|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Nov 19, 2004 20:45:20 GMT -5
Don't mind any incoherentness. I'm just typing out thoughts. We all know about the whole ABC fiasco about showing a naked women jumping into the arms of Terrell Owens ( SI.com Article). Basically, there's a whole shitstorm that was brewed up over showing naked back on Primetime. Obiviously, showing bare back is a lot more worrisome to parents than all of the commercials featuring half-naked women wrestling and tearing each other's clothes off over a beer. Anyway, everyone is looking to the FCC. After the whole Janet Jackson booby fiasco, the FCC has been cracking down on those who violate their sacred regulations. Regulations that may actually be unconstitutional. The first amendment reads: According to the First Amendment, the government cannot restrict the freedom of the media. So, why is it that the FCC can regulate what you can or can't say, or do or can't do on television and radio? I have a theory. Well, okay, it's the Soccer Mom theory. Basically, overprotective parents don't want their precious children to see the "dirty images" that the Television contains. But it goes beyond just the parents. Church groups in particular are a driving force in censorship. A bunch of religious nut-jobs decide what you can or can't do on TV because they get offended by it. What is to be offended of? George Carlin has gone through many rants on these subjects. Piss, shit, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits, the "dirty seven" are just words. They don't have a meaning unless you put one to it. And why should we shelter the children from sex and nudity? It's a natural part of life. Instead of sheltering and hiding it from them, why not just be open with them? Same with violence. Violence on TV is just that, on TV. Fiction. Kids have a greater sense of what is real and what is make-believe than we give credit for. As long as they understand the difference, what is wrong with it? That's just how I feel on the subject. I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on it.
|
|
|
Post by Infested Manae on Nov 19, 2004 21:20:31 GMT -5
First off, there's good reason why kids don't realize the violence on TV and in games is fake: parents don't want to properly raise kids. Trust me. I live in small-town rural America, and parents there don't even care. There are pre-kindergardeners running around the alleys (which are as big as most of the other roads in town) screaming curses, picking fights, and worse. Why? Parents don't give a shit, that's why.
Myself, I was raised right. My brother's and my innate intelligence is a help, maybe, but my parents were always there. My mom might not have been able to make it to our soccer games because of working at the local Acme, but we were still involved in it. And spent meals together. And read together. And, well, frankly, rarely had times where she or my step-dad weren't around for us. I play violent video games. I'm at college. I'm nearly twenty. I should be drunk every night and going on mass-murder sprees, but I'm not. And it's because of my upbringing.
So where has America gone wrong? Well, let's sorta shift directions a little. You can no longer survive in America with one parent working. Dad can't hold a factory or blue-collar job and expect to put food on the table, gas in the car, and heat the two-room apartment. Trust me, I've lived it. Personally, I think if there were some rather sweeping changes to the tax system, that wouldn't be the case. (And the crowd gasps and raises pitchforks.) Could you imagine going back to a graduated income tax? A proper one? It actually existed for a few years in the 1800's. Those were a real good four years. Then the new Secretary of the Treasury was as greedy as most other rich folks and ended that. The upper-class can afford a little extra burden to lighten the load on the lower class, who can't keep up with bills even with both parents working. Like I said, I've lived this. I know what it's like.
So, back to the point: if one parent could always be around... you know, pick up the kids off the bus, be at home to keep an eye on the kids, etc etc (and it doesn't have to be mom, mind you), you could likely ease some restrictions, right? So long as the stay-at-homer doesn't become lazy and stop caring anyway, that is.
But wait! I almost looked over the most important part. We live in a bloody Victorian society. We never broke out. The country was settled by puritists and other religious fanatics, and it kind of stuck, even after others came. Most of the rest of the world broke out. I mean, look at Manga: stories meant for children can easily get away with showing naked breasts or full rear nudity. They don't do it much, but they can. Well, maybe teen-aimed. EU is a lot the same. Watch some British TV some time.
Long story short, break out of our Victorian stasis, and a lot of regulations will likely disappear. But, our country is run by a bunch of foogies afraid of change. And our generation will be led by people who grow up to be the same. And we won't likely get out any time soon.
For pete's sake, we still observe Daylight Savings Time... for no reason other than we don't want to change.
Also, don't try and say Christian groups are hammering on regulations. I'm not saying there are some radical folks doing so, but don't forget that there were petitions going around by aetheists... to take Touched by an Angel off the air simply because it dealt with angels.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Nov 19, 2004 21:40:14 GMT -5
Yeah, but it is mainly the Christian Right Groups that want to keep this puritan mindset. They are the ones that fear change. They want everything to be like it was in the 1950's where it was Mom and Pop and Junior being a happy, God-fearing, All-American family. The world doesn't work like that anymore. They are just afraid of change in a rapidly changing world.
By the way, never heard about the Atheists trying to petition Touched By an Angel away. That is pretty stupid. But it's not as stupid as say trying to get Creationism in schools. You know, there are radical guys on each side, but it seems there are more on the Fundie side than the Atheist side. So, I call Golden Mean Fallacy. While radical atheists may have some websites and cable access shows, the Christian Right has entire television stations and media outlets for their message and have a much broader audience.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 19, 2004 23:20:50 GMT -5
Human beings just need to get their paranoia out. We have to point our fingers and blame something for the problems with society. Because we're intelligent, we don't just want to know that something's wrong; we want to know why it went wrong. The problem is that there isn't always a tangible answer, so we just make up causes and pat ourselves on the back for exposing the roots of the "evil".
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Nov 20, 2004 11:10:39 GMT -5
I think you all know my feelings on this subject: I HATE censorship. I despise the fact that parents don't take the responsibility to make sure their kids aren't watching anything bad, and they can't even discipline them. I mean, what the fuck is time out? They make their kids sit in the corner...I don't get that. I mean, if you want your kids to remember if they did something wrong, give 'em a whack on the ass. Nothing leaves a memory like pain. But it has to be counter-balanced with good nurturing, and care. Good parenting can't just be all love, and it can't be all punishment. And If your parents do a good job, they should override anything that influences you in society. I will be entirely honest, I am a very violent person, and I really want to kill some people. But my parents are good, and they raised me well. I know that I shouldn't do that, and I won't. Hell, if anything, sheltering kids from those subjects makes them more likely to do those things. I mean, if a kid is decided to be absinant, but then decides to have sex, they're much less likely to use a condom.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Nov 20, 2004 11:19:18 GMT -5
That is a good point, Ai. Studies show that the whole Abstinence thing in schools just doesn't work, and infact is counter-productive because the kids don't learn about contraceptives. The kids will do it anyway, so it's better to show them how to do it the safe way.
And yes, the parents are very much to blame for the whole censorship issue. They aren't good parents so they want the government to raise their children for them. What the fuck is that? Just be open with your kids, teach them what's right and wrong, real and make-believe, and be there for your children when they need you. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Nov 20, 2004 11:34:18 GMT -5
The reason they have censorship is partially because of what you all said, but partially because some kids lack the mental capacity to realize "This isn't real." A parent could tell them this, but they stand a good chance of not grasping it. Kids lack self controll, hence if a kid sees someone saying "Fuck you you stupid ass Cunt" on TV, and is told that is "very bad" he's just going to say it anyways. "Fuck you, you stupid ass Cunt" isn't very good thing to say, people should say stuff like that, really.
Vulgarity such as that is a sign of weakness, a refusal to talk intelligently. As teens, you have self controll, the ability to think "This is bad." And know when to say things and when to not. You could spank a kid till his ass cheaks fall off, but there is still a good chance he will still say the stuff out of defiance and thinking its reall "OK" and that his parents are, "Stupid ass Cunts" as I worded it.
This isn't "Right Christian Groups", since most devout Christians, I might point out, label themselves as Democrats.
Many kids don't have the perspective to realize "This is bad". I do agree yes, its not good to over shelter kids, but its bad not to shelter them at all. There are proper times for these things in child development. You aren't going to say, show Sexual Education to a five year old in the form of Pornography, otherwise you'd have little kids humping each other naked in the middle of playgrounds to try out what they saw in class, bah.
I believe that we are a bit too much in our censorship, yes, but we do need some. I think that proper programming locations (esclate much as it now as so more mature progrmmaing is later ala Adult Swim, more mature TV Shows such as CSI/ Law and Order etc etc so forth).
And I might add that several censorship groups are trying to get the Bible banned from the country and make it so Churches cannot be distinguished (no crosses, no steeples, so you aren't "pushing your religion on them with symbols").
