This is almost unbelievable.
found by Martin Higgins
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
311—The beast is against everything the dragon stands for? And the dragon is against God, so the dragon is for god? Why is that evil?
Certain words are banned from these very comments you know. Words? Let’s ban sticks and stones!
{Too bad he’s wrong here. And any discussion above that cowers from the inclusion of children in it can’t be taken too seriously.}
What? Children are not born knowing how to participate
properly in a discussion. And if you don’t discuss the ugly
parts of human behavior with your kids (you’ll know when),
the kids are free to make up any story they like about those
ugly parts.
I miss Frank Zappa so much.
He was a genius in his music, as well as his intellect.
It showed in his music, which I listen to quite frequently.
I saw him in concert many times, and never was let down. He never did a bad show. Even on stage, he was a genius.
Too bad there aren’t more of him.
This interview, though old, shows his genius shining through.
#31. #32. The dragon is Satan. The “beast” is antichrist. The “false prophet” is the religious right. All these powers are evil. The antichrist power is in the middle of the war between Satan and apostate Christianity and offers himself as a mediator and controller for the two extreme opposites.
John Lofton makes my skin crawl.
37. Lighten up, they’re just ‘words.” Words. What’s that?
34. Or instead listen to cool people who’s words are set to cool music. I have it on good authority that even adults get sucked in on that one.
RBG
Zappa’s prophecy: America is moving toward a fascist theocracy – how true and obvious that seems today.
I liked the part about hitler, using WORDS…
Hitler also SHOT alot of people to make THEIR words GO AWAY.
Dissenting words, are always there, and if not heard…Its like reviewing products…There is a PRO and a CON…nothing is perfect. As long as it does WHAT I want, I dont care what it DONT do.
dvorak, you are awesome for posting this up. it’s funny to watch zappa in this context.
31 et al – you guys should read up on apocalyptic literature of the first century and you’ll find this all a bit differently.
39- yeah, that made me laugh.
Compare these two groups, each of two phrases:
“Wow, that was bitchin’!” and “F*#^%in sweet!”
“You horrible nasty slug of a woman!” and “I had sex with a goat”.
Which statements are the more damaging, unpleasant, or what you’d want to protect your kids from? (The author makes no claims for or against sexual activity with goats — that is for another discussion)
That said, if there was to be any regulation or censorship, I’d rather see it protect against messages than against certain lexical tokens which can be (and already have been) replaced with others that convey the same meaning. However, this would then spark the debate of whether people should be able to voice their thoughts and opinions regardless of how damaging they are — that idea, as the goats, is for another discussion as this discussion is simply in regard to the censorship of words.
I think if we would all pay more attention to what we were really saying — rather than hiding behind the more convenient idea that we can say anything as long as it avoids certain character strings — we’d all be a lot better off. This can be done without government intervention.
That said, I also believe that using words traditionally labeled as “bad words” should be avoided when around crowds of people, particularly the elderly, who obviously object to them. It is not because the words are bad but merely a matter of respect, putting them before yourself, desiring to spare them the mental jarring that comes with being so blatantly and casually offended.
+ 2c
Zappa was a bright man who died way too early.
As for John Lofton, Washington Times… a newspaper that was founded by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church. No wonder mr. Lofton is a little bit twisted.
42—You think certain “idea” should be censored rather than the words used to express those ideas?
Other than screwing ugly women, what other ideas should be banned?
44. How about
[content violation – ed]
Or
[rules violation – ed]
and 42, simplesimon, you’re nothing but a little
[content violation -ed] with your [content violation – ed] in Mr. [rules violation – ed] Fusion’s [really bad content violation -ed].
The world can just [eeeewww – ed] as far as I’m concerned.
RBG
I like the guy TRYING to make the WHOLe thing about Zappa and HIS morals, rather then debateing WORD content.
I would have also let him understand that the AGE of consent and marriage WAS about 12 years old…NOT to long ago.
Trouble Comin’ Every Day – the more things change, the more they stay the same. Way too many people who TALK about freedom without actually THINKING about it.
