Decency Group Says "$#*!" Is Indecent 821
The Parents Television Council says the "$#*!" in the title of the upcoming CBS show $#*! my dad says is indecent. From the article: "'CBS intentionally chose to insert an expletive into the actual name of a show, and, despite its claim that the word will be bleeped, it is just CBS's latest demonstration of its contempt for families and the public,' declared PTC President Tim Winter. 'There are an infinite number of alternatives that CBS could have chosen, but its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision.'" By this logic Qbert was the filthiest game ever made.
First $#*! (Score:1, Insightful)
ignore them and show it anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck right off. (Score:5, Insightful)
CSI shows chest cavaties that have been ripped open. Law and Order discussed horrible sex crimes. But heaven forbid you say a naughty word!
Didn't South Park already cover this [wikipedia.org]?
WTF ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are these people so repressed that even the suggestion of a "naughty word" is enough to get them complaining ?
Have they really got nothing better to do with their time ?
I thought the Puritan movement died out in the 17th century, obviously I was wrong.
CBS chose to *insert* an expletive? (Score:5, Insightful)
How have they missed the fact that "Shit My Dad Says" is the title of the source material? Complaining that CBS chose to "insert" the word into the title makes them look like the people who were horrified that New Line Cinema decided to use an obvious 9/11 reference in the sequel to "Fellowship of the Ring"..."The Two Towers."
(All that said, I could have sworn I read somewhere that CBS had retitled the TV show as "Stuff My Dad Says," but I guess I misremembered.)
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:5, Insightful)
But heaven forbid you say a naughty word!
Heaven forbid you imply a naughty word.
I am happy to (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it would be better to subtly taunt them to make complete fools of themselves and lose whatever credibility they still might have.
Languages Change (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I agree, but I understand where they are coming from.
If the 'F' word is banned in your school and the kids all of a sudden decide to say the word 'Squash' in lieu of the naughty word, eventually they become synonymous. Saying "Squash you, Mr. Teacher" is still potentially going to get you in trouble if the teacher knows what "Squash" means in that context.
So, the question really is, is the putting together of the letters F-U-C-K naughty, or the meaning and/or implied meaning of the word the naughty bit?
If it's the latter, then _any_ substitution of the word still implies the word and carries the negative connotation along with it.
Again, I don't agree with it and frankly, I think all words should be allowed. It's all part of the language and any negative feelings you have to a word are _your_ problem.
Do these people live in reality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah cause you never hear people say "shit" or much worse in about any situation I have ever been in during my life. I heard it at my Catholic primary school. This is what happens when "Christians*" live in little gated communities and become completely out of touch with reality and the wider community.
* I am a Christian. Most of the people that whine about this stuff aren't really Christians. They just believe in ritual and "decency", they seem to miss that Jesus was mocking this kind of Pharisaical behaviour. Well actually they generally miss most of what Jesus said or at least fail to apply it.
change it back then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening to the PTC (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, they get out their letter writing campaigns, their phone calls to senators, whatever it takes. Which is why they end getting listened to.
Frankly, I don't think the people at the FCC really care. If it were up to them alone, we would have swearing and nudity all over TV by now. But there are people who really do care, and they make a concerted effort to have their opinion heard. That is why they are listened to.
And really, that's kind of how it should be. If a small group of people really really cares about something, and the rest of us don't care too much, it's basic social wisdom to compromise in favor of the people who really do care. That's true in all human relationships, not just at the national level.
*Sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
I block channels with religious programming, because I don't care to see it. If you are too sensitive to allow yourself to be exposed to implied vulgarity, feel free to block the channels that offend your delicate sensibilities.
Here's the gaff; YOU AREN'T CBS's CUSTOMER. Advertisers are. CBS is quite expert at attracting viewers. If you don't like their content, by all means DON'T WATCH IT.
This really isn't a difficult concept.
-Peter
That's not the offensive part (Score:3, Insightful)
What's really offensive is that, in this day and age, we can't just say "shit" when we mean "shit". Queen Victoria may not be amused, but the Victorian age has been over for a long, long time.
I do not think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
You're part of the problem, you know. You've now set expectations such that "boys will be boys" and that the girls should just expect boys to behave like gutter trash and learn to live with it.
If you held "boys" to as high a standard for their behaviors as you seem to set for "girls" then you might be working to get the world to this neo-Victorian attitude that you seem to want to live with.
