wednes | Have The Rolling Stones killed...but sir, those aren't-- Do as I SAY!!

Current Mood: mocking the stupid
Current Music: Rolling Stones: Sympathy for the Devil

Entry tags:

Have The Rolling Stones killed...but sir, those aren't-- Do as I SAY!!

Dear Superbowl guys:

Aside from the fact that I despise everything having to do with the Superbowl (the drinking, rowdy men, rampant spousal abuse, ridiculous amounts of money spent, shoddy dismissive treatment of the homeless, the general stupidity of sports-related hysteria, etc) I must ask: Why censor the Rolling Stones?

Really, are there actually people out there who don't know the words to Rolling Stones songs by now?
Children rarely can even understand song lyrics let alone interpret them.
I estimate that 80% of all songs from the 60's and 70's (non disco, of course) is unsuitable for family listening if you really listen to the words. They are all about fucking, boozing, drugging, killing, or fighting the establishment. And Jesus is Just Alright?? Don't get me started ;-}

This yahoo! news description of the offending lyrics did crack me up, though:

In "Start Me Up," the show's editors silenced one word
close to the song's end, a reference to a woman so sexy she could
arouse a dead man. The lyrics for "Rough Justice" included a
synonym for rooster that was removed.

Synonym for Rooster? You mean, boy-chicken?
That's filthy. I'm sure all the drunks watching the Superbowl would have been totally offended.

That said, the commercials (as usual) were Sexy as They Wanna Be and no one turned the mic down on them. Also, last year they had a guy from a boy-band perform with the sweetest, most sane Jackson there is--and shit got crazy and the boobs went flying. So to clean their act up, they got The Rolling Stones?!? Hate to break it to you, Superbowl, but the Stones are the original Bad-Boy Band.

And as I recall from the old Sullivan show, Mick Jagger always rolls his eyes when he knows he's being censored.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Superbowl is gay.

I remember one time the Rolling Stones were on tv and my grandpa was all "DAMN THEY'RE PROBABLY OLDER THAN ME NOW, GET OFF THE STAGE"..

My Granpda loves yelling at the tv. It's great.

I had a great grandpa who used to yell at the tv and refer to every person on it by a racial epithet. As a kid, I thought it was hilarious, because it was not hateful...it was like he was saying "bad words" and it was funny because he was a grandpa and grandpas aren't supposed to say bad words.

And that...is my courageous story. ;-}

I don't know about your reception but I couldn't understand the words well enough to even enjoy the performance. It was just all noise. :/ The tv recording people did a horrible job with that part.

I sang the actual words anyway...

The funny part to me is that the NFL lied that the Stones had given their okay to the censorship. Jagger came out yesterday saying that they hadn't. But, whatever. As someone mentioned above, the mix was so horrible, you couldn't tell what they were singing anyway. It was just stupid to sensor them.

One of the lamest Stones performance I think I've ever seen, too. Although if I can move my hips like Jagger when I'm 62, I'll be pretty excited about it.

"Superbowl is gay." -what the fuck does that mean?

It's a figure of speech.

Why?

Man, I can never comment on your journal without one of your friends attacking me.

And to think it started at 1 am here. So I slept right throw the whole thing. But yeah family fun = the rolling stones? Who made that call? Lame to the largest degree. The whole superbowl thing, I mean.

It implies that gay is something negative or bad,which is offensive to queer people, or anyone with consciousness around this issue.

Sorry, I'm not politically correct.

I say retarded a lot too, but that doesn't mean I hate mentally handicap people.

My gay bestfriends and Grandmother dont seem to lecture me about it either because they know I'm not a bigot.

I'm offended by the word queer.

I'll be honest, I didn't watch. I hate that shit, and have plenty of Stones music I can listen to where football and gross amounts of money aren't involved.

Good for you!

I have heard that the sound was terrible, which is silly considering how much money was spent on that monstrosity.

I also found it insulting and lame to lie and say they were fine with the censorship. I hadn't even been born yet when they were on Sullivan and I knew that was bullshit. The Stones don't have to agree to such bullshit to get a gig, and I can't imagine they ever would.

I saw that. Sorry.

I realize that people feel different ways about words and that connotation and semantics are sticky issues. But I hate when anyone jumps to the conclusion that if you don't agree with someones word usage that it must be hateful or prejudiced. I do sometimes say things are "gay". It's leftover from the 70's, when I was a kid and had no idea that it could be considered offensive. IMO, queer is more offensive because while "gay" meant "happy", "queer" meant "strange or wierd". I know which one I'd rather be...wait, on second though, no I don't. ;-)

If I went around berating or attacking anyone who said something anti-fat on the internets (either overtly or implied by language), I'd never have time for anything else.

Lame, indeed.

I hope that's not offensive to lame people.
;-}

Um...not "anyone" with conciousness around the issue. I do not find it offensive, as I look at the totality of a person rather than one instance of using an archaic form of the language.

I apologize that you were offended. But I think it is clear that the commentor was not intending to offend any homosexuals and in fact, sexuality was not referenced anywhere. I understand you're wanting to educate people on how there choice of language affects others. But I do think there is a less attacking way to go about it.