45. Sheesh, I’m more interested in what RBG had to say now. Its just WORDS ya know?
Me too
What happened to the “uncensored” part of Dvorak Uncensored? It’ll be interesting to see if this makes it through…
[C’mon BertDawg, that’s just flat out gross. – ed.]
That was RBG playing around.
45. You all know me. You all know what I stand for. And I say we shouldn’t stand for this shabby treatment of our liberties, the erosion of our natural rights, and antediluvian annulment of our freedoms of expression by the mandarins and fat cats and the self-appointed censors who run this blog. Sure they got me, but who’s to say who’s next?
In the words of a great American… “They’re just words…” And words are all I have. To take your heart… away.
All I know is that you’ve got to get mad.
You’ve got to say, “I’m a human being. God Dammit, my life has value.” So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out, and yell, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
Don’t tread on me! Resistance is Fertile! If we don’t hang together, we’ll hang separately! Alright, men. Over the top! Let’s get these bums!
RBG
52. Lol , well done.
29–Speaking of words, and the eternal quest to plant seed, the following has worked for me, but not in NYC (tough crowd up there!)
“Sticks and stones can break your bones, but only words can break your heart.” Say this in front of a mirror until you don’t laugh or smirk, and it will work with 90% of any divorcee you meet.
44, bobbo –
I never said that I desire the censorship of ideas. Let me try to rephrase what seems to have come across wrong:
I said that if there would have to be any censorship — if I had to choose something — then I’d prefer the censoring of [negative or damaging messages] rather than the [futile] attempt to ban [an arbitrary and variable list of “wordy dirties”].
I also said that the idea of censoring those negative or damaging messages is then an entirely separate discussion from whether to ban a list of words. Yesterday, and still today, I would refrain from having that discussion in this environment. I don’t think that either side can express a decent shot at their argument without starting a flame war, nor could either side likely do a good job explaining their view succinctly enough for blog comment standards (even this is getting lengthy). It simply would not go anywhere.
Having clarified that, I will answer your question anyway. If it were to come about that something had to be censored, there are certain messages that I would hope everyone could agree on. For example, the unprovoked killing of random strangers. However, just because that’s on my list and I hope everyone would agree, who is to say? This would bring about yet a third discussion in regard to who could be appointed to construct the list and be trusted not to let personal opinion, culture, and religion have influence? Also, would it mean that fiction writers would have to stop writing dark stories where the villains do or advocate the banned messages?
It’s important to treat separate discussion separately, even when there is a relation. You can’t say that the answer to one discussion being difficult or even impossible counts for or against another. It’s perfectly valid to come to a conclusion that something would be beneficial, even if another line of reason shows that it is impossible. It’s also valid to conclude that something would be detrimental or neutral in effect even if someone could do it.
So let me just rephrase my previous comment, in regard to the primary discussion (ban a list of words?), without the confusion of secondary or tertiary arguments sprouting out of it:
The big F word that everyone gets so crazy about can be used to provide encouragement, express awe, enhance sexual experience (come on, you know that some of you like that kind of talk), and a variety of other positive uses despite its social stigma.
The word “chair” can be used to express violence, and the word “hump” can be used to describe a variety of practices that most would find offensive regardless of their culture or religion.
The banning of a certain list of words would be futile, since the same harm can be done with any variety of “good words”, and now that I think about it, even with a carefully crafted dirty look.
Therefore, maybe the key is for each person to take a personal interest to watch what they say, not necessarily which words they use.
As an aside, my personal experience has shown that the concept of “bad words” seems to do little more than (1) vilify those who choose to use them (or even let them “slip out”) and (2) give people the impression that it’s OK to belittle someone or spread hate, just so long as they use the right vocabulary. (1) is not so bad but (2), I think (personally and without trying to insert it into mass adoption or advocating that it influence government or cultural guidelines) that it is a dangerous notion.
