Aw leave it out Heliotrope, please. Why make personal attacks? That is a low debating tactic.

I’m more than happy to give the ‘last word’. Whatever made you think otherwise? I thought this was an ongoing deabte. Is there a point where we have to concede? If there is, please inform mwe when it is and I will ‘agree to disagree’ no problem. But at least give me a clue before you put those claws out and try and discredit me?

Let’s at least stick to the argument and not make assumptive, baseless and false attacks on poster’s integrity/personality?

Fair enough?

Guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. A few explanations and apologies though:

Firstly, I’m not riled up, just animated! I do find this discussion exceptionally challenging and fun.

Secondly, I’m sorry you thought I was inferring that you were a man. I truly wasn’t. It was just a casual, generalised example, again not at all meant to be taken literally.

I wasn’t inferring that you were a man or that you had a wife. Or that you were an animal.

Before I posted that, I thought about writing:

“If one’s wife says one night…”

But it just sounded clumsy. Bad decision on my part. Apologies. I hope it makes sense now.

Thirdly and lastly, I certainly WASN’T inferring that you were more upset at the use of the word whore, than the use of pop music to promote Nazism.

I just noted that LaShawn defended neo-Nazis on here, but the larger comparative upset on this board was over a sex-related word used in a lyric by a female artist. This echoed a cultural phenomenon I noticed whilst living in the US, and it is similar though not so pronounced, in the UK:

It seems that we are ok with graphic violence, shootings and death on daytime TV, but the showing of a human nipple in ANY circumstance (has to be female as men’s nipples are deemed less ungodly) is cause for a storm of controversy and condemnation. It does sadden me somewhat that we can sexualise something like a human nipple (an organ that provides nourishment for children)to such a degree that is censored, it is literally an abomination. While on the other hand, we (as a culture, I don’t literally mean ‘we’, as in ‘you and me’) fetishize violence as ‘sexy’ and just everyday stuff.

That was my point there, and it wasn’t tailored towards you at all. I always stick to point and do not attack the poster. Once again, apologies if you thought I was singling you out. I wasn’t.

All the best,

John.

Two Englishmen of note come to mind in proving the point: Lewis Carroll and Eric Arthur Blair (better known as George Orwell). Both were excellent logicians and practiced wordsmiths. However, their skill at the craft of abusing semantics is a highly honed art that is rendered folly in the hands of an amateur. That is why they stand above the crowd of writers who have undertaken the challenge.

We would all be better served if we just say what we mean in clear terms. Of course, we can always engage in the wry twist of the double entendre. But when one finds he his repeatedly having to explain himself, it is usually not the fault of the “dunces” on the other end.

Think about it. I know you treasure having the last word, so I will not likely respond.

Boy are you riled up. I’m not trying too hard to say she meant it in a literal sense. The point is that the word demeans women, at least to some women, and she is criticizing other people for demeaning women while her own use of words do the same. I guess I don’t see Prussian Blue screaming about other people being racists. Not that I listen to most pop music anyways.

The issue at hand can be related to that “joke” you brought up about some men saying they want their women to be slaves and whores, but I bet most of the time they wouldn’t want them to hear about it, not directly at least. So in that you can say it’s derogatory. The point I’m simply trying to make is that “whore” is indeed not a nice word, and if Ms. Scott wants to use it and thinks it fine perhaps she should not be complaining about other people demeaning women because plenty of women can find it demeaning.

BTW, by your analogy earlier, does “whore is a bad word” = “sex is ending the world, nothing else matters!” Seems like that’s what you’re inferring that I’m saying.

I’m guessing that the religious fundies you’re talking about are Muslims, because no Christians I know actually go nuts over women being seen with men. And surely you don’t believe that when any of those fundies, whatever religion they’re of, meant whore in a flattering way?

And humans are animals but most women aren’t whores. And if you really want to be literal, well, I’m not a man and I don’t have a wife. Why the heck do you assume I’m a man? Does it matter in this debate? When someone compares anyone to an animal one way or the other I assume that they’re comparing it to some aspect of an animal. I don’t see any aspect of whores that are admirable, but of course I assume some men do, but animal can be used as an insult too. I just don’t see any guy telling his wife/girlfriend/whatever that she’s a whore as a compliment.

I think this argument about “whore” has gone on too long. If you think it’s okay for a woman to refer to herself as a whore and then complain about other people demeaning women, that’s your freedom. I just think it awfully hypocritical, context or not. I bet you can find plenty of people who find NOTHING demeaning about the way women are depicted in music videos; why do you think a lot of teenage girls dress the way they do?

“So “traitor” has been officially redefined? In which dictionary?”

The Dictionary Of Popular Partisan Discourse?

Well not really, coz I was just joking (hencethe wink) in an attempt to show that words get used in all kinds of ways by all kinds of people. Sorry if you thought I was being dead literal. I guess if you Googled the word ‘traitor’ you’d just find the dictionary definition and historical instances of people from all over the world
who had betrayed their country? Hint = wrong.

fuzz asked:

“And why do you assume that I or anyone else who hasn’t expressly stated such ridiculous opinions agree with such nonsense?”

