What the (bleep) am I talking about?

Had a deep thought today and I thought I would share it...

It seems that over the past few years the 'bleep' has became a very common thing on TV, especially on shows like Jerry Springer and of late...The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The 'bleep' is designed to cover up the swear word that was actually spoken and to help censor people from the material. However, is the 'bleep' really necessary and/or effective?

My point is that if the 'bleep' is used as frequently as it is these days and it seems that it keeps getting worse, than isn't the 'bleep' acting just like a swear word. I am sure that most people are aware of Jimmy Kimmel's Unnecessary Censorship moments where they 'bleep' over material that doesn't contain swearing just to show how easy it is to insert a 'bleep' where an adjective might be and it suddenly changes the whole thing, it becomes funny.

So has the 'bleep' become a swear word in and of itself???? Would it be better to just play what they actually say rather than 'bleep' it out? Let's face it, kids are going to find out one day or another anyway and in their mind they are already "filling-in-the-blanks" anyway.

You wanna know something funny? I was thinking about the same thing this morning. I really, truly was!

I was driving to work and listening to the local pseudo-alternative radio station. They played Green Day's version of Working Man and silenced fvck. I began to wonder why they bothered. The people that would be offended by it are probably not listening to that station. In fact, the conversations had by the morning crew on that station are far more offensive in nature than any single word could be.

Just like the people who would be offended by Jon Stewart's language likely wouldn't appreciate his humour and be watching his show anyway. And certainly kids shouldn't be up that late.

I don't believe that bleeps should be eliminated altogether, but I think that there should be bleep-free zones. Make Jon Stewart's show a bleep-free zone if it's on after 10:00pm. Bleep the afternoon reruns if you're afraid that kids might be around.

The same for radio. Certain stations should be able to play uncensored music as long as they broadcast a disclaimer once an hour letting listeners know that they may hear offensive language. It ruins the song when it has to be interupted by a bleep or a second of silence.

I think that folks who find swearing offensive have a right to not have to hear it. But for those of us who don't care, we should have a right to not have our entertainment censored.

The whole concept of foul language is kind of stupid when you think about it. Unspeakable words?
Geez, these are only bad because society ARBITRARILY assigns "bad" connotation to them.

I'd sooner beat a kid for dropping cultural slurs than a few f-bombs. At least there's a history of malicious intent behind the former.
If we all of a sudden refused to acknowledge any word as a "swear word", they'd hold no power over us.
Until then, bleep on, I guess.

I'm sure it's so over-used these days because the networks think it improves ratings. I know, I'm probably oversimplifying the matter, but that's just the cynical view I have of the big 4 networks. How much beeping do you hear on the cable/satellite channels?

I think that one (not all) of the reasons we still get bleeps is because the cable companies can charge more for the bleepless channels. Why give us all of what we want to hear if they can charge us extra for HBO & Showtime? So, if you are cheap and only have basic cable, you get bleeped. If you shell out the extra cash for the premium channels, then you too can get fvcked.

Just my twisted view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

The whole concept of foul language is kind of stupid when you think about it. Unspeakable words?
Geez, these are only bad because society ARBITRARILY assigns "bad" connotation to them.

I'd sooner beat a kid for dropping cultural slurs than a few f-bombs. At least there's a history of malicious intent behind the former.
If we all of a sudden refused to acknowledge any word as a "swear word", they'd hold no power over us.
Until then, bleep on, I guess.

---

But I suppose they serve some purpose, so can't be totally ignored. Anyway, social conventions are generally long-standing, whereas "political correctness", on the other hand, usually serves some current agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

But I suppose they serve some purpose, so can't be totally ignored. Anyway, social conventions are generally long-standing, whereas "political correctness", on the other hand, usually serves some current agenda.

---

Why did Al Sharpton's name pop into my head when I read that?