|why is it more offensive||MJ|
Jan 29, 2003 10:14 AM
|to see Snoop Dog flipping people off on TV, celebrities drinking and swearing than it is to see the countless murders and violent deaths which are portrayed on US TV every day?
Jan 29, 2003 10:25 AM
|I have no idea. All I can think of is "jaded." We are used to one and not the other. With public executions in our history, it's probably not surprising.|
|re: why is it more offensive||BikeViking|
Jan 29, 2003 11:56 AM
|Never quite understood that either. It takes a watchful parent to ensure kids aren't exposed to age-inappropriate material.|
|I think it's illogical too.||Spoke Wrench|
Jan 29, 2003 2:49 PM
|As I indicated a week or so ago, other than while fighting in a war, I don't know anybody who has killed another person. Virtually everybody that I know has sex relations.
Why should we find it more offensive to show the things that we all do than to show really graphic murder and violence that most of us wouldn't dream of doing?
|OK, how about "Why is sex worse than violence?"||Silverback|
Jan 30, 2003 8:11 AM
|Most of us probably don't think anything of our kids watching a television show where people are shot or beaten up, or where rape is strongly implied. But how many of us would let them watch a show where a married couple made consensual love? Peepees are dirty and guns are clean, or what?|
|re: why is it more offensive||Funston|
Jan 30, 2003 8:50 AM
|Mebbe its because of the helpless finality of death, and the curiosity the aftermath holds. The viewer is merely a spectator rather than a participant.
Flipping off someone, acting rowdy and insulting are intermediate acts which are invitations to further trouble and mayhem. They can draw the viewer into a state of participation whereby the viewer becomes emotionally involved. It's called 'stooping down to one's level' and maybe that's whats offensive about it.
|not flaming you||MJ|
Jan 30, 2003 10:09 AM
|but your post seems excessively contrary and actually not very logical
if people screwing (or rowdy, swearing and drinking) is more emotive than death, killing and violence then things are back asswards and I know which I'd rather people get involved in when I'm in their neck of the woods...
plus death, killing and violence are rarely portrayed on TV with anything approaching what could be considered curiosity (though I agree it could be in some circumstances)
|not flaming you||Funston|
Jan 30, 2003 10:32 AM
|I didn't say one is more, or less, emotive than the other.
Let me try again - killing is not something the vast majority ever participate in, much less experience on a close personal level (a loved one getting killed, etc.). So I would say that even while watching it happen on a non-reality show (as opposed to a reality show), there is a certain measure of spectative curiosity and emotional separation based upon inexperience and unfamiliarity with the act. I'm not judging whether this is good or bad, just offering a possible explanation to your question.
On the other hand, the other things are things which we do encounter and experience. Who wants to be reminded of their lousy sex life by watching people screwing; to be reminded of the a-hole who ran you off the road the other day by the guy on TV giving a finger to someone, etc. etc.
Maybe people think TV is a vehicle to escape reality, not to remind them of it. Once again, killing and deaths remain in the realm of fantasy to most all of us. Like what we'd secretly like to do to our boss....