Personally, I think the Victorians were a bunch of overly-repressed fuckers whose hypocrisy is almost unmatched in the history of the world, and I'd hate to see us revert back to it. Even the hypocrisy of 1950's USA is tame in comparison. I actually think we're better off as a culture if we're more open about shit. When you liberally sprinkle your fucking vocabulary with shit that other people think is taboo, eventually the words lose all their goddamn power to shock and offend and they become nothing more than motherfucking words - which is what they should be. The word "shit" as in the title of the show "Shit my Dad Says" is a word that means nothing more than fecal matter unless you've got a goddamn stick rammed so far up your ass it makes you walk funny.
But whatever - it's a free country. If you want to fight for neo-Victorian attitudes I say fucking go for it. Balls out, as they say.
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
I definitely concur with you. Ignore them and they become increasingly annoying until you can't ignore them any more; pester and ridicule them, and they throw a hissy fit and shut up.
Re:Languages Change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
What, girls can never be devious or sexually adventurous without the prodding of a boy? Are you living in 1955?
-molo
Re:Languages Change (Score:5, Insightful)
That treads on dangerous territory though.
When we get into synonyms, then really, the un-#(@)#'ed title is "Shit My Dad Says". Now, we know they're not talking literally about feces. They're just using a more laid back way to say "stuff".
Should the word "stuff" be illegal? Should the very word "intercourse" be illegal, as it has exactly the same meaning as "fuck"? Should it be illegal to say "a child without a father", since it is synonymous with "bastard"?
When you start trying to ban substitutions because they "mean the same thing" then you're literally encountering a roadblock that will prevent the language from working properly. There will be entire situations and scenarios that are literally non-describable because the very discussion of that situation is forbidden.
No, I say we need to dispense with the notion of "profane speech" entirely. Rude speech will continue to be rude (IE, "I fucking hate you." is the same in meaning as "I hate you.", because the idea conveyed is the same), whilst positive speech that contains words that have been deemed taboo (Ie, "That's fucking awesome!") will retain it's meaning as well.
Then people can judge speech by it's true meaning rather than the words used to convey that meaning.
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, give the puritan crap a rest. Women are just as filthy as men, perhaps more so.
Re:They're right! (Score:5, Insightful)
$ is probably the most violent symbol of all.
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, you're an asshole. I don't think I've ever started a post on Slashdot that way, and I really don't go in for name-calling, but you get the prize for driving me to it. You seem to have issues with males (I can't tell from your name whether you are one or not, but it's irrelevant), and you should be working through that yourself, not poisoning children's minds to share in your gender issues. No, BOYS will not drag girls into the gutter, some will, some won't. Just as some girls will be manipulative little monsters, and others won't. Shame on you for actively trying to damage these girls' outlook with regards to the other half of the population.
Great, another do-gooder who isn't affected by something, but feels compelled to "protect" everyone else. You appear to have mastered the use of the "off button" on your television, so instead of cheering for censorship, why not just help some other easily offended prats find it too, and quit telling others what they can and can't see on TV.
Re:All I have to say is: (Score:5, Insightful)
I find the bleeping indecent.
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, most people who are opposed to sex and certain words on TV are also opposed to violence on TV. For various reasons, that's how the compromise ended up. And they will continue the fight to reduce violence, and others will continue the fight to get swearing and sex on TV. That's how politics, and society, works. We wouldn't survive without compromise.
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it would be better to subtly taunt them to make complete fools of themselves and lose whatever credibility they still might have.
Let's start with: "And how do you feel about the Civil Rights Act of 1965?"
Re:Do these people live in reality? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF ? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Offenses that used to be punishable by stoning, now only land you in rehab.
True, but that's not due to a softening of hearts in the Puritan movement, but a steady waning of their influence.
As Christopher Hitchens says, never forget how these people behaved back when they had enough power to do whatever they wanted.
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a very close female friend who's out of sorts because she's always been told that her being sexually adventurous is bad, and that she shouldn't like sex. It tears her up inside, and she feels that she needs to hide that side of her from her friends and family. She feels that since she likes sex, she should feel like a whore.
It's assholes like you that did that to her. She's broken inside, and hell if I know if it's fixable.
Fuck society.
