Suck it and see


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    The cover of Arctic Monkeys' new album will reportedly be censored in major US stores. According to singer Alex Turner, a "big" American supermarket has objected to the title Suck It and See, covering it with a sticker.
    W. T. F.??


  • Is The Guardian one of those newspapers that whenever an American links it, the UK people always yell out "WTF that paper is crap all the stories are fake etc etc" because we Americans 1) can't keep track of the seemingly dozens of newspapers that print bullshit, and 2) can't imagine there's nearly so many of them in the first place. (I mean, other than the National Enquirer, all US papers actually genuinely try their best... and hell even the National Enquirer has broken big stories-- recently they tracked down John Edwards' mistress.) In short: what the fuck is wrong with British people!

    Ahem anyway. They're probably talking about Wal-Mart, which does this kind of crap all the time. You British people can safely ignore that-- anybody who shops for music at Wal-Mart obviously doesn't care about the censorship because they've been doing it for decades. And smart people don't shop at Wal-Mart to begin with.

    Their explanation is shit, though. Obviously they chose "suck it and see" for the innuendo, why are they pretending otherwise?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Is The Guardian one of those newspapers that whenever an American links it, the UK people always yell out "WTF that paper is crap all the stories are fake etc etc" because we Americans 1) can't keep track of the seemingly dozens of newspapers that print bullshit, and 2) can't imagine there's nearly so many of them in the first place. (I mean, other than the National Enquirer, all US papers actually genuinely try their best... and hell even the National Enquirer has broken big stories-- recently they tracked down John Edwards' mistress.) In short: what the fuck is wrong with British people!

    The Guardian is the left-wing one of the serious British newspapers. The tabloids to which you refer are basically Fox News on paper, and I'm not aware that there's anything quite as bad as Fox News on British TV, so I think there's nothing more wrong with British people than with USians.

    Their explanation is shit, though. Obviously they chose "suck it and see" for the innuendo, why are they pretending otherwise?

    Why is it obvious? What innuendo? Without context to indicate otherwise it's a standard en-gb phrase meaning that if you want to see how something will work out you'll have to try it. Going back over a decade in the letters page of the same newspaper I find this, which seems relevant.


  • @blakeyrat said:

    Is The Guardian one of those newspapers that whenever an American links it, the UK people always yell out "WTF that paper is crap all the stories are fake etc etc"

    It would take a fairly stupid editor to publish an article which claims someone said something in an interview which he could have said, but didn't. You may actually save time if you were to glance through a linked article now and again before going off on an diatribe.



  • @__moz said:

    It would take a fairly stupid editor to publish an article which claims someone said something in an interview which he could have said, but didn't.

    Well, der. Of course he said it. He's not an idiot. He has a publicist.

    That doesn't make it news. Or even necessarily the truth. Thus my asking about the reputation of the paper. You guys badly need to read the Fark book.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Is The Guardian one of those [red-top] newspapers [...]
    No, it's not the Daily Mail or The Sun.
    @blakeyrat said:
    They're probably talking about Wal-Mart
    You clearly didn't bother reading the actual article.
    @blakeyrat said:
    Obviously they chose "suck it and see" for the innuendo
    Erm - no they didn't. You clearly didn't bother reading the actual article.



    And even if they did, what's the big deal about innuendo? Protecting the little kiddies from the adult-perceived sexual references in a title of an album with a half-arsed attempt at censorship? When did that become a good idea?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @__moz said:
    It would take a fairly stupid editor to publish an article which claims someone said something in an interview which he could have said, but didn't.
    Well, der. Of course he said it. He's not an idiot. He has a publicist.

    That doesn't make it news. Or even necessarily the truth. Thus my asking about the reputation of the paper.

    The story isn't that "some supermarkets won't carry the album in the way we intended". The story is that the singer said this. That makes it true.

    Maybe newspapers where you are don't carry "entertainment news". A mainstream newspaper will usually have a page devoted to whatever they deem the most interesting entertainment stories that day. There's some difference in tone, but none of them would refuse to publish something simply because it's based on a single unverifiable claim.

    On another topic, I've just opened the article again, and there's now a link to download the album (or something - I don't intend to actually try it) at the bottom of the article. That makes it news.



