Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Censorship

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 6:46:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I despise censorship. Have I ever said that? I really do.

Not just the "China attacks Australia for hosting Uighur dissident's movie" censorship, which I reserve a special place in Hell for. No, I'm talking the simple censorship of words like f*ck, sh*t, c*nt, etc., their variables, and really stupid censors like gun, pills, etc., which are based more around the intent than the word itself, which is even worse in my opinion.

For example: I love the song "When I'm Gone" by Eminem, which is a sad but meaningful rap about his relationship with his daughter and family, as well as his inner demons. So when I went to download it (illegally), I originally got the "Clean Radio Edit" version, which censored the f*ck out of some of the best lines in the entire song:

"It's no wonder you can't go to sleep, just take another ----
Yeah, I bet you you will. You rap about it, yeah, word, k-keep it real
I hear applause, all this time I couldn't see
How could it be, that the curtain is closing on me
I turn around, find a --- on the ground, ---- it
Put it to my ----- and scream "--- Shady" and --- it"

If you listened to it with these censors in place, the song barely makes any sense. Because they can't replace it other words, they simply blank them out, which makes the entire thing pointless. It's like ad libs.

And even though its just a small inconvenience to me, because I can go download a non-censored version, it really makes me wonder why in the world they would do this in the first place. To me, it does nothing but destroy the artist's entire intent, scrambling its artistic merit into something overly-PC and almost worthless.

That is what my problem is with censorship, because even though it isn't hard to get around them if you tried, they shouldn't exist in the first place. Even though there are, yes, maybe some concerns about what exactly is being represented through art, how could we as a society that values individual expression over a lot of things essentially gut entire meanings out of songs, sculptures (thinking David here), paintings, and every other form of art? So what if there is a f*ck here and a sh*t there - those words still have meaning in our language, they still express something important, even within the songs that are nothing but cuss words!

But the reason that pro-censorship people give that I hate the most is "but what about the children?" Isn't that the most pathetic reason you've ever heard?

Not only do children already know all these cuss words, it is important that they realize in what context they're being used, which most of the time, they don't. It is more important to make sure that children understand the concepts being expressed through art, than it is to shelter them from oh-so-harmful words they already know. They're going to be exposed eventually to this stuff, and it is way too hard to censor everything, especially with the internet, so is it not smarter to give them the tools to understand what they're seeing/hearing, instead of hopelessly censoring that stuff?

Bah. Anyways, my rant is over. I just wanted to get that out of my system. It just really annoys me. >.>
True2GaGa
Posts: 1,574
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 6:50:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Agreed. Most of the time, it makes no sense and f*cks up the whole song or whatever it may be. If I wanted it to be censored, I would have assked for it. It is super annoying.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 10:00:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There's one thing I hate more than censorship - Covers

The first is the original, which I think is the appropriate way for it to be played. Teh second song is too f*cky me

Same with Whiskey in the jar. The first one was made in the 70's and is a classic. As for the Metallica version, it's firstly not Metallica, and secondly is nowhere like the original. Although the Metallica version is good for parties I must admit. It's bearable compared to the Tout le Monde cover

The three C's, Censorship, Covers and Copyrights, are destroying what is music.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 10:12:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I despise censorship.

As do I.

Have I ever said that? I really do.

Yes, you have. I certainly believe you. I know now that I don't despise censorship as much as you, as I would never have the prerogative to write such a rant on censorship.

Eminem is a great rapper though. He is one of the only rappers to have lyrics which actually mean something, and sound good at the same time.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 10:18:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 10:12:36 AM, Nags wrote:

Eminem is a great rapper though. He is one of the only rappers to have lyrics which actually mean something, and sound good at the same time.

Clearly you don't listen to much rap at all.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 10:20:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Panda, first of all, a cover is generally what they call it when someone other than the band that made the orignal does it is it not? I've never heard the term "cover version" applying to an artist's own remake.

Second, Thin Lizzy's version of Whiskey in the Jar is not the original. It's just as much a cover version as Metallica's. It's an Irish folk song that dates back to at least the 17th century. http://www.csufresno.edu....

The first recorded version Wikipedia lists is by Seamus Innis in 1951, 22 years before Thin Lizzy did it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:05:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 10:20:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda, first of all, a cover is generally what they call it when someone other than the band that made the orignal does it is it not? I've never heard the term "cover version" applying to an artist's own remake.

Second, Thin Lizzy's version of Whiskey in the Jar is not the original. It's just as much a cover version as Metallica's. It's an Irish folk song that dates back to at least the 17th century. http://www.csufresno.edu....

