***** BZZZTTTT ***** Sorry; the correct answer is, “The ‘Parents’ Television Council’ managed to pull off the illusion of passing off astroturf as actual grass roots”.
Fortunately, the management of the group seems to subscribe to religious doctrines that teach that it’s OK to lie to the infidel, so they are spared any guilt feelings in the matter.
Class, who can tell me which logical fallacy is illustrated here?
For bonus points, which logical fallacy would Liberal exhibit if he concluded that all Conservatives engage in the
post hoc, ergo propter hocfallacy?
I guess that personal responsibility and doing/fending for oneself only applies to those who would dare to apply for welfare or similiar. It apparently doesn’t apply to conservatives who tout it ad nauseam whilst insisting that the State shelter Bailey and Henry from filth and vulgarity.
I am mightily offended by most rap lyrics-- and even more so by the prevalence of porn and crap like Girls Gone Wild that exists today. I probably make your Grandma look like a Playboy Bunny, I am so pissed off by it all.
But my weapons of choice are education and instilling of values in my kids–note, in MY kids. NOT in my country or county for that matter.
SA -you act as if Big Sis were some passive victim in all this. Who let her buy the CD? Who didn’t talk to her about responsibility? Who didn’t discuss the lyrical content and the message it conveys? Who would leave a younger sib with someone so moronic? Why, a conservative parent, that’s who–and then that parent can whine about how horrible society is now and look at how the Evil Left has ruined our nice country.
If it weren’t so absurd, it would be scarey. You really believe this shit? Really?
If we ban the word “bullshit” on broadcast TV, people will lobby to ban it on basic cable as well, since I’m pretty sure a substantial majority of Americans get at least basic cable these days, and kids could just as easily stumble across “bullshit” or “cunt” or “all you bitches suck my dick” on a basic cable channel as they could on a broadcast channel. And children could also stumble across “bullshit” or “cocksucker” or what have you in a library book (paid for by the taxpayers), so we’ll have to censor all the books we allow in the library, to make them suitable for young children. And really, any book might wind up in the hands of an innocent little child, so all books should be free of objectionable content. Also ideas (like evolution, feminism, tolerance for homosexuality, or “religious freedom”) which subvert Biblical values are, in the long run, much more Satanically destructive than mere dirty words. Inevitably the call will go out to ban those ideas. So, if we allow the FCC to censor the word “bullshit” on PBS, then before you know it the United States will be a post-apocalyptic totalitarian hellhole run by Taliban-style theocrats.
And I for one would be against that. Won’t someone think of the children?
To the extent that you’re talking about what I’ve said in this thread, of course I do.
How about that–that slope is slippery in both directions.
I believe it has been banned all along, has it not? You act as though this is some new form of repression that has sprung full-blown upon the populace from out of nowhere. So far as I’m aware, obscenity has always been censored on public airwaves.
Yes, I see your point. Just look at those Taliban-style theocrats that populated this country during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and first half of the 60s…you know, prior to the advent of liberal ideology actually gaining a foothold? One wonders how this country managed to survive, and its people managed to be relatively happy, polite, civilized and act like adults for 200 years without the right to spout “bullshit” from a public venue.
Oh, the horror! How did they ever survive? :rolleyes:
The word “bullshit” doesn’t remotely qualify as obscenity in a legal sense. Study up, boy.
They did it by building a society upon luxuries gained from the exploitation first of black slaves and then the exploitation of impoverished free blacks and cheap immigrant labor.
Wait, I’m suddenly realizing you didn’t actually care for an injection of reality into your reverie, did you?
Possibly, although I am aware of several exceptions. How is this relevant, however? Bullshit is a vulgarism but is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an obscenity.
But it was all so very silly. The Hayes Office and Lucy and Ricky having to be in twin beds, never mind Rob and Laura Petrie etc. The same world where all whores have hearts of gold and all black porters’ names are George. White hats mean good guys and black hats mean bad ones. It was bizarre as all get out.
It wasn’t REAL–it was some mocked up version of Life As It Should Be According to Someone’s Unknown Standards.
Yes, I agree with you that there should be some sort of limitation; I have no desire to see any type of porn on any network channel at any time in my life. I deplore the vulgarity that permeates modern life.
But I’d rather have that than word police and outrageous fines for minor transgressions. Who decides what is coarse and vulgar? Time was that Clark Gable wasn’t sure he could even say his final and best line in GWTW…you remember–the one that goes, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”.
