"Baby It's Cold Outside" pulled from radio

[406in604]

Just now, Tortorella's Rant said:

I know..

People love to bitch about everything nowadays. I don't know if that was the case 30, 50, 100 years ago. But it's certainly true today..

I think it is social media and our instant touch with things. It used to take a week for things to well up. Now, it's seconds. It certainly wasn't the case 30 years ago. I am in my 50's, I remember. 

[bishopshodan]

Wait, do they play Rap with harsh explicit lyrics on CBC and Rogers? Can I find some Tyler the Creator on there? Love his production don't care for what he says, at all.

 

How about Punk? a band named Screwdriver was charting in Germany for a while,  do they get some airtime? 

 

I'm joking of course.

Some of you have pointed out songs that they may play that are 'worse' ( Blondie,Police) . So turf them too, its up to the company. See how many listeners you get with your safe music. Maybe it will work...

 

Nobody is censoring art. A group of people decided that this song is ( as some of you have said) a little pervy. It's caught on and some corporations agree. They have removed the track like a 'Leipsic'. It can still be 'played' and appreciated, just not on those 'teams' anymore.

 

I have no problem with the song, it is being misinterpreted but if CBC and Rogers think this is good for business, so be it. Not the first thing I disagree with those two wonderful companies about.

 

People want it like it was 30, 50 , 100 years ago? good luck with the time travel, hope you're a straight white male. 

^^^ you're right though, silly things catch fire on social media, I'm not sure why most people are addicted to those platforms. I'm so glad I limit myself to just this site, you all are freaking out enough for me. 

 

 

[Lockout Casualty]

7 minutes ago, 406in604 said:

I remind you of someone, neat. The government took the song off the government controlled channels. 

 

You remind of someone I've never met or seen before who can't comprehend simple things. It was exciting here, until I met you. 

I can differentiate between an autonomous crown corporation and the government, but sure, I'm the one who can't comprehend simple things. Whatever you say. 

[Toews]

1 hour ago, canuckistani said:

The hulabaloo over this song shows us, that regardless of whether one is a liberal or a conservative, Canadians, in general, lack the fundamental principle of TOLERANCE and UNDERSTANDING. 

This song is *NOT*  'rapey'.  Its written in the 20s-50s era. An era where you were automatically branded a whore or a womanizer if you spent alone time with the opposite gender. 

I spent part of my childhood growing up in a culture where women are obligated to say no to the first attempt at ANYTHING a guy says - are you cold ? are you too hot ? do you want a coffee ?  All of them will be answered 'no' the first time.  Heck, in one of the languages i am fluent in and happens to be one of the most spoken languages worldwide,  the term for 'being in love' is deewangi - which literally means 'madness'. Nobody takes it as 'lovers are crazy/love is being insane/all lovers = axe-murdering jealous psychos', it literally means ' madness in the sense of not being proper and risking humiliation'. 

 

So i get where this song is coming from :

He doesn't want her to leave, so he is making up innane reasons for her to stay. She doesn't want to leave either, but cannot automatically say 'yes', lest she be seen as a whore, so she is playing up the coyness of 'i must have lost my senses to make this choice and not be proper'. 

That is all that is going on, people. Instead of banning this song and being 'its too rapey', maybe the conversation should revolve around ' i am glad we don't have to speak in innuendo and beat around the bush like our grandparents had to !'

 

The end.

When you need to be 60+ or come from a sexually repressed society to relate to a song, then I am sorry but its time to go. Also do you think anyone really cares how grandpa put the moves on grandma and should they? This seems like a stone cold business decision, the radio networks realized that a song where a man appears to creep all over a woman is helping them lose an audience who does not understand nor care about the context behind the song. And yes that's exactly what it seems to come across as it is so far off-base any normal interaction between a man and a woman in today's times. The song is simply outdated and nobody should really give a hoot but these are the days when someone will get outraged over something stupid and then this will lead to outrage about the outrage. Seems exhausting.

[canuckistani]

Just now, Toews said:

When you need to be 60+ or come from a sexually repressed society to relate to a song, then I am sorry but its time to go.

No, its never time to go because of those reasons. Understanding the nature of this song is far more instructive and educational than banning it. Especially since Canada is deriving a LOT of immigrants who fundamentally identify with the coyness of this song. 

Just now, Toews said:

Also do you think anyone really cares how grandpa put the moves on grandma and should they?

Yep. I do. Many do. Many of us are not believers in the 'new is better' ideology by default. 

Just now, Toews said:

 This seems like a stone cold business decision, the radio networks realized that a song where a man appears to creep all over a woman is helping them lose an audience who does not understand nor care about the context behind the song.

Not so sure it speaks for the audience, since plenty in the audience have also spoken up for its support. Infact, i see more people in support of it than the few 'twitter-ratis' offended by it. 

 

This is simply the case of 'those who make more noise, get their way' axiom playing out. 

 

Just now, Toews said:

And yes that's exactly what it seems to come across as it is so far off-base any normal interaction between a man and a woman in today's times.

Today's times ?! Today's times still get people stoned for touching each other. Canada is an open immigration country, not a rock floating in space by itself. One does not get to be liberal and open in the long term by being judgy and engaging in thought control. 

Just now, Toews said:

The song is simply outdated and nobody should really give a hoot but these are the days when someone will get outraged over something stupid and then this will lead to outrage about the outrage. Seems exhausting.

Everyone should give a hoot about how people act under different social conditions and expectations than whats prevalent. Its called basic empathy. Ideas like yours is the reason why the left and the right are just starting to mirror each other as demagougery inverse of each other. 

[406in604]

1 hour ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I can differentiate between an autonomous crown corporation and the government, but sure, I'm the one who can't comprehend simple things. Whatever you say. 

Crown corporation controlled by the government. Anyways, you're right, it should be pulled from the air waves for being a horribly offensive song. Next they should pull silent night. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, VanGnome said:

The problem for me is in the extremism on both sides of the argument, and the militance by which these causes are applied, none of it is conducive to rational discourse. There's no debate, you're either on board or you're a racist, bigot or sexist.
 

It's no surprise then that this entire document is spearheaded by Trudeau and the Liberals, further isolating us from the rest of the less extremist countries of the world, at least in the sense of immigration and protection of sovereignty. I find it absolutely unconscionable that any Government wouldn't want to preserve a natural and orderly immigration process, unless of course that Government subscribes to the Marxist theory of Social Constructionism and Erasure of Borders.

yup extremism might be our current biggest political problem. 

 

I'm pretty liberal on the social side, obviously, but I don't see any real threat of that anytime soon. No one with a brain wants marxism or truly open borders. I do think a lot of JTs virtue signalling gets way overblown. Just because a meme gets posted 1000 times it doesn't mean he's spreading the message as much as it appears. There's nothing inherently wrong with a gender-balanced cabinet e.g., for almost all ministerial positions there isn't one "best person" only, that ideas a fallacy, unless maybe you're talking about defence, finance or health its pretty tough to prove. But it got a lot of people riled up. 

 

If he is in support of this song ban thing tho I'd definitely agree its gone too far. 

[Lockout Casualty]

14 minutes ago, 406in604 said:

Crown corporation controlled by the government. Anyways, you're right, it should be pulled from the air waves for being a horribly offensive song. Next they should pull silent night. 

I could do away with the whole playlist, personally. Never been a fan of this commercial holiday celebrating the birth of a mythical figure at the head of one of the biggest cults in the world.

 

 

What "autonomous" means. 

[406in604]

42 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I could do away with the whole playlist, personally. Never been a fan of this commercial holiday celebrating the birth of a mythical figure at the head of one of the biggest cults in the world.

 

 

What "autonomous" means. 

Ahhh, so you are a scrooge. It all makes sense now. 

[Lockout Casualty]

2 hours ago, 406in604 said:

Ahhh, so you are a scrooge. It all makes sense now. 

No, a scrooge is stingy with money, the term you should have used is "grinch".

 

If you keep this up, I'll have to invoice you for English lessons. 

[HerrDrFunk]

After carefully weighing both sides of this, my opinion is: who the &^@# cares?

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

After carefully weighing both sides of this, my opinion is: who the &^@# cares?

Exactly.  I didn’t listen to the song, and still don’t.  Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good.

[406in604]

31 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

No, a scrooge is stingy with money, the term you should have used is "grinch".

 

If you keep this up, I'll have to invoice you for English lessons. 

Okay Scrooge. 

[406in604]

24 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

After carefully weighing both sides of this, my opinion is: who the &^@# cares?

The guy above you does. 

[HerrDrFunk]

59 minutes ago, 406in604 said:

The guy above you does. 

Whoop-di-&^@#ing-doo

[Lockout Casualty]

I... I really don't. 

[Ryan Strome]

6 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

I can differentiate between an autonomous crown corporation and the government, but sure, I'm the one who can't comprehend simple things. Whatever you say. 

I thought he was bang on.

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Exactly.  I didn’t listen to the song, and still don’t.  Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good.

Is that what alfs wife says?

[HomeBrew]

8 hours ago, VanGnome said:

Your response signifies exactly what is wrong in society today. Instead of acknowledging the past for the past and identifying a better way to proceed, the over extension of the PC culture continually reaches back into the past for reasons to manufacture outrage today.

The problem that me too has created, despite the obvious positives is that people now need to be fearful of the most basic of societal interactions between sexes or even in some cases those of the same sex, for fear of reprisal that said interaction is an unwanted, nonconsensual sexual abuse. In other words, people need to condition themselves when it comes to body language, tone of voice, inflection, eye contact etc when interacting in order to NOT be misconstrued as someone dangerous or to be feared whether the person they're interacting with is likely to be offended in this sense or not.

Another problem is that because of this, corporations hyper extend to the absolute extreme and in order to appease those with rather weak mental constitution (read snowflakes) they make decisions which impact exponentially more people negatively than the action was made to benefit in a positive fashion.

For all of the talk of social justice, it's very much the opposite. It's social injustice masquerading as a cause for positive change. All it's doing is pushing society to change and conform to a very narrow minded world view that does not apply to the majority of the world population. However, since the issue is predominantly being pushed by those in positions of power and influence (some politicians, ie Justin Trudeau is an example, or individuals with significant amounts of wealth ie George Soros, or the multitude of lieutenants in this cause that have significant social importance such as celebrities who also have quite a bit of money themselves), it's picked up by the mainstream media as well as social media, pimped and now appears to be a much larger reality than it really ought to be; the plebs fall in line and you get a level of momentum that is near on impossible to combat.

The problem with the militant nature of the metoo movement is that it's all or nothing. It does nothing to foster healthy discourse, it's "our way or the highway".

In the discussion of rape culture, metoo in some ways can be thought of as putting Leipsic on a pig. If metoo had stopped at simply bringing awareness to a systemic issue in society I would be 100% fine with it, because at it's essence that's the correct thing to do. Where I draw issue with metoo, is the militance in which it is applied, superseding our most basic fundamental concepts of law and justice such as burden of proof. Many of the predominant metoo rally cries are absent of having anything close to enough supporting evidence to satisfy the burden of proof, Harvey Weinstein is the most cited example of one such case in which there was overwhelming evidence to support the claims.

I'm not going to delve into the Kavanaugh hearing as I think that at its core the issue had merit, but the way in which it was handled on both sides to me suggests that it did a disservice to the actual issue at hand.

What I will say is, the re-scoping of what constitutes rape from a societal perspective I'm fine with, and this is me talking as a father of a little girl. The point I was making in my previous post, is that if positive change has any hope in hell of mass adoption by the general populace, then the forces which are pushing for that change need to be fair, even tempered and exist in parallel to and respecting of the existing frameworks of law and order. Rallying together a group of extreme left wing nutjobs where nearly every aspect of their existence is a trigger mechanism, and appeasing them when they cry out from their safe spaces does nothing except to alienate people who would otherwise consider their points of view.

We need rational, healthy debate on subjects without devolving into relative monkeys in order to come to any kind of logical consensus as a society. Conversation, and the debate of ideas is the most fundamental way to achieve that in a civilized manner. People are by and large simply too lazy to do that, it's much easier to take a completely unrealistic and extremist position in an attempt to force everyone else to conform. You're going to get resistance, and just because people resist does not mean they are bigoted, or sexist, homophobic or anything else other than simply disagreeing with either something that is said, or the mode in which it is being conveyed.

Edit: I just noticed that the forums changes the word "Lip.Stick" to "Leipsic". This should be removed since Leipsic is now a member of the LA Kings, lol. @debluvscanucks/any other mod who can make that change.

 

My response is one saying that you need to educate yourself more, and clearly you do. Just s suggestion, but you might want to research what consent actually means in regards to sexual relations as you evidently have no clue. I find it funny how you get to decided what is “healthy discourse” and what is considered “rational” and “healthy debate”. I’m sorry you feel that is “unfair” that they aren’t playing that song on the radio anymore, but I for one, will let the women who have suffered these traumas to decide for themselves what is “rational” and “healthy” as they reclaim their voice from th violence that they have suffered.

 

You stated that “the forces which are pushing for that change need to be fair, even tempered and exist in parallel to and respecting of the existing frameworks of law and order.” What makes you think this hasn’t happened when they choose to not play a song from over a half century ago? What you satisfy you in that regards? A nation wide vote? You have taken one small action, which is to not play a song on a radio station, to claiming that you are now treated unfairly and that you are allowed feel that way and make that claim of unfairness  because you have a daughter... hahaha

[Lockout Casualty]

54 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I thought he was bang on.

You're not exactly impressing me there, but good for you I guess. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.