"Baby It's Cold Outside" pulled from radio

[infinitecarnage]

[406in604]

1 hour ago, infinitecarnage said:

Edgy 

[VanGnome]

12 hours ago, HomeBrew said:

 

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

That's not at ALL what I was saying lol. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills a bit there bud. I was not aware that there was an additional definition of consent other than granting permission for something to happen, or an agreement to allow something to be done. Or is this more cryptic virtue signaling of the left, and yet another attempt bring ambiguity to the table, muddying the waters because you're incapable of having sound and rational debate?

[aGENT]

There's a BIG difference between:

 

 No, I really 'shouldn't'.

 

and:

 

 No I don't want to.

 

The song, particularly when considering the era, is clearly about the former.

 

Men have been pursuing the 'coy' woman since the dawn of time. By all means the rules and social norms etc around it evolve over time but that's not likely to ever change. We evolved as a species with the female half being more sexually selective for a reason and all the SJW'ing in the world is not going to change that. Particularly overnight.

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

There's a BIG difference between:

 

 No, I really 'shouldn't'.

 

and:

 

 No I don't want to.

 

The song, particularly when considering the era, is clearly about the former.

 

Men have been pursuing the 'coy' woman since the dawn of time. By all means the rules and social norms etc around it evolve over time but that's not likely to ever change. We evolved as a species with the female half being more sexually selective for a reason and all the SJW'ing in the world is not going to change that. Particularly overnight.

^ all that, plus the precedent here isn't good. Whats next if this is considered inappropriate? what does it mean for new artists?  this is why censorship can't be allowed (other than clear hate speech), there's just no way to really make these decisions fairly. 

 

[JM_]

9 hours ago, infinitecarnage said:

 

the best part of that is "America loving" 

 

[Shift-4]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

There's a BIG difference between:

 

 No, I really 'shouldn't'.

 

and:

 

 No I don't want to.

 

The song, particularly when considering the era, is clearly about the former.

 

Men have been pursuing the 'coy' woman since the dawn of time. By all means the rules and social norms etc around it evolve over time but that's not likely to ever change. We evolved as a species with the female half being more sexually selective for a reason and all the SJW'ing in the world is not going to change that. Particularly overnight.

Bingo

 

This move is a step towards eliminating the species.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Shift-4 said:

Bingo

 

This move is a step towards eliminating the species.

I still believe that most of us are all essentially reasonable people who want roughly the same things out of life, but our modern media (social media in particular) has devolved into dragging us daily into extremist fights over things that effect almost no one.

 

The real question for me is why do we keep watching and participating? 

[Shift-4]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I still believe that most of us are all essentially reasonable people who want roughly the same things out of life, but our modern media (social media in particular) has devolved into dragging us daily into extremist fights over things that effect almost no one.

 

The real question for me is why do we keep watching and participating? 

If you are suggesting you, I and aGENT are participating I would say it is some of us like to point out the absurdity  

[aGENT]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

has devolved into dragging us daily into extremist fights over things that effect almost no one.

Not sure I agree with that. There's a lot of nonsense going on with laws, education (including public schools not just the bass-ackwards post secondary) indoctrinating future SJW's and are attacks on free speech. I'd say that effects all of us . 

 

It's a slippery slope.

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Not sure I agree with that. There's a lot of nonsense going on with laws, education (including public schools not just the bass-ackwards post secondary) indoctrinating future SJW's and are attacks on free speech. I'd say that effects all of us . 

 

It's a slippery slope.

sometimes the slippery slope isn't what its cracked up to be, or even a slope. I do think much of what is out there about legal changes, or SJ issues, etc. are way overblown. Take the whole pronoun stuff, is that really worth the reams of angst written and meme'd over it? I mean how many people have you met where you'd have to worry about it? 

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sometimes the slippery slope isn't what its cracked up to be, or even a slope. I do think much of what is out there about legal changes, or SJ issues, etc. are way overblown. Take the whole pronoun stuff, is that really worth the reams of angst written and meme'd over it? I mean how many people have you met where you'd have to worry about it? 

It's not about the pronouns. People can call themselves whatever they want.

 

Legally compelled speech is quite frankly a VERY big problem that IMO wasn't made enough of a deal about. It's very, VERY bad and attacks one of the major pillars of our free, western civilization. Does that sounds like 'nothing to worry about'?

[canuckistani]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sometimes the slippery slope isn't what its cracked up to be, or even a slope. I do think much of what is out there about legal changes, or SJ issues, etc. are way overblown. Take the whole pronoun stuff, is that really worth the reams of angst written and meme'd over it? I mean how many people have you met where you'd have to worry about it? 

Its called first world problems. 

Aka, making problems to feel like a good guy fighting for something. 

 

What is ironic i find, is that most of the outrage is done by people who are NOT the intended target/minority etc. but people speaking on our behalf. As a minority, i highly value USA-style freedom of speech and wish Canada had more free speech, not less.

 

[Tre Mac]

Actually heard this song for the first time and like most Christmas music it makes me want to sleepwalk onto a congested highway.  Just give me Pachelbal's Canon in D on repeat thank you very much.

 

 

[Heretic]

Chirping in,  just to share some thoughts.

 

We used to burn people at the stake for "being" witches.  We use to cut the hand off of a thieves.   Rape and pillaging was "normal" in the medieval times.   

There are many things in the past that are no longer "normal" today.

 

The problem with these songs that are being banned is - they can't stand the test of time for acceptable behaviour. 

 

Rape and violence against women is wrong - so should glamorizing it in any way.

 

Yes, when that song came out, it wasn't meant to do that - but by today's standards it does.

 

Please read this blog from over a year ago on this subject:

 

https://yourdream.liveyourdream.org/2017/03/3-pop-songs-fuel-rape-culture/

 

  

[bishopshodan]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sometimes the slippery slope isn't what its cracked up to be, or even a slope. I do think much of what is out there about legal changes, or SJ issues, etc. are way overblown. Take the whole pronoun stuff, is that really worth the reams of angst written and meme'd over it? I mean how many people have you met where you'd have to worry about it? 

 

I do struggle with the pronoun thing.

That said, my wife works at a music school for kids where they have to worry about it quite a bit. You'd be surprised. I don't know if the school has a higher percentage than most of people that identify differently and want to be addressed as such... but its a lot more than I was expecting.

 

On your concern about censorship...

Its not a complete censorship of this song imo, its just being removed by some platforms. I don't see how Rogers and CBC would have much effect on new artists either.

I was once a major label artist. The fact that most of our songs were not suitable for radio actually helped us in our scene. When we signed though we did get told we were 'sell outs' a lot. but that's the early 90's for ya. "corporate music still sucks!"

So where I'm coming from is that I don't think this is about suppressing future artists. It's about lines in a song that could be difficult to explain to say a young person. "why is that guy being so pervy?" " oh you don't understand, men used to have all the power over society instead of just most of it like today. So women had to act like they didn't like sex while men got to pressure the heck out of them. It was called romance and courtship, not that the women had any real say in it"

The words in the song kinda remind me of the courting practice of modern day Irish travellers, its not cool if you're a girl but hey, its tradition and they don't complain. Still i'd like to see a law banning it. Now, I know I'm being silly as the boys forcefully physically push themselves on a girl, not just act pervy. I'm just on this kick lately to really try to understand where people are coming from. 

 

Again though, blown out of proportion and there is a lot of other songs they could pick on I suppose. 

 

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

It's not about the pronouns. People can call themselves whatever they want.

 

Legally compelled speech is quite frankly a VERY big problem that IMO wasn't made enough of a deal about. It's very, VERY bad and attacks one of the major pillars of our free, western civilization. Does that sounds like 'nothing to worry about'?

It depends on what you are being 'compelled' to do. There actually isn't anything other than standard hate speech laws in Canada, despite the furor, the bill Trudeau passed was symbolic and actually was redundant. All you're compelled to do is not do something hateful, which was the law already. 

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

I do struggle with the pronoun thing.

That said, my wife works at a music school for kids where they have to worry about it quite a bit. You'd be surprised. I don't know if the school has a higher percentage than most of people that identify differently and want to be addressed as such... but its a lot more than I was expecting.

 

On your concern about censorship...

Its not a complete censorship of this song imo, its just being removed by some platforms. I don't see how Rogers and CBC would have much effect on new artists either.

I was once a major label artist. The fact that most of our songs were not suitable for radio actually helped us in our scene. When we signed though we did get told we were 'sell outs' a lot. but that's the early 90's for ya. "corporate music still sucks!"

So where I'm coming from is that I don't think this is about suppressing future artists. It's about lines in a song that could be difficult to explain to say a young person. "why is that guy being so pervy?" " oh you don't understand, men used to have all the power over society instead of just most of it like today. So women had to act like they didn't like sex while men got to pressure the heck out of them. It was called romance and courtship, not that the women had any real say in it"

The words in the song kinda remind me of the courting practice of modern day Irish travellers, its not cool if you're a girl but hey, its tradition and they don't complain. Still i'd like to see a law banning it. Now, I know I'm being silly as the boys forcefully physically push themselves on a girl, not just act pervy. I'm just on this kick lately to really try to understand where people are coming from. 

 

Again though, blown out of proportion and there is a lot of other songs they could pick on I suppose. 

 

 

interesting perspective, thanks. I guess with CBC - publicly funded CBC - deciding to arbitrarily censor the song it brings up a good excuse for people with all sorts of issues wanting other things banned from CBC too. I'd have a hard time arguing why many more things shouldn't be banned too. I'd prefer that we err on the side of free speech, with the caveat that it doesn't get into hate speech.

[aGENT]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

It depends on what you are being 'compelled' to do. There actually isn't anything other than standard hate speech laws in Canada, despite the furor, the bill Trudeau passed was symbolic and actually was redundant. All you're compelled to do is not do something hateful, which was the law already. 

Agree it was redundant (and unnecessary).

 

Ask Lindsay Shephard how 'symbolic' it was.

 

And don't get me started on the nonsense in the BC Human Rights Code...

 

 

[canuckistani]

56 minutes ago, Heretic said:

Chirping in,  just to share some thoughts.

 

We used to burn people at the stake for "being" witches.  We use to cut the hand off of a thieves.   Rape and pillaging was "normal" in the medieval times.   

There are many things in the past that are no longer "normal" today.

 

The problem with these songs that are being banned is - they can't stand the test of time for acceptable behaviour. 

 

Rape and violence against women is wrong - so should glamorizing it in any way.

 

Yes, when that song came out, it wasn't meant to do that - but by today's standards it does.

 

Please read this blog from over a year ago on this subject:

 

https://yourdream.liveyourdream.org/2017/03/3-pop-songs-fuel-rape-culture/

 

  

Its not glamorizing rape or coersion, its speaking in innuendo and speaking for social standards vs personal desires. 

it doesn't do that by today's standards either. There are still billions of people who live by the same standards and many of them are immigrating to Canada and can identify with the song far more than historically ignorant millenials can.