Do we go back to banning that? Do we ban the use of the words butt and dick and bitch? They seem to have entered mainstream conversation with nary a twitch of any conservative’s uneasy moral conscience. I know cons know the words, and some of their more esteemed leaders seem to use them in inappropriate places and in reference to those who do not share their POVs–how gentlemanly and courteous of them. If they are to demand we all clean our mouths out with soap, they could at least set examples of proper language, no?
I would be willing to bet that civilized behavior and standards will even out over time and we will come to a new general (loose) consensus as to what constitutes polite interaction and civilized discourse–on the airwaves and off them. Time was when The New Yorker never printed the word fuck–now it does, when quoting someone or when it is part of a poem or whathaveyou. It is never fuck for shock value. Neither was JJ’s nipple–that was an accident.
Some “art” is for shock value, and rightly so. Some is a cynical rip off by people to make a buck by shocking with schlock. Is that not OK? I don’t like it, but I am not about to make taste decisions for everyone else-why would you? Why should you?
If you dislike the turn that pop culture has taken, the solution lies in your own hands. Turn off the TV/cable/radio. Better yet, talk to your kids about the choices artists make and the possible reasons for doing so. Encourage them to support artists that do espouse your values–or are you a helpless parent in the face of the Evil of Modern Life? There’s a victim mentality for ya!
Do not enact legislation that effects many, many more people and their tastes, just to enable you to be a lazy and un-involved parent. TV should never be a babysitter, and media and its influence should be a topic of conversation in any consumer’s household.
In short, grow up and deal with life as it is handed to you–an excellent conservative stance and one that they tout in loud voices.
You’d think this was nuclear physics or something. Jeepers.
Oh, I don’t think it was an accident. That bit of jewelry on her nipple looks like it would have been uncomfortable - especially when waving around and rubbing against her clothing while dancing. I don’t think she would have worn that if she hadn’t intended to show it off.
EXCALIBRE –
Well, in general I make it a point to care when the democratic process is subverted, but I think that’s a pretty tenuous charge to bring against the FCC, which is, BTW, not a private “organization” but an agency of the U.S. Government that acts under explicit authority granted to it by Congress. And, generally, that’s precisely how the “public” makes decisions regarding itself, especially decisions that transcend local or state mores, like national broadcasting: they elect members of Congress who authorize agencies to do work consistent with the intent of the laws passed on the public’s behalf.
I agree, absolutely. What I don’t see is any indication in your post as to why having day-to-day regulatory decisions made by a government agency is inherently undemocratic. As far as broadcasting content is concerned, you acknowledge that such decisions are complicated, which they are, and that different people have different standards, which they do, but you don’t really say why you object to the FCC having the regulatory/enforcement power to make those calls.
I don’t see where this has been clearly demonstrated at all. How are you determining the opinions and needs of the majority of U.S. citizens?
How, precisely? By national referendum? Do we mark our ballots, “‘yes’ to ‘tits’, ‘ass’, and ‘crap’; ‘no’ to ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’”? If you acknowledge that the standards are both ever-changing and varying as to geography and social situation, surely you see how impossible it would be for the “public as a whole” to decide whether “bullshit” on PBS is okay or not. I mean, you’re pretty comfortable saying that “bullshit” is okay because it “wouldn’t scar a child for life” – is that the standard we want to go with? What about one “cunt”? Or ten “bullshits”? What is the standard for “scarring for life”? How sensitive is our hypothetical child? How old? How about “ass”: “Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass” – okay or not? “Don’t be an ass” – okay or not? “I love your nice, tight ass” – okay or not? What I don’t get about your position is that you seem to simultaneously acknowledge this is a realm of tough calls, but yet attribute near-fascism to the FCC for not making the call the same way you would. How does that jibe?
Again, this has not be shown to be the case. It’s not as if the FCC is generally retrograde – like “bullshit” was once okay and now it is not. It is true, however, that the FCC is cracking down on enforcement of standards that had become lax over time – the enforcement, not the standards – but I see no evidence that the FCC is being “driven” by complaints, as opposed to responding to complaints, which is part of its mandate. So I’m not sure what the problem is in this regard; I assume you’d be even less happy if the FCC, which is supposed to regulate content, was simply too lazy and unresponsive to do so.
