Hey Chuck,

I thought uncensored swear words were forbidden in AMiright parodies. This one has the "F**k" word uncensored several times in it:
http://www.amiright.com/parody/2000s/eminem245.shtml
(I had to censor it here, otherwise it would have come out as Fudge.) I thought parodies with uncensored cussing belonged on WhatFreaks.

no profanity is gernally allowed. only sexual topics are not allowed

no profanity is gernally allowed. only sexual topics are not allowed


this one used the f-word... that is not allowed

*scuffles feet sheepishly*
You'd best take this one down, the comments are even worse than the parody, which is crap anyway.
http://www.amiright.com/parody/2000s/d1216.shtml

I thought only really explicit ones were taken down, and plain cussing with no sexual connotations was okay.

I despise censorship! (it's un-American...real patriots cuss!)  ;)

I thought only really explicit ones were taken down, and plain cussing with no sexual connotations was okay.

I despise censorship! (it's un-American...real patriots cuss!)  ;)


the f word and the c word are pretty much off limits... other ones can be allowed through uncensored (but I'm not crazy about it)... sex talk is frowned on.  I started a seperate site for the stuff

Eh yeah, I understand. Sometimes I have a tendency to burst out into rhetoric anyway if I get angry.

I agree with Cat - censorship is deadly.  Besides, we have a "guest" stifling our creativity - not good.

I discovered that you can't use Fudge in the comments, either. "Twit control" goes into effect and won't post the comment unless you change it. Neato!

In most (if not all) cases, the use of four letter words is not creative.  If we parodists consider ourselves creative, there is always a better way of expressing an idea, vision or emotion than relying on the overused, trite f-dud.

Freedom of expression is an essential part of liberty, and censorship is something that all artists abhor.  But, the inability to have someone else willing to publish your work or willing to display it on his web site is not the same thing as censorship.  AmIRight has a few simple rules that seem reasonable, and Chucky G is usually flexible on

Well John, I think that depends on the context - I don't think you can make a general argument that the use of four letter words is never creative.  Personally, beliieve it or not, I agree with part of what you are saying - I think, for example, an early Bill Cosby not using four letter words was more creative than an Eddie Murphy using them.  But that's only my opinion.  Sometimes it is necessary to use the language.  And, as Agrim pointed out, one can't even use other words because of the twit control - censorship it is.

Regarding the site, you're right - his site, his rules - call it what you want but it's still limiting what can be produced and therefore would be censorship. 

You're right again, censorship is something that all artists abhor.

Sorry - to get back to my original point - the other danger was a "guest" dictating" what should and shouldn't go on here.  Extremely dangerous.

Well John, I think that depends on the context - I don't think you can make a general argument that the use of four letter words is never creative.  Personally, beliieve it or not, I agree with part of what you are saying - I think, for example, an early Bill Cosby not using four letter words was more creative than an Eddie Murphy using them.  But that's only my opinion.  Sometimes it is necessary to use the language.  And, as Agrim pointed out, one can't even use other words because of the twit control - censorship it is.

Regarding the site, you're right - his site, his rules - call it what you want but it's still limiting what can be produced and therefore would be censorship. 

You're right again, censorship is something that all artists abhor.


So is it censorship when something produced for adults, say Playboy magazine, isn't sold to minors, and is placed behind the counter?  Same thing really.  You can post adult content on a seperate site, maintained for just that reason.

Of course it's censorship - look up the definition.  I'm sorry if you don't like the word, but that's what it is.  You can run the site anyway you see fit - I'm not disputing that.  Afterall, we have satellite radio and cable tv for programs that are deemed "inappropriate" for the public airwaves - which is your point about whatever that other site is.  Look back to my original point, we have a "guest" attempting to censor artists - maybe this person posts, maybe they don't.

