Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think he is taking obscure incidents and headlines from the 80s, that nobody that actually lived in the 80s heard about or thought about, and is applying it to today's social media-driven "movements".
It makes sense that if the current time period is all you know, you are likely to believe it applies to other time periods.
I was thinking that as well. I wonder if that's going around that Prince was so controversial because some of his lyrics were too sexy. It wasn't any more sexy than 90% of the other songs around at the time, and it wasn't so bad that they edited them for radio. The songs were played in their entirety on radio stations across the country.
The only thing I can think of for why you are saying this is an account I read about yesterday saying when Prince opened for The Rolling Stones in the 1981 tour, people threw bottles at him and booed. This was typical for unknown opening bands in those days, particularly when one act is so different from the headliner. It was no reflection on how people thought of him once he became popular.
I think he is taking obscure incidents and headlines from the 80s, that nobody that actually lived in the 80s heard about or thought about, and is applying it to today's social media-driven "movements".
It makes sense that if the current time period is all you know, you are likely to believe it applies to other time periods.
The difference is that in today's climate, their voices would be a lot stronger. Tipper Gore btw campaigned to get a warning label on records due to Prince's songs. And BTW in regards to Soul Man, the NAACP condemned the movie back in 1986. C. Thomas Howell's career also never really recovered from it.
The difference is that in today's climate, their voices would be a lot stronger. Tipper Gore btw campaigned to get a warning label on records due to Prince's songs. And BTW in regards to Soul Man, the NAACP condemned the movie back in 1986. C. Thomas Howell's career also never really recovered from it.
C. Thomas Howell, even in his heyday, was a b-list actor in a-list movies. In spite of having great rolls in amazing movies early in his career, he was never a household name. You would definitely recognize him if you saw him, but you would likely refer to him as "that guy that was in........". He never achieved the fame of Tom Cruise, Emilio Estevez or Patrick Swayze, in spite of being in movies with them
But in the 80s, I highly doubt that Soul Man had anything to do with his career issues. I think he was just played out by that time.
As to Prince and Tipper Gore, he was only one of many artists that she wanted to label. He wasn't singled out. She wanted to put labels on Black Sabbath records, Cindy Lauper records, etc. and she was very poorly received by most people. Again, this was not mainstream thought.
The difference is that in today's climate, their voices would be a lot stronger. Tipper Gore btw campaigned to get a warning label on records due to Prince's songs. And BTW in regards to Soul Man, the NAACP condemned the movie back in 1986. C. Thomas Howell's career also never really recovered from it.
I really still don't understand how it's supposed to be offensive. If it was a movie starring a black guy, and they got a big name white star to play him in blackface, THAT would be highly offensive. But the whole premise of that movie was a white guy pretending to be black to get a scholarship, and then learning how horrible it was what he did and how much racism there was still. Talk about getting a chance to check his privilege. Who else but a white guy would be in such a role?
As to Prince and Tipper Gore, he was only one of many artists that she wanted to label. He wasn't singled out. She wanted to put labels on Black Sabbath records, Cindy Lauper records, etc. and she was very poorly received by most people. Again, this was not mainstream thought.
You have it backwards. Tipper's purchase of 'Purple Rain' got her panties in a wad and then she went on her crusade against others in the industry.
...As for being poorly received, are there not warning labels on music to this very day?
Is it your assertion that laws get passed based on popularity? Tipper was seen as being on a crusade, and the only people on her side were (ironically) the religious right. They had a lot more power back then than they do now. So the fact that there are labels now has nothing to do with what mainstream America wanted.
But as I said, there were many artists on her list. What's the difference which one she happened to hear first? It could just as easily been someone else. At the time, it wasn't like everyone was saying "Prince is responsible for this."
It certainly is oppression. It is right out of 1984 where the Party rewrites history and recreates language so that they reflect the current Party line. And when the Party line changes so must history and language.
I think you need to take some courses in gender awareness and sensitivities.
"Sensitivity training" is a hallmark of fascist countries. And Political Correctness came as a term from Maoist China.
Political Correctness is oppression. It is basically not being able to say what you really feel, for fear someone will report you to the government, and they decide your kids shouldn't be in a "toxic" environment like that, so child services arranges to abduct your family or have you brainwashed.
We should be able to live in a world where all people including minorities live without fear. But we should also live in a world where people are not afraid to freely speak. It started with journalism and "limits to free speech". The often cited "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." Uhhh, actually, you can yell anything you bloody like because people are not obligated to believe you. Then there was the censorship of cursing. I can ****ing say anything I ****ing like and you have to take it you worthless piece of ****. ***-**** you to ****! Finally people decided that there unpopular views that could be censored, things that were not politically correct, like that there is no real evidence of genetic homosexuality.
That's okay, I'm LGBT and totally cool with that. It is my choice, and I lile that choice. What I don't like, is people acting like my struggle to do what I wanted didn't exist, by acting like I never had a freedom in the matter.
Suddenly we moved out of free speech and into sensitivity. Sorry no. We were given free speech, and you can go be traumatized on your own time.
Is it your assertion that laws get passed based on popularity? Tipper was seen as being on a crusade, and the only people on her side were (ironically) the religious right. They had a lot more power back then than they do now. So the fact that there are labels now has nothing to do with what mainstream America wanted.
But as I said, there were many artists on her list. What's the difference which one she happened to hear first? It could just as easily been someone else. At the time, it wasn't like everyone was saying "Prince is responsible for this."
Religious Right my ass! NO LAW WAS PASSED. Tipper used her connections and influence in CONGRESS to cow the recording industry into "voluntarily" labeling music.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
