Political correctness

[BillyStubbsTears]

I see there's a tsunami of howling anguish online over the right, RIGHT, ah tell thi, to hear the word "faggot" in an old song.

As the bloke from Viz once said, this is "Political Correctness gone mad" gone mad.

Meanwhile, here's the official response from the people who wrote the f**king song.

https://mobile.twitter.com/poguesofficial/status/1329394157354446850

[IDM]

Just like when radio one banned “relax” but didn’t ban Sade’s Your Love is King which was just as explicit in its lyrics..

[MachoMadness]

I'm getting really tired of this constant made up culture war b*llocks. Everything has to be a big crusade about censorship and free speech and shit. Who cares whether the BBC edits the song or not? Clearly the band don't. Lyrics have been censored on the radio for decades now. But now it's going to be spun up into a big issue that'll run and run.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MM

You need to buckle in for the culture war for the rest of your life.

It is the one and only thing that the Right has in its armoury. They have no economic philosophy to hold to. No real sense of what their world outlook is. But they have realised that they can grab support by playing the culture war card. And they'll play it and play it. Farage, Trump, Johnson are just the beginning.

[IDM]

In Fairytale of New York the word “faggot” had been replaced with “haggard” for some radio versions for many years.  Why it’s a story now I have no idea..

[knockers]

If you missed it this week on Sky arts watch the Irvine Welsh documentary Offended on catch up.

[ravenrover]

Students want De Montfort Uni name changed for something that hapoened 800years ago ......... c'mon get real people

[BillyStubbsTears]

In Fairytale of New York the word “faggot” had been replaced with “haggard” for some radio versions for many years.  Why it’s a story now I have no idea..

Because there are committed right wing agitators who will use any example they can lay their nasty little hands on the stoke up the culture war.

[belton rover]

And so says the biggest committed agitator of them all.

[SoundbiteBarmyArmy]

BBC just making up for their support of Jimmy Saville.

[Monkcaster_Rover]

You scumbag, you maggot, you've taped over Taggart!

Saw this on Twitter the other year & it still makes me laugh.

[IDM]

Anyone remember “Living on the Ceiling” by Blancmange in the 80s.??

Had to have a radio version with the lyric “cuckoo tree” instead of “bloody tree”.?

Sometimes it makes sense to replace words - for example “Sexy MF” by Prince really shouldn’t be played in its original form in a public place where kids may be - unlike accidentally in WHSmith on the Main Street in Oxford during Christmas shopping... 

[idler]

Or Ed Stewart playing the beautiful south album version with don't marry her #### me. I don't think he ever lived that one down.

[TommyC]

When discussing "cancel-culture" I appreciate the fact that the personalities on one side of this particular argument (the likes of Fox, Farage, Starkey, Delingpole, Hopkins, Liddle, Hitchens etc) are so unpalatable and offensive to those on the other side of the argument, that it makes it easy to resort to playing the man rather than the ball as per the original poster. Is that not however something of a lazy argument that fails to address the central issue? "Oh Lawrence Fox has said it so it must be right wing bullshit" etc. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that as a starting point no matter how much I may disagree with the majority of what those individuals write.

Surely any dispassionate and non-partisan reflection on the current trend for "cancel-culture" must raise some concerns to any rational observer? I appreciate that issues such as changing the name of the dog in the Dambusters, no-platforming speakers in Universities if their views aren't "woke" enough, ripping down statues that relate to events that happened hundreds of years ago in totally different times, is often hijacked by right wing journos engaging in dog-whistle politics. That does nothing to inform the debate on this. and simply debases it.   

If we actually look at the underlying issue, in my view surely we shouldn't be going down a route of effectively erasing parts of our history because the cultures of that period no longer fit with the cultures and sensitivities of today. As a lover of history I always think that we can't possibly begin to understand ourselves and decide where we want to get to socially and culturally, if we don't have a full understanding of where we have come from and what has made us the people we are today. I take no issue with that word being present in a song from 30 years ago and I see it as an example of language that used to be acceptable but no longer is. The same goes for the name of the Dambusters dog. The same goes for Fawlty Towers The Germans. The same goes for Del Boy saying "a tenner to the black bloke" or the rantings of Alf Garnett (which we know Warren Mitchell and the writers were using to take the piss out of bigotts anyway!). It is all "of its time" and informs our understanding of particular periods in our history. Surely it's better to leave these words in our popular culture as examples of how far we have come rather than to simply erase them? The same goes is true for the legacy of our slave traders, military leaders and monarchs in centuries gone by.

Erasing history is in my view nothing short of fascism. And anyone who thinks fascism is purely the preserve of the right wing of politics needs to read a bit about Stalin or the Khmer Rouge. They liked to erase history too.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy C

Fair points. I'm deeply uncomfortable with where Cancel Culture might go. And I also wish we were robust enough to accept that there was casual use of offensive language in the past, rather than erase it.

That said, I'm not a "faggot" or a "nigger". I might feel different about erasing those words if I was. Easy for us as middle aged white men to pontificate on what should be acceptable to people who have been on the receiving end of that sort of abuse.

[TommyC]

Completely agree BST regarding "faggots" and "nigger" in historic culture being fine with me in my position as a white middle aged bloke. That is certainly not lost on me. And I also agree it should be for the minorities in question to be the arbiter of what is and isn't offensive and/or acceptable.

It's probably a gross generalisation, but to my eyes the perpetually offended instead seems to be the Tarquins and the Ophelias of this world who make it their mission in life to get offended on everyone else's behalf!   

