Comments on "You Can't Say That, It's Not--Well You Know--Nice"

Go to The Impossibility Of Knowing - Add a comment - Go to "You Can't Say That, It's Not--Well You Know--Nice"

Dave Cryer, I don't recall "jangling bits". Very funny. On that day my partner groaned when I said yes I was going to watch it all. He went out and then a hour or two later later telephoned me to say he was there!

posted by Azur on August 22, 2005 at 4:24 PM | link to this | reply

Quote from the funeral, which I watched from start to finish: "And here come the horses - with their bits jangling". I did laugh at that point. And maybe she would have laughed too at all the outrageous pomp coming from the institution that she'd left behind. Poor young woman. Poor young boys. Poor family. Other than that, I watched it because it was history happening on my TV.

And I bet those newsagents didn't take the porn off their top shelves.

posted by _dave_says_ack_ on August 22, 2005 at 6:59 AM | link to this | reply

Kathu, it is funny isn't it? The Stones are not American and yes there is a long list of artists who have sung, written, painted - whatever they do maing commentaries against Bush and against every government that ever was. That guy you mentioned who called up to warn your boss -- this kind of attitude is such a throwback to previous times when various groups or individuals were banned or worse because they thought differently.

I was in Paris a couple of months ago but I've never been through that tunnel as I am always on foot or on the metro. I think that there would still be flowers there and particularly this month.

posted by Azur on August 19, 2005 at 2:09 PM | link to this | reply

I remember right before the accident the headlines of the tabloids: "A Guy for Di?" was one. It seemed as if everything changed after she died. In 1999 I went to France as part of a school trip. One of the places we passed by when we were in Paris was the place where Diana's accident happened. There were still tons and tons of flowers everywhere.

On another note, I work in an internship on Capitol Hill, and once we got a phone call from a guy in our district about the whole Rolling Stones criticizing Bush. Trust me, there are a lot more celebrities out there who are criticizing Bush, so I don't know why people focus on the Rolling Stones. Anyway, this man had gotten wind of this fact, and wanted to warn the congressman I work for. The constituent also claimed that the RS were being un-American. But one of the most famous amemndments to the constitution protects people's right to free speech. Why shouldn't the Stones make whatever kind of comment they like?

posted by Kasthu on August 19, 2005 at 9:34 AM | link to this | reply

Silvermoon7, haha. please don't apologize. I was flattered by your treatise. I should have made it clearer in the post ;-)

posted by Azur on August 18, 2005 at 1:45 AM | link to this | reply

Well, hell. Leave it to me to misread, step up on my soapbox, and deliver a freaking treatise.

Apologies to you, MayB.

posted by SilverMoon7 on August 18, 2005 at 1:35 AM | link to this | reply

Joe Love, all it took was one outing in a tiny flag dress;-)

posted by Azur on August 17, 2005 at 9:52 PM | link to this | reply

I was never a big Diana fan, but

back when the car crash happened, I remember watching all the roses hitting the streets as her casket went down the street. And, I was touched by it.

But, really. ., it was no big deal. I mean. ., so what if she was an icon for Britain's beauty, class, and dignity. . , recognized world-wide. She was easily replaced. Now you all have Geri Halliwell!!

posted by Joe_Love on August 17, 2005 at 8:48 PM | link to this | reply

Jemmie211, when we hear it we should question them directly. I often realize that when it's too late

posted by Azur on August 16, 2005 at 2:19 PM | link to this | reply

This line really rang true for me:

"People claim to be fighting for freedom and yet they'll stamp on art, music and writing. How cowardly."

So true. It's something I say all the time.

posted by Jemmie211 on August 16, 2005 at 2:16 PM | link to this | reply

Hemlocker, you even see it on Blogit when people comment on the quality - or lack of it -- in the writing, or when they remark on the something so inane as the rankings. It is an odd mentality and hypocrisy -- very human probably --where people want others to let them exist freely but suggest others should be restrained.

posted by Azur on August 16, 2005 at 1:40 PM | link to this | reply

MayB

As usual you offer important advice. I would go further than "Don't say that, it's not nice." Right here on Blogit you can find people who are otherwise free spirits who, when they read something critical of our government, are ready to condemn the writer as a traitor who offers comfort to terrorists and lowers the morale of our troops. They want to live their own lives in blithe liberty, but are not above wishing to see others squashed who offer ideas and opinions they perceive as conflicting with their own.

posted by Hemlocker on August 16, 2005 at 8:50 AM | link to this | reply

MayB,

Very well said. I agree. Everyone should have the right to say whatever they want. I don't have to like it, or agree with it. For example, my jaw just dropped when I read CFarmer's comment. I had someone die in one of those towers and it effected family and friends around me deeply. But I'm not going to sue him, or try to stop him from stating an opinion. I'd probably even read him.

Like several others commented, it's when someone in power decides another can't say something, that I say, "houston, we have a problem." What are they not getting about the phrase, FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

posted by NCwriter on August 16, 2005 at 6:16 AM | link to this | reply

It concerns me when I see the words "traitor" or "treasonous behavior"

used in voicing an opinion on artistic or any type of expression. I disagree totally with those views and consider them dangerous, but I also realize those who voice them have the same freedom of speech liberty, as they rightfully should. And thankfully so do I. Thought provoking post May.

posted by Katray2 on August 16, 2005 at 5:46 AM | link to this | reply

Ca88andra, that leaves a lot of scope

posted by Azur on August 16, 2005 at 3:30 AM | link to this | reply

word.smith, sheep come with many different coats

posted by Azur on August 16, 2005 at 3:29 AM | link to this | reply

CFarmer, I agree that, "Unreservedness doesn't mean being crude or unecessarily mean". I notice more and more that unreservedness is labeled as whining, moaning, or hateful when in reality it is only unreservedness.

I think that people have different thresholds when it comes to some of the bigger events. Indeed some people have to laugh because it is the only way they can process something. It's like when you go to the theatre and at a very poignant moment people laugh. It's natural for many people.

Unreservedly, I will tell you that I have difficulty laughing about 9/11 and I didn't laugh about Diana but I did laugh at the hypocrisies pointed out by Private Eye and others.

Thank you for your comments.

posted by Azur on August 16, 2005 at 3:07 AM | link to this | reply

SilverMoon7, just to clarify a point you made but first thank you for your considered comment.

The decision was not made by the publishers but by a leading retailer who for that week declined to sell a popular publication. (thankfully all shops did not take this line). It was not an insightful business decision but an ill-considered attempt at censorship.
The retailer made a judgement and assumed that all customers were in the puritanical image of the person who made the decision. It is the same as if Blogit's owners were to rule that certain blogs which expressed unpopular views would not be posted.

I agree that it is dangerous when a controlling entity says "NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, and then enforces it". This is the reason that we need open access to all viewpoints as it reduces the chances of this.

I agree that the fuss over Janet Jackson highlighted the absurdities of the situation.

Yes political correctness emanates from many sources and not least puritanical cultural origins. It is even more concerning when corporations who wield great economic influence start stamping on any alternative view. Again thank you for your comment, I appreciate it.

posted by Azur on August 16, 2005 at 2:55 AM | link to this | reply

I agree we should be allowed to freely express ourselves, as long as this does not include slander or libel or any such thing. An opinion is individual and without them we might as well become robots.

posted by Ca88andra on August 16, 2005 at 1:41 AM | link to this | reply

MayB,

Likely, the print pub you were speaking of made a business decision, and a moral one, respecting not just its bottom line, but the sensibilities of a percentage of its readers. the two are, after all, intertwined, and it's their right to make that decision. Just as the Rolling Stones have the right to sing an anti-Bush song, those who are offended by it have every bit the same right to speak against it.

The danger isn't in people expressing their opposing opinions--it's perfectly okay to say it's not--well--nice. The real danger comes when a controlling entity says NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, and then enforces it. I don't see that happening just because some conserative folk are raisin' a ruckus over a song. And I don't see it because a magazine made an insightful business decision.

Compared to Europe, America has some retentive issues concerning decency, which really is evidence of our Puritanical roots and seems to be more of a cultural anamoly than a governmentally controlling one. I, for one, would like to see American society lighten up a bit, (I'm thinking of the Janet Jackson thing, in particular here--something that went unnoticed in Germany, at least, until the Americans made a big hoopla over it. And then we were laughed at for being such ninnies). But I wouldn't want anyone to be prohibited from speaking against my speaking out, or to be thought lesser of simply because they expressed their opinion.

It might seem as though we are more and more constrained about what we can or cannot say, but the emphasis here seems to come more from various forms of political correctness, which is a cultural issue and such things ebb and flow with time, and less of a govnermental one.

I say, let people fuss and fidget all they want. It's only evidence that the foundation of their beliefs has been shaken, and they are doubting their own personal truth. It's a little mental exercise we all need from time to time. The fact is, Freedom of Speech is so deeply ingrained in our system of beliefs and the basis of our society, it can't be taken away without provoking such a *serious* backlash, that any attempt would likely fail. And any governmental agency would be out of its mind to even entertain such a thought.

posted by SilverMoon7 on August 16, 2005 at 1:06 AM | link to this | reply

An excellent point

I think this post comes at a time most appropriate. Unreservedness doesn't mean being crude or unecessarily mean. We're not all meant to follow social cues. My experience with this issue comes from 9/11. When it happened, many around me were wrapped in grief and disbelief. I myself dropped my jaw and screamed "Frickin' awesome!" when I first saw the crashes on TV. The number of glares and clenched teeth that turned towards me was unbelievable.

It was hard to find anyone else not completely devestated by the attack, and I certainly don't think less of anyone that was or still is. But to tell the truth, I didn't know what the hell the World Trade Centers were until they got demolished. The more TV spun the issue, the more I found it a topic to mock, to satire. I was truly disappointed in Comedy Central when they danced around the issue completely.

I remember telling a 9/11 joke three days after the attack. This woman standing next to my friend and I cold-slapped me and screamed "How dare you!?"

It truly baffled me.

9/11's a completely different animal than the censorship and decency issues America is plagued with today, I understand. But that's what I have to share on this particular topic. Good post, MayB. I'm enjoying your blog thus far.

posted by CFarmer on August 15, 2005 at 10:58 PM | link to this | reply

QuirkyAlone, deep eh?

posted by Azur on August 15, 2005 at 9:50 PM | link to this | reply

This was my nugget, hidden in the middle: If people are afraid of a song or a piece of writing, it doesn't say much for them.

How true!

posted by Julia. on August 15, 2005 at 8:41 PM | link to this | reply

Majroj, you miss little

posted by Azur on August 15, 2005 at 8:11 PM | link to this | reply