Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
True. I used to not care. Now I am affirmatively hostile to the issue.

(Hank, is that the proper snarky tone? I want to get this right.)

Oh, I was just trying to take ncs's side, you know valient manly stuff!
I think she's warming up to me, and I may ask her to be wife number 7. Question. If my 7th wife has a good paying job, does that mean my other 6 can't get welfare?

And I enjoy arguing on the board. Sometime I don't engage in argument because for many of the arguments I have to think and be engaged, and careful. Some times I'm looking for light distraction only.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There should be no restrictions on ideas, other than those already covered by the 1st amendment (e.g. "fire"). Rather only the manner in which the ideas are presented should be regulated. I'm thinking along the lines of the 7 dirty word test, i.e., here are actual words (not just - words that cannote sex or something similarly vague) you cannot say. If you can find a way to express your ideas without using those precise words you are in the clear.

What you have just described is remarkably close to the FCC's current standards for what constitutes indecency.

Which is why Stern is always talking about "oral" and "anal," but never actually says "blowjobs" or "turd burgling."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think we need a standard that would serve at least 2 functions -certainty (to the broadcasters) and visibility (to the public).

There should be no restrictions on ideas, other than those already covered by the 1st amendment (e.g. "fire"). Rather only the manner in which the ideas are presented should be regulated. I'm thinking along the lines of the 7 dirty word test, i.e., here are actual words (not just - words that cannote sex or something similarly vague) you cannot say. If you can find a way to express your ideas without using those precise words you are in the clear.

I think that basically is the standard that is used now except it is even more permissive. Stern can say oral sex, but he cannot say blow job. Stern can vagina, but he cannot say cunt.

The current standard is even more permissive, though, because Bono can say fuck if he is saying it as an adjective rather than a verb to indicate sexual activity.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
The current standard is even more permissive, though, because Bono can say fuck if he is saying it as an adjective rather than a verb to indicate sexual activity.

That was certainly interesting. I never thought the FCC would come right out and admit they were regulating concepts instead of word lists.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
The current standard is even more permissive, though, because Bono can say fuck if he is saying it as an adjective rather than a verb to indicate sexual activity.

Poor drafting. Somebody finally wised up and realized that "fucking" as an adverb doesn't depict sexual congress, or however the reg was written.

There's nothing in Red Lion that prevents the FCC from redrafting the applicable regs to ban use of "fucking" in its Irish (i.e., non-depicting) sense.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
That was certainly interesting. I never thought the FCC would come right out and admit they were regulating concepts instead of word lists.

Oh, come on, Bilmore. You think the FCC would have been powerless to prevent me from reading euphemistic porno over the air. "She shuddered with delight has he slipped his hot, throbbing whangdoodle into her moist, ready hoo-ha." Ya think the FCC would have to let that go?

Indecency is both a word list and a set of concepts, at least with regard to the FCC's function of protecting sensitive (under 15 and over 65) ears and eyes.

"Depict sexual or excretory organs or activities." That's the standard. And it must be patently offensive, but God knows what that means.

Edit: Sorry, you were being sarcastic. I see that now.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


There's nothing in Red Lion that prevents the FCC from redrafting the applicable regs to ban use of "fucking" in its Irish (i.e., non-depicting) sense.

Are there applicable regs, or just case-by-case adjudication?

But as atticus seems to note, the issue isn't what they can regulate, it's what they're actually regulating. fucking could be banned, but it wasn't.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are there applicable regs, or just case-by-case adjudication?

There was a Policy Statement for the industry's benefit in 2001 to provide guidance on what had been deemed indecent. This was before the Bono incident; I'm not clear on what changed, since the Policy Statement includes a finding that an announcer's inadvertent use of "Oops, fucked that one up" was not indecent. On the other hand, Monty Python's "Sit on My Face" song is indecent though it uses no cuss words.

Policy Statement.

Worth reading, if only for taking rap music and horrible junior high schoolyard jokes out of context.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is exactly the point. Many women just don't like this kind of debate. It is too serious for them and they don't like the confrontational aspect to it. ... Yeah, there is a whole lotta mind changing going on on the FB. ... Whether we change anyone's mind or not isn't the point of being here.

I've seen almost no debate on this board that I would take as serious as quite a number of debates on the FB regarding the sociological, semiotic and historical significance of individual's choices about self-presentation (be that in clothing, language, manners, behavior or what have you). And, frankly, that is in significant part BECAUSE debates over here tend to aggressive ranting, while on the FB people actually do engage in discussions, attend to others' positions and, therefore necessarily, sometimes change their minds. Aggression correlates with neither the importance of the topic nor intellectual rigor. It was on the FB that Thurgreed completely changed the way I, at least, thought about arguments for and against reparations, for example. No one over here has managed to do as much.

Even the educated ones, although, I don't count a degree in art history as qualifying one as educated. I wouldn't be surprised if you do, though... It is what you choose to get educated about (i.e., not physics and math) and what you do and do not enjoy doing.

