I agree with Starving Artist [about rudeness in society]

[Happy_Poster]

The world has got ruder, and nastiness has become more acceptable.

There is considerably less civility now. Popular art/entertainment is far more willing, not only to use more profanity, but to appeal to its audiences’ baser instincts. And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it. Certainly if such attitudes are repeated day in and out they become internalised. And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

I’m purposely avoiding making a value judgement here, but I think he is right

[Ludovic]

@Angry Lurker

There is considerably less civility now. Popular art/entertainment is far more willing, not only to use more profanity, but to appeal to its audiences’ baser instincts. And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it. Certainly if such attitudes are repeated day in and out they become internalised. And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

I don’t see how the last sentence has to do with the rest of the paragraph. Heck, ISTM that society is more cohesive than it was 50 years again, it’s only the actual tastes in pop culture that have diverged due to the Internet. America’s, and the world’s, idiosyncratic regionalisms have decreased, and we have fewer, not more, overt displays of pathological social relations than we did 20 years ago.

[Inigo_Montoya]

• lobs a turd at Angry Lurker’s head *

Piss off! What do you know about it?

[Marley23]

[Mod note]I’ve edited the thread title to reflect the topic a little more closely.[/Mod note]

@Angry Lurker

There is considerably less civility now. Popular art/entertainment is far more willing, not only to use more profanity, but to appeal to its audiences’ baser instincts.

I assume you are refering to offensive race-baiting like this, in which case, I agree - things were much more civil in the 1920s.

And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it.

This is snobbish, but has no fact to recommend it.

And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

And you’re blaming entertainment?

You’re all over the place here, really. Civility is not popular entertainment is not social cohesion. These are distinct ideas and not connected by very much unless you are complaining generally “things aren’t as good as they used to be.” There’s little support for those kind of notions, most of the time, unless one is prone to idealizing the past by forgetting about its flaws, or by not having lived in that past the first time around.

[Happy_Poster]

Yes, my theory is that the notion of rudeness is evolving too rapidly for everyone to keep up. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Artist is wrong. And I also think that we can say that certain notions of rudeness are better than other notions, and perhaps notions of rudeness from 50 years ago were more appropriate than our current notions.

[drastic_quench]

…and do something about those damn kids on my lawn!

[Happy_Poster]

(in certain respects I mean)

[Der_Trihs]

@Angry Lurker

The world has got ruder, and nastiness has become more acceptable.

That would rather depend on one’s definition of “nastiness”. In the good old days, a black man could easily be beaten or killed if someone thought he looked at a white woman. Or that same woman might be forced to submit to rape from her boss to keep her job. I’d call that “nasty”. The past that Starving Artist idealizes so much was full of that sort of nastiness; nastiness towards women, towards blacks, towards anyone who wasn’t a straight white male Christian.

@Angry Lurker

And that audience is usually pretty thick and incapable of appreciating art, and so emulates it.

It’s more a matter of most of the stuff that officially calls itself “art” turning to garbage, in my eyes. There’s not much there to appreciate.

@Angry Lurker

Certainly if such attitudes are repeated day in and out they become internalised. And thus society is much less cohesive than it was even 20 years ago, and absolutely different to the 50s.

The 50s were disgusting; bigotry and conformity ruled. They weren’t some golden age - the 50s produced the 60s for a reason.

@Angry Lurker

I’m purposely avoiding making a value judgement here, but I think he is right

Actually, you can’t call something better than something else without making a value judgement.

[Marley23]

@Angry Lurker

Yes, my theory is that the notion of rudeness is evolving too rapidly for everyone to keep up.

How would that be possible? “Everyone” determines what rudeness is in the first place.

And I also think that we can say that certain notions of rudeness are better than other notions, and perhaps notions of rudeness from 50 years ago were more appropriate than our current notions.

Well, who are ‘we,’ and why are they better? You’re welcome to a different opinion, but once you start trying to prove it’s better than somebody else’s, you usually wind up looking ridiculous.

[Anaamika]

What’s the point of complaining about it? Go out and be polite and civil to people. Teach your children to be civil. And remember that there is a big difference between rudeness and assertiveness.

[pravnik]

They used to make black people use different water fountains than white people. That’s a little rude.

[Neverending_Elbow]

OK, so in the fifties people were more polite, or civil, or just generally nicer, yes? What about a hundred years ago? Two hundred?