[Axholme Lion]

Completely agree BST regarding "faggots" and "nigger" in historic culture being fine with me in my position as a white middle aged bloke. That is certainly not lost on me. And I also agree it should be for the minorities in question to be the arbiter of what is and isn't offensive and/or acceptable.

It's probably a gross generalisation, but to my eyes the perpetually offended instead seems to be the Tarquins and the Ophelias of this world who make it their mission in life to get offended on everyone else's behalf!

Very true. The type of people who go to climate protests and then get a lift back home to Hampstead in mummy's Range Rover.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Know a lot of them, do you AL?

[Axholme Lion]

Know a lot of them, do you AL?

Why do you?
I've seen and heard plenty of them with their student common room politics mouthing off on the news.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No AL. I've been on protests like that and never seen more than a slack handful of the sort you are describing.

Regardless of that, isn't it more grown up to address an argument on its merits, rather than dismiss it because you don't like the background of the person making it?

[wilts rover]

That's a good piece about history Tommy but it does gloss over that history ALWAYS leaves things out. It is very true that 'history is written (and statues put up) by the winners.

You don't erase history, you add to it, correct errors, and highlight things, events, people that have been missed out. And quite often these then become more important than what was 'known' originally.

There is also another less widely known saying about historical writing (and erecting statutes) it tells you more about the time it was written than what you are reading about.

For instance in his will Colston explicity said he should be remembered 'without any manner of pomp or ostentation' so why did the Victorians decided to put up a statue to him 150 years later?

History has continually been rewritten, and so it should be. Beacuse what is happening in the present day always gives a fresh opportunity to look back at the past.

[Nudga]

BLM protests Old Bill bend the knee.

Anti lock down protest, Old Bill use pepper spray and batons.


I'm neither left wing or right wing, I'm not politically motivated but I just don't get all the nonsense of people being so f**kin sensitive and outraged all the time.

See me, I hate racism, some kids in my team are Asian and I've shared a meal with one of the kids family.

But, I can find some racist jokes funny.
I enjoyed the film White Chicks and The Wayans brothers taking the piss out of white people.

I'm not a peado but I find peado jokes funny, even though the actual crime is horrific.

I'm not homophobic, I wouldn't have my hair cut by a gay man or woman if I was, but I find some homophobic jokes funny.
I call my oldest lad a ponce if he's being a bit of a fairy.

Above all, I can laugh at my myself when I'm on the end of someone's stick.

Is this because now we're told it's because of our white, heterosexual privalage?

If so, what can we laugh at?

Oh, Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais are two of the best stand up comedians around at the moment.
That's where my humour is at. Is this wrong?

[belton rover]

When discussing "cancel-culture" I appreciate the fact that the personalities on one side of this particular argument (the likes of Fox, Farage, Starkey, Delingpole, Hopkins, Liddle, Hitchens etc) are so unpalatable and offensive to those on the other side of the argument, that it makes it easy to resort to playing the man rather than the ball as per the original poster. Is that not however something of a lazy argument that fails to address the central issue? "Oh Lawrence Fox has said it so it must be right wing bullshit" etc. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that as a starting point no matter how much I may disagree with the majority of what those individuals write.

Surely any dispassionate and non-partisan reflection on the current trend for "cancel-culture" must raise some concerns to any rational observer? I appreciate that issues such as changing the name of the dog in the Dambusters, no-platforming speakers in Universities if their views aren't "woke" enough, ripping down statues that relate to events that happened hundreds of years ago in totally different times, is often hijacked by right wing journos engaging in dog-whistle politics. That does nothing to inform the debate on this. and simply debases it.   

If we actually look at the underlying issue, in my view surely we shouldn't be going down a route of effectively erasing parts of our history because the cultures of that period no longer fit with the cultures and sensitivities of today. As a lover of history I always think that we can't possibly begin to understand ourselves and decide where we want to get to socially and culturally, if we don't have a full understanding of where we have come from and what has made us the people we are today. I take no issue with that word being present in a song from 30 years ago and I see it as an example of language that used to be acceptable but no longer is. The same goes for the name of the Dambusters dog. The same goes for Fawlty Towers The Germans. The same goes for Del Boy saying "a tenner to the black bloke" or the rantings of Alf Garnett (which we know Warren Mitchell and the writers were using to take the piss out of bigotts anyway!). It is all "of its time" and informs our understanding of particular periods in our history. Surely it's better to leave these words in our popular culture as examples of how far we have come rather than to simply erase them? The same goes is true for the legacy of our slave traders, military leaders and monarchs in centuries gone by.

Erasing history is in my view nothing short of fascism. And anyone who thinks fascism is purely the preserve of the right wing of politics needs to read a bit about Stalin or the Khmer Rouge. They liked to erase history too.

Tommy. That is the most articulate, balanced, and educated post I have read on here for a long, long time. Not a link, or proof of comment in sight or required - just good old fashioned educated opinion. I don’t think it was what the opening poster was hoping for, but let’s have more of this sensible discussion.
My cap is doffed to you, sir.

[scawsby steve]

I'll second that.

[Colin C No.3]

Get this.

Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury together with The Royal Commission for Political Correctness announced yesterday that when referring to the climate in the UK, it should no longer be referred to as 'English Weather'.

Rather than offend a sizeable portion of the UK population, it should be referred to as 'Muslim Weather'.




Partly Sunni, but mostly Shi'ite.