Of course it's censorship - look up the definition.  I'm sorry if you don't like the word, but that's what it is.  You can run the site anyway you see fit - I'm not disputing that.  Afterall, we have satellite radio and cable tv for programs that are deemed "inappropriate" for the public airwaves - which is your point about whatever that other site is.  Look back to my original point, we have a "guest" attempting to censor artists - maybe this person posts, maybe they don't.


ok, here it is:

to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

How is it being supressed if it is still available?

Too many people are eager to cry about censorship, when they have no idea what real censorship is.

The original guest is only asking why a parody is allowed on amiright that clearly violates the rules.  Not that they think they should be removed or they don't belong.  I suggest you re-read it.

One of the definitions of censorship is "censorial control exercised repressively" - one definition of repress is to "prevent the natural or normal expression." 

Sometimes people are too eager to make claims and end up making statements that show they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

Again, you may not like the word, but it's appropriate.

I suggest that you reread the definitions.

I think the confusion here is that there are indeed two definitions of censorship.  In a broad sense, it refers to the limitation of expression.  One can even censor oneself, for example, without anyone being violated or repressed.

The other defintion that I think may be more common is the coercive repression of free speech by a government entity, the sort of thing protected against by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. 

People often confuse the two, saying their rights have been violated if they're not allowed to express themselves in any way they like even if they're using someone else's platform to speak. A writer, for example, who doesn't like being edited by the newspaper he works for.  They can "censor" his work all they like without repressing his right to free speech, since the newspaper belongs to them, not him.  A person who comes into my home has no right to swear in front of my children unless I say so.  And only if my wife isn't there.  As guests of Chuck's website, he has the right to "censor" what we say as much as he likes, and it's not repressing any of our rights.  If we don't like it, we're free to go somewhere else.  But quite frankly, we get away with murder here.  And as much as I despise some cowardly "guest" coming in and tattling on people, I can't say I see it as a big dangerous problem.  If people would follow the guidelines in the first place, these people probably wouldn't feel the need to do it at all.

One of the definitions of censorship is "censorial control exercised repressively" - one definition of repress is to "prevent the natural or normal expression." 

Sometimes people are too eager to make claims and end up making statements that show they clearly don't know what they're talking about.

Again, you may not like the word, but it's appropriate.

I suggest that you reread the definitions.



I went to dictionary.com and read all the definitions.  I have no idea where you came up with that one.  Especially when they use a different form of the word censor to further define the word censor. Not exactly a stunning dictionary you have there.

You've picked the most narrow definition of the word you could find to launch your argument.  You point to the original post as someone advocating censorship when it didn't, and now you're trying to find some new way of looking like you're still correct.  You're still not correct.

When I don't post spam submitted as a parody, that would be censorship too I suppose.  There's a HUGE WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between editorial control and censorship.  When I open a phone book, I don't expect a Jane Austin novel under the listings for B. Every publication, online or in the real world, has rules of how it's ordered.  It's not "natural" or "normal expression" to put a Playboy in the children's section of a library, it's a crime.  It wouldn't be natural for a Children's anthology of stories to include ribald material either. I doubt any person, anywhere, would claim that it's censorship to prevent it.  That's what you're claiming the above description applies to, and it doesn't. 

It's really sad to see a word misused in the fashion you're misusing it in. It weakens the impact such a word should have when it's used.  Like the stupid Nazi comparisions that get used in politics lately.  As John Stewart pointed out, Hitler worked very hard to achieve a certain level of evil, and you dishonor that level of evil everytime some minor twit gets compared to him.

Censorship results in ideas from being supressed from the public.  That is not the case here. There's plenty of ways for anything rejected for amiright to be posted to the web. Plenty of ways for the public still to see it.

  And as much as I despise some cowardly "guest" coming in and tattling on people, I can't say I see it as a big dangerous problem.  If people would follow the guidelines in the first place, these people probably wouldn't feel the need to do it at all.


It's not cowardly at all to report something that was posted that shouldn't be. 

It's confusing to people if they post something that's not nearly as bad as something someone else posted that was approved when theirs was rejected.  It gives an appearance of favoritism, when in reality it's just a lack of time to vet every entry properly.

Haha - good try.  The folks at Merriam-Webster would beg to differ with you.  And it's the first definition. Haha.  So, you may just want to do a little research the next time before dishing out misinformation.  Ignorance is bliss. 




 

Haha - good try.  The folks at Merriam-Webster would beg to differ with you.  And it's the first definition. Haha.  So, you may just want to do a little research the next time before dishing out misinformation.  Ignorance is bliss. 



Don't blame the poor people at M-W.com for your inability to comprehend:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=censorship

censorial control exercised repressively

REPRESSIVELY does not mean what you think it means.  It fits with ClaudePrez's definition of censorship better.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/repressively

2 a : to hold in by self-control <repressed a laugh> b : to prevent the natural or normal expression, activity, or development of <repressed her anger>

Neither of those refer to someone else preventing expression of another.  They refer to an individual preventing their own emotions.  You are confusing the word REPRESS with SUPPRESS. No one says the military repressed an insurection.  They say SUPPRESS.

As for the other points I raised and you ignored, well, keep ignoring them, you still look foolish. 

If I have to prevent or curb my expression because someone else feels that it's inappropriate, it's censorship. 

You can try to narrow this down all you want but you're wrong.  In a broad sense, anything that puts a limit on creativity I feel is censorship.

So, speaking of being foolish, I ignored the ramble because it didn't seem to have anything to do with what I originally said. My original post was an opinion - yes, I believe that censorship is a problem artistically.  And, I worry about an outsider influencing a work.  Here's the quote:  "I agree with Cat - censorship is deadly.  Besides, we have a "guest" stifling our creativity - not good."

For you to dismiss my opinion on censorship as being foolish is ignorant. Besides, unlike the debate where you were absolutely wrong on your take on AM/PM, there can be various opinions on the definition of what censorship is to an individual.  And you should respect this as much as I respect your right to define what you think it is. 

But I'll let you have the last word and leave this debate - it's unfortunate that you started in with the name calling - it really weakens your argument.  However, I'm guilty of continuing it - so for this, I apologize.
Peace
bob

If I have to prevent or curb my expression because someone else feels that it's inappropriate, it's censorship. 

You can try to narrow this down all you want but you're wrong.  In a broad sense, anything that puts a limit on creativity I feel is censorship.

So, speaking of being foolish, I ignored the ramble because it didn't seem to have anything to do with what I originally said. My original post was an opinion - yes, I believe that censorship is a problem artistically.  And, I worry about an outsider influencing a work.  Here's the quote:  "I agree with Cat - censorship is deadly.  Besides, we have a "guest" stifling our creativity - not good."

For you to dismiss my opinion on censorship as being foolish is ignorant. Besides, unlike the debate where you were absolutely wrong on your take on AM/PM, there can be various opinions on the definition of what censorship is to an individual.  And you should respect this as much as I respect your right to define what you think it is. 

But I'll let you have the last word and leave this debate - it's unfortunate that you started in with the name calling - it really weakens your argument.  However, I'm guilty of continuing it - so for this, I apologize.
Peace
bob


So now you're defending it as your opinion of the word's definition?  Now that the definition of the word has been nailed down, you continue to misuse the word.  I guess though that's censorship if you redefine the word, just let everyone know you're redefining the word to your own standard.  It's the Pagliaro version of censorship, not the Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or Oxford English Dictionary defined version.

It wasn't a ramble.  I countered your point, and presented examples of real life examples.  Sorry you think that had nothing to do with your original point, but it did. 

You still ignore that the original post had NOTHING to do with censorship, and insist that it does.  I still stand by my original statement, you don't understand what you're talking about. Asking why a rule was not enforced for one parody, does not mean the original person was trying to censor anyone.  At no point do they state "this was posted and it shouldn't be because I disagree with it".  It asked why something that clearly violates guidelines was posted.  You read what you wanted to into it, just like you read what you wanted into the definition of a word.