Onstar didn't say it was hateful or prejudiced. She said it was offensive, and I agree. But more than being offended per se, I think that saying something is gay makes the speaker sound ignorant.

I guess I thought the reason such things were "offensive" is because it is assumed that prejudice (or at least disrespect) is inferred.

But more than being offended per se, I think that saying something is gay makes the speaker sound ignorant.

That's certainly a reasonable stance. I just felt

onstar's reaction was phrased in an attacking way, as if she assumed the commentor intended to offend. She did not appear to say I take issue with your use of language; but instead seems to say anyone with conciousness of this issue should know not to use this language, and you are wrong for using it here which implies that the words themselves are inherently right or wrong.

I beleive that in controlling langauge, we control thought. Words are only powerful because of the power we give them. Myself, I used to be offended if the word "fat" was used anywhere near me because of my own issues with being fat. Once I dealt with that (and continue to do so) I felt less threatened by the use of the word.

This is not to say that if people are offended by something they should just "get over it". But opening up a dialogue from a non-blaming place will yeild better results than simply stepping in to tell a stranger why they are wrong.

Perhaps I should not have sworn initially, and I do appologize for that. Saying something that is offensive or rude does not necessarily mean that you are a bigot or hate certain people, but it certainly does make it sound that way. Especially to a person who is not able bodied, heterosexual, or perhaps caucasian. Just because your gay best friends or grandmother haven't talked to you about your usage of gay in a negative context does not mean that they do not find it offensive, insensitive or maybe ignorant. It also does not mean that these people represent all lesbian, gay, bisexual, butch, femme,transgenger, intersex or questioning people either. As you can see, these are many different types of folks, let alone combining one or more of these "labels", which is why so many of us have reclaimed the word queer. It is more encompassing than saying all of the above every time you are talking about someone who is not heterosexual, besides which, it is difficult to know how someone identifies without having a direct coversation with that person. Of course, queer is still used negatively in some circles, such as a in a quote from my grandmother saying "that dirty queer" when referring to someone on tv, which is not cool. When said in a positive and informed manner, the word is inclusive and good.

Not being offended by the usage of that phrase shows a lack of consciousness, in my opinion. As far as seeing the totality of the person making the remark, it's awfully challenging to see past an offensive remark from the top of the post. I also don't see how the commentor was clearly not intending to offend any non-heterosexual people with a homosexual slur, which is not much different that an ethnic slur.

I learned many offensive, racist, and homophobic phrases and ideolgies while growing up in the 70's from many beloved people, but that does not mean that I still use those words or phrases. If someone has truly educated themselves on these issues, they would not perpetuate this type of language. Queer is not an offensive word when used properly-please see my above comments.

sorry about that post being anonymous-apparantly i wasn't properly logged in...

Obviously, it is your own business if you find the word or it's usage offensive. But I thought everyone by now knew of the archaic usage used in the above comment and that while it is not PC, it is not nessesarily indicative of a desire to offend. I just think the intention is more important than the word itself; but it seems we will have to agree to disagree on this.

I think that is what offends me the most. I certainly agree that such terms can and are seen as offensive by some. But the assertion that a person is uneducated, ignorant or insenstive because they do not agree with yoru language choices is equally offensive. Reasonable people can and do disagree on this. In fact I know several gays who do not find that usage offensive. This does not make it universally correct, but it does illustrate that the offense is in the eye of the beholder.

Queer is not an offensive word when used properly

"Gay" is also not an offensive word, and yet people have taken offense because of it's usage. So it seems that we agree that it is not the word itself but the intent under which it is used. Some women find being called "Honey" demeaning and dismissive, but would excuse that behavior from say, a kindly seeming old man. Again, it is the perceived usage that is objectionable.

No prob.

Yes, it is true that I do find this usage of the word offensive, as well as every other non-heterosexual person that I have discussed this phrasing with. My point is that people who use this phrase may not necessarily have a desire to offend, but choose to use the phrase without really thinking about what they are saying when using the phrase, and don't seem to care why or how it may offend someone. It seems that you are not really getting my point, so I will leave it be.

I do get it, and as I said, I respect and even applaud your resolve to point out possible implications of using such phrasing. Raising awareness is, of course, very important. I think it's a brave stance to take, especially if you're taking it outside of liberal areas like Ann Arbor.

At the same time, I wish you wouldn't assume that I "don't get your point" because we disagree. I think assuming that disagreement implies that someone "doesn't care" is a bit harsh not to mention presumptuous. (There are people now who are offended at teachers using red pens in school, but that doesn't neccesarily make red pens bad.)
Fag is just a word. Sometimes it's said with hate, and sometimes not. Not wanting to tell the difference only serves to infer disapproval and prejudice where none exists.

I am so weary of straight people telling me about what they think is right about such things that I cannot further discuss this with you.

*blink blink*

You didn't really just imply that my opinions are less valid because of my sexual orientation, did you?

At any rate, I'm disappointed as I always enjoy a spirited discussion.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Have The Rolling Stones killed...but sir, those aren't-- Do as I SAY!!

no subject

no subject

Stones

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Stones

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject