Money for nothing and dumbasses for free

[Van Basten II]

... for homophobic content .

http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2930509

[Rooster_Ties]

I don't know about banning the song, but I find the term 'faggot' offensive.

Rare is the context in which that term is used, where it isn't used in a derisive way. (And don't anybody say there's actually people who still refer to cigarettes that way, and don't be whining about bassoon players who can't spell either.)

Yes, some gay people call each other 'faggot' all the time. Well, various people call each other N----R all the time too (as some sort of term of endearment, or whatever), but that doesn't make THAT term any less offensive either, either to me, or in general.

No matter how you look at it, 'faggot' and N----R are slurs, unless and until either term is as successfully 're-appropriated' as 'Gay' has been (which I understand began as nearly as bad a slur in this context, as 'faggot' -- though it's hard to separate the negative connotations of the words, from what were then the negative connotations of what they referred to). Here are interesting Wiki articles on both terms: Faggot and Gay, that are well worth reading.

I would imagine quite a number of us were called queer, fag, faggot, you name it -- growing up (I know I was), whether we happened to be gay, or not. That's what teenage boys do (notice: I didn't say that's JUST what teenage boys do).

When we discover that suicide rates for GLBT youth are appreciably higher than for their straight counterparts, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

So yes, I do find that term offensive. Nobody's talking about banning the song outright, just banning the uncensored album-version of it from airplay on a particular broadcast system. Play the clean single edit, or surely they've got a easy way to scramble the word, god knows they do that all the time with thousands of other songs, and nobody says shit (that's both metaphoric, and I now realize, literal in meaning). People don't listen to the radio any more anyway, so why get all bent out of shape about it. Nobody's calling for historical revisionism.

When I started this post, I really wasn't sure what I thought about this supposed "issue". But a scant 3 minutes later, I'm all for it. "Money For Nothing" isn't "Huckleberry Finn". Nothing is lost by scrambling the word, or playing the edit. False controversy over nothing, far as I'm concerned.

I'm a strong ACLU/free-speech guy all the way, but it's not like the federal government is coming in and stopping some other (non-governmental) entity FROM PLAYING THE ENTIRE SONG. If they did that, THAT would be censorship. Broadcast standards change, and there are a thousand times more methods of "broadcast" now than 40 or even 20 years ago. Bunch of whining over nothing, if you ask me.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[Van Basten II]

The song has been played for 25 years for crying out loud, and they now suddenly discover that it has bad words in it, wait 'til they hear some Eminem or Kayne West yes the word faggot is offensive but you gotta put it within the context of the song , the character telling the story is an idiot, so I guess we should not allow All in the family to be played on the air because Archie Bunker was a mysoginistic, racist, homophobic and everything you could think.

Here's a great idea let's only play Kenny G, nobody will find anything offensive about him.

PS Found a clip of the band playing the song with Elton John joining them on piano, not fan of the dude but I'm pretty sure if he thought the lyrics were so unacceptable towards gay he sure would have not join them.

It's cheap political correctness at his wort.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Van Basten II

[papsrus]

Here's a great idea let's only play Kenny G, nobody will find anything offensive about him.

Come again? ...

[Rooster_Ties]

It's not the lyrics or the song that are offensive, it's the word itself.

Most entities that function like the FCC don't like to provide context-sensitive rulings on content (though there certainly have been exceptions to the contrary -- I recall some rare use of four-letter-words on M*A*S*H for instance, and there have also been some acceptable cases off nudity -- I think some movie-of-the-week 20 years ago about breast cancer where a topless shot of a women getting a mammogram was allowed). In both those examples, a nobler cause was cited as reason for an exception.

My point is that agencies like this HATE to have to rule on stuff on a case by case basis. It's time consuming, and then people just work harder and harder to game the system, trying to figure out what they can get away with, and constantly push the boundary. Hell, they do that enough as it is anyway, WITHOUT context-based rules and rulings.

I'm sure the Canadian broadcast oversight board just formalized (or else clarified?) that the term 'faggot' was not acceptable for airplay -- a simple declarative statement. The song had probably been informally 'grandfathered in' all this time (or else just plain overlooked??), though why this wasn't a problem at the time, I'm really not sure. (And I'm REALLY scratching my head on that one too. I think I actually remember wondering to myself, years ago -- "what the fuck was THAT I just heard; how did THAT get through?".)

Would any of us want that term used freely, in ANY context on the Radio?

I don't pretend that all of us agree on that, but I suspect the general notion of "community standards" as they apply to public broadcast material, are MORE acceptable than, say, the "I know obscenity when I see it!" hammer that came down on Larry Flynt (but that's censorship, and we're talkin' broadcast standards -- two TOTALLY different animals). In any case, it's far simpler to ban the term across the board (not much different than banning N----R, or "fuck" or any other expletive), than to rule on it on a case by case basis.

