Not funny
January 24, 2005 7:21 AM   Subscribe

The Tsunami Song. Hot 97, the most popular hiphop station in the NYC area, has been airing this song [mp3] for the last week, poking fun at tsunami victims, replete with racist and otherwise offensive lyrics.
posted by adampsyche (133 comments total)
 
Houston, we're clocking a 404 at T plus 3 minutes. Over.
Rager that. Over.
posted by squirrel at 7:26 AM on January 24, 2005


From the Hot 97 site:

HOT 97 regrets the airing of material that made light of a serious and tragic event. We apologize to our listeners and anyone who was offended...
...As an additional sign of HOT 97’s commitment to the cause, Miss Jones in the Morning, along with her entire staff, have agreed to contribute one week’s pay to Tsunami Relief efforts.


That didn't take long! But really, what sort of reaction could they possibly have been expecting?
posted by flaneur at 7:26 AM on January 24, 2005


*snort* Squirrel, that was great.
posted by notsnot at 7:29 AM on January 24, 2005


hip hop
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:32 AM on January 24, 2005


hmmm ... i wonder if any of these people who did this were outraged when palestinians danced in the streets on 9/11, as some complained

i didn't listen to it ... what i saw of the lyrics were bad enough
posted by pyramid termite at 7:32 AM on January 24, 2005


Bandwidth Limit Exceeded.
And I like ethnic humor.
posted by zorro astor at 7:33 AM on January 24, 2005


Oh shit. Someone said something offensive. Quick! Someone sue them!

Its not like anything offensive hasn't been said before. Give it a year and if the news cant get over it, SNL will be (badly) parodying it left and right.
posted by taursir at 7:34 AM on January 24, 2005


Besides it being tasteless and not funny what struck me was it's awful sound quality. You'd think a radio station would be able to produce better sounding stuff, they should be fired just for that!
posted by TetrisKid at 7:37 AM on January 24, 2005


{mp3 mirror}
posted by stokast at 7:37 AM on January 24, 2005


Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 was a legitimate celebration, so I don't get the intended reference.
posted by jsavimbi at 7:37 AM on January 24, 2005


Miss Jones in the Morning, along with her entire staff, have agreed to contribute one week’s pay to Tsunami Relief efforts.

I presume that they didn't really have much choice? :-)

How many staff? How much do they all get paid? Inquiring minds want to know!
posted by Chunder at 7:37 AM on January 24, 2005


Is that radio station at all related to Phildalephia's Power 99? That station also pulled some horrid racist bullshitr ecently...
posted by hamfisted at 7:38 AM on January 24, 2005


tausir,

I've got a better idea, lets get a bunch of white boy's from the south to start sangin' songs about how funny it was to watch them coloreds squeal when they wouldn't obey their massaz's in 'Bama.

I know, we can call the band "The Jawja Wallaces and the Triple K's!"
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:39 AM on January 24, 2005


working link of that glorious song
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:41 AM on January 24, 2005


Taursir:

In the linked article, one single comment out of 245 total comments (0.4%) mentioned suing anyone. I think your sensitivity calibration may be off, if you're getting set off by such an isolated comment buried in a mountain of non-litigious comments.
posted by Bugbread at 7:43 AM on January 24, 2005


Having now heard the track, I have only this to say:

You thought you could buy those Adam Sandler movie tickets and never reap the tears. You thought wrong. Every dollar you shelled out what a hollering vote for more More MORE.

Well you got more.
Chickens. Home to roost. Deal.
posted by squirrel at 7:46 AM on January 24, 2005


"You'd think a radio station would be able to produce better sounding stuff"

Dude, it's Hot97, you couldn't have actually expected better? Bottom line is there will be some localized outrage but that's it. It's only offensive if you call the victims, slopes, coons or sandjockeys I suppose....because using THOSE words would really be mean-spirited!
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:47 AM on January 24, 2005


Dude, the last line was what clinched it. I can't believe this isn't ironic, that slavery thing is so blatantly awful and, well, uselss in the song, that it seems like this is just a mockery of all other morning-radio idiocy.

Does anyone here live in a city where the morning drivetime lineup doesn't make you homocidal? Here, your only options are:
Minorly offensive/funny stuff, with six in-studio people laughing for five minutes a joke
Extremely offensive/unfunny stuff, with heavy metal intros and terrible, terrible show names.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 7:49 AM on January 24, 2005


Lighten up. This is what these shows do. If you don't like it, don't listen.

Sounds more like a parody of Pop-Stars-Saving-The-World than anything else.
posted by jonmc at 7:51 AM on January 24, 2005


Beat me to it, Hands of Manos, I was just about to mirror it.

But I still don't like your "better idea."
posted by adampsyche at 7:51 AM on January 24, 2005


or there's always NPR.
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:51 AM on January 24, 2005


Big deal. Hot 97 is a textbook example of lowest-common-denominator mass media "entertainment." By idiots, for idiots, about idiots.
posted by scratch at 7:51 AM on January 24, 2005


That didn't take long! But really, what sort of reaction could they possibly have been expecting?

I'm sure they got exactly the reaction they expected. The DJs enhanced their edgy no-holds-barred reputation with the presumably sizable portion of morons in their audience, the station owners pay lip service to the non-morons, and it generates lots of publicity. It's a win-win situation.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:51 AM on January 24, 2005


adampsyche, (doh! double post)

I'm just pointing out one absurdity to another. African Americans would be OUTRAGED if a radio show made light of slavery (kind of like when 'whatshisface' said "niggardly") but yet a Hiphop station can make fun of Chinks and hope that they don't have some outrage thrown back at them?
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:53 AM on January 24, 2005


Whoa, hamfisted, I just listened to that Power 99 clip you linked to. I'm blown away. What the fuck is going on up in Philly?! Maybe it was just one idiot talk show host who had a sound cart of an audience applauding... let's hope so.
posted by squirrel at 7:56 AM on January 24, 2005


It's a shame how many of us go out of our way to defend the hip-hop community from criticism in the name of our own political correctness, and yet the hip-hop community busts at the seams with the same kind of god-fearing, misogynist, immigrant hating, guns-and-money-glorifying garbage that we all hate when it comes from conservatives & rednecks. Where's Bill Cosby when you need him to go medieval on his own culture?

/is still bitter from a required collge Multiculturalism course taught by a professor who required we listen to Hot 97 for its "rich cultural establishment" in the African American community, instead of pointing out what a crass, mainstream drag it really is
posted by jenleigh at 8:00 AM on January 24, 2005


You thought you could buy those Adam Sandler movie tickets and never reap the tears. You thought wrong. Every dollar you shelled out what a hollering vote for more More MORE.

Funny, I never saw anything as remotely racist in an Adam Sandler movie.

Lighten up. This is what these shows do. If you don't like it, don't listen.

If the radio station is going to air such trash, isn't it within others' rights to call it out?
posted by adampsyche at 8:02 AM on January 24, 2005


Why the outrage against tastelessness? It essentially encourages the behaviour by drawing more attention to the perpetrator. Hot 97 is in a huge market, but I guarantee their numbers have skyrocketed because of this stunt. So go ahead and click the link. It may be cynical, but that's what this was designed to do.

There's little that does not encourage for the larger reason that tasteless is often a euphemism for things people will find privately funny, yet socially unacceptable to admit to finding funny. Further, it's socially acceptable to get one's blood boiling over it, so people can feel just peachy getting mad about it and expressing that supposed intolerance.

Or it's just something that people find outright funny. The tsunami victims likely don't care from the comfort of their refugee camps and destroyed villages. Typing it out on the interconnected network or talking about it at the office cooler doesn't cost you much energy, but it's seriously misplace effort.

Where Hot 97 is castigated, South Park will likely be lauded and laughed at publicly. Taking this to a wider field of tastefulness, Chris Rock is observant and explanatory, but it's the same language and if we're being intellectually honest, tasteless in a lot of places.

I feel that the outrage related to such entertainment shenanigans is often an outrage born from a feeling that one should be angry, rather than an innate and visceral moral objection to the material. One looks supremely good wagging the proverbial finger at those ignorant and insensitive fools.