Again, the public does not have a feasible way to provide direct oversight over decisions that must be constantly made as shows are aired, in an area that is complex, nuanced, and ever-changing. Nor have you proven that people who would not appreciate “bullshit” on PBS or Janet’s titty on CBS are therefore people who “are offended by everything.” Indeed, the trend in the last 20 years to relax standards on language and content seems to indicate that is not the case. Furthermore, you have as much right to write a letter to the FCC, and to organize your friends to do the same, as any other American citizen. If you want input into these decisions, excerise your right to speak up about them.
Y’know, when I think about some of the governmental decisions being made these days that might not be consistent with my personal ideals of democracy, “whether Pink Floyd can say ‘bullshit’ on PBS” is not even in the top ten. It’s been my experience that everybody’s gotta be pissed about something, and if this is the issue that gets you all lathered up, well, you go, boy. In responding to your presuming to take it upon yourself to judge whether I care about democracy if I dare to disagree with you, I can only assure you that I will give your opinion the attention I believe it deserves.
TOM –
Here’s an interesting, if simplistic short article on censorship in TV.
He’s talking about the Parent’s Television Council, not the FCC.
I do not believe that this is accurate. The vast majority of the American public had no problem with Jackson’s nipple. Most of them, I suspect, approved. It’s only a tiny, but very vocal, minority that had a problem with it.
Mostly, I blame the PTC, but sure, Bush and the FCC can have some if they want it, too.
Nope. They’re reacting to a sham and a put-up job. The outrage over the nipple was exagerrated and largely artificial.
Do you have a better way to gauge what the public considers offensive? The FCC exists to regulate television and other public broadcasts. If someone is offended, they’re the most appropriate organization to complain to. So looking at their list of complaints, I think, would be a good way to gauge what the country finds offensive, and how many people find it so. And when we look, what do we find? Historically, a vanishingly small number of complaints, suddenly boosted in the last few years (coincidentally with the start of all this “public outrage over media indecency” blarney) a huge number of complaints coming from one small organization. That makes the entire claim that there is a grassroots movement opposed to “media indecency” in question.
I’ve never noted in you the ability to correctly identify trends in popular media, so right off the bat, I’m suspcious of your assertion that CB radios became a “cesspool of vulgarity and obscenity,” your analogy is still incredibly inapposite for a number of reasons. The most glaring of which is that television is not, by and large, a public access format. One asshole with a CB radio can screw up that band for everyone else on it. One asshole who wants hard-core porn on daytime TV is not a viable demographic, and his desires are unlikely to be catered to. The total removal of all standards from broadcast television (which, btw, nobody has called for) is not going to automatically turn all television into hard core pornography and ultra-violence. Absolute worst case scenario, given a totally free market, a small number of channels will broadcast generally obscene material, filling the demand for that, and other channels will court other viewers, as the market demands.
Again, your analogy is lacking. We need standards on roads or people die, in courts or the innocent are punished instead of the guilty, and at work or people get hurt or cheated. The dire outcomes of a child hearing the word “bullshit” tend to be quite a bit more… ephemeral, to say the least.
Oh, sorry…I didn’t realize this was a courtroom.
Yep, I knew it! I started to post as much but thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt first. Anytime someone around here brings up anything positive about pre-late-sixties America, some idiot who never lived during that time but who mindlessly bought into the party line at school is sure to play the race card.
I’m sorry, but I just really have a hard time believing that society was more polite, mannerly, civilized and adult back then because blacks had been exploited.
What an utter crock of shit! :rolleyes:
I dunno…when did it happen? Certainly not in one of your posts. As you should know, I pay scant attention to those who engage in the intellectually dishonest practice of calling for cites on hypotheticals and I pretty much blew off everything you had to say after that.
I suspect that you are not looking very hard.