Hang on, I never said that, or thought it. Neither did I think that you defined ‘racist’ as a white person’. I was using examples
of words that are re-defined by popular useage. They aren’t ‘officially’ redefined, that was me just me being mildly sarcastic in a good-humored way. Not good examples though, I agree, as the subject in question is JILL SCOTT! An artist! A wordsmith, a songstress, a poet, lyricist. Different rules apply.

OK. So, where were we?

Yes…

I’m NOT arguing that Jill Scott has redefined the word ‘whore’. I’m arguing that people are redefining her USEAGE of the word and making straw-man (straw-woman? straw-whore?!) arguments.

fuzz said:

“As for outrages, I’m not particularly outraged about Ms. Scott’s use of “whore” here… it seems that you are the one who’s very outraged about people not liking her use of the word.”

Nope, I’m not outraged at all about that. I am curious though as to why her (poetic/lyrical) useage is being taken so very

literally.

fuzz said:

“I think white supremacists are idiots, but that’s pretty much irrelevant here.”

I thought we are talking about the effects of popular music. Specifically the ‘slippery slope’ of lyrics bringing good people to their immoral knees. LaShawn referenced the popular pubescent twin Nazi singers ‘Prussian Blue’ singing about their ‘white pride’ just this week. So I thought it was a safe bet that:

1. Talking about lyrics being immoral/moral

was actually relevant to:

2. Talking about lyrics being immoral/moral.

To be extra safe I cited an example (the teen nazis) that LaShawn herself had very recently defended. So as to stay not only relevant, but on topic.

“Maybe you know of women who like to refer to themselves as slaves or whores for their husbands/boyfriends/whatever”

I think you’ll find that lots of intimate couples have plenty of ‘play’ words in their sex lives. That’s fine by me. Also not my business unless it’s out on the public field of discourse. Jill Scotts lyric’s at first read (to me, and I asked my wife too she said the same) strike me as a playful sexual metaphor for the larger devotional message to her lover. It stikes me as an empowered, self assured and playful lyric. Absolutely not a degrading literal description of a whore.

You may say that I’m trying too hard to believe that black is white and that ‘whore’ can only be used in one hyper-literal sense.

I would say the same to you. You are trying too hard to say she meant it in a literal sense.

Women get called whores by utra-conservatives or religious fundies just for the crime of being seen with a man. Do you think they too are being literal? Should the woman be prosecuted for being a literal whore? Or ar the re-defining the word?

If your wife says one night that you are an ‘animal’ in bed, do you sue her for bestial defamation or should you be a scientific exhibit?

Does it LITERALLY mean animal, yes or no? Can you answer that? Just yes or no will do!

Regards,

John

Most murders on TV, such as on the TV show 24 are obviously fictional entertainment.

Songs whose lyrics are mostly something like “gonna find me a woman tonight” seem to encourage risky behavior.

Not that I would call for censorship, but people don’t have to buy it, or Wal-mart does not have to sell it.

Isn’t there unlimited porn on the Internet anyway.

If there are not enough examples of what sex addiction does to people, check out the movie Auto Focus about Hogan of Hogan Hero’s.

So “traitor” has been officially redefined? In which dictionary? Just disagreeing with the government certainly isn’t treasonous; leaking classified information that can result in American deaths is. So who has officially called dissenters traitors? And why do you assume that I or anyone else who hasn’t expressly stated such ridiculous opinions agree with such nonsense?

As for outrages, I’m not particularly outraged about Ms. Scott’s use of “whore” here… it seems that you are the one who’s very outraged about people not liking her use of the word. I’ve heard worse, and have found lots more objectionable stuffs out there. I think white supremacists are idiots, but that’s pretty much irrelevant here. Maybe you know of women who like to refer to themselves as slaves or whores for their husbands/boyfriends/whatever, apparently Ms. Scott fits in the category, but that doesn’t change the fact that “whore” is a derogatory term, and that Ms. Scott is complaining about other people demeaning women while she herself uses such words. And unfortunately, derogatory can be in the eyes of the beholder nowadays, as some women think that using sex to get what they want is elevating the feminine status (someone actually published something in the UCLA paper praising Salome for dancing like a hooker to get John the Baptist’s head, go figure).

A. ‘Cute’ teen Nazi homeschoolers singing about Hitler being a misunderstood man of peace, and that the degenerate gullible’muds’(led by the dishonest liberal Jews) are taking over the ‘Aryan race’.

or is it:

B. Jill Scott telling her husband that he’s gonna ‘get it’ tonight’?

I see which one has provoked the most outrage here.

Is that the same reason that repeated graphic depictions of bloody murders get put out 24/7 on American TV, but a human (female of course) nipple or a dancing bootie sends us into blustering righteous indignation?

Violent death = bring it on.
Anti-semitism/racism/genocide = ho hum.
Naked human body = evil slippery slope.
Sex = It’s the end of the world.

(Dr Evil voice)

Rrrrighhhht.

Well we totally redefined the word ‘traitor’, it now officially means people who disagree with the government. We totally redefined the word ‘racist’ it now just means ‘white person’
So that shows that words can be redefined! (sarcasm)

As for the ‘whore’ thing in those lyrics. Of course it has to be taken in context. When we read ‘Tyger, tyger, burning bright’, are we to believe that a tigers fur is aflame?? Because if we don’t we are certainly trying too hard to say that blue really means pink?