I would take it one step further and say that due to the bit's crude fashioning (rather than content) it is being vilified. Had it been "clever," "satire," or some other such red herring, most likely people would have been fine with it and it would have garnered Hot 97 even more attention. They should think about that the next time they want to up their numbers.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:05 AM on January 24, 2005


If the radio station is going to air such trash, isn't it within others' rights to call it out?

Sure, but what do expect to happen? That stuff like this will be banned?

Love 'em or Hate 'em, that's what morning radio shows do, take current events and make fun of them, usually is obnoxious ways. Did you honestly think the tsunami was going to be any different.

We know about the first amendment and what it means. So I guess where all just here to inhale the sweet scent of our own righteous indignation.

Breathe deep.
posted by jonmc at 8:07 AM on January 24, 2005


"who required we listen to Hot 97 for its "rich cultural establishment" in the African American community"

...please tell me you dropped this class immediately.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:07 AM on January 24, 2005


Is that radio station at all related to Phildalephia's Power 99? That station also pulled some horrid racist bullshitr ecently...

Wow... is all. just... wow.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:09 AM on January 24, 2005


Lyrics for the audibly impaired:

[Done to the tune of We Are the World]


[spoken in Michael Jackson's voice]: You know I love the kids...
There was a time when the sun was shining bright,
so I went down to the beach to catch me a tan.
Then the next thing I knew, a wave twenty feet high,
came and washed your whole country away.

And all at once, you could hear the screaming chinks,
and no one was safe from the waves.
There were Africans drowning, little Chinamen swept away.
You could hear God laughing "Swim you bitches! Swim!"

So now you're screwed,
It's the tsunami,
You better run and kiss your ass away... go find your mommy.

I just saw her float by, a tree right through her head.
And now your children will be sold... child slavery.

So now you're screwed,
It's the tsunami,
You better run and kiss your ass away... go find your mommy.

I just saw her float by, a tree right through her head.
And now your children will be sold... child slavery.

So now you're screwed,
It's the tsunami,
You better run and kiss your ass away... go find your mommy.

I just saw her float by, a tree right through her head.
And now your children will be sold... child slavery.

[spoken in Michael Jackson's voice]Oh no, please not the kids, I'll pay for all the kids, the little Indonesian kids, the little Asian kids, the Chinese kids, the black... well, not the black but the white kids, the Puerto Rican kids... I love them all, I'll pay for everything, I promise I won't touch them. Bubbles, come on, let's get these kids, you know I love the kids. Let's save the world... let's please save the world. Please help us out. Tsunami, we're coming to help you. All you kids, we love you.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:09 AM on January 24, 2005


And as an aside: those motherfuckers should be canned for airing this shit.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:10 AM on January 24, 2005


Sure, but what do expect to happen? That stuff like this will be banned?

No.

So I guess where all just here to inhale the sweet scent of our own righteous indignation.

If calling out racism equals righteous indignation for you, I'm not too sure what else to say. The first amendment protects their speech just as much as our protest, but that's not the issue, and I never (nor did others) put forth the issue of whether they have the right to say so or not. Invoking the first amendment is not an effective straw man here, because no one called for a banning of anything.

Breathe deep.
posted by adampsyche at 8:12 AM on January 24, 2005


...please tell me you dropped this class immediately.

Couldn't. It was required to graduate, and no other equivalent credit classes were open. We also had to stomach a lot of Maya Angelou poetry that semester. Still scrubbing the brain of all that.
posted by jenleigh at 8:12 AM on January 24, 2005


I have a feeling that you didn't listen to the song or read the lyrics before posting, btw.
posted by adampsyche at 8:13 AM on January 24, 2005


Come again? I heard about it two days ago and heard the song via p2p. Does my particular flavor of anger not meet your standards or something?
posted by jenleigh at 8:19 AM on January 24, 2005


You could hear God laughing "Swim you bitches! Swim!"
And now your children will be sold... child slavery.


The first line is ironically funny. The second line is true. The rest really does suck.
posted by MrMulan at 8:22 AM on January 24, 2005


I have a feeling that you didn't listen to the song or read the lyrics before posting, btw.

Your feeling would be wrong.

And if we're not calling it out to be banned, then what are we doing besides making a show of our indignation and patting eachother on the back for it.

You also don't seem to understand the mindset behind this kind of humor. It dosen't have much to do with actual racism or callousness at disaster. It's about one upping the next guy with how over-the-top "outrageous" and "offensive," you can be. Thus we get child-molester jokes, retard jokes, prison rape jokes, etc. Offensive, sure, but occasionally funny, too.

Immature? Absolutely, but not worth getting this upset about.
posted by jonmc at 8:23 AM on January 24, 2005


Well, maybe we should just ignore it then. In fact, let's just do away with MeTa, while we're at it. Understand the minset? I'm all for crass humor, but come on, jon.
posted by adampsyche at 8:25 AM on January 24, 2005


I think people can decide for themselves what's worth getting upset about.
posted by agregoli at 8:26 AM on January 24, 2005


(I apologize, Adam, if you weren't referring to me upthread; we were all posting on top of each other ;)

then what are we doing besides making a show of our indignation and patting eachother on the back for it.

I don't know about you, but I'm posting it all over the place to spread the word. And if the responsible parties get fired, so be it.
posted by jenleigh at 8:26 AM on January 24, 2005


I guess where all just here to inhale the sweet scent of our own righteous indignation.

Huh...I'd be a lot more scared if people weren't reacting against this. It's part of the cycle that establishes norms. People say obnoxious racist shit, other people get offended (and spare me the hair-splitting about whether it offends you or whether it makes you react as if you were offended. The term "offense" includes both). Society has it's borders restated. When people stop getting offended by this kind of thing, or when people who aren't the target of the racism stop being offended by it because it didn't affect them personally, the borders of society move just that slightly closer to validating it.

Any person venting on this may be doing it in order to smell the sweet scent of their own righteous indignation, but the cumulative effect is unrelated to individual motives.

On preview: Jonmc, same thing goes for jokes about the retarded, homosexuals, etc. People make jokes, other people get offended, and society reinforces its norms. If everybody being offended decided to just shut the hell up all the time, then the folks making the edgy stuff would think it was normal, acceptable stuff, work on getting more edgy, etc., and kids being raised in that climate would grow up thinking that the borders were here instead of here.

In conclusion (god, I can't believe I'm going to say it): Won't someone please think of the children!
posted by Bugbread at 8:28 AM on January 24, 2005


And I'msure asshats like Michael Savage have already declared that they got what they deserved for not being good Christians.

These people getting publicity for being scum is part of the problem.

It's not funny to joke about more than 200,000 people dying. Period.
posted by fenriq at 8:28 AM on January 24, 2005


I understand what you're getting at, adam, but indignation only encourages them. Think of all the records you bought as young man because of the Parental Advisory sticker and/or the controversy surrounding them.

Attention (esp this kind of attention) is fuel to these people. Ignoring might be the worst punishment you could give them, if that's what you wanted to do.

on preview: bugbread, like I said before, since nobody's actually calling for any banning or censure, it's all about people making a display of how offended they are. Sometimes, methinks they doth protest too much. And I don't think it has much to do with reinforcing society's norms either. These people would make fun of anyone if they thought they could get some mileage out of it.
posted by jonmc at 8:33 AM on January 24, 2005


This is revolting.

Sure, but what do expect to happen? That stuff like this will be banned?

No, I'm not calling for censorship, nor even a lawsuit. I think ideally what would happen is for those who recorded this revolting garbage to get hit with a tsunami of public disapproval (i.e., a decimated audience for that station, and those who recorded this find their careers are suddenly in the toilet).

