Statues and censoring old songs

Other non Stranglers stuff here

Moderator: StanInBlack

Post Reply
User avatar
dronecatcher
VERSATRAN SERIES F
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Nov 2018, 15:21

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by dronecatcher »

StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 20:59 By the way, the uncensored version of Fairytale of New York is still available on Youtube, so - as I'm finding is often the case - your point lacks one.
Clearly by extension, my point is that music like the mentioned Cardi-B's is not regarded as implicitly offensive or subject to moral scrutiny.
StanInBlack
The Raven
The Raven
Posts: 2238
Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
Location: Durham, England.

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by StanInBlack »

dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:06
StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 20:59 By the way, the uncensored version of Fairytale of New York is still available on Youtube, so - as I'm finding is often the case - your point lacks one.
Clearly by extension, my point is that music like the mentioned Cardi-B's is not regarded as implicitly offensive or subject to moral scrutiny.
In your mind, perhaps. In the real world, however (and as is increasingly the norm), it's a different story. The amount of thinkpieces I read on various media regarding that track when it was first released, plus the fact that a clean version of that song exists and gets played on the radio during the times you would fully expect it to suggests that yes, it is understood that it had/has the potential to offend and was/is subject to scrutiny. Therefore, and predictably, you're wrong.
User avatar
dronecatcher
VERSATRAN SERIES F
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Nov 2018, 15:21

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by dronecatcher »

StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:17 In your mind, perhaps. In the real world, however (and as is increasingly the norm), it's a different story. The amount of thinkpieces I read on various media regarding that track when it was first released, plus the fact that a clean version of that song exists and gets played on the radio during the times you would fully expect it to suggests that yes, it is understood that it had/has the potential to offend and was/is subject to scrutiny. Therefore, and predictably, you're wrong.
Thinkpieces in intellectual circles doesn't constitute the same moral outrage afforded less contraversial matters in mainstream media outlets.
StanInBlack
The Raven
The Raven
Posts: 2238
Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
Location: Durham, England.

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by StanInBlack »

dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:20 Thinkpieces in intellectual circles doesn't constitute the same moral outrage afforded less contraversial matters in mainstream media outlets.
Commentary on the track was not limited to "intellectual circles" and there was indeed plenty of "outrage" and "commentary" in mainstream outlets, which are included in the "various media" I was referring to.

It's delightful to see you trying to wriggle out of this, but it's painfully clear that you really have no idea what you're talking about. You weren't paying attention at the time and you don't have a clue about what's going on in the "mainstream" ... and as far as I can see you don't qualify for any "intellectual circles" either.
User avatar
dronecatcher
VERSATRAN SERIES F
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Nov 2018, 15:21

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by dronecatcher »

StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:32
dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:20 Thinkpieces in intellectual circles doesn't constitute the same moral outrage afforded less contraversial matters in mainstream media outlets.
Commentary on the track was not limited to "intellectual circles" and there was indeed plenty of "outrage" and "commentary" in mainstream outlets.

It's delightful to see you trying to wriggle out of this, but it's painfully clear that you really have no idea what you're talking about. You weren't paying attention at the time and you don't have a clue about what's going on in the "mainstream" ... and as far as I can see you don't qualify for any "intellectual circles" either.
Are you even capable of forming a reply that doesn't contain spite and bile? You've made vaild points but simply can't engage without recourse to insult.
StanInBlack
The Raven
The Raven
Posts: 2238
Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
Location: Durham, England.

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by StanInBlack »

dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:36 Are you even capable of forming a reply that doesn't contain spite and bile? You've made vaild points but simply can't engage without recourse to insult.
I'm merely treating your elaborately worded pointless pretentious bullshit with the exact level of contempt it deserves.
User avatar
dronecatcher
VERSATRAN SERIES F
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Nov 2018, 15:21

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by dronecatcher »

StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:43
dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:36 Are you even capable of forming a reply that doesn't contain spite and bile? You've made vaild points but simply can't engage without recourse to insult.
I'm merely treating your elaborately worded pointless pretentious bullshit with the exact level of contempt it deserves.
Of course you are.
Arthur Streeb-Greebling
Man Of The Earth
Man Of The Earth
Posts: 5872
Joined: 25 Nov 2005, 01:00
Location: All Roads Lead To Leeds

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by Arthur Streeb-Greebling »

dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:36
StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:32
dronecatcher wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 21:20 Thinkpieces in intellectual circles doesn't constitute the same moral outrage afforded less contraversial matters in mainstream media outlets.
Commentary on the track was not limited to "intellectual circles" and there was indeed plenty of "outrage" and "commentary" in mainstream outlets.

It's delightful to see you trying to wriggle out of this, but it's painfully clear that you really have no idea what you're talking about. You weren't paying attention at the time and you don't have a clue about what's going on in the "mainstream" ... and as far as I can see you don't qualify for any "intellectual circles" either.
Are you even capable of forming a reply that doesn't contain spite and bile? You've made vaild points but simply can't engage without recourse to insult.
No Stan thinks he’s god cos he’s got Moderator status so everything he says is right and everyone else’s opinion is wrong and if he feel’s he’s looking a bit of a prick and losing his so called argument then he’ll send in his little clique to further try and bully you.
Stay in your homes
Stay in your homes
Be off the streets by nightfall
Or get assaulted and robbed by Police thugs
Under the coronavirus lockdown rules
StanInBlack
The Raven
The Raven
Posts: 2238
Joined: 04 Apr 2002, 10:30
Location: Durham, England.