A few days ago I bought a book with some of the dirtiest, nastiest poems I’ve ever read. From just before the rennesaince till modern times. You know what’s the main difference? The older ones were either written for private use or published and quickly banned before reaching a wider audience. One of the poems is about a soldier making a comment to a girl that she must have fire in her ass, seeing as her legs are so red (washing clothes outside in the winter), and would she mind frying his sausage in that oven.

Or let’s look at Shakespeare. His works are some of the dirtiest I’ve ever read, like for example his Sonnet 135 (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/sonnets/sonnet_135.html), where he (well, the voice in the text) addresses a woman, noting that her spacious cunt will surely be able to take in his prick.

People were not better or nicer, they just washed dirty laundry in private (though even that not always), and pretended the world was different than it was.

[Enderw24]

I blame marriages. Back in the '50s they didn’t realize how futile marriage was.

[Sam_I_Was]

I think entertainment doesn’t appeal enough to my baser instincts. I’m still waiting for the feelies to come out.

[JRDelirious]

Here’s the thing: It’s true that the social environment did not need to become crude and loud in order to bring down various forms of opression.

Ideally, we should all have had civil rights, women’s equality, sexual openness, critical study of history, denouncing of child and spousal abuse, product safety, economic expansion, environmental protection and cultural diversity, *WITH *politeness and elegance and class and respect for elders and for other people’s property and good hygiene and looking out for your neighbor’s kids and cookies and pie.

Unfortunately, too damn many of the people holding out for the reactionary, opressive old policies happened to couch their resistance in terms of “preserving values” and tried to suppress dissent and reform under pretense of it not being polite to make a fuss and bring up things that upset people and why do it right now instead of waiting patiently until another generation passes, etc. So they made it look like those social values were inexorably paired with the reactionary old opressive ways , and the more radical among the reformers were only too damn happy to call the bluff and take them up on that.

Where I see the failure in many of these lines of argument is in that assumption on both sides to the effect that the crass, vulgar culture is the inevitable price of the less oppressive, more open society, that it somehow was a zero-sum valorative equation and you could not have the one without the other.

To strip it down to barest essentials, the worst sociocultural evolution would be in the direction of both more opressive AND less polite. The best one would be one in the direction of both less oppressive AND more polite.

But what we DID get, was less oppressive AND less polite. And there isn’t jack we can do about it now. So?

Well, so happens, IMO less opressive always trumps more opressive, regardless of politeness level.

And granted that, then well, yes, I can lament that some people think freedom is an excuse to be rude, and that they flaunt their bad taste. If I’m telling some young punk to wear his pants right, it’s because I don’t like seeing his asscrack, not because I want to opress his people, whoever they are. Sure, he has the right, but it doesn’t make it any less ugly. But considering that just about everything else about society – civil rights, medical care, standard of living, etc. – is better now than 50 years ago, it’s not even close to souring the deal.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Neverending_Elbow

Or let’s look at Shakespeare. His works are some of the dirtiest I’ve ever read, like for example his Sonnet 135 (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/sonnets/sonnet_135.html), where he (well, the voice in the text) addresses a woman, noting that her spacious cunt will surely be able to take in his prick.

Was it really a compliment to a woman to tell her how unbelievably huge her cunt was? “Baby, you’ve got a pussy I could stick my whole head into, and still have room to get most of my shoulders in it, too! You’ve got the biggest twat I’ve seen, or even imagined! What a girl!”

How times have changed!

[PlainJain]

I’m guessing the OP gets his notions of the 50’s from the same media he is blaming. Do you really think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver represented mainstream America? No more than Ozzie or Gene Simmons represents the mainstream today.

And, Dude, what’s up with your gorilla math? The late eighties were 20 years ago, not the 50’s.

[ElvisL1ves]

@PlainJain

I’m guessing the OP gets his notions of the 50’s from the same media he is blaming. Do you really think Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver represented mainstream America?

Peyton Place probably did a fair job of it, though.

[DrCube]

I disagree. Society has gotten less formal and more honest, and I think that’s a good thing. If honesty and informality is rude, I don’t want to be polite.

[kasuo]

@Neverending_Elbow

Or let’s look at Shakespeare. His works are some of the dirtiest I’ve ever read, like for example his Sonnet 135 (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/sonnets/sonnet_135.html), where he (well, the voice in the text) addresses a woman, noting that her spacious cunt will surely be able to take in his prick.

So that’s where the throwing-a-hotdog-down-a-hallway bit came from!