Women with art history degrees don't threaten men. That is an acceptable girly degree to get. It is also an easy degree to get compared to a science or math degree. But those majors, with the exception of biology, are practically devoid of women at the college level. Not a whole lot of women electrical engineering majors, either.

See, now you've just internalized the prevailing societal stereotype of "the things that girls do aren't as worthwhile or difficult as what the boys do." If men don't find it threatening, so what? It's not educationally worthwhile unless you can't get a date? Men haven't exactly proved themselves terribly smart about judging feminine ability over the course of the millenia, now have they, so why look to them for your standards of what constitutes a worthwhile feminine education?

And having studied both the arts and the engineering and mathematical sciences to a fair extent in undergrad and graduate school, I have to say that I actually think you are quite wrong. A good education in the arts (be it art history or literature or music or philosophy) is no easier, and frequently much harder, to achieve than a good education in mathematics and science; the standards of performance are considerably more complex and more difficult to achieve. Frankly, I dropped the physics major because it bored me when I understood the mathematics enough to realize that it was just another language, and a form of language which was rather more interestingly and subtly explored in the discipline of music (though, admittedly, when pursued at a high enough level pure maths and theoretical physics regain some of their imaginative charms). Arts degrees also usually require rather a lot more inherent ability, frankly, that can't be acquired by doing your problem sets and keeping up with the lab work. Dealing with rigor in topics that do not lend themselves to objective proof is, simply put, a more difficult intellectual exercise at nearly all levels of performance. If you didn't realize that sort of rigor is routinely expected of and delivered by arts students, then, frankly, I pity you because you got the arts-educational equivalent of "chemistry for poets" or "physics without maths."

There are lots of crappy arts programs out there where spouting some bullshit that sounds vaguely like deconstruction gets you a pass, just as there are lots of crappy engineering and science programs out there where the ability to remember some equations by rote and not blow up the lab will earn you a degree. Of course, a crappy education in either sciences or arts is totally worthless from a mental development point of view, with the exception that crappy engineers find work in their field more easily than crappy art critics because there isn't the same level of competition, and therefore there isn't the same demand for excellence. But surely you aren't confusing economic value and educational rigor. Because I bet I know plumbers with GEDs who make more than you do. And anyone trying to tell me that an MBA has intellectual value of any sort will get bitchslapped by me personally.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What you have just described is remarkably close to the FCC's current standards for what constitutes indecency.

Which is why Stern is always talking about "oral" and "anal," but never actually says "blowjobs" or "turd burgling."

It's my understanding that the anticipated fines against Stern are above and beyond those standards, and Clear Channel threw him off 6 stations for the broadcast of the word "nigger," which was said by a caller and not Stern and is not one of the banned words. Now Clear Channel is certainly not the FCC, but I strong suspicion is that they made a business decision that Stern was no longer worth the business risk due to the fact that the FCC was going to be more proactive than they've been in the past.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There was a Policy Statement for the industry's benefit in 2001 to provide guidance on what had been deemed indecent. This was before the Bono incident; I'm not clear on what changed, since the Policy Statement includes a finding that an announcer's inadvertent use of "Oops, fucked that one up" was not indecent. On the other hand, Monty Python's "Sit on My Face" song is indecent though it uses no cuss words.

Policy Statement.

Worth reading, if only for taking rap music and horrible junior high schoolyard jokes out of context.

I'll read this in more detail when I have time, but the standards in their are certainly not clear enought to provide broadcasters with a reasonable degree of certainty. There is still a ton of discretion that goes into a determination.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
On the other hand, Monty Python's "Sit on My Face" song is indecent though it uses no cuss words.

Because now I just have to - Atticus you bastard, now I'll be humming this all night. (Straight from memory, so it may not be quite right):

Sit on my face
and tell me that you love me.
I'll sit on your face
and tell you I love you, too.
I love to hear you moralize
when I'm between your thighs,
you blow me away!

Sit on my face
and let my lips embrace you!
I'll sit on your face
and then I'll love you truly!
Life can be fine if we both sixty-nine
If we sit on our faces in all sorts of places and play
We''ll be blown away!

BR(yes, I know, back to the FB with me)C

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
And anyone trying to tell me that an MBA has intellectual value of any sort will get bitchslapped by me personally.

I inadvertantly made a Harvard MBA-to-be very mad at me last weekend by expressing the exact same sentiment. Well, actually I didn't express it quite so agressively, but perhaps more assertively because the comment was off-hand (I corrected him when he noted that everyone at the table either had or was working on a graduate degree; I pointed out that everyone at the table had a professional degree and that each of us had left behind our formal intellectual pursuits when we graduated from our mutual undergraduate alma mater.). Perhaps I've been hanging out with the likes of BRC too long, but I was caught off guard by his negative reaction to my discription, which for me was no more controversial than noting that the sky is blue.