The first recorded version Wikipedia lists is by Seamus Innis in 1951, 22 years before Thin Lizzy did it.

I understand it's an Irish folk song, but they based it on the Thin Lizzy version.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:25:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Radio edits in hip hop are a necessary evil. If you buy a hip hop record, a 12" single (yes kids, they do still make them) then you will typically have a radio edit which is censored, a "dirty" "street" or "album" version that is uncensored, an instrumental and (if you're lucky) an accapella version.

There is a big clue to the need for the censored version in its title. You can't play curse words on most radio (this of course extends to music television as well). Without radio edits Eminem and plenty of other rappers would have really struggled to attain the degree of success that they have.

As a parent of a young child, I also see the benefits of being able to play her music that I know she will like without her picking up inappropriate language from it. She understands that there is nothing inherently "bad" about strong language but that she could offend people and get in trouble at school if she uses it.

As for censorship in general I think it is often applied without need and should be less restrictive but it can be necessary and beneficial in some cases. If something truly has no artistic merit, is unarguably entirely negative and is inherently dangerous then yes, it should be censored (obviously this can be a difficult judgement to make and I have no easy solution).

I would like to ask anyone completely opposed to censorship what their views on child pornography are?
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:28:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 10:12:36 AM, Nags wrote:
He is one of the only rappers to have lyrics which actually mean something, and sound good at the same time.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:33:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:28:14 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 2/15/2010 10:12:36 AM, Nags wrote:
He is one of the only rappers to have lyrics which actually mean something, and sound good at the same time.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

As always, an intelligent post by LeafRod.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:53:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:05:10 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/15/2010 10:20:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Panda, first of all, a cover is generally what they call it when someone other than the band that made the orignal does it is it not? I've never heard the term "cover version" applying to an artist's own remake.

Second, Thin Lizzy's version of Whiskey in the Jar is not the original. It's just as much a cover version as Metallica's. It's an Irish folk song that dates back to at least the 17th century. http://www.csufresno.edu....

The first recorded version Wikipedia lists is by Seamus Innis in 1951, 22 years before Thin Lizzy did it.

I understand it's an Irish folk song, but they based it on the Thin Lizzy version.

Which is based on someone else's no doubt.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:57:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:33:48 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 11:28:14 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 2/15/2010 10:12:36 AM, Nags wrote:
He is one of the only rappers to have lyrics which actually mean something, and sound good at the same time.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

As always, an intelligent post by LeafRod.

What kind of response do you expect when you make such an ignorant statement?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:02:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:57:05 AM, feverish wrote:
At 2/15/2010 11:33:48 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 11:28:14 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 2/15/2010 10:12:36 AM, Nags wrote:
He is one of the only rappers to have lyrics which actually mean something, and sound good at the same time.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

As always, an intelligent post by LeafRod.

What kind of response do you expect when you make such an ignorant statement?

Eminem doesn't rap about sex, drugs, guns, and violence like all other mainstream rappers. I don't really want to discuss underground rap, or any other rap that you are about to bring up, because I was talking about mainstream rap. Barely anyone, including me, likes or listens to underground rap.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:12:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:02:28 PM, Nags wrote:
Eminem doesn't rap about sex, drugs, guns, and violence like all other mainstream rappers.

Wat?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:19:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:12:22 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:02:28 PM, Nags wrote:
Eminem doesn't rap about sex, drugs, guns, and violence like all other mainstream rappers.

Wat?

This song caused his ex-wife to attempt suicide.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:21:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:02:28 PM, Nags wrote:

Eminem doesn't rap about sex, drugs, guns, and violence like all other mainstream rappers.

Yes he most certainly does rap about all of those things, if you actually listen to much of his stuff then you won't need me to direct you to specific lyrics.

I don't really want to discuss underground rap, or any other rap that you are about to bring up, because I was talking about mainstream rap.

Well perhaps if you had clarified such a distinction your comment would have appeared less ignorant.

Barely anyone, including me, likes or listens to underground rap.

You don't know what you are talking about. Hip hop is a huge world wide cultural movement.

While this site is not a particularly representative cross-section of world society and I wouldn't expect most debaters to be typical hip hop punters, I could easily point you to many regular users here who listen to and appreciate "underground" hip hop.

You need to broaden your horizons kid.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:25:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@feverish

I understand that point of view, however, I do think I must disagree. There is a certain balance that should be struck - however, at what cost?

Lets take my example for instance. Clearly any cuss words and/or censored intent have ruined the song quite a bit, at least in my eyes. However, the censored words are usually written with meaning and are not generally considered to be negative, at least in the light you see.