Freedom of speech should be exercised in a responsible, intelligent way, and those who mistake freedom for license are going to have to deal with the consequences.
posted by orange swan at 8:35 AM on January 24, 2005


<mcsweetie> will someone do me a favor and post, "jonmc is just mad that classic rock sucks" in this thread?
posted by cheaily at 8:37 AM on January 24, 2005


cheaily, HOT97 is an "urban contemporary" station. And I hate the term "classic rock," with a passion. But you want to attack me instead of engaging what I'm saying (liek everyone else has managed to), that's up to you.
posted by jonmc at 8:40 AM on January 24, 2005


Clarification (because I phrased it badly: The term "offense" includes both)

Being offended by something means to find it offensive. If it makes you angry because it relates to you, you are offended. If it makes you angry even though it doesn't relate to you personally, you are offended. The distinction between "outrage born from a feeling that one should be angry, rather than an innate and visceral moral objection to the material" is a red herring.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying all offense is warranted (look at controversy over the use of the words "niggardly", "drama queen", or, even, in the 90's, "history" (as opposed to "herstory")). I'm just saying that the distinction between being offended by something because you have a visceral objection versus being offended by something because you feel outrage is an unimportant one, and is often (but perhaps not in this case) trotted out in order to minimize the size of the opposition.

On preview: Jonmc: since nobody's actually calling for any banning or censure, it's all about people making a display of how offended they are...And I don't think it has much to do with reinforcing society's norms either.

There, we agree and disagree. I agree that it's about people making a display of how offended they are. And I don't think it (meaning their actions) has much to do with (in the sense of, "their motivation is unrelated to") reinforcing society's norms. However, I think it's the unintended consequence. You get the same thing a lot with evolutionary theory: The reasons animals do the things they do are unconnected to the final results, but are important to the final results. Aphids don't produce their bugsapdinner milk in order to keep the ant colony alive, but that's the result of their efforts.
posted by Bugbread at 8:41 AM on January 24, 2005


I don't know if it necessarily follows that us getting outraged about it only encourages them, jonmc. What would discourage them?
Ignoring them? But maybe that would encourage them to be more and more offensive until someone said something.
Cheering them on?

I don't think reverse psychology works, even in 5th grade.
posted by breath at 8:43 AM on January 24, 2005


jonmc: hey, I'm just the messenger.
posted by cheaily at 8:44 AM on January 24, 2005


Tasteless tripe on the radio? No! Say it ain't so!

Think of all the records you bought as young man because of the Parental Advisory sticker and/or the controversy surrounding them.

Zero. :::recounts::: Yep, zero.

I pretty much agree with your other points, though.
posted by rushmc at 8:45 AM on January 24, 2005


bugbread, I don't neccessarily disagree with your last paragraph. I just think that literally being bored with these guys and shrugging at them blankly is a far more effective way of curbing these kind of antics, if that's what you want to do.

I don't think reverse psychology works, even in 5th grade.

Well, if the thrill of "transgression" is gone, and people stop listening, then they won't be on the air very long, so in that sense it can work.

rushmc: I meant the "royal," you. But controversy entices those (especially young people) who thrill to the "forbidden," and the merely curious.
posted by jonmc at 8:48 AM on January 24, 2005


This song is stupid and offensive, but that isn't the problem.

The problem is that the joke sucked.
posted by mosch at 8:50 AM on January 24, 2005


I'm with you there, mosch. If these people wanted to cause all this havoc, the least they coulda done was be funny.

(and I think we all can agree that things can be offensive and funny at the same time.)
posted by jonmc at 8:55 AM on January 24, 2005


I disagree with what they had to say, however I will defend to the death their right to say it, and my right to tell all of you I think that this song is terribly offensive, and that I think every person remotely responsible for it's production should be cursed with carnivorous underpants that consume their genetailia.
posted by Freen at 8:57 AM on January 24, 2005


carnivorous underpants that consume their genetailia.

see, now that's funny.
posted by jonmc at 9:00 AM on January 24, 2005


I don't have a problem with the song, I have a problem with the station's judgment in playing it.
posted by agregoli at 9:01 AM on January 24, 2005


Jonmc:

It's a good question, actually, whether ignoring them would make them go away or not. I personally believe it would make them look harder for the button to push that would cause people to react in spite of themselves. Unfortunately, without a really good, widespread lab psychology experiment, it's pretty darn hard to tell, so we reach "opinion vs. opinion" territory. I personally disagree with your conclusion, but I have as little evidence for my position as you do for yours, so I'm certainly not going to argue that you are wrong, just state that I think you're wrong.

On preview: What Freen said. But with genitalia spelled correctly.
posted by Bugbread at 9:01 AM on January 24, 2005


however I will defend to the death their right to say it

Nobody's suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to say it. What is being suggested is that the airwaves are a highly regulated commodity that must, for better or worse, submit to the public's perception of decency.

I mean, come on... Howard Stern gets fined a $million+ for having lesbians on his show. You can't tell me lesbians are worse than racist, no-rhyming, piss-poor joke-telling asshats on the social scale.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:06 AM on January 24, 2005


C_D: I think if I even tried to tell you that, my head would explode from the effort and my entrails would snake out and strangle me.

</boyzone>
posted by Bugbread at 9:10 AM on January 24, 2005


I personally believe it would make them look harder for the button to push that would cause people to react in spite of themselves.

I don't even neccessarily mind that so much. It's good to know where my visceral reactions are, and to try and figure out where they come from. People who dance along the "edge" are gonna fall over it occasionally, I think it's just a given.

I commute by subway so I don't listen to "morning shows" anymore, but back in the day my cars tape deck was busted so I tuned in occassionaly to Howard Stern, who I sometimes find entertaining. I remember one other morning show where they had a christmas song sung in a "retard," voice about working a french fry machine. I started to squick out and get angry. I guess because the target of the joke would be, (compared to say an ethnic minority or a woman) less capable of a) realizing their being mocked, and b) slinging their own insults back.

I realize that's a fairly arbitrary line of offensiveness, but arent they all?
posted by jonmc at 9:10 AM on January 24, 2005


Well, the worst of it with regard to the Philly situation is that the hosts in question during that incident *used* to be the morning show hosts on Hot 97, and managed to pull some uglies over the years, including plane crash efx after singer Aaliyah died via that manner. They since moved from Emmis, to a Clear Channel station in Connecticut, then down to Clear Channel in Philly, then up to 105.1 in New York, where they hit the airwaves last week - coincidentally, the same point during which this song went on the air.

Think Hot 97 wasn't looking for a ratings push or at the very least a big overcrowding of the back pages when Star and Buc Wild came back to town?

I think the FCC will formally make itself look like an idiot if, as pointed out above, situations like what Howard Stern puts on the air are worth millions of dollars in fines and other situations are given the blind eye or a slap on the wrist. I'd rather they played laissez-faire with everything, and let people make the decisions - but since the FCC is operating under the guise that the "people" tell them when they need to make a ruling, there's not much I can do but state my opposition to their practices, is there?

I'm fully supportive of any and all free speech, no matter how much the specific statements might bother me - but think there is a need for some common sense in cases like this, too. So I think that puts me more in the boat with agregoli.
posted by djspicerack at 9:17 AM on January 24, 2005


Hot 97: This is the same radio station that got in trouble when its DJ Star & Buc Wild "ridiculed songstress Aaliyah’s death by mimicking a woman screaming while playing plane-crash sound effects". This is the same radio station that called an Indian woman at a call center a bitch and a 'rat eater'. A proven track record for racially insensitive barbs. What's the debate here?
posted by naxosaxur at 9:19 AM on January 24, 2005


Gotcha.
posted by adampsyche at 9:33 AM on January 24, 2005


Ignoring might be the worst punishment you could give them, if that's what you wanted to do.

If everyone ignored it, do you think that they would have pulled the song, issued an apology, and donated their week's pay? It's rather disingenuous to think that they would have if everyone just ignored it.
posted by adampsyche at 9:36 AM on January 24, 2005


This is the same radio station

naxo: the "rat eater" remarks came from Power 99, no?
posted by jenleigh at 9:37 AM on January 24, 2005


tausir,

I've got a better idea, lets get a bunch of white boy's from the south to start sangin' songs about how funny it was to watch them coloreds squeal when they wouldn't obey their massaz's in 'Bama.

I know, we can call the band "The Jawja Wallaces and the Triple K's!"
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:39 AM CST on January 24


I'm just pointing out one absurdity to another. African Americans would be OUTRAGED if a radio show made light of slavery (kind of like when 'whatshisface' said "niggardly") but yet a Hiphop station can make fun of Chinks and hope that they don't have some outrage thrown back at them?
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:53 AM CST on January 24


Hey Hands, the sharp edge of that little axe you have to grind merely serves to cut through and expose your own bit of racism.

