Metsfan520
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,174
OMG such attitudes is why we are flooded with illegal aliens, socialistic policies and no money in the budget.![]()
I don't know what to say to this.
OMG such attitudes is why we are flooded with illegal aliens, socialistic policies and no money in the budget.![]()
I'm stunned that you publicly attack the right of others to live in accordance with beliefs and values other than those you feel they should live in accordance with. I find that perspective, in the words of the US Court of Appeals, "chilling".


























I don't know what to say to this.

It takes a village and if the village is having wildly free sex on the streets then its okay?

Yet on the other hand, a TV show like All in the Family couldn't possibly on TV now due to political correctness.
I think we are all a little screwy now.
I see All in the Family come on TV Land all the time. Maybe I don't understand what you mean.
The words don't bother me, but I don't have small children to be concerned with. A lot of people use this language in real life so I'm thinking the usage described here is pretty mainstream. Whether that is good or bad is another discussion, but that's my observation.
Hollywood is working overtime with the shock factor and trying to make it seem that everyone 'talks' or 'acts' that way. Is it any wonder America is swirling down the toilet regarding the morals and attitude?
How about all the commercials for E.D.? Like I want to know - NOT. Those are on all day, everyday. And the K-Y ads - OMBThere is no humility left for those people
)Archie Bunker was a very racist, mysoginistic person. Of course, to an extent, it added to the charm of the show because he was so very obviously wrong with a lot of his comments about race and women's place in the home/society, it's a lot of what made the show funny. But, today, if a show came out with a main character who was so obviously non-PC, it probably wouldn't last very long. (Someone else who's ignoring that this thread was started over half a year ago can feel free to explain it better than that.)
Sadly, there are a lot of people who do behave and speak in the manner depicted in tv/movies/etc. The other day, I was in line to check out at a store, and the girl behind me (maybe early 20s) was talking to a guy she was with. It was f-this and f-that. I think the offensive part is that these words are used so freely. An occassional one peppered here and there would show intense feeling about something. Using them seemingly every other word, though? Unnecessary, and, for some people, it just seems like they really don't know any better or just don't understand why it's not appropriate word choice. (BTW, I love the episode of Spongebob with the "sentence enhancers". That's what it should be if used...and "enhancer" to underscore some feeling as opposed to a companion to the word "the".)
I can't stand those commercials or the fact that there is no declared when-you-can-show-this time. At least the ads for the 1-900 numbers that used to come on USA came on after 10pm. The local radio station that I used to listen to ran ads for a local strip club. What bothered me about the ads was that they were on between 6 and 8 am, when parents (like me) who are driving their kids to school have to listen to them and have their kids listen to them. Yeah, sure...change the station...but if that's your station of choice, turning it every 5-10 minutes so you don't have to hear a 30-60 second ad gets a little ridiculous. (Yes, I listen to a different station or play my Disney CDs now.)
Society sets the norms. Here is the US if you show a woman's **** on tv people act as if the world is coming to an end. In Europe, it's shown all the time and kids (nor some adults) dont go blind from seeing them.
It takes a village and if the village is having wildly free sex on the streets then its okay? We should just ignore it. If the neighbors are screaming swears outside, it should be ignored? If the cars going by your house are speeding, we should ignore it? If the people are walking through the streets without clothing, that should be okay, and we should ignore it, because we have the ability to close our windows, shut our doors and hide under the covers? Is that what you are saying??

Just agree, you know you want to.![]()
Careful you will be attacked for thinking this way.
We're not all supposed to have the same opinion, but I can see where both sides of this argument are coming from.Yesterday on General Hospital, one of the characters said, "Shut up! You want to act like a man but you're acting like a little (female dog)!!"
Daytime soap operas have spent years with characters who murder, have affairs, do drugs, embezzle, etc.
Why was use of the word b*tch the straw that broke the camels back?
I find vegetarians frightening.
Is this going to be the new YAGE, where you tell someone you put them on ignore and then keep responding to them? 
How about all the commercials for E.D.? Like I want to know - NOT.

It is because of the children, obviously. Hearing that word will lead to orgies in the streets across America.

I would expect anyone killing their 4th mistress they have had since their last comma which they were in because they were in a car accident while fleeing the state with their kidnapped love child to not use naughty language while doing it of course.


Yesterday on General Hospital, one of the characters said, "Shut up! You want to act like a man but you're acting like a little (female dog)!!" I have to say I'm quite shocked that female dog would be used in that context without shame on network TV. Is anyone else shocked? Because I am.
Not to mention that the "female dog" comment is typically reserved for women. So it was a kind of a misogynistic statement.
Must be all those soybeans who are kept in cruel captivity until their lives are snuffed out, so that we may have our tofu.I find vegetarians frightening.

It isn't really that, though: I believe in measured censorship. If the program is rated TV-7, and yet still contains repetitious or deliberate cussing, then string the producers up (figuratively), afaic. I just believe, as the US Court of Appeals did, that this censorship we're talking about was unreasonable. Censorship when it is unnecessary (i.e., when the content could be filtered out by v-chip, for example) or when a penalty is assessed for an accidental, fleeting gaff - those are instances of unreasonable censorship. The way that the FCC has been handling the situation, since the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident, has been abominably puritanical, far beyond any reasonable interpretation of the set of consensus societal values.And on the other side (Bicker, etc.) are those with the opinion that, if you censor one thing, it leads to the possibility that too much can be censored.
Absolutely.if the tv is offending you....turn it off.
It isn't really that, though: I believe in measured censorship. If the program is rated TV-7, and yet still contains repetitious or deliberate cussing, then string the producers up (figuratively), afaic. I just believe, as the US Court of Appeals did, that this censorship we're talking about was unreasonable. Censorship when it is unnecessary (i.e., when the content could be filtered out by v-chip, for example) or when a penalty is assessed for an accidental, fleeting gaff - those are instances of unreasonable censorship. The way that the FCC has been handling the situation, since the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident, has been abominably puritanical, far beyond any reasonable interpretation of the set of consensus societal values.
And remember that the audience for a television program is who the broadcaster targets. So a television show rated TV-MA DLSV would include content that a television show rated TV-Y would never include.Measured censorship, sure. Just as we should be able to censor ourselves in conversation and make sure what we're saying is appropriate for our audience.
That was definitely not me.(Although, the way I read your earlier statements..or may have been someone else's since I'm not taking the time to go back and quote, it would be better to have no censorship and let each person watch and decide for him/herself than to try to censor everything and hope everyone is appeased and unoffended.
Viewers should rely on, and should be able to rely on, the ratings: TV-Y, TV-Y7, TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14, TV-MA -- more than enough granularity afaic.I'm not on the bandwagon with total non-censorship, either. Give me enough to either know I need to steer my 6 year old in the other direction, or at least be reasonabe about the hours it's presented.)