For some reason I don't find homophobic abuse acceptable

[drdoug]

So this morning it emerged that Radio 1, in accordance with its anti-homophobic bullying policy, had blanked out the word "faggot" in the Pogues' tired old Fairytale of New York (and also "slut

Comments

[syllopsium]

I'm less worried by this than other behaviour on radio 1. Whilst no homo/biphobic abuse is acceptable, I would personally place the use of faggot in this song below a use of gay to mean crap or superficial on r1 - a policy that appears to be accepted by the editors

[drdoug]

Oh, me too - I object much more to that general, casual background of homophobic abuse than to the specific example in this song. I really, really don't like Chris Moyles in particular on this, and heartily wish he wasn't broadcasting (or changed his act).

But the fact that the issue of this particular lyric arises in that context makes it much worse, not better!

[thekumquat]

I've been thinking on this. I think I disagree. In this case, faggot and slut are both used as part of a tirade of abuse, and there's no suggestion that the characters are laudable. No-one is arguing that the word isn't a homophobic insult.
Unlike Chris Moyles' etc use of 'gay' claiming that it's nothing to do with gay people who therefore shouldn't be insulted.

The fact that the lines of the song alternate between characters and they each give as good as they get makes a difference too, to me.

[nmg]

That's more or less my take on the matter too.

[drdoug]

No-one is arguing that the word isn't a homophobic insult.

I'm not sure that's the case, but certainly nobody commenting on this entry is arguing that, so I'm very happy to take it as read.

In this case, faggot and slut are both used as part of a tirade of abuse, and there's no suggestion that the characters are laudable. [...] The fact that the lines of the song alternate between characters and they each give as good as they get makes a difference too, to me.To me that seems like a good argument that the entire song is not homophobic, and to that extent I agree. Unlike, say, a song that was entirely about what fun it is to go out and beat up gay men. So to my mind that justifies a different level of response: you cut out the bits that are unacceptable. With the former, it's fine with just a tiny edit; with the latter, it's irredeemably unacceptable and shouldn't be played at all

[randomstring]

Please tell me you're joking when you say Kerrang pixes out fags. How very rock'n'roll.

[jhg]

That's nothing - the DVD version of Raiders Of The Lost Ark has all the Nazis digitally replaced with Ewoks.

[drdoug]

Thanks for the thoughtful response - I do want to talk this through with people who disagree so it's good to have a contribution like this.

A counter to this, for me, is that I find the very act of bleeping more and more offensive with every occurrence. (Just to be clear, I don't think we're talking about literal bleeping, are we? I've not heard the edited song, but I'd assumed they'd followed normal practice and blanked out the lyric but left the music intact

[vinaigrettegirl]

If pop music is going to be seen as a valid form of truthful expression then a realistic portrayal of how people spoke at a given time in history has to be allowed in society. I don't see how a song which has a couple of characters indulging in nasty name-calling can be banned, any more than cartoons portraying Christ in an insulting light, or Mohammed, can be banned. Although there are - for example - Christian minorities in other countries who are killed, tortured, or persecuted in many, many ways because they are Christian we still routinely accept blasphemy, and I wouldn't ban blasphemous talk, either

[kissmeforlonger]

What about the point that faggot doesn't have homophobic overtones in Irish English - it just means 'git'? I understand it's a commonly-known term of homophobic abuse now, but to me this has a US background and we understand it that way because of their culture. It wasn't the intent of the songwriter and maybe we should respect that.

As to the implications (ie regardless of intent, this is what most UK listeners understand the word to mean) then you have a fair point. It seems a bit like the Robinson's Golliwog issue to me - it was culturally acceptable at the time the original advertising was created and the racist overtones went over the head of an awful lot of children with the dolls. Do you treat it as a cultural artefact which has outgrown its racist meaning or as intrinsically racist and therefore something which should be got rid of? I don't know.