The song would be appalling and tasteless no matter who produced it. But I love your oh-so-righteous indignation at the perception of Black people having done it.

As I recall Africans and Chinese are the only ethnicities mentioned in the "song." Does the fact that this was produced by a hip-hop station make it okay that they made fun of Africans, but not okay that they included Chinese?

And even if the thing was written, etc., by some Black folks, does that make your proposed little ditty any more acceptable? Your argument falls flat considering that 1: not all Black people even like hip-hop, and 2: it's White kids that are keeping hip-hop in business.

I'm forced to wonder, if the song was the one you so wittily proposed from "The Jawja Wallaces and the Triple K's," whether you'd be half so incensed as you are attempting to appear.
posted by xhepera at 9:38 AM on January 24, 2005


If everyone ignored it, do you think that they would have pulled the song, issued an apology, and donated their week's pay? It's rather disingenuous to think that they would have if everyone just ignored it.

The donation is obviously nice, since every little bit helps, but what I meant by "ignoring," is that if people offended by this kind of content didn't make a public fuss, these stations would get far less publicity, and far less listeners and lower ratings, thus the airwaves wouldn't be full of them.
posted by jonmc at 9:41 AM on January 24, 2005


The worst part about it is it's not even funny. If you're gonna be offensive, it helps to have a well developed sense of humour.
posted by iamck at 9:48 AM on January 24, 2005


But isn't a public fuss necessary to let people know what the station is doing, if the station is only playing the song during times I don't hear it? I'd rather hear about it from the vocal people so that I can boycott the station. It has benefits.
posted by agregoli at 9:49 AM on January 24, 2005


what I meant by "ignoring," is that if people offended by this kind of content didn't make a public fuss, these stations would get far less publicity, and far less listeners and lower ratings, thus the airwaves wouldn't be full of them.

Alternatively, the airwaves could be taken from the for-profit corporations and run as a public resource instead. The Communications Act of 1934 does claim the airwaves to belong to the public, even if the logic was later twisting to turn over the airwaves to private owners.

Culture must be no longer be subordinated to profit. This sort of obscenity is not "art", it's vapid and dangerous, and it has consequences.
posted by Charlie Bucket at 9:55 AM on January 24, 2005


I'd rather hear about it from the vocal people so that I can boycott the station.

Yes, but 5 minutes of listening to their show would probably tell you that it's not to your taste anyway, so the station really would'nt be losing a listener from their target demographic anyway.

I believe most people here's hearts are in the right place on this, but I only have so much time and I think being offended by people who make their living trying to offend people is not the most productive or enjoyable use of it.

Charlie Bucket: turn the airwaves over to the people? If you mean the General Public, you'd probably get more of this, but I suspect you mean the Government, and the idea of state controlled media is more obscene to me than any peurile song.
posted by jonmc at 9:57 AM on January 24, 2005


Perhaps - but hearing the vocal lets ME spread the word as well.
posted by agregoli at 9:59 AM on January 24, 2005


xhepera: "Hey Hands, the sharp edge of that little axe you have to grind merely serves to cut through and expose your own bit of racism."

I'm just not seeing it.

xhepera: "I'm forced to wonder, if the song was the one you so wittily proposed from "The Jawja Wallaces and the Triple K's," whether you'd be half so incensed as you are attempting to appear."

Not only am I not forced to wonder it, even I voluntarily wonder about it, it seems pretty clear that Manos would be just as incensed.

Charlie Bucket: "This sort of obscenity is not "art", it's vapid and dangerous, and it has consequences."

I don't really understand what is and isn't art, but I don't see "art" and "vapid and dangerous" as being intrinsically opposed. Couldn't it just be crappy, vapid, dangerous art?

And Jonmc: Going on with my previous blathering about cumulative effect of unintended consequences, I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with you, or other individuals, deciding to spend your time in other ways than getting all offended. I'd just be worried if that trend were really big.

That is, I wouldn't mind if you decided to move into my town and ride my train. I wouldn't mind if someone else decided to move into my town and ride my train. I would mind if the entire world decided to move into my town and ride my train, because boy would rents be expensive, and the train crowded.
posted by Bugbread at 10:02 AM on January 24, 2005


I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with you, or other individuals, deciding to spend your time in other ways than getting all offended.

And I'm not saying that there's neccessarily anything wrong with being offended by something and acting on that offense, just that when that impulse is aimed at those who's mission in life is to offend, then that effort is somewhat pointless.
posted by jonmc at 10:12 AM on January 24, 2005


We've pointed out ways in which we think that it is NOT pointless. Your blanket statements are merely opinions.
posted by agregoli at 10:18 AM on January 24, 2005


Your blanket statements are merely opinions.

We hold these truths to be self-evident. My whole comment is prefaced with "I'm not saying.."
posted by jonmc at 10:21 AM on January 24, 2005


"What is being suggested is that the airwaves are a highly regulated commodity that must, for better or worse, submit to the public's perception of decency"

whoa...and who decides what the perception of decency is to the general public...the FCC? Personally, I don't care about this piece, I don't support the lame station and frankly, I'm more offended by their lack of creativity than I am at the 'words' they say. It's crass, sophomoric and idiotic but all that can go away the moment I change the station.
I mean when the hell did people get this notion that they are 'forced' to endure this drivel? You are offended by it, I just think it's poor comedy. Both of our perceptions are part of the general public so who is right?

"Culture must be no longer be subordinated to profit. This sort of obscenity is not "art", it's vapid and dangerous, and it has consequences."

So does not allowing such inane viewpoints to be expressed. Man, culture IS profit in most of the world. Profit drives mass culture more often than not. I'm not a fan of that principle but it does happen. And who is to say this is not art? To the losers that made it, I'm sure they all thought they were some comic genius's (probably still do). eh...
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:21 AM on January 24, 2005


if people offended by this kind of content didn't make a public fuss, these stations would get far less publicity, and far less listeners and lower ratings, thus the airwaves wouldn't be full of them.

Do you know this? Or are you just saying so? Do you really think that the radio station is going to get any additional listeners by people complaining about it? Those who listen listen already.

I think being offended by people who make their living trying to offend people is not the most productive or enjoyable use of it.

So, getting an apology, having them stop broadcasting the song, and donating to the tsunami was not productive. Right.

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with you, or other individuals, deciding to spend your time in other ways than getting all offended. I'd just be worried if that trend were really big.

I happen to completely agree. If you don't want to partake in what we're saying, jon, you don't have to, but you can at least give us as much room to talk as the room you afford those who broadcast racist, ignorant shit.

Lighten up. This is what these shows do. If you don't like it, don't listen. 10:51 am

And I'm not saying that there's neccessarily anything wrong with being offended by something and acting on that offense, 1:12 pm

Can you reconcile these statements of yours for me?
posted by adampsyche at 10:22 AM on January 24, 2005


And yet any red-blooded American would have killed anyone who dared make a joke about the World Trade Center towers two weeks after they fell...
posted by five fresh fish at 10:24 AM on January 24, 2005


bugbread:Call this song "art" if you want. I didn't intend to make "art" and "vapid & dangerous" neccessarily exclusive. But if this is "art", what are the larger implications for our culture?

I should make clear that I'm not talking about censorship nor about turning the airwaves over to the Bush administration, or any other theorhetically more enlightened governmental agency. Nor am I talking about a simple public access model, although true public access radio would be a wonderful addition to today's airwaves and surely more interesting than 99% of what is currently on the air.

Addressing this void in our culture must involve for more than ignoring the vast mountains of vapidity we're faced with everyday labeled as "entertainment." It requires an active criticism not only of the emptiness and cruelity of a particular work, like this awful song, but a constant exposure of the reason why such crap predominates in such a materially advanced society.