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by StanInBlack »

Arthur Streeb-Greebling wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 22:07 No Stan thinks he’s god cos he’s got Moderator status so everything he says is right and everyone else’s opinion is wrong and if he feel’s he’s looking a bit of a prick and losing his so called argument then he’ll send in his little clique to further try and bully you.
Incorrect. Being a moderator on here has very little-to-nothing to do with what I post on here, so even if I didn't have this so-called "moderator status" I'd say the content of what I post would remain pretty much the same. I've also never once used my "powers" as a moderator to prevent people from expressing their opinions however dumb I think they are (it's far more fun to challenge them) and things like thread locking/post deletion only really occur once in a blue moon and even then Jim is kept in the loop at all times.

Also, if I recall, the only "argument" I've ever had with you (which wasn't an argument at all, more an extended hissy fit on your part) took place on the part of the forum I don't actually moderate (although perhaps I should request moderation "powers" for that, albeit to tidy it up a bit as there's several threads for some songs etc. and the table of contents could do with being updated) ...

Finally, this "clique" you refer to pretty much exists in your own mind and is certainly news to me, but I assure you that I'm definitely unarsed about "looking a bit of a prick" ... in fact, I appreciate that it's a compliment coming from some :smile:
Arthur Streeb-Greebling
Man Of The Earth
Man Of The Earth
Posts: 5872
Joined: 25 Nov 2005, 01:00
Location: All Roads Lead To Leeds

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by Arthur Streeb-Greebling »

StanInBlack wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 22:47
Arthur Streeb-Greebling wrote: 19 Nov 2020, 22:07 No Stan thinks he’s god cos he’s got Moderator status so everything he says is right and everyone else’s opinion is wrong and if he feel’s he’s looking a bit of a prick and losing his so called argument then he’ll send in his little clique to further try and bully you.
Incorrect. Being a moderator on here has very little-to-nothing to do with what I post on here, so even if I didn't have this so-called "moderator status" I'd say the content of what I post would remain pretty much the same. I've also never once used my "powers" as a moderator to prevent people from expressing their opinions however dumb I think they are (it's far more fun to challenge them) and things like thread locking/post deletion only really occur once in a blue moon and even then Jim is kept in the loop at all times.

Also, if I recall, the only "argument" I've ever had with you (which wasn't an argument at all, more an extended hissy fit on your part) took place on the part of the forum I don't actually moderate (although perhaps I should request moderation "powers" for that, albeit to tidy it up a bit as there's several threads for some songs etc. and the table of contents could do with being updated) ...

Finally, this "clique" you refer to pretty much exists in your own mind and is certainly news to me, but I assure you that I'm definitely unarsed about "looking a bit of a prick" ... in fact, I appreciate that it's a compliment coming from some :smile:
:roll:
Stanley you’re a person of rare intelligence. It's rare when you show any.
Stay in your homes
Stay in your homes
Be off the streets by nightfall
Or get assaulted and robbed by Police thugs
Under the coronavirus lockdown rules
User avatar
jetblacksdad
The Man They Love To Hate
Posts: 915
Joined: 30 Jun 2008, 12:56
Location: Here and there

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by jetblacksdad »

what I don't get with this Pogues thing is that Fairytale is a song about another time. A time when "faggot" was a common insult. OK, it's not so nice, but contextualise it and it plays a hostorical part. I don't know but is the word "slut" also removed. Because I find that equally as offensive (as in not at all). I have gay friends who are not offended by this. and why is "nigga" acceptable in so many songs . Sure enough I get that it's being reclaimed to cancel it's offensive meaning but it hasn't has it?

I'm all for not going out of the way to insult huge swathes of people but it could argue that this type of censorship offends more people than it appeases.

If "faggott" offends. Turn the radio off for 3 minutes. I mean, we all have choices don't we?
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+
User avatar
dronecatcher
VERSATRAN SERIES F
Posts: 205
Joined: 16 Nov 2018, 15:21

Re: Statues and censoring old songs

Post by dronecatcher »

jetblacksdad wrote: 23 Nov 2020, 10:06 what I don't get with this Pogues thing is that Fairytale is a song about another time.
Is it not just about magnifying offense where there is little or none and like most things in the media, grossly disproportionate?

As I tried to illuminate with Cardi B's WAP - Fairytale isn't a song promoting homophobia or misogyny - not even remotely and yet it warranted a splash on BBC News front page.

Conversely, although - as pointed out by StanInBlack, WAP was censored after all but to my knowledge it wasn't on the BBC front page, nor was it (and similar output) criticised for it's motive and content on the front page either - compared with say, JK Rowling's alleged transphobia or countless other "controversial" issues that are pushed right to the front of news coverage.

WAP is pornographic in it's lyrical content - it's message and intent is morally corrosive in the context of "chart topping pop" - you might argue that's just a sign of the times and acceptable, if so then surely by comparison a 30 year old song with a few derogatory slurs shouldn't even be on the radar?
Post Reply