That’s what poetry and songs, maxims, sayings etc are about! Context!

There’s a old (considered by some to be humorous) saying that a man likes his wife to be a ‘Slave in the kitchen, and a whore in the bedroom’.

Does that literally mean that a man wants his wife to be wearing a ball of chain at the cooker, and when he releases her from that duty, he will literally pay her for sex??

Now the extreme feminist will tell you that that is a very LITERAL little phrase and that is EXACTLY what it means. Slave-whore. No context. Racist and sexist, bla bla bla, the Christian concept of womanhood is either ‘whore or madonna’, ‘slave or slut’ etc etc.

The reasonable person knows that such a phrase is a humorous way of describing that the average Joe likes his wife to be a virtuous and reliable domestic companion in everday stuff but not TOO boring in the bedroom.

An extremist feminist, or someone, would claim that because the word ‘whore’ was used, then it is to be taken literally as per fits the agenda of the outraged party.

A man might also like to say he’ll be a ‘stud’ for his woman. Does that mean the only ‘real’ definition of stud should be applied here? Is this man seriously suggesting that he have bestial man-horse inter-species sex here? What does that say about his wife, that she accepts bestiality? Disgusting!

Regarding the use of the word “whore”: everyone pretty much knows what it means, and context or not, you can’t just choose to redefine a word, like, oh, when I say black I mean white really, and when I say red I mean green. Whores sell their bodies. That’s *not* the way I want anyone I care about to describe themselves; and what does it say about the man who accepts that his woman is a whore?

I’m reminded of Casablanca, when Rick and Ilsa are gazing into each other’s eyes and he says, “We’ll always have Paris.” Every adult knew exactly what went on in Paris, and we didn’t need a cheap graphic plot exposition to demonstrate it. A remake of the film today would surely show the two of them bouncing up and down in a sweaty bed, slamming the point home to the audience with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer.

Same deal with music. The current “in your face” lyrics in so many “songs” are insulting to the intelligence of the audience. Trouble is, the audience members have been dumbed down to the point where they don’t know they’re being fed swill.

Ok, yes, I’m a curmudgeon. Rant off.

Motown music is my all time favorite, I can listen to it all day long.

There’s nothing wrong singing about love or intimate relationships, I mean all the Motown songs were about love. and even if you’re trying to be provocative, there’s always a way to use double entendre.

In Diana Ross’ “Back in my Arms”, there’s a line that says “each time we make romance”, I’m pretty sure we can all guess what she is talking about.

Freedom to express is everyone’s right, and there’s nothing wrong with artists expressing themselves and singing songs about adult themes. But I guess you have to be aware/considerate of the audience.

Children will listen to that grown folks music no matter the restrictions or the warning labels ect…,

sometimes playing with words is the best approach.

a kid listening to the line “each time we make romance” may not get the double meaning (well in today’s world, many kids NOT ALL probably will get it) but a grown folk knows what makes romance is supposed to be about, but it comes off as less explicit than saying making love or having sex.

That’s why I love the Motown lyrics, because of the time and censorship/restriction, song writers had to play with words to present a clean song and yet still be able to express what they wanted to and movies and TV shows didn’t need to be explicit in making us believe that a couple was in love or someone was angry.

There are better/cleaner approach to express emotionally (angry, sad, mad at the world, in love, in hate, happiness, being rich etc), artists should use that approach to express themselves….

Oh just me being a miserable old git. You see, I love music. I really do. From Sonic Youth to Sibelius, from Curtis Mayfield to Sly and The Family Stone, from Led Zeppelin to Johnny Cash, from the Clash to Bob Marley,P-Funk, Zapp, The Doors, The Stooges, Aretha, James Brown ( I know I know) Bobby Womack, DJ Shadow, Underworld, Outkast, M.I.A, Beastie Boys, De La Soul (showing my age every second) I could go on all day…and already have…

… but play me some, argh, *Craig David* (UK ‘artist’) and I get caught trying to gnaw on my own elbow to stop the pain in my head! Also the rap-R&B crossover stuff just gets in my ear like a buzzsaw after 10 minutes. I don’t know what it is… sounds to me like a voice-modulation marathon! There’s something so manufactured, generic, insincere-sounding about a lot it (**groan**), and the instrumentation/arranging is, at the best, so often third rate filler stuff.

Thanks Shade, you’ve made me look in the mirror at at this grumpy old man and realise he needs to get out more! I do mean the modern-day rap/r&b crossover stuff mostly. I find it ‘limp’. I do like classic R&B, you know, the stuff with actual rhythm and blues in it

Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Dusty, Etta, etc…

Jamie Foxx? Huh? Run awayyyyy…

But even Stevie W is guilty of Crimes Against Music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEGHnAxEpo

(** Aural Health Warning **)

And besides, how can R&B possibly be linked to rap? R&B is actual music.

That reminds me. I’ve got the Riding with the King CD out in my truck. Think I’ll listen to it on the way home.