(no subject)

[tinpra]

I thought this post by valynn on christiangoth was interesting. Have we taken tolerance too far? Where does tolerance end/begin and acceptance of all and sundry begin/end? And who decides?

Comments

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

Taken tolerance too far? No. If only because my first reaction is to want to punch someone who uses the phrase, "sexual immorality," I would say no. I would also say no, because that person is equating depictions of immorality with actual immorality, and, although I don't know Jesus (unlike that poster, apparently - ;-) ), I kind of doubt that He's intensely concerned with the state of children's cartoons. Especially when there is that little thing called free will. ;)

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

But one of the ways things are normalized is by showing them. If you see something that heretofore had been taboo being depicted as not anymore, as the norm for a TV family or a celebrity, etc., then the message is that it can be or should be the norm for regular people as well.

Yes there is free will. Ultimately we all make our own choices and we are all responsible for what we personally do, but as a people we are also responsible for the decisions we make corporately, as a society regarding what is okay to show on television, in movies, in art, and whether those things are okay to show to our young people, or if something is considered deviant.

Jesus said that God knows how many hairs we have, that He clothes lilies in splendor greater than kings, and that He sparrows fated for sacrifice are not forgotten by Him. I think He cares about the state of children's cartoons. (Though if that means I should have watched a lot less Loony Tunes and Tom and Jerry I'll be rather sad. I really like when Bugs is bad. But I guess that's more of a statement about me, hmm?)

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

But one of the ways things are normalized is by showing them. But showing something is not the same thing as normalizing it or making it something that everyone readily accepts. And, considering human beings are such complex things, it's difficult to make any argument that proves what's shown on television causes any sort of change in behavior in the viewer.

I've made no secret about the garbage I watched as a kid. Forget Looney Tunes. I watched all sorts of crap, and the thing is I didn't (and nobody else I knew who had a similar childhood did) turn around and do any of the things I saw. I've never blown up a building. I've never considered running someone over and then changed my mind and had sex with them instead. Depiction in those instances - even when it was the norm for the show - didn't translate into "this can be the norm for us, and it'll be okay."

People can, as a whole, see what another person, fictional or not, does and resist the temptation to repeat that behavior. Watching a fictional character decide to have an abortion isn't going to automatically translate into "oh, well, it's great for me to have an abortion too." That's just not how it works; people can cite those things as reasons, but I suspect that those individuals have always leaned in that direction anyway.

And again, a depiction of something doesn't necessarily mean that it a). is the norm, b). is what the writer/actor/director believes should be the norm, and c). is what people will take away as to what should be the norm. If I write something with two animals talking to one another in English, it may be what I would like to see as the norm, :P, but that doesn't mean it is or that everyone will agree with me. Similarly, if someone writes two gay people in a loving family, that's never going to translate as the norm for human beings, as most people aren't gay. And it's also not necessarily going to translate into people becoming more okay with gay people.

And even if it did, ultimately, I don't think it's our job as "society" to censor what we show on television because a young kid might see it. That job belongs to parents. ;-) But seriously, it would be wrong to never depict something just because some jackass might get the "wrong idea." You wouldn't be able to show anything then.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying this is something that happens overnight--not for one person or even for society. But look at how television content has changed just in our (b/c we're about the same age) lifetime. What was okay to show on television only late at night when I was a girl is now okay to show on a Sunday/Saturday morning. I used to watch things like Puff the Magic Dragon early on a Sunday morning, or some other semi-cheesy family movie, early Sun mornings, not Reservoir Dogs.

Like anything else it's a process. And like any process there are lots of steps involved. I'm not sure if this is valynn's point as well, but certainly my point is that television plays a major role in influencing society as a whole and thus, eventually, us as individuals, though it's not the only thing. And even though I didn't mention it, society in turn effects television and reflects how we feel about the world.

[lieueitak.livejournal.com]

Okay, lets hope livejournal likes my reply this time. ;-)

This conversation reminds me of the song, "Anything Goes," written in 1934. Ask Cole Porter and our culture was completely destroyed before you and I were even born, LOL.

In all seriousness, though, I think it's a common theme throughout time that the current society has somehow gone too far or pushed the envelope too much. And that probably has a lot to do with our beliefs as human beings that we existed on a very straight line -- always progressing and evolving into something better and newer.

But truly, it seems to me that things are always much more convoluted than that. So you watched Puff the Magic Dragon as a kid. That's great. But don't forget that the same year Puff came out, Maude was going off the air. And for the six years or so prior, that television show had had a main character have an abortion (among other things). We may have Reservoir Dogs now, yes. But we also have Arthur and Peep and the Big Wide World and those damn Duggars. :P

There's always going to be a wide range of programs, and that's okay; that's good, because television's goal isn't, nor should it be, to merely entertain and get the approval of conservative Christians (as though they can all agree on what's okay anyway). If it were all about what that single group of individuals wanted, we would never have seen a pregnant woman on television. We would have never had a married couple sleep in the same bed. And it's always hilarious to note that those two things were the main concerns/topics of discussion with I Love Lucy -- and not the fact that Ricky had that wonderful habit of spanking Lucy when she stepped out of line. ;)

Television is part of the process, sure. But the fact of the matter is pregnancy wasn't any more or less okay, because it was shown on television. Nor was it any more or less okay to sleep with or hit your spouse. It can create discussion, further change along, but it's not a guarantee. And it's not right to censor programs, because it MIGHT affect someone in a way that others perceive to be negative.

Because if we did that, then you couldn't show anything on television. Ever. Because part of the television viewing audience is people like me, who would show their kids a Quentin Tarantino movie over the Duggars any day.