#5,6,8
Actually the neo-con movement, as an intellectual thang, dates back to Leo Strauss at the Univ of Chicago in the 1950s. His pupils and followers, on finding it tough to break into the liberal academic establishment, went instead to Washingtonin the 1960s. They believed that liberalism is ultimately self-defeating, as it [like Socrates himself perhaps] only criticises existing knowledge and “builds without a foundation”, essentially leaving America without a moral foundation. They were idealists in the sense that they thought that liberal ideas, rather than capitalist economics, was eroding the “social consensus” that made America a unified thing. So they proposed, after their mentor’s teachings, that a “Noble Lie” could unite the country again, and help them undo the damage that pragmatism a la Kissinger was doing to the country. That lie was religion, and in 1979 they hooked themselves up to Reagan’s campaign, persuaded him to court the Christian evangelicals (who had largely never before voted because gov’t was unredeemable) and the neo-con mass movement was born. The Straussian neo-cons themselves (Wolfowitz, Perle etc, who had no mass following of their own) were just using the religious right as ‘soldiers’ to make America ‘whole’ again, inculcating fear of moral ‘evils’ wherever possible to try to change mass public opinion. They got Rumsfeld and Cheney along on a coat-tail power trip ride. Reagan himself was lukewarm to much of their concerns, even to the notion that the USSR was an ‘evil empire’ — it took a lot of cajoling to get him to abandon the Kissinger line that had dominated since Johnson’s time.
#6 is both right and wrong. This isn’t the birth but it is one of the first signs of neocons raising their ugly head. This is just one of many examples during the the RayGun era.
On the other hand, to say that neocons don’t believe in censorship and to say that they are liberals is both ridiculous and a lie. It also either displays one of the chief techniques neocons use – saying the opposite of what is true boldly and assertively, just like Machiavelli advocated – or is woefully ignorant of reality. So, either you are and simpleton who is in need of education or you are a neocon continuing the neocon lies.
Zappa identified one of the chief concerns we should all have paid attention to back then with his fascist theocracy line. Where he failed was that religion is just a tool and not really followed by the chief fascists in our government. But that is a small failure. If you look at Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler and many others, they all use some type of religion in a similar manner. With Stalin it was veneration of himself, as in a cult of personality, that worked very handily as a substitute for radical christianity. And he extended this in many ways. But it’s all really the same thing.
#50 – (ed.) – Perhaps, but the message (to censors everywhere) WAS, at least, succinct – until YOU censored it.
The trouble with that is that coprophelia (like any other offensive thing) doesn’t cease to exist just because you censor it.
I’m with Frank Zappa (and George Carlin, et al) on this. Words (and ideas, or paintings) are just means of communication, but I guess we as a society prefer to communicate with missiles, bullets and bombs. It’s a little depressing. Our nation was built on the principles of freedom, including freedom of speech.
A few relevant quotes:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” ~ Voltaire
“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Goethe
“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” ~ Voltaire
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” ~ William O. Douglas
Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~ Lenny Bruce
#54, a gun pointed to the head works 100% of the time.
#57 [“to say that neocons …are liberals is both ridiculous and a lie”]
Well, neocons ARE liberals in the classical sense of the word: they advocate free markets, at least as they understand the term ‘free’. They are not Liberals in the post-new deal sense of welfare liberalism or optimism about the perfectability of Man. They are caught in one of the classic contradictions of capitalism, though: markets, as they churn ineluctably ‘forward’, eat up all stable social formations in their path. So it is pointless to try to impose the stability of social norms via this kind of censorship, etc; it’s just p*ssing in the wind (can i write that word?!).
59. A gun? It’s just atoms, people. Atoms. Why are you afraid of atoms? It’s atoms. Atoms. Atoms. Atoms. That’s all. Atoms.
56. I wonder if ordinary people from the ’40s, ’50’s & ’60’s knew they were neocons for disagreeing with Zappa’s premise?
58. Take away the right to say “fuck” and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” ~ Lenny Bruce
No, it just means instead you have to back up your talk with reason instead of just intimidation.
To quote another American:
@#%*%, you %$#@*!!!! – 7 year old Timmy
RBG