TheFirstBigW said:
That's called desensitization, and when it comes to vulgarity, it's generally not considered to be a good thing.
But what if somebody doesn't see something as vulgar.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
You don't have to have a dirty mind to associate the f-word with sex any more than you have to have a bigoted mind to associate the n-word with racism. It's what the word means and was created for in the first place, and just like the n-word, it has a tendency to shock some people when they hear it whether any malice is intended in its use or not.
It'll only truly bother you if you let it bother you, though. And if a big deal is made out of the word, all that'll do is just draw more attention to it anyway.
Besides, black people use the "n" word all the time toward each other. It's in a different context now, and racism isn't associated with it. Just because a word was created with one meaning in mind doesn't mean it can't obtain new meanings later on. Look at the word "cool" and the meanings that word has, for example.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
True. But what we're talking about here is public-owned airwaves, which means that the public gets to come together as a whole and decide through a democratic process what is and is not allowed to be broadcast on them. And right now, public policy says that such words are offensive and therefore not allowed. You can say them on privately owned cable television, but you can't say them on the public forum of broadcast television.
It's not very democratic if one group of people makes that decision for everybody else, though. Most channels have their swearing at a minimum. But some people make it seem like that's all that TV is nowadays.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
For parents who believe that profanity is wrong, they don't want their child watching people cursing on a regular basis any more than they want their child watching pornography or live executions. In their mind, it's just as objectionable.
So don't have the kids watch the shows in which that occurs. Isn't that what the parental control things and the ratings were invented for to begin with? They can worry about their own children, and quit trying to parent everybody else's.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Too true.
Exactly, so why do some people feel this need to try and push their idea of morality on everybody else?
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Those who tuned in to the Golden Globes didn't expect there to be any cursing during the broadcast, and by the reaction of the show's producers, it's safe to say that they didn't either. If somebody curses during a live broadcast which was supposed to be free of cursing, it's too late for a parent to change the channel once the word has been said.
True, but then again, has cursing ever occured on the Golden Globes before (and since they usually manage to bleep it out, if there was, that would explain the lack of reaction before)? And what is the rating of the Golden Globes show? I don't recall it being rated "G". I'm guessing it's rated "PG" or "TV-14". Shouldn't that be a clue, then, that perhaps at some point and time, a swear word
might possibly pop up on the awards show? And if that's the case, and the parent watches the show with their kid and the swear word occurs, well, they
were warned...
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
So that's your solution? Anyone who is offended by profanity should just give up television?
No. Just don't watch the offending program (and my example was more towards those out there who just can't stand TV in general nowadays). I mean, call me crazy, but if I don't like a show or a movie, I don't watch it. Upon catching Bill O'Reilly on TV one time, I found that what he said tended to offend me, therefore, I don't watch him.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
What about their right to petition the system through the democratic process to define some kind of standards of behavior on a medium that they are part owner of? Should they not have the right to do that?
They can rant all they want about how they're personally offended by what they heard on TV. But why do I have to listen to edited shows just because they were personally bothered by what they heard? The problem is that there's those who are offended and those who aren't, and if we cater to one side, the other will be upset. Why not just let everybody make the personal decision for themselves and their own families, that way, nobody's imposing anything on anyone else.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Those who are against profanity for the right reasons are not trying to force their beliefs on others, they're simply trying to stand up for what they believe to be right, and if a person is acting in accordance with their conscience, they're willing to stand up for what they believe to be right even if they end up stepping on a few toes in the process.
If I forced all those who were offended by the "f" word to watch shows that contained said word, the offended side would understandably be upset with me and tell me that I can't make that decision for them. Well, the same applies here. I have no problem with them saying they're offended, they have every right to say that, and the side that wasn't offended can air their views. But to censor it is imposing their ideas of what is and isn't proper on those who disagree, just as forcing those who are offended to watch the offending program is imposing a certain view.
Remote controls, ratings systems, and parental control things are there for a reason. If you don't like what you hear on TV, you have every right to change the channel, and that way, you aren't being forced to watch the program.
Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
What is allowed to be broadcast on public-owned airwaves is our decision to make as a collective society, and that means that everybody gets a chance to influence what society's rules of behavior are by working through the system.
And that's the one thing that I don't see much of in your otherwise fair-minded assessment of this issue: an acknowledgement that those who object to profanity have every bit as much of a right to try to influence public policy as you do.
Of course, it's frustrating when you don't like the current rules and you feel that your side isn't winning the public policy debate, but that's what a democracy is all about: if you don't like something, you can work to change it. It just means that your side needs to work harder through the system to make society reflect your beliefs.
The thing is, though, in a country of 280 some million people, you will never get an agreement on what is and isn't proper to see on TV. It's even harder when you're confused about when, why, and what things are being censored. For instance, one day, I was watching a movie, and the "f" word was bleeped out, and yet the scenes with people smoking were kept in. Now I know some people have raised a ruckus in the past about smoking on TV and everything. But yet that's not censored, and the "f" word is (and ironically, this was on a cable channel, one that you didn't have to subscribe to if you didn't want to).
Both sides can talk about what they do and don't find offensive, yes. But again, just as the offended side wouldn't like it if those who aren't offended forced them to watch programs they didn't like, the non-offended side doesn't like the offended side trying to stop them from watching the programs they do like.
Angela