Amongst all of this rhetoric, what do y'all think of this pile of S***?

http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/redhotchilipeppers36.shtml :o

If it were me, I would dump this out of the site, but on the other hand... :-\\ ???

Amongst all of this rhetoric, what do y'all think of this pile of S***?

http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/redhotchilipeppers36.shtml :o

If it were me, I would dump this out of the site, but on the other hand... :-\\ ???


Since the author of this parody called me a dumb ass (ooh, there's a creative put down!  ::)) and probably triple 1d my parody today I may be a little biased, but here goes: It isn't sexual, doesn't advocate violence nor contain the F or C words, so I don't see any reason to delete it.

That said, 411. Pacing was pretty good so I respected that, though I was tempted to drop my first ever uno-bomb. I would have left a comment there but I don't really feel like being called a "stupid c*nt" like he called you.

Since the author of this parody called me a dumb ass (ooh, there's a creative put down!  ::)) and probably triple 1d my parody today I may be a little biased, but here goes: It isn't sexual, doesn't advocate violence nor contain the F or C words, so I don't see any reason to delete it.

That said, 411. Pacing was pretty good so I respected that, though I was tempted to drop my first ever uno-bomb. I would have left a comment there but I don't really feel like being called a "stupid c*nt" like he called you.


All of those comments should have been reported at the very least.  I removed it, I think some of the stuff he describes is close enough to a sexual act to be considered reason for removal.

Red Ant, in a way I admire you for never 1-ing anyone, especially after all the times I've been 1-ed...have you read my "The 1 Guy's Stalking Me" parody yet? (sorry, shameless self-plug, I digress) but at the same time, I could never do that. I've seen some downright horrendous stuff on AmIRight...fragments, plagiarism, and just plain stupidity that is all certainly worthy of 1's. And I do admit that I have in the past given 1's out of spite...can you say "Linda Terhune?"

The lowest I've given was 333 myself, that's because I haven't read any really horrible ones. If I felt one was in very bad taste, I wouldn't vote on it at all, maybe I should start voting on the harsher ones.

Red Ant, in a way I admire you for never 1-ing anyone, especially after all the times I've been 1-ed...have you read my "The 1 Guy's Stalking Me" parody yet? (sorry, shameless self-plug, I digress) but at the same time, I could never do that. I've seen some downright horrendous stuff on AmIRight...fragments, plagiarism, and just plain stupidity that is all certainly worthy of 1's. And I do admit that I have in the past given 1's out of spite...can you say "Linda Terhune?"



Well, it seems as if you deserve to get ones... spite is a very bad thing. Must be jealousy, unless spite in just in your natural nature... Thanks by the way - you are a gem!

Vote with your brains, not with your heart, in all situations!

Most recently I've started butting (beat) in where a swear word would occur to allow people t use thie rimaginations and not be offfended :D

Admins, this parody needs to be removed:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/korn37.shtml

It contains an uncensored instance of the F word. I think there's other cussing in it as well.


Thank you.

There is something I feel I need to ask here.

Which is worse? All of the poomaster parodies which have a fair amount of revolting content, or one relatively 'clean' parody that mentions the F-word uncensored just once?

Jason

There is something I feel I need to ask here.

Which is worse? All of the poomaster parodies which have a fair amount of revolting content, or one relatively 'clean' parody that just mentions the F-word uncensored just once?

Jason


Frankly. . .this song recently pointed out is titled "Here to $#!^"  I mean, it has a curse word right in the title. . .and while I personally don't have a problem with that, it does violate site rules regardless--I don't know, my site doesn't censor, but unlike my site--Chucky has advertisers who partially choose to advertise here because it is safe for most ages. . .mine makes no such claim, and technically we start saying one F-You is ok, then someone uses two, then three. . .it becomes an event like that on South Park when the curse words actually brought on a curse  :D  Anyway. . .I have always been a proponent of free speech, but the general public (especially here in America) is prude when it comes to curse words, and because of that they (especially that one F***) have to be censored, it's a site rule because of advertising that Chucky needs to keep the site going.