Hacker News Reader

Comment by wand3r | Hacker News Reader

Counterpoint; U.S. President speaking candidly:

> I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything.

> I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

Not sure what your point is; language appears in virtually every context of human life and parents will have to teach their children what they consider appropriate

View on HN

I think your "counterpoint" is a more of a "hey maybe our president needs said sticker" argument.

Or perhaps we just live in a crass, violent, rude culture, and like all of the other stupid things adults do to tell themselves children don't marinate in it, it simply doesn't work.

"Sorry, Becky, but President-talk is just too grown up for your pretty little head! Just go read your abstinence lessons. You can learn about civics when you're 18."

Reality: you're soaking in it. So are your kids. Slapping stickers on things just serves to make selecting the "good" stuff easier for those seeking it.

Reference: I was 16 when Tipper Gore threw her clown show, and remember our reactions. We mocked it - I co-sponsored a Model U.N. resolution demanding warning labels for politicians' speech due to the harms to human rights, and (in violation of protocol) played part of "Sex Junkie" by the Plasmatics[1] at the end of my presentation.

[1] Wendy O'Williams was a lesser-known speaker at the PMRC show trial, but for my money the most eloquent. Plus I just really liked her - teenage crush. She is missed.

Sounds like you're pretty emotionally invested in this argument, so this may be flame-bait, though it's not intended to be.

You were 16 when the laws were enacted. Of course you'd mock them. It even clearly shaped you as an adult: you're still angry about what you see as nanny-statism.

Still, it's just your natural growth as a person. As a child you're protected from crassness, then in your adolescence you revel in it, then you have children and shun it, then once your kids are too old for you to control what they see you throw your hands up at it and declare the world lost to corruption.

At any rate, there is a point in life where you personally need to protect someone else and your ability to do that in the "information age" is harder than it has ever been. So a silly sticker that makes teenagers scoff and parents happy fills every cup to the brim.

No. It's that you can't throw a sticker on everything. Parents can determine whether they want to limit what they want kids to see AND if so what limits to put on them.

Or I guess put a sticker on everything; but that's not a world I want to live in.

It's like when Saturday Night Live was devoting a large portion of their show to attacking Trump but they were using an actor who called his daughter a "little pig" and their musical guest got up and started singing about "bad bitches and their ugly ass friends".

We certainly don't hold ourselves or the actors and musicians we look to on the TV for political satire and entertainment to any kind of "moral standard". But when one of us runs for president, it's paramount.

TL;DR Holding people to different standards is not hypocritical and their context, position and intent is typically the basis of this discrimination

i was using a well known quote from an arena outside production music. I am pro free speech-- vehemently and with very little exception.

That said; words are important and so is context and intent. Of course I hold the leader of America to a different standard; as I do many others to varying degrees.

I don't think it's hypocritical to be in favor of free speech; nor to hold people accountable for that speech (Westboro baptist church, KKK) or to expect a different "moral standard" from different people (a CEO representing a company; politician representing a constituency). I think "parental advisory" is more silly than problematic. 1) this stuff exists everywhere. 2) probably cost a lot to enact. 3) morals fluctuate, some things are arbitrary. There was a time "pregnant" was a dirty word. 3 "fucks" and 1 "shit" is maybe ok but add another "bitch" and you are over the limit? I just think it's stupid

Isn't one intended for public consumption primarily among youth and the other a private conversation? There is probably a better example to prove your point.

My kids tend to listen more to music on the radio / spotify than leaked presidential candidate tapes, but ymmv.

I was simply responding to an assertion that music was ~"just swear words", I don't have any horse in the race beyond that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com