Re:WTF ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Puritanism: the nagging fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
Re:They're right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop listening to the PTC (Score:3, Insightful)
accommodating them will only result in them seeking out more material to be offended at and widening their criteria for offensiveness.
Do you not understand that this is how everyone acts after a compromise? If not, you have utterly failed to understand how politics works. Abortion advocates and opponents both fight to push the law their way. They are not happy with the compromise that was achieved by Roe VS Wade. Neither side is. They will continue to push until things are the way they want.
It is that way with everything. Did free silver advocates stop when the silver buyback program was announced? No, the kept pushing for 16:1 for the next 50 years. Did the proponents of single-payer healthcare rest after medicare was announced? No, they kept pushing, as did their opponents. Find any issue that is controversial, and you will find that people keep pushing. Are you going to offer counseling to all of them? Because that will end up giving counseling to pretty much everyone, including you, who are pushing for your own personal viewpoint, and have essentially declared yourself as not willing to compromise.
On second thought, maybe it would help if everyone got counseling.
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
I learned long ago that any organization with the word "Parent" in the title has little to do with 99.999% of parents. They will however account for 99% of the complaint form letters sent to the FCC.
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Where the person is wrong is that sex somehow deserves to be in the gutter.
And yet, you are speaking of a relationship "degrading" to sex from the supposedly ideal "platonic". How is that cognitive dissonance working out lately?
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea that you teach in a religious school is frightening. You do realize that your lesson, as you described it, to those girls was in actuality:
1. Boys are inherently evil
2. Boys should be expected to try to make you evil too.
3. Girls are not inherently evil, but "catch" their evil from boys.
4. Girls should tolerate evil in order to interact with boys, but only up to their "tolerance" level.
ugh. Thanks for spreading your sick worldview and corrupting young minds.
If that isn't what you actually communicated to those children, then you were highly ineffective in communicating that in your post. Ineffective to such a degree that I would challenge your qualifications to "teach" much of anything.
Frankly, I don't care one way or the other about CBS or the use of language. Cursing is offensive only in that it is language intended to harm the reciever. For those who cry "it's just words", I counter that you are incredibly ignorant.
Words are a form of communication. Cursing, in earnest, at another person is an attempt to inflict emotional harm using verbal abuse. It is not appropriate to use it in jest, but people often do inappropriate things. I will not stand for someone else attempting to injure myself or my family, or innocent people for that matter, either emotionally or physically. So....beware who you curse at. Curse at me or at a child near me, and you will probably get a firm warning from me. Do it again and you are very likely to get a punch in the face, even if you think its harmless or funny.
Same as if you were yelling at some small child that they were fat, stupid, ugly, dirty, etc. I'm willing to stand in front of a jury for that...again.
Re:Stop listening to the PTC (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedoms, such as the right of free speech, should never be put to a vote or otherwise abridged.
This is a naive view. If you feel that freedom of speech should never be abridged, take it up with the supreme court, who disagrees with you.
Essentially you have the right to say whatever you want, but not wherever you want. And that makes sense.
Re:CBS chose to *insert* an expletive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Complaining that CBS chose to "insert" the word into the title makes them look like the people who were horrified that New Line Cinema decided to use an obvious 9/11 reference in the sequel to "Fellowship of the Ring"..."The Two Towers."
I know! It makes no sense to blame New Line when it's obviously Tolkien who made that crass and innappropriate 9/11 reference!
Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a nice, clinical description, which in the real world falls apart pretty quickly. Plenty of guys go out, spend the night flirting and have no intention of actually trying to have sex with anyone, and I've seen plenty of girls at my local bar who are looking to get laid and leave with a different guy every weekend. Those girls aren't poor innocent waifs who have been taken advantage of, they're adults who choose to have sex when they want to. There's also nothing wrong with what they're doing. Women are just as grown-up and competent as men when it comes to sex, and are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to sleep with someone or not.
No they are not correct. Is it okay make them aware that some guys will lie and do what it takes to get them into bed? Sure. Is it okay to teach them that guys only want one thing, and it's in their pants? No, it is not. That's how you create a girl with problems with self confidence, and trust issues.
I have plenty of friends who are women, and there's absolutely nothing sexual about our relationships. They don't have to play gatekeeper to my uncontrollable desires, and I don't have to worry about them innocently falling prey to my sneaky male charms. That's the real world for ya, we really are more than just a collection of base instincts.