The answers are not simple, but it is possible to dream and fight for a better and healthier cultural sphere. It's crucial to understand that a healthy media is only possible under a healthy democracy, and not within a society that is run under the guiding motive of private profit. The breakdown of cultural works (not that I am trying to point to a past golden period") is not merely coincident with increasing social and economic inequality, but is reflective of such a trend. Take a look at this article, which is concerned primarily with the defense of artistic freedom, but explains why such an defense can only be sustained by addressing the larger social issues in the US. Burying one's head in the sand won't halt the larger social processes at work, jonmc.
posted by Charlie Bucket at 10:28 AM on January 24, 2005


adam, I am not disallowing you any room. My stating my opinion does not prevent you from stating yours. I truly don't understand what your so upset with me about.

Can you reconcile these statements of yours for me?

Yes, meaning that if you truly want to see programming like this disappear, the most effective thing to do would be to not listen, in droves.

So, getting an apology, having them stop broadcasting the song, and donating to the tsunami was not productive. Right.

The song will be bouncing around p2p forever, and the resulting fuss has given them free publicity and strengthened their credentials as "outrageous," transgressors, which if anything will motivate them to go even further.

Burying one's head in the sand won't halt the larger social processes at work, jonmc.

Of course, charlie. I don't subscrbe to your vision of the world, I must be deluding myself. And freedom of speech only applies to stuff Charlie Bucket approves of. But fight on, Billy Jack.

*one tin soldier rides away*
posted by jonmc at 10:33 AM on January 24, 2005


Whenever shit like this goes down, I'm reminded of a very excellent Simpsons' episode: Treehouse of Horror VI

To stop those monsters, one-two-three,
Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free.
It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
[Guarantee void in Tennessee.]

Just don't look. Just don't look.
Just don't look. Just don't look.
Just don't look. Just don't look.


Or in this case, listen. Don't pay attention to this stuff. It exists to create outrage, nothing else. The people who laugh at this stuff aren't laughing at "chinks" or whatever... they're laughing at YOU. The self-righteous outraged blowhard.
posted by C.Batt at 10:35 AM on January 24, 2005


I wish I shared such apathy. Almost.
posted by adampsyche at 10:40 AM on January 24, 2005


Adam, it's not apathy. And I'm not sure why you feel the need to convince yourself of that. It's a question of prioirites. I can either get upset about some stupid-ass song on a third rate radio station that ultimately will be forgotten and consigned to the dust bin of history or I can save my energy for real problems.

This is minutia. Media-manufactured controversy designed to sell papers and foment water-cooler indignation and pump up ratings for a dying industry (broadcast radio). And it's succeeding.
posted by jonmc at 10:50 AM on January 24, 2005


Some people have energy for big and small problems. Because you don't want to "waste" it, others shouldn't?
posted by agregoli at 10:52 AM on January 24, 2005


There's a touch of "too soon" here, which is part of why it is hard to see this as humor. The people of South East Asia are still going through the horrors of the aftermath of the tsunami. Of course, "too soon" is one of the last remaining places where a shock comedian can go to be shocking.

The thing is, if you are going to do something like this, you need to make sure that it is legitimately hilarious. Lame shock humor is even more lame than lame normal humor.

So what is an appropriate reaction? Probably to let them know that it is not funny. Since being shocking is part of their style, stressing the "not funny" part is really more of an effective criticism than 'I am offended." Just IMO.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:57 AM on January 24, 2005


agregoli, do whatever you wish. I'm just questioning both the worthwileness of the enterprise and the efficacy of the methods. Why does that make you so angry?
posted by jonmc at 10:58 AM on January 24, 2005


Doesn't make me angry in the slightest, jon. It makes me wonder why you push so hard against other people's reactions - what does it hurt you if people want to protest this? It actually did some good in this instance. What's bad about that? Doing nothing here wouldn't have stopped the radio from playing it, or the tsunami donations - so why do you still advocate doing nothing as a solution?
posted by agregoli at 11:05 AM on January 24, 2005


P.S. I find it really rather annoying when people try to get back at someone by bringing emotion into it - I'm not a child throwing a tantrum - like you, I can discuss without getting angry, and I see no indication that I WAS angry. It's really rather looking-down-the-nose, and I don't appreciate it.
posted by agregoli at 11:06 AM on January 24, 2005


It makes me wonder why you push so hard against other people's reactions - what does it hurt you if people want to protest this?

It dosen't hurt me (unless we get into the Gov't control of the airwaves territory I alluded to earlier), I'm arguing that the outrage people are expressing here may actually hurt their own cause, if their cause is ridding the airwaves of this type of programming. And questioning peoples methods and motivations is a part of discourse and constructive thought, as far as I'm concerned.

on preview: if you got that from what I said, I apologize. I honestly thought you were angry, or at least hostile to what I'm trying to say.
posted by jonmc at 11:10 AM on January 24, 2005


But did it hurt their cause in this instance? The outcome seems altogether positive.
posted by agregoli at 11:16 AM on January 24, 2005


But did it hurt their cause in this instance? The outcome seems altogether positive.

To a degree. The basic thrust of my comments was that we should see if this results in them (or other on-air personalities) trying to push the envelope even further, now that they've made their bones, so to speak.
posted by jonmc at 11:20 AM on January 24, 2005


It has long been a recognised fact that humor is a very valid coping mechanism for tragedy and loss. There are 9/11 jokes, cancer jokes, Iraq jokes, WW2 jokes and the list goes on. The problem was, as far as I can see, this tsunami joke just wasn't funny... at all.
posted by DrDoberman at 11:22 AM on January 24, 2005


jonmc:Of course, charlie. I don't subscribe to your vision of the world, I must be deluding myself. And freedom of speech only applies to stuff Charlie Bucket approves of. But fight on, Billy Jack.

*one tin soldier rides away*

You can ignore Hot 97 as you like: in one way, you're right, there are so many instances of cultural garbage that one cannot possibly address them all. But you've gone a step beyond that. You're advocating that the solution an increasing intellectual and moral bankruptcy is popular culture as a whole, an issue that this particular song brings into focus, will be solved by simply ignoring anything one finds vulgar, useless, or offensive. And yes, I fundamentally disagree with that idea. At the very least, you are defining media as mere product, like Coke or Pepsi - take it or leave it. Media is much more active - it shapes and reflects at the same time

To be clear: I am not writing emails to anyone to complain about this obnoxious song. I proceed from the basis that cultural decline cannot healthily be solved by attacking artistic freedom (censorship), nor by ignoring it. Instead, it can only be explained and addressed by explaining the material basis for that breakdown, rooted in a system based on inequality and irrationality, and calling for a more progressive society society – socialism.

Please explain to me more clearly why ignoring an ongoing cultural breakdown will reverse the problem. What, in your eyes, is the root of the ascendancy of such spiteful, anti-social attitudes in contemporary society?

posted by Charlie Bucket at 11:28 AM on January 24, 2005


Your children will be sold to child slavery? As opposed to what?
posted by sellout at 11:29 AM on January 24, 2005


To a degree. The basic thrust of my comments was that we should see if this results in them (or other on-air personalities) trying to push the envelope even further, now that they've made their bones, so to speak.


If their track record is any indication, they'll do it again. Hopefully to be shot down again. And I bet they clean up their act for awhile, until the attention dies down. That has to count for something.
posted by agregoli at 11:31 AM on January 24, 2005


Basically, in my eyes, nothing was ever won by being silent.
posted by agregoli at 11:32 AM on January 24, 2005


What, in your eyes, is the root of the ascendancy of such spiteful, anti-social attitudes in contemporary society?

What "ascendancy" do you speak of, sir? These type of attitudes and even the shock-value way of presenting them are nothing new. In 5 minute on p2p, I could find you racist C&W records from the 50's & 60's, egregiously sexist songs about women from the Edison cylinder era, and blues songs which casually mention beating wives.

proceed from the basis that cultural decline cannot healthily be solved by attacking artistic freedom (censorship), nor by ignoring it. Instead, it can only be explained and addressed by explaining the material basis for that breakdown, rooted in a system based on inequality and irrationality, and calling for a more progressive society society – socialism.

HAHAHAHA!

Yes, socialist societies like the Soviet Union and Red China were well known for their love of artistic freedom and their lack of ethnic hatreds. Call me when the shuttle lands, Baby Che.