The FCC has no procedure to evaluate genuine community response except to react to complaints. This was adequate, if imperfect, when the numbers and types of complaints were the organic ones arising from an audience who genuinely reacted to what they witnessed. However, that process has been co-opted by a specific group (much like the school texts in Texas) and the FCC has no procedure in place to hear “anti-” complaints. So, in 2001 and 2002, the FCC typically received just under 350 complaints a year. Once the Parent’s Television Council decided to “organize” campaigns, the numbers of complaints, generally in the nature of mass-produced form letters jumped to 14,000 per year, then 240,000 per year, then higher still. The FCC, itself, admits that over 99% of the complaints received are manufactured by this one group. And, as we have seen, the FCC, itself, currently dominated by appointees selected from the Religious Right, has been known to inflate the figures of complaints beyond what it actually receives. Despite the recognition that the PTC is manufacturing nearly all the complaints it receives, the FCC has made no effort to establish a means by which the audience may protest these manufactured complaints. once the form letters have arrived, the FCC simply goes out and decides in closed session whether to penalize the broadcaster and for how much. The excessive fines levied in the last couple of years have been, according to the FCC leadership, a response to “growing” complaints by the public, despite the fact that the FCC knows and acknowledges that there is no “public” that is increasingly concerned–only a tiny political group with a good printing press.
I do not think that bleeping “bullshit” in one song by one group on one occasion is going to sound the death knell of freedom in this country. However, when there are numerous shows subjected to prior censorship out of a fear of excessive fines prompted by one miniscule segment of the public while the custodians lie that they are responding to some massive movement of the public, I think we have a real problem.
Damn you, TOM! Damn you and your reasoned discourse! 
Yeah, that’s a problem.
You’re right, that’s what you suspect…yet you offer no proof that this is correct. Given that I didn’t offer proof myself, it appears we have a situation here in which we simply disagree…yes, no?
I don’t believe I ever asserted such a grassroots movement exists. I merely said people are fed-up with the permissiveness that has come to pervade this society and are voting accordingly. Look at all the stuff I’m pissed off about, yet I’ve never complained to anyone other than a few friends and people on a message board. I suspect most people are the same way. It’s specious to contend that unless one can be shown to have complained to some government agency that no such complaint exists.
[QUOTE=Miller]
The total removal of all standards from broadcast television (which, btw, nobody has called for)…It would certainly seem so based on the sentiments expressed in this thread. One gets the feeling it’s a source of high dudgeon for most of the posters around here that the government (and especially under Bush) should try to prohibit anyone from saying and/or showing anything they want. And if you’ll permit me, your logic is the one which is lacking. How can you look at what has occured in rap music and claim that television would not become a cesspool of vulgarity, profanity and vulgarity if all standards were eliminated?
Boy, you guys are really fixated on the word “bullshit” aren’t you? Isn’t this argument really a bit disingenuous? You know as well as I do that “bullshit” isn’t the one and only word where this issue is going to come up, and you know fully well that “bullshit” is merely a door-opener for more offensive words to follow. You want to agree to side with me completely should I agree that the use of the word “bullshit” is permissable but that no other currently prohibited word will ever be permitted? If not, then you tacitly admit that you have a larger agenda than you’re trying to appear to have and you expose yourself as the disingenuous hypocrite that I already know you to be. Of course, should you agree that as long as “bullshit” is the only prohibited word you will ever champion, I will be happy to retract my accusations of hypocrisy and disingenuousness.
Ahem…with regard to the screwed up coding, the last part of my previous post should read as follows:
It would certainly seem so based on the sentiments expressed in this thread. One gets the feeling it’s a source of high dudgeon for most of the posters around here that the government (and especially under Bush) should try to prohibit anyone from saying and/or showing anything they want. And if you’ll permit me, your logic is the one which is lacking. How can you look at what has occured in rap music and claim that television would not become a cesspool of vulgarity, profanity and vulgarity if all standards were eliminated?
Boy, you guys are really fixated on the word “bullshit” aren’t you? Isn’t this argument really a bit disingenuous? You know as well as I do that “bullshit” isn’t the one and only word where this issue is going to come up, and you know fully well that “bullshit” is merely a door-opener for more offensive words to follow. You want to agree to side with me completely should I agree that the use of the word “bullshit” is permissable but that no other currently prohibited word will ever be permitted? If not, then you tacitly admit that you have a larger agenda than you’re trying to appear to have and you expose yourself as the disingenuous hypocrite that I already know you to be. Of course, should you agree that as long as “bullshit” is the only prohibited word you will ever champion, I will be happy to retract my accusations of hypocrisy and disingenuousness.
Intellectually dishonest? You mean, asking you to offer proof for your assertions rather than making up fantasies is “intellectually dishonest”? It’s “intellectually honest”, though, to make up stories and use them as evidence in an argument? Trying to argue on the basis of facts is “dishonest”?
Unreal.
I’m familiar with your habit of blowing off attempts at reasoned discourse based upon facts rather than fantasies.