Can multimedia truly be evil??

[Spherical Time]

Top rated by whom? Hollywood? Well, there's a bunch of great moral experts! /sarcasm

Rachel

No better or worse than Christians, I've found.

 

[wanderingone]

South Park has moments of genius. There is absolute no doubt about that and anyone who claims otherwise has either never seen it or just likes to make noise.

You don't have to like something for it to be good. But if you try to say it's bad just because you don't approve you only make yourself look foolish.

South Park has its moments, those moments may or may not be appropriate for kids. Is it evil? Of course not. Can I find more appropriate ways for a younger teen to get the messages that I don't disagree with in South Park? Absolutely.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Some of you guys are going to laugh at this one.....I heard something yesterday that puzzled me.

For the last couple years my parents have been taking my 15 year old brother to a very conservative baptist church to receive brainwashing. When he got home from church the one week, he was telling me that they told him that watching the show South Park was evil, and also that his favorite band Slipknot was evil as well (I'm guessing because of the profanity). When they tell him these things, I make sure to balance him out with some common sense, and he's a pretty smart kid and can already start seeing through some of their lies.....Plus, he loves watching South Park with me .

Why do fundamentalists think that "bad" words can be harmful to listen to? They're just sounds like any other word. It just seems kind of silly to me.

I think that it's something along the lines of "see no evil, hear no evil (yields) do no evil." It's not a cure all, but it's a generally accurate point.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Top rated by whom? Hollywood? Well, there's a bunch of great moral experts! /sarcasm

Rachel

OK...you've addressed the first part of my post....now take a crack at the rest of it...

You have to keep in mind that not everyone is a Christian, nor do they have to be. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are an Atheist and a former Jew....so why would they make their late-night show appeal to Christian beliefs?? They've also depicted Jesus to be a cool guy, with a good sense of humor, who everyone in town truly likes. The fact that they acknowledge that he existed (regular man, son of god, or otherwise) is doing what most atheists wouldn't do. It's not like Christianity is the only belief system they've had some fun with. They've dedicated entire episodes to poking fun at scientology and mormons. They've even done a show where the major figureheads of every religion are actually friends with each other and in a team of heros called the "Super Best Friends".

Care to comment on this portion?

 

[Robinsegg]

You have to keep in mind that not everyone is a Christian, nor do they have to be. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are an Atheist and a former Jew....so why would they make their late-night show appeal to Christian beliefs?? They've also depicted Jesus to be a cool guy, with a good sense of humor, who everyone in town truly likes. The fact that they acknowledge that he existed (regular man, son of god, or otherwise) is doing what most atheists wouldn't do. It's not like Christianity is the only belief system they've had some fun with. They've dedicated entire episodes to poking fun at scientology and mormons. They've even done a show where the major figureheads of every religion are actually friends with each other and in a team of heros called the "Super Best Friends".

You wanted me to comment on this part of your post.

Point 1: There's no reason why nonChristians should try to appeal to Christian beliefs unless they want Christians to watch it. (I believe that consumers have the right to let producers and advertisers know what they do/don't like.)
Point 2: They do acknowledge the existence of Jesus and other religious leaders (for lack of a better term), as per your statement and others I've heard on the subject.
Point 3: The fact that they make fun of religious icons (of any variety) is not to their credit.

Rachel

 

[DailyBlessings]

Point 1: There's no reason why nonChristians should try to appeal to Christian beliefs unless they want Christians to watch it. (I believe that consumers have the right to let producers and advertisers know what they do/don't like.)

Consumers let producers know what they want by purchasing or not purchasing their product. Producers only care about public opinion insofar as it affects their bottom line.

 

[TheMissus]

You wanted me to comment on this part of your post.

Point 1: There's no reason why nonChristians should try to appeal to Christian beliefs unless they want Christians to watch it. (I believe that consumers have the right to let producers and advertisers know what they do/don't like.)

And producers and advertisers have the right to politely ignore consumers who complain, so it really doesn't matter. The only complaints that producers/advertisers would be interested in are the ones coming from their target demographic. If you're 75 years old and tell the producers of South Park that you didn't like an episode, they couldn't care less. If you're a 27 year old guy and didn't like something, they might care a little more. Seeing how most of the threatened boycotts come from Christian activist groups that aren't a part of the show's market base anyway, the producers don't have much cause for concern.

 

[Robinsegg]

Seeing how most of the threatened boycotts come from Christian activist groups that aren't a part of the show's market base anyway, the producers don't have much cause for concern.

I'd think they'd also listen to the advertisers, who may (and have) listen to consumers' complaints.

