Kick Janet in the teeth for showing her nipple? How quaint: restore the balance through violence.
Look. It’s not her fault that people hysterically overreacted to a bit of boob. **It’s not her fault that people hysterically overreacted to a bit of boob. ** Don’t blame the wrong person here.
I would love for us to go to a European system. Nonsexual nudity isn’t really a problem on television; sexual nudity isn’t really a problem after say 10 pm. Violence on television is restricted during hours that kids might be watching.
No, not a false dilemma. A bit of hyperbole maybe, but only to illustrate a point.
FWIW, I agree that self-censorship works to a degree, but I have no doubts that some stations would get away with murder if they could. Do you really think that Fox would show any amount of self-retraint if they didn’t have to?
As it is, I’m fairly satisfied with things the way they are. Limit racy content for broadcast TV and basic cable, where nearly anyone has access. Impose no limits where consumers have to put in a little effort to watch, such as premium channels, pay-per-view, and video rentals.
:sigh: Banal means the same thing so my earlier point still stands but you know what they say about arguing on the internet. I’ve had my little say and I’ll drop it.
For the record, “I blame Janet” in my OP was a throwaway line. I thought the grain of salt and sarcasm was a little more obvious than it apparently was. But, at the same time, it certainly was a turning point in the over-cautiousness of what can and can’t be broadcast, not only on TV, but on radio. Howard Stern (maybe not the best example), Bono, Clear Channel, Dale Earnhardt, Jr (probably a better example) and others would probably agree.
Going forward, and to avoid further misunderstandings, sarcasm by me will be more clearly defined, perhaps by making it different color text. Present example included.
I also was not the one who advocated kicking her in the teeth.
Apparently you threw it away before you even posted it–it doesn’t appear in your OP at all :). What does appear there is:
and, in a later post,
I’ll take your word that you were being sarcastic–that you DON’T think she bears responsibility for the nonsense, and that you DON’T hold her accountable for our having this conversation–but that’s not the impression I got from the posts.
All the same, my real ire was directed at the kid who suggested kicking her in the teeth, a gruesome suggestion even in jest.
So wait - your grandfather was involved in the Normandy Invasion and you never bothered to ask him about it? Huh.
Anyway, I’d love them to show Kill Bill uncut on TV. But incredible direction, brilliant acting, and some of the best fighting scenes in cinematic history don’t stand up to a film that tells us what we want to hear about World War II. Christ was Saving Private Ryan ever mediocre. But silly, patronizing sentimentality seems to be popular around here.
OH MY GOD!! We’re going down a slippery slope! First we see a nipple, then a war movie, and soon they’ll FORCE our children to watch pornography like in A Clockwork Orange. While people from Massachusetts are forcing us into polyamorous relationships with out pets! When’s it all end, huh?
So a relative fought in World War II, thus any movie about it, no matter how poor in quality, is Holy and not to be questioned. Gotcha.
First of all, I’m from Massachusetts and I can tell you from first hand experience that no one forcing us into polyamorous relationships with out pets. It remains optional. So there.
Secondly, yeah, it was a slippery slope argument. I know. But I said it to illustrate that there are some boundries past which none of us will go. So I think we can all agree that some level of censorship is acceptable, even desireable. The question is, how much is too much?
Yup, we’re all in danger. Nipples, porn, polygamy with farm animals, dogs and cats living together (they do at my house, I’m already doomed), and you know what THAT leads to. It leads to singing, card playing and dancing. :eek:
Pvt. Ryan is a war movie. It is nothing more, nothing less. War movies are violent. You can’t shoot or blow up the Bad Guy in any nice way, it’s violent. So there’s cursing. GI’s do curse a lot. So what? You hear the same words at work, in school, at home, on the street. I don’t see why the movie had to be cancelled. Stupid.
Hey, dickhead: try and figure out the difference between a movie about an historical event and the event itself. You liked the movie. Fantastic. I didn’t. So fucking what? Not liking Saving Private Ryan is not the same as disrespecting the people who fought and died on the beaches, and fuck you for not being able to tell the difference.
I meant “with our pets”. Not “with out pets”. I was typing on a qwerty keyboard in a computer lab, and it makes things difficult for me. At any rate, sure, there’s a point you don’t want to cross. But when has anyone suggested doing that? Have any of the networks decided to show porn during Saturday morning cartoons?
That’s all I was trying to get at. I’m just not nice about things. Don’t get me wrong; US involvement in World War II was necessary and it’s one of the best things we’ve done as a nation. But the movie was still lame.
When a historically accurate* film showing the heroics of our soldiers in WWII is described as “trite propaganda”, my knee tends to jerk. I think it is important that people realize the horror or war and the sacrifice given. IMO, this puts films like this and Schindler’s List in a very different category than ones like Kill Bill.
I am able to tell the difference and I am able to understand your point/argument, even if the reverse is not true. I withdraw my childish name-calling to you as well.
*I am basing this on the reaction and comments of Vets I know as well as the reported reactions of Vets I don’t.
Why the different standards for cable and broadcast? I guess the logic is that one must buy the cable service, while broadcast is free, but to me, there seems to be some pieces missing in that logic.