Basically, in my eyes, nothing was ever won by being silent.

except peace & quiet. just saying.
posted by jonmc at 11:35 AM on January 24, 2005


How can it be peace when you're finding it offensive but keeping your mouth zipped?
posted by agregoli at 11:36 AM on January 24, 2005


Ah, I think you were joking.
posted by agregoli at 11:36 AM on January 24, 2005


Plus, for the sake of followup... (Via MonkeyFilter)
On this tape you hear them introducing the "Tsunami Song," then Miss Jones and co-host Todd Lynn launching into an abusive tirade against Miss Info when she voices her objection to it. Miss Jones finally tells Info she's only complaining because "you feel superior, probably because you're Asian."

Then, after Miss Info has said the song is offensive to Asians, co-host Todd Lynn informs her: "I'm gonna start shooting Asians."

posted by seanyboy at 11:44 AM on January 24, 2005


Did I ever tell anyone that I'd decided to become a post modern vegetarian?
posted by seanyboy at 11:51 AM on January 24, 2005


I won't derail the thread into a debate about conceptions of socialism, as it'd be fruitless at this point. I do want to clarify that I view neither Stalinism nor Red China as expressions of socialism, nor Ché's adventurism.

In any case, I said earlier that I don't view the past as a golden age. I am aware that racist and sexist views prevailed in the past. However, there was also an active, conscious struggle against such views, both in music, and in everyday life. Why? It was recognized that the two are intertwined. There was a view that mankind could overcome such ugly divisiveness. Battles against racism and sexism were not purely out to negate these divisions, but were bound together with a progressive vision that mankind could be something more, that we could move towards a better, more egalitarian future. That view was reflected in larger social movements, like the civil rights movement, as well as in liberalism as a whole. Such a progressive vision is largely absent from contemporary America; it is precisely this vacuum that brings forth such examples of crude, misanthropic nastiness as "The Tsunami Song."
posted by Charlie Bucket at 12:01 PM on January 24, 2005


I'm arguing that the outrage people are expressing here may actually hurt their own cause, if their cause is ridding the airwaves of this type of programming.

Again, jon, it's been demonstrated that the repealing of the song, the apology, and the donation to the victims was generated out of the protest to the songs. Please stop ignoring that fact.

The basic thrust of my comments was that we should see if this results in them (or other on-air personalities) trying to push the envelope even further, now that they've made their bones, so to speak.


Jon, the basic thrust of your comments was, what, if you don't like it, don't listen?

Yes, socialist societies like the Soviet Union and Red China were well known for their love of artistic freedom and their lack of ethnic hatreds. Call me when the shuttle lands, Baby Che.

Please, jon, don't confuse socialistic ideals with totalitarianism. They are not the same. You can laugh all the fuck you want, but the fact remains that you didn't even address the quote. You just pointed to an obvious target, laughed, and made an insult. Why can't you address what was said?

I really can't tell what your point is. It seems to morph and change the longer the thread gets. If this doesn't concern you at all, then why god oh why did you feel the need to fucking comment? You told us that if we don't like it, to not listen (and to shut up about it). Why can't you allow others the space to discuss what the fuck it is we want to discuss without you shitting in every thread, no matter how irrelevant your comments are or how unconcerned you are with the subject matter?
posted by adampsyche at 12:10 PM on January 24, 2005


as well as in liberalism as a whole. Such a progressive vision is largely absent from contemporary America; it is precisely this vacuum that brings forth such examples of crude, misanthropic nastiness as "The Tsunami Song."

Please. Misanthropy, or at least bile-filled expressions of hatred are no more absent from liberalism and the left than any place else (read Democratic Underground or ANSWER's screeds if you don't believe me). It's just that liberalism is in denial about harboring those impulses, which makes them more vulnerable to them.

Ugliness and hatred is in all of us, regardless of politics.

I do want to clarify that I view neither Stalinism nor Red China as expressions of socialism, nor Ché's adventurism.

Like it or not, that's the shape Applied Marxism took in the modern world: a miserable, murderous repressive failure. And the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior, so don't expect a socialist revolution any time soon.

Adam, my speaking is not denying you your space. The comment about Che was directed at Charlie Bucket and his endorsement of socialism.

Again, jon, it's been demonstrated that the repealing of the song, the apology, and the donation to the victims was generated out of the protest to the songs. Please stop ignoring that fact.

And I'm saying wait and see if it they (or some other personality) don't try something even more egregious next week. If they do then I'd say it was not as effective as you'd think.

And me voicing a contrary opinion does not equal "shitting in the thread." You want to believe that, I don't know what to tell you. I've given my opinion on the matter posted about. I think it was worth posting about and worth discussing. That dosen't mean I abdicate my right to my opinion on the matter.
posted by jonmc at 12:31 PM on January 24, 2005


xhepera - the troll food is down the hall on the right.
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:44 PM on January 24, 2005


Whoa, I think jonmc's viewpoint is being massively skewed by folks here. From what I can tell it is:

These folks thrive on controversy. If you make a ruckus, they will only grow more powerful. If you want to kill them, don't make a ruckus.

I don't agree with that position, but that's what it seems to be to me. People are characterizing jonmc as defending the musicians, saying "If you don't like it, don't listen", which usually is used when somebody else is defending something's right to exist (think about all the "if you don't like the post, don't read it" arguments).

From what I can tell, that's not related at all to what jonmc is saying.

And for the folks who say, "Fine, if you don't want to get up in arms about it, don't, but that doesn't mean you should try to convince us that do want to get up in arms about it not to" (or the less wordy equivalent), I again think you're totally missing jonmc's point. What he's saying is that this type of up-in-armsness will just make the problem worse. As a person who doesn't want the problem to be worse, it makes sense for him to try to convince you not to do something he thinks will make it worse.

Personally, I disagree with jonmc's conclusions, and there are some other people who I see disagreeing with them as well, and arguing cogently about it. But it seems in the later part of this thread that a lot of people are really misinterpreting what jonmc is saying, and getting all riled up about their misinterpretations.

If you're going to argue with someone, make sure you understand what they're saying, or else you'll just spend all your time attacking unintentional straw men.

And, if I've misrepresented your argument here, jonmc, let me know. I don't want to be accidentally attacking straw men either.
posted by Bugbread at 12:52 PM on January 24, 2005


What he's saying is that this type of up-in-armsness will just make the problem worse.

I think that's right, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. Even if it gets worse, people are now aware - the next time it happens, I hope the response is the same. And the next time. And the next time.

Hopefully, this kind of immediate action will make the station stop such ridiculousness once and for all. Or, even if they get their publicity this way, it still proves to people out there that it's NOT tolerable, and that there ARE community standards. I think this is an overwhelmingly positive thing.
posted by agregoli at 12:57 PM on January 24, 2005


Actually, it's a fairly good distillation of my agument, bugbread, thanks.

It's mainly because it's my name attached to it that people feel free to attack the poster rather than the post. Which may be partially my own doing, but it's still unfair.
posted by jonmc at 12:57 PM on January 24, 2005


Please. Misanthropy, or at least bile-filled expressions of hatred are no more absent from liberalism and the left than any place else (read Democratic Underground or ANSWER's screeds if you don't believe me). It's just that liberalism is in denial about harboring those impulses, which makes them more vulnerable to them.

Agreed. I should've been more precise. At the apex of liberalism, from FDR to the civil rights movement, ideals of racial, gender, and to some extent social equality were at least discussed. They were recognized as ideals, limited by "pragmatism." The social and intellectual elements of liberalism today, however, is an empty shell, a pastiche of recycled slogans designed to compel people towards the Democratic Party US or social democratic parties in other countries. It is not based in a progressive role for mankind as a whole, but on precisely what your statement implies: ugliness is in all of us.

jonmc: I don't want to derail this thread, although that may be unavoidable. I could write on the nonexistence of "applied Marxism, of the existence of the Left Opposition in the USSR as the most prescient critics of Stalin's "socialism in one country" and how they were the first victims of Stalin... but that's not what this thread was about.