Nobody's banning the song, just blocking the word from being ON THE RADIO. Just fuzz it out, or play the edit -- problem solved. This happens with THOUSANDS of different songs every year. Turn on Rap Radio, and 99% of the songs have blanked-out-words. Why the hell is it even remotely important to defend the use of 'faggot' in this one instance??

That said, I was totally in the bag for Frank Zappa's anti-PMRC campaign back in the day, but even FRANK never lobbied for radio to play obscenities (on the public airwaves) -- at least not that I know of. I have a HUGE problem actual censorship, but FCC-type limitations on broadcast content is not censorship from what I can tell.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[jostber]

Here's a great idea let's only play Kenny G, nobody will find anything offensive about him.

Come again? ...

http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm

[Van Basten II]

Here's a great idea let's only play Kenny G, nobody will find anything offensive about him.

Come again? ...

I was being ironic

Words are offensive because you want them to be offensive, as a French Canadian should I ask to erase the presence of Kermit the Frog on the Muppet show or anywhere else or calling him instead Kermit the Toad because the word frog is offensive to me ? As much as I support Gay rights, it has nothing to do with them, the song has nothing to do with promoting homophobia or putting in a positive fashion. And more importantly , erasing words from airwaves and pretend they do not exist is like hiding his head in the sand, it does not achieve anything. It does not stop hatemongers to use it and it certainly won't stop them to hate

Another reason not to go this way is the can of worms it will open, if we start revisionning all the lyrics of past songs in the name of Political correctness we're not out of the woods. Whether it's words that are no longer acceptable or ideas mentionned in the lyrics

How about You're sixteen, you're mine , looks like a pedophile credo to me or Run for your life by the Beatles. Violence towards women Am pretty sure that most of the songs written prior to the 60sand a bunch after that had some part that have contents that could be considered offensive nowadays.

Making the airwaves "clear" and pretend that the world is a fairy (hope this word is not deemed too offensive) tale does not make the world better or safer, it just makes it harsher for people when reality kicks in. isn't this this what the TV Mad Men is all about ?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Van Basten II

[papsrus]

Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but I believe in Canada there is generally more respect afforded to the sensitivities of minority groups, and corresponding protections from a more 'maternal' government against speech that easily falls into the category of "hate speech."

I remember about a year ago, maybe more, Coulter was dis-invited from speaking at a university in Canada because of some of the inflammatory things she planned to say.

[Van Basten II]

You are correct there is no "freedom of speech " guaranteed like in the US we do have one but it is limited by a law against promoting hate propaganda and promoting genocide.

Interesting thing to note, the ruling regarding the Dire Straits comes from a non-governmental association that broadcasters join on a free basis.

[.:.impossible]

[JSngry]

Have they banned "Short People" yet?

I mean, that'a whole song full of overt meanness, whereas the Dire Striats song uses the word, what, one time, and not to refer to homosexuals per se.

If you're gonna step on a roach, hell, shoot a rat.

Yellow makes me sad.

[Rooster_Ties]

So, a "nice" song that happens to use the word N----R is OK? Serious question, Jim. The issue is one of terms, not of meaning.

Here's the actual CBSC ruling itself, including the original complaint, which was specifically about the term itself, and not the song per se. It's long, and I don't expect anyone to read it in full. My read is that there have been numerous other rulings where 'fag' and 'faggot' were determined to be unacceptable in less than "dramatic" contexts. They say a whole lot more, but that's basically the kicker.

My personal take is this song became a huge #1 hit, and happened to contain language (in the album version) that wasn't complained about at the time because the term 'faggot' didn't carry quite the same weight then, as RACIALLY motivated epithets did (which likely WOULD have gotten complaints then). For instance, does anybody think this would have aired back then if the word used was "kike", or "gook", or any of a dozen other examples I could include -- instead of "faggot"?

The inappropriateness of homophobic derogatory terms is more recent than Racially derogatory terms. 40 and 50 years ago, in many parts, you could probably hear N----R in sidebar conversations in offices or workplaces (from some white people), but such is essentially NOT the case today. I imagine the use of the term "faggot" has undergone an equally reduced occurrence, though it lags that of the term N----R by at least 30 years.

In short, the term "faggot" is societally MORE offensive now than it was 25 years ago, and somebody only just complained about it. And frankly, I'm glad they did.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

On the list of ways to effectively deal with homophobia, I'm pretty sure that banning a Dire Staits song from Canadian radio would be at the bottom end of the list, if on it at all.

So, a "nice" song that happens to use the word N----R is OK? Serious question, Jim. The issue is one of terms, not of meaning.

So we're worrying about words now instaed of meaning?

This is progress?

I'm not one to routinely reference Lenny Bruce, but...

[JSngry]

So, a "nice" song that happens to use the word N----R is OK? Serious question, Jim.

