Yes, I think that distinction is an important one to understand and it has been overlooked by the likes of the Radio 1 team and Peter Tatchell in this instance. This case is absurd because the distinction is so clear, but it also applies more generally and far more subtly to language use and intention outside of clearly delineated 'performances' or artworks in which it is a character speaking. We all use different 'characters' in a sense when we speak and do not always literally mean what we say, our statements can be couched behind layers of self-awareness and irony. Direct statements which are derogative, derisive or insulting are of a different character from ones which step beyond that directly performative act to comment on or highlight language use itself or directly or indirectly reinterpret the words we are using (or 'quoting'). Illocutionary acts can be identical in form and yet have quite different meanings in different contexts and at different times, so it's unsurprising mistakes are made in the interpretation of this application of language - it is sometimes a very fine line. We often find this with 'sensitive' words which are shifting around in their meaning like "nigga", "gay", "spas" etc. What is achieved by their recontextualisation is valuable and important and progressive, and to censor the words on the basis that their directly performative use can and does offend is to stifle not only language but the social progression of thought. Recontextualisation is how all language functions, moves and lives and we should not limit the pallette with which we paint because sometimes horrible pictures have been made using those colours. Colours, and words, only have meaning insofar as we attribute meaning, meaning is not intrinsic; all signs are arbitrary Bit of a tangent
read about this in the paper. Although i have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion i thought you might want to know. And it wasnt my paper either.
erm, so ok ... when i first read this i didn't realize that the two lines were taken out of context. i thought that was the whole song and then, yeah i'd say it's rather offensive. in context though, i would disagree wholeheartedly with the censorship. though i've heard of the Pogue's song before it's not such common knowledge to me that I identified the lines immediately or where they came from. also, haven't seen or read much news the past few days, as i've been sort of keeping myself in a bubble trying to wrap up some gifts for Christmas that i've been making. i've never agreed with censorship in music and movies. i think there is too much of it as it is. the word nigga is censored out of every radio played song - as a rather tame example of this in Kayne West's Gold Digger, the chorus on the radio version says "she ain't messin with no broke broke" (instead of saying broke nigga). if it's something that is supposed to enrage and be hateful towards a group of people then maybe it should be looked at; but a lot of this is just people over reacting. i wouldn't say "political correctness gone mad" but i would say it's a matter of censorship gone mad.