A post about an offensive song has compelled me to explain my entire worldview. I'm sure while a few are intrigued, most MeFi-ites want to focus at least a little more generally on the main topic.

How about this: I have stated that the tsunami song and the upset it has caused is related to a more generalized cultural decay. Ending this decay requires more than ignoring it, but an active struggle. In order to explain my argument, I've already addressed the nature of socialism and the limits of the civil rights movement.

You have yet to explain the underlying logic behind your conviction that ignoring the problem of racism will make it go away.
posted by Charlie Bucket at 1:04 PM on January 24, 2005


You have yet to explain the underlying logic behind your conviction that ignoring the problem of racism will make it go away.

You conflate my argument. Ignoring (or simply choosing not to indulge a media manufactured controversy surrounding) a stupid song, does not equal ignoring racism. Now who's constructing strawmen.

I'd even argue that getting bent out of shape by relatively minor (if mediagenic) incidents like this one, rather than more concrete, yet less "exciting" racial issues like income disparites, housing discrimination and education gaps, is to 1) miss the forest for the trees, and 2) further cement the image of liberals as oversensitive myopic nitpickers.

I realize that stereotype is untrue, but reactions like the one's we're having here do a lot to fuel it.
posted by jonmc at 1:14 PM on January 24, 2005


Hey Hands, the sharp edge of that little axe you have to grind merely serves to cut through and expose your own bit of racism.

I just wanted to point out that Hands' comment could be taken to be an honest assement of the lobbying power of different ethnicities rather than a racist statement.

Saying negative things about African-Americans in a public forum will result in a much swifter, firmer beatdown than saying negative things about Asian-Americans. This is a simple reality owing largely to the greater success (due to what at least appears to be greater effort) African-Americans have had in lobbying towards their best interests as an ethnicity, and making any slurs against it cultural taboo in the extreme. Recognition of this fact is not racism - it is life.

For my own part, both the magnitude of the tsunami and personal reverse-racism have rendered me incapable of making fun of it or enjoying jokes about it. I tend to be the sort that revels in the various scatologies and transgressive elements life has to offer - but I simply cannot find anything to laugh about here. Apparently there is a hard line, and it hovers somewhere around 100,000 recent deaths in an apocalyptic event.

Charlie: I agree that true socialism has yet to be implemented, but I would contend that even if it was, it still wouldn't work. The entire human race - including yours truly - needs to do a bit of growing up before we're ready.
posted by Ryvar at 1:15 PM on January 24, 2005


Jonmc: I'm confused, are you a housing rights activist, involved in eliminating education gaps, etc?

Because from where I'm sitting it looks like you're trying to prevent people from taking actions you don't think will be effective while taking none yourself. The thing is: the people who wrote letters about the song, oh, they're the same people complaining to their congresspeople about employment discrimination. The great part about joining the public discourse is that you aren't limited in what you can fight for. You can advocate for whatever you want in whatever way you want whenever you want. You don't just get a quota of one letter a week or something.

From the outside, I know that it seems that we all have our pet issues, but the fact is: the people upset by the song are probably the ones organizing tsunami relief benefits. What are you doing about any issue other than criticizing people who are doing something?
posted by goneill at 1:21 PM on January 24, 2005


Agregoli:

I think the second part of your post ("Hopefully, this kind of immediate action will make the station stop such ridiculousness once and for all.") is a fairly direct and appropriate counterargument (I'm not saying that I agree or disagree)...Just so you don't think I'm saying that everyone arguing against jonmc is off-base.

Charlie Bucket: "You have yet to explain the underlying logic behind your conviction that ignoring the problem of racism will make it go away."

And I doubt he will explain the underlying logic, because I haven't seen that he has this conviction that ignoring the problem of racism will make it go away. He is arguing that the best way of making the problem of people capitalizing on the shock value of racism go away is to avoid providing them the scandal that provides their capital. The issue of the problem of racism itself is a separate issue that jonmc hasn't addressed one way or the other.

In fact, it's one that I haven't seen anyone here address, one way or the other (except vaguely in the appeal of "elevating society through socialism", though that connection is inferred rather than explicit). Which is probably a good thing, because that's a much, much, much, much bigger can of worms that will rapidly cause the thread to spin out of control.

Kinda like telling someone "You haven't addressed the underlying causes of poor customer service in a capitalist economy in your comment about how to replace your iPod battery yourself."
posted by Bugbread at 1:22 PM on January 24, 2005


Goneill: "Because from where I'm sitting it looks like you're trying to prevent people from taking actions you don't think will be effective while taking none yourself."

From where I'm sitting it looks like he's trying to prevent (?) (ok, he's trying to convince against) people taking actions that he thinks will be harmful (providing publicity) while he takes an action that he does think will be effective (not providing publicity).

I'm limiting this to the discussion of the Tsunami song, of course, not the habitat against humanity / other issues.

Of course, if I were jonmc, I would make the counterargument that given 4 possible combinations:

1) Having the energy to complain about the song and work for habitat for humanity.
2) Having the energy to only do one issue, and choosing to complain about the song.
3) Having the energy to only do one issue, and choosing to work for habitat for humanity.
4) Not complaining, and not helping habitat for humanity.

The order of usefulness/goodness is 3,1,4,2. So, given his initial assumptions (providing publicity is a negative that outweighs the positives of complaining about the song), sitting on his ass doing nothing is better than someone sitting on their ass providing publicity for the song.

Unfortunately, I disagree with jonmc's initial assumption, so I disagree with his conclusions. Still, it doesn't seem a horribly untenable conclusion, as people are fighting to paint it to be.
posted by Bugbread at 1:31 PM on January 24, 2005


Do you really think that the radio station is going to get any additional listeners by people complaining about it?

It happens all the time. What do you think saved Married With Children? Some people run TO a fire, some run away.
posted by rushmc at 1:32 PM on January 24, 2005


Oops. I made an error there. I didn't mean to say "ignoring the problem of racism will make it go away." I meant "cultural crassness." Spell check won't help when you put the wrong word in but spell it correctly. Racism is an element of the controversy, but not what we were talking about. My bad.

Issues of culture are real issues, and they are indeed connected with the material injustices you cite. I am not suggesting that racism in media should be addressed instead of other issues; they are in many ways inseparable.

This song is not an isolated incident; radio stations are getting particularly crass in their push for ratings. Media in general is more crass, insulting, empty of real insight towards human life. As a whole, this has to stop. I agree that one can only take on so much and not fight every battle; last week my wife and I put the TV away. We're done - for now, at least. And it is in reaction to the vapid crap on TV. But the negative is not always enough. It's absurd that we have to resist so much of our own world to stay healthy and sane. I hold the same for fast food and bad pop music. Why is so much of our culture toxic?

If you weren't convinced that the song itself is toxic, please listen to the link seanyboy posted above with the argument between the two radio hosts. The anger is real, and it resonates in the minds of those who hear it.
posted by Charlie Bucket at 1:35 PM on January 24, 2005


Jonmc: I'm confused, are you a housing rights activist, involved in eliminating education gaps, etc?

I have little or no personal power to affect these issues aside from not propogating them in my own life. But, I have participated in protests, rebuked people for making racist statements in my own personal sphere, and been involved in labor organizing.

And the simple fact that one is participating in political action does not exempt one from criticsim of the efficacy or advisibilty of that action.

The thing is: the people who wrote letters about the song, oh, they're the same people complaining to their congresspeople about employment discrimination.

And you base this supposition on what, exactly? That's like saying the people who complain about the Mets pitching staff are the same ones training youthful athletes for ten years from now. It may be true in some cases, but not neccessarily. Some people merely like to complain.

There's a line in Richard Price's novel Samaritan about a well meaning altruist. Another character says of him, "Ray always talks about making a dent. But what he really wants is to make a splash."

Complaining about high-profile stupidity like this song is gratifying. And it gets people noticed. But the real work of making things better is not always so gratifying or flashy. It's often downright boring. But that's life.

It happens all the time. What do you think saved Married With Children?

The fact that while it could offensive, it was also entertaining? There's no accounting for taste, rush.

I meant "cultural crassness."

Cultural crassness can even be a good thing, in that at least it forces everybodys cards on to the table. I'm not saying that it should be the main mode of discourse but it definitely has it's place.