Uh, yeah... I think it is.

http://www.last.fm/music/Sly%2B%2526%2BThe%2BFamily%2BStone/_/Don't+Call+Me+Nigger,+Whitey

[Rooster_Ties]

I've distracted from my central point.

"Money for Nothing" is not Sly Stone, nor Curtis Mayfield (who also used the term effectively SEVERAL times -- and god love him for it, cuz I sure do).

I doubt more than 10% of the people who know the song "Money For Nothing" can accurately tell you one damn thing about the meaning or "plot" of the song. These are the lyrics...

Now look at them yo-yos

That’s the way you do it

You play the guitar on the MTV


That ain’t workin’

That’s the way you do it

Money for nothin’ and your chicks for free

Now that ain’t workin’


That’s the way you do it

Let me tell ya, them guys ain’t dumb

Maybe get a blister on your little finger

Maybe get a blister on your thumb


We got to install microwave ovens

Custom kitchen deliveries

We got to move these refrigerators

We got to move these colour TVs


The little faggot with the earring and the make-up

Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair

That little faggot’s got his own jet airplane

That little faggot, he’s a millionaire

It's just meaningless words to most people as they listen to the radio (and NOT meaning, my friend). Without a memory of the video, I'm having a tough time remembering exactly how use of 'faggot' is somehow mitigated (supposedly, as the argument I keep reading) by the "full context and meaning of the song". I know I didn't quote the entire song, but I sure can't see a whole lot more in the whole thing (HERE).

I confess there may be more there (and probably is), but it sure as hell ain't no "Don't Call Me Nigger, Whitey".

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[Rooster_Ties]

'Faggot' isn't any different than any of a dozen racial slurs, except it isn't race-based.

One effective way to deal with racism is to ensure that certain words aren't demonstrated by the 'norms' of society as being "acceptable". It's NOT an end-all solution to the problem, but it does help force that shit into the shadows. That doesn't change much either, not immediately. But over a generation, it becomes something that the NEXT generation hears less of from "their elders" (who weren't so "elder" when they had to go underground with their hate -- and make no mistake, this IS hate we're talking about -- in some cases, deep seated hate).

By not also drawing a line in the sand with the term 'faggot', we give the impression that gay slurs aren't "as bad" as racial slurs. No it makes no difference now, but it matters for the future. How this one song slipped through the cracks, is both puzzling and annoying. If it had happened within the first few months of it's release, nobody would have bat an eyelash at a similar ruling.

I'm a free-speech guy 99%, and other than maybe Fred Phelps and specifically his vile funeral picketing, I'm probably in line with 99% of what the ACLU stands for. KKK wants to demonstrate, go for it. The public square is the public square. More speech is better, in almost every instance.

But on the issue of helping purge derogatory slurs from "polite conversation", concepts like "broadcast standards" related to the use of specific terminology are helpful.

As to words vs. meaning, I don't think there is a way to limit "meaning" a whole lot, nor should there be. People infer racist stuff on broadcast radio all the time (Rush's "Puff The Magic Negro", and hundreds or more other examples). It isn't the job of "broadcast standards" to deal with that, only more speech can help there.

[jostber]

The meaning of the lyrics to me is quite straightforward, it's two hard working guys dissing in their language the rich and the glorious pop stars earning money the easy way on MTV.

Edited January 15, 2011 by jostber

[JSngry]

The meaning of the lyrics to me is quite straightforward, it's two hard working guys dissing in their language the rich and the glorious pop stars earning money the easy way on MTV.

Yep. a poke at blue-collar belligerance and rock-star indulgence all at once.

[JSngry]

One effective way to deal with racism is to ensure that certain words aren't demonstrated by the 'norms' of society as being "acceptable". It's NOT an end-all solution to the problem, but it does help force that shit into the shadows.

I don't want that shit in the shadows. I want it fully exposed, out in the open. Let the full brightness of the noonday sun shine down upon it. The more you push it back into the shadows, the more it festers, and the sublimated\weirder it gets.

Get that shit all the way exposed, and then kill it at point blank range.

I doubt more than 10% of the people who know the song "Money For Nothing" can accurately tell you one damn thing about the meaning or "plot" of the song.

10%? Really?

I think you underestimate people.

[Rooster_Ties]

The meaning of the lyrics to me is quite straightforward, it's two hard working guys dissing the MTV in their language

I get that. What I'm saying is, where's the (supposedly) mitigating part of the plot that makes the broadcast of that term acceptable here?? -- where it's CLEARLY not acceptable in numerous other settled cases (as cited in the ruling). On album, I'm fine with it. It's a good song, but with bad poetry as far as I'm concerned (and I mean that).

I hear (and have heard) the argument that it's not in the singer's own voice (so nobody's really accusing Mark Knopfler, and neither am I). I've not criticized Knopfler or the song itself particularly (as a song). My bringing up the lyrics before only was to ask where the justification was in allowing the slur to stand for broadcast. The song itself is decent, catchy, I like the descant Sting sings at the beginning and especially over the end on top of the chorus (anytime I can get some decent counter-melody from a pop tune, I'm there! - you dig?)

But it's a pretty flimsy argument if all it takes to make the use of a gay slur acceptable (for broadcast), is that the slur isn't in the 'voice' of the singer, but rather one of the characters in the song. If that were the case, then why don't we hear N----R every day on Rap Radio today?.

[Rooster_Ties]

Serious question. Should this be allowed to air on public radio today? Yes, or no.

Now look at them yo-yos

That’s the way you do it

You play the guitar on the MTV

That ain’t workin’

That’s the way you do it

Money for nothin’ and your chicks for free

Now that ain’t workin’

That’s the way you do it

Let me tell ya, them guys ain’t dumb

Maybe get a blister on your little finger

Maybe get a blister on your thumb

We got to install microwave ovens

Custom kitchen deliveries

We got to move these refrigerators

We got to move these colour TVs

The little nigger with the earring and the make-up

Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair

That little nigger’s got his own jet airplane

That little nigger, he’s a millionaire

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

By not also drawing a line in the sand with the term 'faggot', we give the impression that gay slurs aren't "as bad" as racial slurs.

The world and its language is evolving. There is a world where not all homosexuals are faggots, nor are all faggots homosexuals. In this world, "faggott" is a character/personality slur, not a slur against sexual orientation. It's a knock against anybody who just revels in being fragilely self-absorbed. Plenty of people like that, and where they put their genitals for sexual satisfaction has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

So with that in mind (and with a tip of the hat to Louis CK's bit), I think that banning that song is a pretty fagotty thing to do.

Serious question. Should this be allowed to air on public radio today? Yes, or no.

Now look at them yo-yos

That's the way you do it

You play the guitar on the MTV

That ain't workin'

That's the way you do it

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free

Now that ain't workin'

That's the way you do it

Let me tell ya, them guys ain't dumb

Maybe get a blister on your little finger

Maybe get a blister on your thumb

We got to install microwave ovens

Custom kitchen deliveries

We got to move these refrigerators

We got to move these colour TVs

The little nigger with the earring and the make-up

Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair

That little nigger's got his own jet airplane

That little nigger, he's a millionaire

No, because those aren't the actual lyrics.

Edited January 15, 2011 by JSngry

[Rooster_Ties]

The world and its language is evolving. There is a world where not all homosexuals are faggots, nor are all faggots homosexuals. In this world, "faggott" is a character/personality slur, not a slur against sexual orientation. It's a knock against anybody who just revels in being fragilely self-absorbed. Plenty of people like that, and where they put their genitals for sexual satisfaction has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

I get that, and agree. Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Chris Rock have also said the similar things about not all African Americans being... ...but it's impossible to have public broadcast standards that pay any attention to any of this in any meaningful way.

The term 'gay' has been successfully re-appropriated, as the concept of homosexuality has become more acceptable in general society. I don't see 'faggot' ever going the same route. It's got too much spite in it. It seems to me to be too much like nigger, or cunt, or the very 'ethnicity-specific' ones of which there are dozens.

No, because those aren't the actual lyrics.

If somebody re-records the song today with nigger in place of faggot, should radio stations across the country be able to play it?? Truth be told, 10-15 years ago with the content of MTV then, it's TOTALLY plausible that somebody could have re-recorded "Money For Nothing" with those EXACT lyrics. (Well, maybe not "politically" plausible, but I think you see my point).

The little nigger with the earring and the make-up

Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair

That little nigger's got his own jet airplane

That little nigger, he's a millionaire

There's people all across this land who felt that was EXACTLY what MTV was 10-15 years ago. Many of them were those same characters in the song.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

You want me to defend something that doesn't exist except as something you made up?

Are you serous?

[Rooster_Ties]

Probably not, though as a theoretical point, I think it's a useful idea to think about.

I get that 'faggot' doesn't have the same sting (or history) as 'nigger' -- but I don't accept that there aren't people for whom 'faggot' is also VERY offensive, and that it's also just not acceptable in normal societal parlance (as a slur, which the term IS used a slur in the song, how is that not relevant?)

I think to say otherwise, is to suggest that 'those people' who are worried about it, just need to "man up".

Attitudes like that, after all, are the source of the problem in the first place.

Seriously, the term is used AS A SLUR in the original song (by the character in that verse). How does this get a pass (in terms of broadcasting the term), and similar uses of other slurs are different (deemed not acceptable). I do not see the difference.

Plus "faggot" has been banned in SEVERAL other instances cited in the original ruling, so why shouldn't it apply here?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Rooster_Ties