#MeTooFar

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The difference is that real and measurable harm has been done by racism, and the cartoon is blatantly racists. Real and measurable harm has also been done by sexism, but it hasn’t been shown that this song is sexist.

Boru

Really blatant to who?  . I don't imagine a person in the deep south in 30s would agree with that assessment to him it's likely just a picture of a black man eating watermelon . Indeed their is real harm with sexism . But the question is what is sexism and who decides ?

---

Stupid according to me.

So a position on par with the objectors

Absolutely. They expressed an opinion about the song and I’ve expressed an opinion about it being pulled.

Boru

[Amarok]

Stupid according to who?

The station didn't think it was stupid

Those protesting didn't think it was stupid

The issue is one of line drawing.  What happens the next time some other asshole decides they don't like a particular song and demands that it be banned?  Does the station cave on that, too?   As noted above it is a private enterprise which presumably has a music director who decides what they broadcast. 

There is no right to "not be offended."  Some people seem to go out of their way to be "offended."  Almost as if they find it empowering because someone listens to them.

1. I could point out we could draw the line both ways . 

2. I question  that idea that statement implies people are not allowed to have feelings about things and i also wonder is their a right to offend ?

---

Really blatant to who?  . I don't imagine a person in the deep south in 30s would agree with that assessment to him it's likely just a picture of a black man eating watermelon . Indeed their is real harm with sexism . But the question is what is sexism and who decides ?

---

So a position on par with the objectors

Absolutely. They expressed an opinion about the song and I’ve expressed an opinion about it being pulled.

Boru

Happy we agree on that  

[Mermaid]

A radio station can play whatever the hell it wants. If it wants to ban songs and play others, that's their prerogative.
The song is creepy, I've always thought so, but nobody is forcing me to listen to it.

This is not a big deal. It isn't worth getting upset about.

[Minimalist]

But some people have to make a big deal about every little thing.  That's the problem.

[Angrboda]

Still not seeing the problem.  The radio station is a private enterprise funded by corporate and other advertisers.  Who do you think should decide and why?

But I’m not saying the station was wrong to pull the song, just that it was stupid. It’s their station, they can play (or not play) whatever they like.

Boru

That's not an answer to my question. Or are you now saying that you said something you didn't mean?

[Mermaid]

Some people seem to go out of their way to be "offended."  Almost as if they find it empowering because someone listens to them.

And some people are actually offended. Everyone's different and everyone has their threshold. What offends me doesn't necessarily offend you. Putting a value judgment on that is not only a waste of time and effort, but it's a really good way to alienate people and stoke the fire. 

People feel how they feel. There is no right or wrong to that.

---

But some people have to make a big deal about every little thing.  That's the problem.

It seems that the people complaining about the station banning the song are the ones making the big deal.

[Shell B]

A radio station can play whatever the hell it wants. If it wants to ban songs and play others, that's their prerogative.
The song is creepy, I've always thought so, but nobody is forcing me to listen to it.

This is not a big deal. It isn't worth getting upset about.

Is there anyone who's actually upset. It's worthy of a conversation, given that it's extremely important that we recognize what is assault, what is creepy and what is harmless. That's actually a pretty big deal because we have to *gasp* protect people from false accusations or awkward encounters that people make out to be "rapey" and protect actual victims. When someone refers to a song like this as "rapey," I worry that society is beginning to trend toward treating any encounter that wasn't vanilla as fuck as rape, and that is not good.

[LastPoet]

Modern feminism really takes the sexy, risqué fun out of sex. If a guy I was into said maybe half a drink more after I coyly said no, I might, very willingly, agree to it. Sometimes, a woman actually wants to be convinced. Shocking! I don’t know how many times I’ve said I’m not in the mood and then was put in the mood and had amazing sex.

If I was one to give up after hearing a "no" from a woman, I would probably never had a girlfriend. All my GFs and even my wife said "no" the first time I proposed. Playing hard to get is a very good feminine tactic IMHO.

Here is some Portuguese wisdom: there are 3 things that can make a man a fool: light rain, half glasses of wine and easy women.

[Shell B]

There's a difference between hearing no and trying to make the proposition more enticing for her and hearing no and just making her do it. We have to recognize that. And giving someone another drink on a cold night when she is enjoying herself is not a big deal. Not letting her leave, or waiting until she is pass-out drunk to have sex with her is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But I’m not saying the station was wrong to pull the song, just that it was stupid. It’s their station, they can play (or not play) whatever they like.

Boru

That's not an answer to my question.  Or are you now saying that you said something you didn't mean?

Sorry, I thought that saying the radio station can play what it likes made it clear that they are the ones who decide.

Boru