conservative side of politics is well-represented on PBS. Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley, a couple goons on Newshour and Washington Week, even the aforementioned Zakaria are all prominent commentators on the network.

If we could just agree that sometimes we're going to be offended and that's just the way it is, life would be much better for all of us.

I couldn't agree more :nice:

People getting offended is a natural side effect of free speech, and it's a price that's well worth paying.

And yes, it basically does boil down to issues of money, markets and/or government control.

...but there's a difference between government controlling the market through price controls and/or state ownership of property, and governments controlling ideas through censorship.

Incidentally, I'm against both forms of control. But I'd like to have a debate about just one of them here.

So, is it the FCC that you're against?

So anything that doesn't kiss the GOP's ass is leftist propaganda, right? Ok...that makes no sense outside of whatever context created the idea. But, I digress...
I am against censorship of any kind. However, I think the censorship, such as that on radio, is simply a symptom of a bigger problem, one that jimmyjude touches upon with his PC complaints.
The real problem is that our culture thinks everytime a group of people is offended, we all must respond and do something about it. If we could just agree that sometimes we're going to be offended and that's just the way it is, life would be much better for all of us.


That isn't what I said. You don't have to put words in my mouth to disagree with me because, as you know, I will put enough words in my mouth for you to disagree with, without your help.

I agree with you about people being to easily offended. I read today that New Zealand Catholic's are getting their panties in a bunch about the airing of a South Park episode that deals with the Virgin. I am Catholic, practicing, and devote and didn't find that episode offensive in the slightest.

But you are right. People need to get that offended mentally slapped off their effing minds.

ANd that official wasn't fired for trying to promote GOP talking points.

You don't have to lie to make your case.

ANd that official wasn't fired for trying to promote GOP talking points.


Sure he was. Well, there was also his corrupt involvement with various lobbyists and GOP leaders in his quest to turn PBS into Fox News, but it was all part of the same rich tapestry:

Despite Tomlinson's high-profile campaign, it was his behind-the-scenes moves that apparently contributed to his departure.

The CPB's inspector general has been investigating Tomlinson's practice of using agency money to hire consultants and lobbyists without notifying the agency's board. Tomlinson last year hired a little-known Indiana consultant to study the political leanings of guests on such programs as "Now With Bill Moyers" and "The Diane Rehm Show" on National Public Radio. He also hired lobbyists to defeat legislation that would have changed how CPB's board is structured.

The inspector, Kenneth Konz, also had been looking into whether Tomlinson violated agency procedures in his recruiting of former Republican National Committee co-chairman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to be CPB's chief executive, and into possible White House influence in the hiring of two in-house ombudsmen to critique news programs on NPR and PBS


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302235.html

So, is it the FCC that you're against?

Yeah.

But from a non-policy standpoint, I also think that censorship is a bad idea in the first place, because it doesn't really accomplish its goal.

How does that prove your accusation?

So, is it the FCC that you're against?

It's what I'm against. :D

How does that prove your accusation?

Because the article clearly spells out the reasons for his resignation: a Senate investigation into his use of CPB money to lobby GOP leaders in the course of his public quest to shift PBS further to the right. He made no secret of it. He was excoriated even by some Rpeublican Senators for it. Exactly as I said at the begninning.

Don't call me a liar.

I did not call you a liar. I said that you don't have to lie to make your point.

Big difference.

No, there's not. You made an implicit statement that I lied by contradicting what I said and adding that the words "you don't have to lie". Do you have many actual conversations? It's plainly obvious what you were inferring. Don't be so duplicitous. Act like a big boy and stand by your words.

I don't have a problem standing by my words. If you take offense at what I said too bad.

How is that?

I don't care if you are offended.

Your proofs to the contrary are merely your, and people who agree with you, not facts.

I documented the facts behind my assertion clearly for all to see.

Wow.... in one thread, Mandrake is arguing with one of the board's biggest lefties (Spabberz) about how much pork Jews eat, and in this one he's arguing with one of the board's biggest righties (JimmyJude) about why a guy lost his job at PBS.... I just can't believe it.

Has anyone seen "this week in unnecessary censorship" on jimmy kimmel live? It's pretty damn funny and nicely illustrates the absurdity of bleeping words.

Wow.... in one thread, Mandrake is arguing with one of the board's biggest lefties (Spabberz) about how much pork Jews eat, and in this one he's arguing with one of the board's biggest righties (JimmyJude) about why a guy lost his job at PBS.... I just can't believe it.

This is why I'm unpopular...I won't pick a team and stick with them :(

This is why I'm unpopular...I won't pick a team and stick with them :(

It's okay. I like you. I just wish you'd stop arguing over details that have very little to do with the subject matter :)

Has anyone seen "this week in unnecessary censorship" on jimmy kimmel live? It's pretty damn funny and nicely illustrates the absurdity of bleeping words.

Yeah I saw that. It was frackin' awesome :nice:

My views on censorship are in line with George Carlin's.

Even in frikking communist China they don't feel the need to protect us all from Nipples of mass destruction. But here in the land of the free* television shows from Europe where the hosts test consumer products and then trash the ones that deserve a proper trashing are censored so as to not "offend" somebody.

On this note I'd like to tell the Stalinistas over at the PTC to go **** themselves and *** a ***** and ******* **** **** *** ****** ****.