But then we take a song where essentially, the entire song is full of meaningless cuss words and essentially stupid lyrics. Censorship for a song like that is understandable.

However, once you start censorship like that, then it will automatically spread to songs like When I'm Gone. I would actually say it should, because I'd hate to play favourites, and hand over the power of specific censorship to bureaucrats.

So, as I said, at what cost do we set up censors for what seems like a good reason and against a bad song? Is it worth destroying the merit and art of others that are not apart of the same reasoning, yet censored all the same? I don't believe it is. That's my opinion on it.

And for child pornography.. well, that is a little different. Child pornography is exploitation and always with a negative intent - art is not.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:35:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Since Volkov isn't completely opposed to censorship, I'll take "
I would like to ask anyone completely opposed to censorship what their views on child pornography are"
over with a "did ya really have to ask?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:50:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@ Volkov:
I do think I must disagree.
And for child pornography.. well, that is a little different. Child pornography is exploitation and always with a negative intent - art is not.

Doesn't sound like you disagree to me. You agree that there should be a cut-off point somewhere even if (like me) you're not sure exactly where to draw the line.

If an established artist started to incorporate kiddie porn in his "art", then you would want it censored right?

@R_R: I'm sorry I should have clarified that I was directing this question at those with a shred of humanity.

JK! I love you really ;)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:56:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If an established artist started to incorporate kiddie porn in his "art", then you would want it censored right?
Just a historical note, this isn't hypothetical. See the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who is accepted as art by an entity that provides government funding for art-- i.e., one Volkov the liberal ought to agree with :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:56:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:50:09 PM, feverish wrote:
Doesn't sound like you disagree to me. You agree that there should be a cut-off point somewhere even if (like me) you're not sure exactly where to draw the line.

If an established artist started to incorporate kiddie porn in his "art", then you would want it censored right?

That depends. Is it exploitation? Child pornography is child pornography because it exploits children for sexual purposes. You can tell pretty clearly when it is, and isn't, child pornography.

If it was for artistic purposes... well, the line is fuzzy. I don't know enough on the subject to personally make a distinction, but I wouldn't ban such art if it was shown to be for artistic purposes, and not sexual exploitation.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:57:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sex IS an artistic purpose. And doing anything for a purpose is by definition exploiting whatever you used to do it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:59:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:57:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sex IS an artistic purpose. And doing anything for a purpose is by definition exploiting whatever you used to do it.

Sure, sex can be used and incorporated into art. I have no doubts, or even qualms, about it. However, children cannot consent to such a thing, which is where you run into problems.

Between two consenting adults? Sure, go ahead. "Art" away. But not with children.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:59:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:57:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sex IS an artistic purpose. And doing anything for a purpose is by definition exploiting whatever you used to do it.

Sure, sex can be used and incorporated into art. I have no doubts, or even qualms, about it. However, children cannot consent to such a thing
, which is where you run into problems.
Sure they can.

Unless they don't have any rights, in which case there are no problems to run into.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 1:05:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:56:34 PM, Volkov wrote:


That depends. Is it exploitation?

I don't think exploitation itself is a very clear cut off point and I don't see art and exploitation as mutually exclusive.

You could argue that some adult porn is exploiting it's participants, you could argue that the child actress in The Exorcist was exploited, you could say James Brown exploited his band members.

Anyway, it seems that you are saying art should be censored if it sexually exploits children, so you do advocate some degree of censorship I am glad to see.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 1:09:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:02:28 PM, Nags wrote:
Eminem doesn't rap about sex, drugs, guns, and violence like all other mainstream rappers.

That's funny. Eminem talks about tying people up in his trunk and locking people in his basement. He talks about killing his wife, doing drugs, and sex. You obviously haven't listened to anything he's ever one.

I don't really want to discuss underground rap, or any other rap that you are about to bring up, because I was talking about mainstream rap. Barely anyone, including me, likes or listens to underground rap.

I could bring up a lot of mainstream rappers with good lyrics. Nas, Canibus, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Lupe Fiasco, Tupac, KRS-One, Common, Kool G Rap, Big Pun, Notorious BIG, Rakim, Twista, Public Enemy, etc.

Don't even get me started on underground artists.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 1:10:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 1:03:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sure they can.

Unless they don't have any rights, in which case there are no problems to run into.

Not every child is a super-rational God-child which runs circles around that evil collectivist Einstein. They have rights - and one of those rights is not to be exploited for some pretty awful purposes.

@feverish

I advocate some form of censorship, but I consider it fairly minimal. I'm not about to allow every pedophile an excuse to snap pictures of a naked child as Ragnar seems fully willing to do.