Why Is The AFA On The Side Of The Terrorists?

[DrDeth]

@MsRobyn

However, this isn’t a History Channel “documentary” that is mostly dramatizations of real events; the Naudet brothers filmed the action inside and around the WTC as it was actually happening, in real time. Editing the language would dilute the essence of the experience of what happened in the WTC on September 11.

Robin

Ah, so the profanity is not scripted but “live”? In that case, fuck the AFA. *And * the FCC if they give in.

Thank you.

[saoirse]

@DrDeth

Ah, so the profanity is not scripted but “live”? In that case, fuck the AFA. *And * the FCC if they give in.

Thank you.

So it’s amateur hardcore profanity.

[Eonwe]

@Steve MB

That is the agenda attributed to CBS by the AFA, but to state that it is their agenda is to assert a fact not in evidence.

Well, my google-fu is weak, but assuming that CBS is suing the FCC (evidence of which I couldn’t actually find), then certainly the consequences would reach beyond this one documentary, and certainly a documentary about 9/11 carries more ‘legitimacy’ these days than most anything else.

I’m not even saying this is an awful thing, but it just seems that choosing a 9/11 documentary as the vehicle for a lawsuit about broadcasting rights is, well, a bit manipulative and uses the current cultural bias towards 9/11 to achieve their own ends. Which, really, is how people work all the time. Using feelings to achieve things is something everyone does. Sometimes it is just a bit more transparent than others though.

[Revtim]

Man, that AFA website is hilarious. A front page headline says

Shock and dismay – that’s how pro-family groups in California are reacting to news this morning that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that gives homosexuals new and far-reaching powers.

Now all the gays in California have x-ray vision.

[Revtim]

And from the “about us” section:

Does AFA Support Censorship?
AFA does not support “censorship.” Censorship, by definition is government imposed. What AFA does support is responsibility. Producers and advertisers alike realize that what people see and hear does affect them. (If this were not true, they would not pay the astronomical fees for advertising.) Our belief is that if we can encourage advertisers to sponsor only quality programming, then networks and producers will not have the financial encouragement to produce shows diametrically opposed to the traditional family.

So they why are they imploring people to email the FCC about this ABC thing? Isn’t that a government agency?

[Antinor01]

@Revtim

Man, that AFA website is hilarious. A front page headline says Now all the gays in California have x-ray vision.

If it’s the same headline I’m thinking of, it’s about the bill that was just passed stating that school materials may not talk negatively about a person based on their being gay. The same way that it can’t talk negatively about a person based on their gender, race, religion or a few other things.

Which of course AFA interprets as meaning that children are being indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda and that there will now be orgies in kindergarten!!

Yes, they are nutcases.

[Cervaise]

@saoirse

So it’s amateur hardcore profanity.

Gonzo, then.

“New, from Say-more ‘butts’…”

[mobo85]

As I’ve always said, you can’t trust an organization run by a guy named Wildmon.

[Miller]

@Ludovic

“Profanity-Laden” is the new terrorist mastermind!

No, it’s just Osama’s hip-hop name.

[Rufus_Xavier]

@saoirse

So it’s amateur hardcore profanity.

Do you know any sites where can I download that for free?

[MsRobyn]

@Rufus Xavier

Do you know any sites where can I download that for free?

Shit, son. If you need to ask where to download that stuff for free, you ain’t tryin’ hard enough.

Robin

[Maus_Magill]

@MsRobyn

It is possible to control your swearing. It’s just that, in my world, swearing is probably down there on the list of true evils.

Robin

I control my swearing, but not because swearing is bad (definitely not a top ten evil), but because I’d like the words to retain their power. If I have a reputation for not swearing, and I tell someone to go fuck himself, people would pay attention.

Samuel L Jackson calling someone a motherfucker is pretty much an everyday event.

If Fred Rogers called someone a motherfucker, it would be a newsworthy event.

[Steve_MB]

@Revtim

And from the “about us” section:

Producers and advertisers alike realize that what people see and hear does affect them. (If this were not true, they would not pay the astronomical fees for advertising.)

The stars and the planets do affect your future. (If this were not true, clients would not pay for horoscopes.)

The “Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet” does cure arthritis and repetitive motion injury (If this were not true, people would not buy them and the company would not have enough money to buy all those commercials to imply this without quite saying it.)

The Bush administration did conspire to commit the 9/11 Massacre. (If this were not true, authors would not be able to sell books explaining how they did it.)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Steve_MB]

@Antinor01

If it’s the same headline I’m thinking of, it’s about the bill that was just passed stating that school materials may not talk negatively about a person based on their being gay. The same way that it can’t talk negatively about a person based on their gender, race, religion or a few other things.

If these guys actually had the courage of their (supposed) convictions* and advocated the repeal of similar restrictions on racial, religious, etc.** speech, I might actually manage to scrape up a particle of respect for them.

*I believe that they are actually motivated by principled free-speech advocacy about as much as I believe that Whitley Streiber was abducted by space aliens.

**Their argument about “chosen” versus “innate” characteristics is irrelevant – obviously so in the case of religion, and now (thanks to Michael Jackson) known to be similarly irrelevant in the case of skin color.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BayleDomon

That isn’t exactly what boggles me. It’s the sentiment that killing people is okay just so long as you don’t swear. I was reinforcing what you said, that these people who oppose profanity don’t seem to care about violence and grievous bodily injury.

One would assume it’s about imitative behavior. Little Johnny might swear if he hears it on TV, but one would hope he won’t go around killing people if he sees that.

[Cervaise]

@Maus Magill

If Fred Rogers called someone a motherfucker, it would be a newsworthy event.

Because he said the word “motherfucker,” or because he is speaking from beyond the grave?

[Northern_Piper]

thank you for raising that point, Cervaise - I was wondering about that point myself. :eek:

[BobLibDem]

I’m as anti-censorship as anyone, but I don’t see how suppressing cursing helps the terrorists any more than not censoring it would hurt them.

Taking the terrorists out of the equation, yes we should show documentaries such as these in all their profane glory. History should be presented as intact as possible, with all the blemishes included.

[JRDelirious]

Okay, so strike Fred Rogers and amend to say *“If Mother Angelica called someone a motherfucker, that would be a newsworthy event.” *
Not as funny, though…

[Sublight]

@Cervaise

Because he said the word “motherfucker,” or because he is speaking from beyond the grave?

Honestly, from what I know about Fred Rogers, I’d be less surprised about the beyond the grave bit.