[End of meandering thought]

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I've seen almost no debate on this board that I would take as serious as quite a number of debates on the FB regarding the sociological, semiotic and historical significance of individual's choices about self-presentation (be that in clothing, language, manners, behavior or what have you).

Then you don't read this board much or you have a really silly definition of "serious."

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
And, frankly, that is in significant part BECAUSE debates over here tend to aggressive ranting, while on the FB people actually do engage in discussions, attend to others' positions and, therefore necessarily, sometimes change their minds.

This is a joke, right? The FB is the flame board.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Aggression correlates with neither the importance of the topic nor intellectual rigor.

No one said otherwise.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
It was on the FB that Thurgreed completely changed the way I, at least, thought about arguments for and against reparations, for example. No one over here has managed to do as much.

That is your limitation, not mine or anyone else here.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
See, now you've just internalized the prevailing societal stereotype of "the things that girls do aren't as worthwhile or difficult as what the boys do."

No, I find the male obsession with sports just as trivial. I never said engaging in the trivial is bad. I just said when that is all you engage in it is bad. Far too many women just don't want to be bothered with more serious subjects and they especially don't like things if they get heated or confrontational.

FYI - heated and confrontational aren't the same thing as mindless aggression. Heated and confrontational debates are more an expression of one's passion.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
If men don't find it threatening, so what? It's not educationally worthwhile unless you can't get a date?

You've missed my point. My point is that far too many women conform their behavior because they do in fact care not to be threatening to men. They want to be liked by men and will change their behavior to curry favor with men.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Men haven't exactly proved themselves terribly smart about judging feminine ability over the course of the millenia, now have they

Agree with you on this point.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
so why look to them for your standards of what constitutes a worthwhile feminine education?

There is no feminine education nor is there a masculine education. The subject matter that one studies to become educated shouldn't depend on your gender.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
And having studied both the arts and the engineering and mathematical sciences to a fair extent in undergrad and graduate school

All the engineering departments that I am familar with do not allow non-science majors to take their classes. In large part this is because the engineers have to take an entire years worth of science and math classes as prerequisites to taking any engineering classes.

What engineering classes did you take in college or grad school? I am asking you for the name of the course.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
A good education in the arts (be it art history or literature or music or philosophy) is no easier, and frequently much harder, to achieve than a good education in mathematics and science; the standards of performance are considerably more complex and more difficult to achieve.

False.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Frankly, I dropped the physics major because it bored me when I understood the mathematics enough to realize that it was just another language, and a form of language which was rather more interestingly and subtly explored in the discipline of music (though, admittedly, when pursued at a high enough level pure maths and theoretical physics regain some of their imaginative charms).

Sounds like you didn't get math at all. It is not a language by any stretch of the imagination. Mathematical laws are determined by the physical world and are not something people just make up, like language. I am sure if you even were ever a physics major, you dropped physics because you couldn't hack it.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Arts degrees also usually require rather a lot more inherent ability, frankly, that can't be acquired by doing your problem sets and keeping up with the lab work.

No they don't. That is why people who can't do math take those classes.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Dealing with rigor in topics that do not lend themselves to objective proof is, simply put, a more difficult intellectual exercise at nearly all levels of performance.

No, it isn't. It allows you to just make things up and talk about them. For instance, waxing on about the freaking ant fight in Walden Pond. Writiing a paper about a storybook isn't hard. If you think it is, it is no wonder you couldn't hack physics.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
"chemistry for poets"

Funny that no such class exists. Funny that they don't have to dumb down poetry classes for chemistry majors, but they have to dumb down science classes for non-science majors.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
there are lots of crappy engineering and science programs out there where the ability to remember some equations by rote and not blow up the lab will earn you a degree.

Now I am positive that you have never taken an engineering class. You simply know nothing about the curriculum.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic And anyone trying to tell me that an MBA has intellectual value of any sort will get bitchslapped by me personally.

I agree with you on that one.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I pointed out that everyone at the table had a professional degree and that each of us had left behind our formal intellectual pursuits when we graduated from our mutual undergraduate alma mater.).

Many of the subjects I took in law school were properly characterized as intellectual pursuits. For instance, juriprudence or bioethics. You don't find many classes like that in an MBA program. Moreover, in many of my law classes I was taught the history of the legal system or the history at least of that part of the law. How is learning the history of US constitutional law any less intellectual than learning about the constitution in an undergrad history class?

In many, many of my law school classes we focused not just on what the law is, but why it is the way it is and should it be some other way. I spend many hours studying and discussing the policy behind the laws, not just what the laws were.

What about a comparative legal studies class in which you are studying the difference between a common law system and a civil law system? Is this not an intellectual pursuit?

I agree that some courses, business associations comes to mind, are more vocational in nature. But those courses that are less intellectual do tend to be the ones focused on business.

Would you characterize a PhD in electrical engineering an intellectual pursuit? People in engineering degree programs aren't studying astrophysics. They are learning how to produce better computers and the like. How is learning to produce a better computer more intellectual than studying which philosophers have influenced our legal system?