Words Fail Me, Have We Become This Sensitive?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46413209

[Togo]

We need a "get Stuey back" campaign up and running. Could not HQ email him and give him the spanners to unlock his profile?


Onto Toronto pronto Tonto.


Sorry for the diversion A O Gent.

[Mamyalynne]

I presume it was his choice to go User Inactive.

[tamborine]

me too - not us !

[Togo]

Not to mention "Thank Heaven for Little Girls". Suppose it would have to be little boys now to appease the oddballs.

[jim360]

It's not a matter of sensitivity -- in this case it's a matter of meanings changing over time, and modern audiences (quite understandably) not quite understanding the meaning of the time. As I understand it, this particular song, the woman's only "pretending" to say no, when really she absolutely wants to spend the night over, and is just making up excuses so that she can pretend later that she did try, guv, honestly, not to get seduced... modern audiences hear the "say, what's in this drink" line, and instantly interpret it in light of modern problems. Date rape *s* an issue and it deserves to be taken seriously, so it's not a matter of being lame.

It's just a clash of meaning. The thing is, such clashes occur all over the place; they did when you were young, even if, perhaps, such things passed you by at the time. Ironic, really, because censorship was if anything even more aggressive back in the day.

[jno]

//Not to mention "Thank Heaven for Little Girls"//

ah yes, from Gigi, the musical about grooming a girl to become a prostitute. I wonder if they sing it in Rotherham?

[zebo]

I had a 60s compilation on yesterday, Gary Puckett and the Union Gap was on, no point in requesting that one on the Beeb I suppose!

[Ellipsis]

This is not really about sensitivity. This is a commercial radio station making a commercial decision. They've decided who their target audience is and what they will and won't play to them. Even going public with it, as they have, is a commercial decision. Ultimately, it's about making money while living by their values, or living their values while making money, but, either way, it's about making money. There is a market of people who care about this stuff, and if they can attract that market without losing the people who don't care then they win new listeners. Not sensitive at all, just good business if they get it right.

[Ken4155]

'Every breath you take, every move you make, i'll be watching you'. Sung, of course, by Sting the Stalker :-)

[Togo]

// Ironic, really, because censorship was if anything even more aggressive back in the day.//

Indeed Jim. Cencorship that was designed to protect a perceived "moral code", although innuendo was of corse always a source of entertainment and amused for the mature and grown up members of society. Censorship nowadays has become an entirely different beast. It is all about foisting a point of view and mindset upon an increasingly exasperated and bemused public that have no fascination in the "particular", but often graphically illustrated, special interest minority "concerns".


//I wonder if they sing it in Rotherham? //

I rather thought that they just quoted the Quran to them.

[ichkeria]

That radio station needs Alan “Mid morning matters” Partridge ;-)

[ToraToraTora]

no more oggling 17 year old girls Sir Paul:

[jim360]

What's the difference between protecting some abstract notion of a "moral code" on the one hand, and "foisting a point of view" on the other?

Regardless, it's not a song that should be banned, but the radio station is of course at liberty to make a decision it feels is in its commercial interests.

[Old_Geezer]

Generally no, individuals aren't becoming overly sensitive, but there's a growing group of snowflakes bring produced, presumably because of flawed upbringing, that justify the most ridiculous 'wrapping in cotton wool' type bans thinking they're being empathic; but in reality just making fools of themselves, and by association, the human race generally.

[Togo]

//What's the difference between protecting some abstract notion of a "moral code" on the one hand, and "foisting a point of view" on the other? //

One was accepted and generally observed in polite company at all times. The other is blasted from every available vantage point, non stop, without attenuation , with increasing bile and vehemence...…. Since you ask. :))

[Mamyalynne]

That's mass hysteria for you, it will get where water can't because someone keeps reposting it.

[Mamyalynne]

It's sad too, there are so many worthwhile things to campaign about that actually would/could change lives for the better - but the dafter the outcry,the bigger the response.

[sp1814]

This has been going on since...forever.

I certainly remember this kind of censorship when I was a kid.

[jim360]

Like Mary Whitehouse?

[sp1814]

Exactly jim360.

And the Hays Code!