Also, just so nobody thinks I'm taking this personally, this has actually evolved into an intersting disucssion. Thanks.
posted by jonmc at 1:38 PM on January 24, 2005


It seems like a pretty big deal to me. I think this should be all over the news. I'm surprised sponsors haven't pulled ads. I think morons should be able to say whatever they want, but this song shows some major racism. The fact that this is so mainstream is scary. Pretty sad. The Philly show too, was awful. Oh, and neither skit was at all well directed, or performed. I'm shocked that the Philly host has any fans. What a cookie cutter lame-o "shock jock".

Awful.

If Sprint PCS really sponsors hot 97, then they should see a drop in business. Unless nobody cares or knows about this junk, in which case they are... free and clear.
posted by JBennett at 1:49 PM on January 24, 2005


Juvenile humor amuses me sometimes, I'll admit. Sometimes a well placed fart joke in a movie is a good thing. (It can sometimes be a somewhat anti-authoritarian sentiment.) But this is beyond poor taste - It's hateful. The growing amount of this sort of thing is reflective of anti-democratic attitudes and is a symptom of an incresasingly unhealthy society. But it also reinforces these additudes.

At some point this will spill over into more that a song or words on the radio. In a way, it has. Yes, Iraq. (Did I just invoke some sort of Godwin's Law?) The growing hostility within the US is intimately related to the lack of visible progressive sentiment in our mass media, which is turn connected to a war conducted on the basis of lies and viciousness.

I can certainly agree that not every cultural event needs to be condemned (the hubub over Janet's Jackson nipple was absurd.) I know there are so many major problems that need to me tackle. To me, however, they all interrelate. Culture decline, war, the high cost of living, unemployment are all symptoms of an irrational system based on profit instead of human needs and constantly careening from crisis to crisis.

I've enjoyed the discussion as well. I'm done for now, though. It's warmed up quite nicely in Seattle, gonna enjoy it while it lasts.
posted by Charlie Bucket at 2:00 PM on January 24, 2005


Rushmc: "It happens all the time. What do you think saved Married With Children?"

Jonmc: "The fact that while it could offensive, it was also entertaining? There's no accounting for taste, rush."


I think you misread Rush's post and may not remember the history of the show so well. If he said, "What do you think made Married With Children popular?", a possible answer may indeed have been "it was offensive but entertaining". However, the question is what saved it. It was doing horribly when it came out (a little, unknown show on Fox), but then it got a lot of publicity for being crass and offensive, and everybody flocked to watch it. Maybe they stayed because it was entertaining, but they flocked to it and saved it from pending cancellation due to the fact that it got a lot of publicity by scandal.

Or, in other words: Jonmc, Rushmc is agreeing with you and supplying supporting evidence.
posted by Bugbread at 2:00 PM on January 24, 2005


Where Hot 97 is castigated, South Park will likely be lauded and laughed at publicly. Taking this to a wider field of tastefulness, Chris Rock is observant and explanatory, but it's the same language and if we're being intellectually honest, tasteless in a lot of places.

I think this is a pretty poor example here with South Park and Chris Rock.

I haven't heard the song yet, as I'm at work, but from what it sounds like - these are boundaries that South Park and Chris Rock wouldn't even cross.

Making fun of a race in general they'll both do. Making fun of them while also making light of the fact that a natural disaster killed over 200,000 of them -- neither one of them will do that.

There's tasteless humor, and then there's hateful humor. South Park and Chris Rock are equal opportunity when it comes to being tasteless - which, I believe, takes the "hate" out of it.

Making fun of a tragedy like this while poking fun at race, however, is hateful, and I am damn certain that South Park and Chris Rock (since they're the examples you give) would not do something like this.
posted by twiggy at 3:07 PM on January 24, 2005


As I recall Africans and Chinese are the only ethnicities mentioned in the "song."

I heard whites, blacks, Africans (just from Africa, please), Puerto Ricans and chinks in general (who could just as easily be from any Asian country in the mind of an idiot). Just sayin'. The only people who got off were the goddamned Jews. And we all know why that is...

I keed!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:10 PM on January 24, 2005


Or, in other words: Jonmc, Rushmc is agreeing with you and supplying supporting evidence.

What bugbread said. And to clarify further, a woman started a huge protest against the show after it first aired and got a ton of media attention and a bunch of the original advertisers to drop it. Somehow it managed to gain the audience necessary to sustain it for ten years despite this outcry.
posted by rushmc at 5:31 PM on January 24, 2005


Oh, I misunderstood. But I guess that adds creedence to my theory that controversy draws in the rubberneckers who merely want to watch the pyrotchnics of controversy, and also the merely curious, who can sustain something if it has any interest beyond that. Which MWC did, IMHO. It wasn't earth shaking but it was a decent (ruthless, yet somewhat affectionate) satire on lower-middle-class urban white America, in the tradition of The Honeymooners, All In The Family, the Simpsons and Family Guy, all of which started out as controversial shows themselves
posted by jonmc at 5:48 PM on January 24, 2005


And me voicing a contrary opinion does not equal "shitting in the thread."

Oh, I wish to god that you were only voicing a contrary opinion. Please don't act like I'm the first person to tell you that you actively defecate on threads in which you have nothing constructive to add. It seems like you're being told this weekly at least, and with good reason.

Also, just so nobody thinks I'm taking this personally, this has actually evolved into an intersting disucssion. Thanks.

You say that, and yet you also say:

It's mainly because it's my name attached to it that people feel free to attack the poster rather than the post.

Jon, you know for a fact that I have nothing personal against you whatsoever, but it's no secret that when given a comment box here, you do the following (usually in this order):

1. make an asinine, unthoughtful comment.
2. get indignant when called on it.
3. twist other's points to the point that they're easy to put down (reduction to absurdity is not a good way to refute someone).
4. change your tune so that each comment completely contradicts what you said a few comments ago, so that you don't come off as asinine as you did in your original comment.
5. attack what actions others are taking without even remotely suggesting an alternative or something better.
6. cry that people don't like you, and that you're misunderstood.

And guess what? By the end, the thread, in which you had limited interest in, is suddenly about you, and your "arguments" completely hold the thread hostage, preventing what could have been an interesting discussion.

You're a decent guy, jon, especially in person, but it's sickening to watch you post here. You're better than this. And I'm not the first person who's told you that, either.
posted by adampsyche at 7:14 AM on January 25, 2005


adam, with all due respect, I stated an opinion: that the song was deliberately written to incite offense and controversy and as such making a huge fuss over it would encourage rather than discourage people from attemting such stunts in the future.

You disagree. That's great. Would you rather that I don't state that opinion, or state my thoughts on surrounding issues? Or only state them in such an unctous way that absolutely nobody could take any offense to them? I'm sorry but I can't do that and I wouldn't ask anyone else to.

The thread went off on some related tangents as threads often do. It was an interesting discussion. Just because it wasn't the discussion some might have expected it to be, dosen't change that.

I understand where you're coming from, adam, but I don't ask you to stop being you.
posted by jonmc at 10:30 AM on January 25, 2005


CNN: "NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The entire staff of the New York radio show "Miss Jones in the Morning" was taken off the air on Wednesday after broadcasting a song that ridiculed victims of the tsunami in South Asia, the radio station said.

New York FM radio station WQHT, or HOT 97, repeatedly ran the segment last week on the show, hosted by deejay Tarsha Nicole Jones who uses the on-air name Miss Jones.

Jones and her team were suspended indefinitely, according to publicist Lizzie Grubman, who declined to say whether Jones would feature in another show at a later date."
posted by pracowity at 2:02 PM on January 26, 2005


Karma is a bitch, eh?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:18 PM on January 26, 2005


Ha! I was just coming here to post that article.
posted by adampsyche at 5:58 AM on January 27, 2005


You can't have it both ways. You can choose to outrage and accept outrage as your response. There's no real justification if you set out to outrage and then whine when the outrage you create has consequences.
posted by nanojath at 7:55 PM on February 23, 2005


« Older Just Like Mom Used To Make   |   Nothing is new Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments