|
Grex > Language > #20: 'Explicit' lyrics at Community Newscenter | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 86 responses total. |
reach
|
|
response 75 of 86:
| 
Oct 15 17:25 UTC 1991 |
I brought my verbal tear gas, just in case.
|
mta
|
|
response 76 of 86:
|
Oct 20 08:42 UTC 1991 |
I'm pretty sure that Marcus got his reference to societies
having no swear words from reading over my shoulder. The
book is called "ENGLISH And How it Got That Way" -- or
something very like that. The author does indeed make that
claim and is, as I remember, somewhat more specific.
|
ninny
|
|
response 77 of 86:
|
Jan 15 04:29 UTC 1992 |
|
tsty
|
|
response 78 of 86:
|
Jun 1 21:19 UTC 1992 |
Marcus and/or MTA, could you give that title with some details, sounds
as if I'd like to read it.
As far as the store goes ... some radio stations will play just about
anything. It's probably more interesting to be surprised by an in-store
audio system over which you can actually make out the words, than
the reverse.
Anybody remember the Louie, Louie controversy. BTW, the original is
being played these days, with the audience "contribution" left in.
|
young
|
|
response 79 of 86:
|
May 24 05:55 UTC 1993 |
I saw earlier on a lot of responses which essentially boiled down to "loosen
up, man." How would people feel if they walked into a store and heard a song
with words like "nigger", "kyke", or "faggot" being tossed about casually?
|
davel
|
|
response 80 of 86:
|
May 24 10:41 UTC 1993 |
And why wouldn't the same logic apply, mutatis mutandis?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 86:
|
May 24 14:06 UTC 1993 |
My dictionary says that "mutatis mutandis" means "the necessary changes
having been made". I do not understand the context in which you say
that, Dave. (I had not seen these language items before, as they have
been inactive since '91, and I chose not to read them all when I
joined language - so it is interesting to see the trail of brushfires -
and to contribute to them - as "young" scans the items.)
|
young
|
|
response 82 of 86:
|
May 25 05:38 UTC 1993 |
I'll take that as a compliment.
|
davel
|
|
response 83 of 86:
|
May 25 10:34 UTC 1993 |
Um, sorry to have confused anyone. I was agreeing with young, and adding
that the considerations some people raised as reasons for saying "loosen up"
would indeed apply (as a matter of logic) equally well to the terms he
mentions.
|
other
|
|
response 84 of 86:
|
Dec 12 15:35 UTC 1994 |
In response to #0:
According to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment
since the middle of the 20th century, the potential effect on children, or
the most susceptible hearer, is not a determining factor in whether the
content of expression may be defined as obscene. The presence of children
in a store where explicitly sexual lyrics are being played is not legally
relevant.
In addition, the taboo against certain words is a function of the
cultural status of our society. The only effect of attempting to limit
exposure to words, and to manipulate the use of language through political
and legislative pressure, is to stifle the change and growth of the society,
and to try to maintain a status quo which is manifestly impossible in the
context of a large and fluid population.
Linguistic changes occur in response to cultural changes. Cultural
changes cannot be brought about by the manipulation of the use of language,]
in part because there is no way to effectively control that manipulation in
the absolute degree necessary in order to bring about controlled change.
What this means is, you will achieve far greater ends by teaching
your children about the words and what they mean, than you will by attempting
to protect them from hearing those words outside of the ideal context, which
it is certain they will, if they are ever allowed to leave your house and your
presence.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 86:
|
Dec 12 19:35 UTC 1994 |
Or listen to CNN. Look at Joycelyn Elders, being fired because she used
the word masturbation in a public health context. I could only think of
"let he/she that has never masturbated cast the first mudball".
|
carson
|
|
response 86 of 86:
|
Jan 17 08:21 UTC 1995 |
re #85: was it the word or the subject?
|