  • @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Is The Guardian one of those [red-top] newspapers [...]
    No, it's not the Daily Mail or The Sun.
    He didn't specify red-tops. Guardian is definitely in the 'avoid like the plague' group along with the Mail and the News of the World. These days it has all the credibility of the National Enquirer. Basically the Guardian is just a left-wing version of the Mail for those who mistake wordiness for intellectualism. Aside from its massively disproportional influence on UK politics, the Guardian is a niche paper.



  • @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    They're probably talking about Wal-Mart
    You clearly didn't bother reading the actual article.

    I. Read. The. Fucking. Article.

    Alex Turner says, a "big" American supermarket has objected to the title Suck It and See, covering it with a sticker.

    Since 99% of the time when they happens, the "big" American supermarket is Walmart*, I replied, "they're probably talking about Walmart." There's nothing else in the article to indicate what supermarket they're talking about, but assuming this is an actual event that actually happened in reality (which I'm still not sure about, but benefit of the doubt), it's gotta be either Walmart, Target, or K-Mart, since those are the only "big" American supermarkets that operate on a national scale. (There are other candidates, like Fred Meyer here in the northwest, but those are the big ones.) K-Mart and Target have no history of censoring music beyond the standard RIAA stickers. So it's probably Walmart.

    The article DOES talk about the Walmart situation later on, saying:

    @Some British newspaper said:

    Major chains such as Walmart have been known to censor risque album covers – but usually for nudity. Arctic Monkeys' problem recalls the way Walmart dealt with Nirvana's 1993 song Rape Me, which was renamed to, er, Waif Me.

    Now, you probably took that to mean Walmart was NOT the chain involved, because you are not a careful reader. But if you read that sentence again, sound it out if you have to or maybe draw one of those sentence diagrams, you'll realize it doesn't say whether Walmart was the chain in question at all. So my statement above, "there's nothing in the article to indicate what chain it is" still applies.

    On the contrary, the first part of the article says, "hey this Artic Monkeys album had its title stickered in some unnamed US grocery store" then goes on to talk about US grocery store that has a history of censoring albums, nudge nudge wink wink. But note that nothing in the blurb about Walmart says whether it is, or is not, the chain Alex Turner was talking about. Certainly implied, at least.

    And this whole rant of forum-rage is also ignoring the fact that I said "probably" in my original reply. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD "PROBABLY" MEANS?! So please, feel free to die in a fire. Thank you.

    * Apparently at some point they got rid of the dash in their name. So I was spelling it wrong. Conceded.

    @PJH said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Obviously they chose "suck it and see" for the innuendo
    Erm - no they didn't. You clearly didn't bother reading the actual article.

    I. Read. The. Fucking. Article.

    Alex Turner claimed they didn't choose the name for the innuendo. I think he's lying.

    PROTIP: Not everything you read in the newspaper is true. In fact, very little of it is true. (And what is true is filler.) Like I said above, you guys badly need to read the Fark book.

    And stop saying I didn't read the fucking article when I fucking did.

    @PJH said:

    And even if they did, what's the big deal about innuendo? Protecting the little kiddies from the adult-perceived sexual references in a title of an album with a half-arsed attempt at censorship? When did that become a good idea?

    I don't think it's a good idea. You don't think it's a good idea. Probably nobody on this forum thinks it's a good idea. And yet none of us run Walmart's music section. Ask them.



  • Where's the WTF?  Walmart does this kind of crap all the time.  Who cares?  I don't shop there, especially for music.  Who buys CDs anymore anyway?  Furthermore, does anyone actually listen to the Arctic Monkeys?



  • WTF #1 - Buying a CD at Wal-Mart

    WTF #2 - Buying a CD by The Arctic Monkeys

    WTF #3 -  Giving a fuck about Wal-Mart or The Arctic Monkeys


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @frits said:

    Where's the WTF? 
    The perceived atmosphere of censorship that apparently pervades the United States. On behalf of the Childrrrrreeeennnn. Who's parents are apparently unable to look after their kids without some fake charity or other interfering or demanding the government intervene on their behalf. We're getting it over here now. If you're that stupid to not buy stuff for your children, you're too stupid to have children, and should have them removed for their own sanity.



    Another example is the Not Always Right blog which seems to self-censor words like 'damn.' Why? What purpose does it serve? Who's actually offended by the word damn (and this ignores the fact that when they do put dm or whatever obfuscation they use, the word used was probably fuck, piss, wank or cunt.) Or FailBlog which seem to have created an "after dark" section where anything using a 'cuss' word seems to get placed.



  • First of all the article is total bullshit and is obviously a weak publicity ploy by the band to get people to give a shit about their crap album.

    @PJH said:

    @frits said:
    Where's the WTF? 
    The perceived atmosphere of censorship that apparently pervades the United States. On behalf of the Childrrrrreeeennnn.

    Walmart could care dick about children, beyond the extent to which kids get their parents to buy things for them. A substantial chunk of these parents don't want to answer "why is that man lasciviously sucking that thing and ogling me from a CD cover like PJH in heat? And what's a CD?" when they're just trying to buy 65 lbs of cheetos. So the fat marm opts to buy from Target next time. Walmart HATES this, so they cover PJH's monkey sucking face with a sticker, just in case. 

    Is it censorship? Not really. If anything, calling attention to it boost Walmart's sales among the tiny subset of people who pay for music, are tittilated by the word suck in an album title, and never heard of itunes.

     

     



  • @frits said:

    Who buys CDs anymore anyway?
    I do, along with millions of Americans.

    I like the feel of actually having the CD.  I can put it in my car stereo (I don't have a hookup to plug my phone into my car stereo).  I can rip it to my computer and put it on my phone.  I can copy it and lend it to friends, who can put it in their car stereos.

    At concerts, bands sell their CDs.  Very rarely do they sell cards for downloading songs, but I've seen it.

    So quit thinking you're superior for not buying CDs, because it doesn't make you any more superior than knowing how to wipe your own ass.



  • @belgariontheking said:

     it doesn't make you any more superior than knowing how to wipe your own ass.

    I beg to differ, wiping your own ass is clearly an important evolutionary advantage that will play an important role in the incomming alien invasion.  Those without it will be culled



  • @belgariontheking said:

    it doesn't make you any more superior than knowing how to wipe your own ass.
    Any idiot can wipe their own ass. Getting someone else to do it for you despite that is a real skill, though.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I do, along with millions of Americans.


     

    What does America have to do with anything?

    @belgariontheking said:

    So quit thinking you're superior for not buying CDs, because it doesn't make you any more superior than knowing how to wipe your own ass.

    I don't think I'm superior, and I also didn't imply it.  I also think it's a little weird to flame me for asking such an obviously rhetorical question.

    @belgariontheking said:

    I like the feel of actually having the CD.  I can put it in my car stereo (I don't have a hookup to plug my phone into my car stereo).  I can rip it to my computer and put it on my phone.  I can copy it and lend it to friends, who can put it in their car stereos.

    I can do all these things, too, without ever buying a CD.  Exception for the "copy it and lend it to friends" part-- you can't buy friends from Amazon.

     



  • @intertravel said:

    Any idiot can wipe their own ass.

    Err, It seems I have met better idiots than you because some of them including the one  my sig line is talking about probably have trouble breathing let alone having bathroom skills



  • @frits said:

    I don't think I'm superior, and I also didn't imply it.
    Yeah you do, and yeah you did.  You're implying that you've made better choices than others buy not shopping at Wal-Mart, not buying CDs, and not giving a shit about the Arctic Monkeys.

    Look, I don't like Wal-Mart or the Arctic Monkeys (actually never heard of them) any more than you, but your comment said more than you think it did (unless you misunderstand what a rhetorical question is), and I responded to one of those things that you may not realize it said.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @frits said:

    I don't think I'm superior, and I also didn't imply it.
    Yeah you do, and yeah you did.  You're implying that you've made better choices than others buy not shopping at Wal-Mart, not buying CDs, and not giving a shit about the Arctic Monkeys.

    Look, I don't like Wal-Mart or the Arctic Monkeys (actually never heard of them) any more than you, but your comment said more than you think it did (unless you misunderstand what a rhetorical question is), and I responded to one of those things that you may not realize it said.

    It seems like you take my posts more seriously than I do.  Sorry.



  • @PJH said:

    Another example is the Not Always Right blog which seems to self-censor words like 'damn.' Why?

    Americans censor everything. Even an alien giving the forks.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.