Rachel

 

[fillerbunny]

I don't understand some people's preoccupation with having programs taken off the air simply because they disagree with them. Nobody is forcing these individuals- or their children- to watch South Park. There are numerous ways that one could effectively prevent South Park from being viewed in his or her own home, if they so choose. Taking that into consideration.. why the need to have them removed from the air altogether?

We all have different standards. The behavior exemplified on most reality TV shows makes me sick. Pat Robertson offends my every sensibility, and I don't personally feel that he has any positive contribution to make to viewing audiences. You couldn't pay me enough to get me to watch the insipid tripe that passes for 'entertainment' on MTV these days. (Where's the 'M'?) And don't even get me started on Bill O' Reilly.. or FauxNews in general.

However, just because I think a program or performer is, in my opinion, without merit doesn't mean I feel I have the right to bar others from watching such programming if they so desire. Such censorship sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

[RichardT]

Baptist brainwashing? Just because we our more serious about our faith than you are?

 

[Robinsegg]

I don't understand some people's preoccupation with having programs taken off the air simply because they disagree with them. Nobody is forcing these individuals- or their children- to watch South Park. There are numerous ways that one could effectively prevent South Park from being viewed in his or her own home, if they so choose. Taking that into consideration.. why the need to have them removed from the air altogether?

We all have different standards. The behavior exemplified on most reality TV shows makes me sick. Pat Robertson offends my every sensibility, and I don't personally feel that he has any positive contribution to make to viewing audiences. You couldn't pay me enough to get me to watch the insipid tripe that passes for 'entertainment' on MTV these days. (Where's the 'M'?) And don't even get me started on Bill O' Reilly.. or FauxNews in general.

However, just because I think a program or performer is, in my opinion, without merit doesn't mean I feel I have the right to bar others from watching such programming if they so desire. Such censorship sets a very dangerous precedent.

Actually, the only thing I may have ever protested about SP is one of the more offensive things about Jesus portrayed.

The main things that concern me are those aired during prime time (which excludes SP, unless I'm very much mistaken). Those that are on during times when children are likely to be up and watching tv need to be of a certain calibre (or at least discretion). If somebody wants to air horrible programming after 10pm (while I don't like it) I'm much less likely to protest than if it were at, say, 7pm or 8pm.

Rachel

 

[KCDAD]

Maybe I misread him, but it sounded to me like he was referring to quatona's examples of pet names like "bear," "honeybee," and "mousetail." I could be wrong, though. Perhaps KCDAD could clarify?

What is a pet name? What does a pet name do to one's perception of the person? Your girlfriend is sweetie pie, your daughter is sweetie pie, your niece, the neighbor's girl, someone's kitten... the words become meaningless... they are more about the person using the petname then they are ever about the target .
Is there something inheritantly bad in them? I guess it depends if you believe bad or evil equates to selfishness or self centeredness... in which case they would be inheritantly evil.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Actually, the only thing I may have ever protested about SP is one of the more offensive things about Jesus portrayed.

The main things that concern me are those aired during prime time (which excludes SP, unless I'm very much mistaken). Those that are on during times when children are likely to be up and watching tv need to be of a certain calibre (or at least discretion). If somebody wants to air horrible programming after 10pm (while I don't like it) I'm much less likely to protest than if it were at, say, 7pm or 8pm.

Rachel

Actually South Park is aired at 10:00pm, unless it's a re-run...the re-runs are aired all throughout the evening, but the one's before 10 are more highly censored (more bleeps and blurs).

 

[Robinsegg]

Actually South Park is aired at 10:00pm, unless it's a re-run...the re-runs are aired all throughout the evening, but the one's before 10 are more highly censored (more bleeps and blurs).

Which is why I've only ever said something to anyone (producers, channels, advertisers) maybe once. If it's made available mainly when only adults are up, it's just not worth a whole lot of energy, to me.

Rachel

 

[TooCurious]

What is a pet name? What does a pet name do to one's perception of the person? Your girlfriend is sweetie pie, your daughter is sweetie pie, your niece, the neighbor's girl, someone's kitten... the words become meaningless... they are more about the person using the petname then they are ever about the target .
Is there something inheritantly bad in them? I guess it depends if you believe bad or evil equates to selfishness or self centeredness... in which case they would be inheritantly evil.

I would say that depends largely on the person using the pet name. Sometimes they are terms of endearment, nothing more. Other times, they serve to objectify the addressee. I would dispute any assertion that the latter case is universally true. It may be your experience with endearments, but it is not always the case.

 

[KCDAD]

I would say that depends largely on the person using the pet name. Sometimes they are terms of endearment, nothing more. Other times, they serve to objectify the addressee. I would dispute any assertion that the latter case is universally true. It may be your experience with endearments, but it is not always the case.