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Nov 20, 2004 15:11:27 GMT -5
The reason they have censorship is partially because of what you all said, but partially because some kids lack the mental capacity to realize "This isn't real." A parent could tell them this, but they stand a good chance of not grasping it. Kids lack self controll, hence if a kid sees someone saying "Fuck you you stupid ass Cunt" on TV, and is told that is "very bad" he's just going to say it anyways. "Fuck you, you stupid ass Cunt" isn't very good thing to say, people should say stuff like that, really. Vulgarity such as that is a sign of weakness, a refusal to talk intelligently. As teens, you have self controll, the ability to think "This is bad." And know when to say things and when to not. You could spank a kid till his ass cheaks fall off, but there is still a good chance he will still say the stuff out of defiance and thinking its reall "OK" and that his parents are, "Stupid ass Cunts" as I worded it. You're not giving kids enough credit. They learn about these things. They know the what good and bad are. They may not know how to define it right away, but they know certain things they shouldn't do. Who believe in Republican and Conservative issues and got Bush back into office. I can call myself anything I want but it doesn't change who I am and what I do. Of course not. No one said anything about showing pornography to children. We're just saying that if they do happen to see something such as the commercial on ABC or some sort of violent movie/show, it's the parent's responsibility to put it into context. It's not a matter of if they see it, but a matter of when. That would make sense, but, come on, I grew up on violent movies and television, but I turned out fine. Why? Because I had parents who taught me what was bad and good, and put the fact that these are just make-believe. Again, nutjobs on all sides, just that one side has more than the others.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Nov 20, 2004 15:34:29 GMT -5
Who believe in Republican and Conservative issues and got Bush back into office. I can call myself anything I want but it doesn't change who I am and what I do. Might reallly religious relatives voted for Kerry. A minority, Goji. Even in such as censored a society we have, we've had plenty of very stupid children in lamence terms "losing it". I don't see a problem wiht mature programming, but I don't think we should have like a "mature" commercial in the middle of say Blues Clues or something. Why not have the mature programming around like eight or nine or something, when the more impressionable youth are sleeping? I mean, its good for both sides. However, excessive vulgarity is a bit too much. I mean, I don't want to watch a normal show on TV like say, CSI, where all of a sudden one cop like turns to the other and says "I want to fuck your mothers cunt til she bleeds". I mean, really. Because you would be able to have stuff like that doesn't mean itwouldn't be tactless.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Nov 20, 2004 16:59:29 GMT -5
I'm against what ABC did, because they're hypocrites, I saw an article that said that they wouldn't show Saving Private Ryan on Veteran's Day, because they were afraid of the FCC, and now they pulled off this stunt.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Nov 20, 2004 19:15:50 GMT -5
My theory in terms of this 'raunchy' supposed stuff. The more you deny kids the ability to see naked backs, the more popular it becomes. I mean in any ultra conservative area, you ask 8th graders ethical questions they will all fall far short. The real key is to keep an eye on them and wait till they grow up. Kids are going to be pains in the asses with this stuff through Middle School/Jr. High
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Nov 20, 2004 20:36:06 GMT -5
I think you all know my feelings on this subject: I HATE censorship. I despise the fact that parents don't take the responsibility to make sure their kids aren't watching anything bad, and they can't even discipline them. I mean, what the fuck is time out? They make their kids sit in the corner...I don't get that. I mean, if you want your kids to remember if they did something wrong, give 'em a whack on the ass. Nothing leaves a memory like pain. But it has to be counter-balanced with good nurturing, and care. Good parenting can't just be all love, and it can't be all punishment. And If your parents do a good job, they should override anything that influences you in society. I will be entirely honest, I am a very violent person, and I really want to kill some people. But my parents are good, and they raised me well. I know that I shouldn't do that, and I won't. Hell, if anything, sheltering kids from those subjects makes them more likely to do those things. I mean, if a kid is decided to be absinant, but then decides to have sex, they're much less likely to use a condom. I'm inclined to agree with you, Ai. And don't take this as an attack, but you aren't nearly as anti-censorship as you'd like to think. Remember this?
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Nov 20, 2004 21:33:17 GMT -5
Yes, yes I do, but there's a difference. Between us at the bar, we can handle language, and we can handle nudity, but it IS against the rules to be offensive towards a person's beleifs. Besides, the person who takes langauge more seriously than someone's religion is a fucking retard. Langauge is a minor, minor part of life, which doesn't really mean anything, but religion plays a huge role in many people's lives. It's part to me has, admittedly, declined, but I will still defend an attack on my religion.
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Nov 20, 2004 23:00:55 GMT -5
But is that truly sound? Consider the following maxims:
Offensive language is of minor importance when compared to a belief system. Speaking generally, I would agree with this statement, however, when viewed in the abstract and in the given context, this postulation breaks down.
What is it about us that allows us to handle language and nudity more competently than an opposing views on a belief system? Everyday I am confronted with, (to one degree or another) a statement which challenges the way in which I preserve the world, just as I hear foul language everyday. Language is the basis of communication, the basis for transmitting (rational or not) thought. However, many people spend little time braving their own dogma. Arguably, language is of greater importance than religion in our day to day lives.
A statement of one’s views of a belief system is not necessarily as statement against said system. As history has show on several occasions, the majority belief is not necessarily the correct view. Moreover, morals are transient and regional, what is “right” here may easily be “wrong” years and miles from here and now.
Inevitably, divergent views will conflict one another, this is nature of social intercourse. If one truly has confidence in their beliefs then they should be able to calmly explain the tents of their dogma or philosophy. Clamor for the riddance of opposing thought is indicative of a weak belief system, weak debaters and or tautology. To reject this point is to tend toward absolutism; censorship incarnate. Point to be considered; religion is not above the critique.
A relativist stance on free speech is fallacy. It is possible to strongly believe in something while respecting the right of opposing view points to exist, regardless of whether or not they appear to be tautological in nature. The defense of self expression as sacred and a right while setting a ceiling on what can and cannot be expressed is clearly hypocritical.
***
Once again, don’t take this as an attack, Ai. This simply seemed like a good opportunity to muse about my own notions of censorship and expression.
|
|
|
Post by Raz V5.0 on Nov 21, 2004 9:43:36 GMT -5
Everyone here needs to realize one thing. There is no such thing as Freedom of Speech.
|
|