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a little dose of understanding and compassion to balance your frustration:
Babies usually cry because of discomfort or pressing need for something.
Bed-wetting is not a choice.
Finding someone else's otherwise harmful behavior intolerable reveals severe discomfort to an internal reaction to said behavior. That's usually caused by severe conditioning. The results are fear, anger, ignorance and damage. I can imagine this is intolerable I can understand the overwhelming need for controlling others.
Of course, in a free society, allowing damaged minds to change everybody else, instead facing their own discomfort, is too high a price to pay. It is letting a mentally unbalanced individuals to dictate the reality for everyone. No need to re-enfoce this millennia-long tendency.
Unfortunately they are also very determined and violent as a result of their sickness.
Re:All I have to say is: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:3, Insightful)
He forbade his kids (my father included) from saying words like "heck" or "darn" because when you say that, you mean the other word. I think he was nuts.
That's the problem with a ban on profanity. If you take it to its logical conclusion, then implying the meaning of profane words is no different than using them explicitly.
That said, I don't have a problem with people who don't want their kids to use certain words, though my reasoning isn't moral; it's practical. It's important to be able to communicate effectively without resorting to profanity -- that's just the reality of the world. Using the "7 words" makes you come across as unprofessional (under most circumstances), and using the "substitute" words just makes you sound like an idiot.
Re:ignore them and show it anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Because ridiculing people who take themselves seriously is, in fact, an effective tactic to make them go away.
Re:All I have to say is: (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS.
I don't know if you were being serious or not, but when someone hears, say, the word "fuck" in real life, most stable-minded individuals would not think a thing of it. It's just a word.
However, when you instead bleep it out, you are stating that that word is not just another word, it is something indecent and taboo that much be censored. In short, it's not the word "fuck" that is the issue, it's people who think the word "fuck" is the issue who are the real issue.
PS: I want to skullfuck the bastard who designed idle's CSS, particularly the retarded comment field. Seriously, just why...
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:3, Insightful)
My choice is to read and not to watch the networks
You do realize that the show is based on a book, right?
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:1, Insightful)
"At times profanity is suppressed at times used. Today it is abused."
How can *profane* language be abused? Sounds as if you're a bit mixed up concerning etymology.
Re:First $#*! (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely.
I'm willing to bet eternity that all religion is fascism wrapped in fairy stories.
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:1, Insightful)
> My grandfather was really "out there" as christians go. He forbade his kids (my father included) from saying words like "heck" or "darn" because when you say that, you mean the other word.
>
> I think he was nuts.
He was right. No kid means "darn" (fix some socks) when he says "darn". When you say "dang", you mean "damn". He was exactly right, and he wasn't nuts. He meant you shouldn't get mad and lose your temper and should be mindful of the intent behind what you're saying.
Why is that a bad thing? People should mean what they say, and say what they mean. Anything else is lying. As you should know, lying is frowned upon.
I hate hypocrisy. If you mean to say fuck, say fuck, don't say 'fudge' because other people around you might be upset. Say what you mean, and if you get in trouble for it, at least you got in trouble for saying what you mean. If you don't want to get in trouble for getting angry and spewing bile, stop doing it.
Re:First $#*! (Score:2, Insightful)
Bet? I'll do you one better. If the christian God as portrayed with his silly games is indeed the ruler of the hypothetical heaven, I can't imagine what could be worse than having to spend eternity basking in his arrogance.
Seriously, I'll settle for the fire and pitchforks...
Re:Stop listening to the PTC (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone wanted to give me a million dollars, I would care a lot. If they did so by taking ten cents from every taxpayer and wasting most of the proceeds, you probably wouldn't care enough to write a letter to complain. Yet such proposals aren't "basic social wisdom", they're a reduction in total utility. They're also one of the practical defects with unlimited democracy.
Our own democracy was originally designed to have limited and decentralized powers to mitigate the consequences of such defects. The fact that we now have to debate over the definition of "decent" at the national level is part of the problem.
Re:Fuck right off. (Score:3, Insightful)
Society isn't about being win-win for everyone, it's about finding a way we can all live together.
Re:First $#*! (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the civilized world tends to believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. There are no crimes Lucifer can be proven to be guilty of. Actually, he can't be proven to be exist let alone guilty of anything.
oh...if only... (Score:3, Insightful)