Fine. Pretend you are different from everyone in the history of mankind. Or pretend there might be someone out there that can call a human being by some animal name and NOT begin to think of them in non-human (or impersonal) terms. If it makes you happy... I say go for it.

 

[TooCurious]

Fine. Pretend you are different from everyone in the history of mankind. Or pretend there might be someone out there that can call a human being by some animal name and NOT begin to think of them in non-human (or impersonal) terms. If it makes you happy... I say go for it.

That was terribly condescending. Did you feel condescended-to by my previous response, to make you think that a condescending retort here was warranted? Because that was not my intent. My intent was merely to express a difference in my expreiences, and a disagreement with what you seemed to be suggesting. Why did this warrant an insultingly condescending reply?

 

[fillerbunny]

The main things that concern me are those aired during prime time (which excludes SP, unless I'm very much mistaken). Those that are on during times when children are likely to be up and watching tv need to be of a certain calibre (or at least discretion). If somebody wants to air horrible programming after 10pm (while I don't like it) I'm much less likely to protest than if it were at, say, 7pm or 8pm.

Firstly, I just wanted to clarify that my previous post wasn't directed specifically at you (because, after re-reading it, it certainly comes off that way).. it was more of a generalized commentary on the idea of protesting programming in general. I apologize if it came off as a personal attack.

That said, I hear you. The problem is, adults watch TV during prime time hours, too.. and I don't feel that those of us who wish to watch programming that might not be deemed child-friendly ought to be denied that opportunity simply because some people have kids and don't want to take the time to monitor what they're watching to make sure that it is (in their opinion) child-friendly. Additionally, what constitutes child-friendliness? My guess is, if you asked ten different parents, you'd get ten different answers. Sure, there'd probably be some consensus.. but where do you draw the line?

Parents have every right to decide what (if anything) their children can or cannot watch, and I commend the parents out there (yourself included) who are actually bothering to take the time to sit down and investigate what's out there and what their kids are watching, because far too many parents are content with sticking a 27" 900-channel 'babysitter' in Junior's bedroom and being done with it. I'm just troubled by the idea of having shows removed from the air because some people find them offensive.

My take is, if something offends my sensibilities or fails to entertain me, I don't watch it. If enough people agree, the ratings will plummet, advertisers will pull out, and the network will take notice. If others don't agree, at least my family's not being forced to endure lousy programming. We can find something better to watch.. or get out and do something that doesn't involve sitting in front of the TV.

Many people feel that South Park (just to use an example) has no merit whatsoever. They're entitled to that opinion. But considering the fact that it's been airing for the past decade and it's still going strong, obviously there are a lot of people out there (myself included) who disagree. I don't see the harm in simply choosing another program airing in the allotted time slot and allowing them to watch what they choose.

 

[fillerbunny]

Fine. Pretend you are different from everyone in the history of mankind. Or pretend there might be someone out there that can call a human being by some animal name and NOT begin to think of them in non-human (or impersonal) terms. If it makes you happy... I say go for it.

There's no pretending involved.

Some of my close friends and I jokingly refer to each other with stupid pet names. They're just harmless, silly terms of endearment.. usually based off some ridiculous inside joke. They certainly haven't diminished our relationships in any way shape or form. People show affection in different ways. Just because someone else's way doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it unequivocally wrong.

If you feel that you are personally unable to use a pet name for somebody without that hampering your ability to view that person with the same sense of respect and dignity that you did prior to using the pet name, then you're right- it's probably in your best interest not to do so, provided you wish to maintain the relationship. However, to make the assumption that nobody is capable of making that distinction.. that's just flat-out wrong.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[fillerbunny]

What is a pet name? What does a pet name do to one's perception of the person?

1) It's a silly little term of endearment.
2) In my experience, absolutely nothing.

Your girlfriend is sweetie pie, your daughter is sweetie pie, your niece, the neighbor's girl, someone's kitten...

Not necessarily. Do you find it any less offensive when someone uses different pet names when referring to different persons, or is it the idea of giving someone a stupid, cutesy nickname in and of itself that offends you?

the words become meaningless...

In some cases, maybe.. in others, maybe not. Either way, I still don't see the problem.

they are more about the person using the petname then they are ever about the target .

Not necessarily.

Is there something inheritantly bad in them? I guess it depends if you believe bad or evil equates to selfishness or self centeredness... in which case they would be inheritantly evil.

What exactly is inherently selfish or self-centered about calling someone by a term of endearment? Especially if said person enjoys being referred to by said term?