I dont mean to criticize, but could you cite some examples of humor which dont involve pointing out differences, dont involve someone being hurt or embarrassed or dont involve making fun of traditonal mores or beliefs?
Humor comes from conflict, as does drama. But the fact is, the TV sotted, jaded viewing public wont watch sitcoms which arent relevent in some way to their lives. They will only get interested in something they can relate to.
Ozzy and Harriet treated it one way, Roseanne another, but both are equally valid. Personally I found Roseanne to be much more funny, not only because she was willing to stretch the bounds and push limits, but also because the writing was so honest. I found this type of show much more relevent to my own life, than I did Ozzie and Harriet's manufactured crises every week. I just couldnt relate to David and Ricky losing the church's lemonade money, when Dan Conner was having a heart attack at his daughter's wedding.
Also, your idea of morality may not be everyone else's. What you find immoral may be survival to someone else. It's always a bad notion to believe you are wise enough to determine morality for everyone else. Morality should stem from overriding principle: "If doing it hurts another person, don't do it." No law should be passed which cannot in some way have this as its litmus test.
Another point to consider: If what you're watching on TV (or the movies or whatever) offends you, don't watch it. Turn the channel, walk out of the theater and demand your money back, whatever it takes, for you to protect yourself from all this immorality. If enough people who feel the way you do would do that simple thing, the shows you don't like will most likely be cancelled. Just a an aside, have you ever considered how many laws we have on the books right now, passed because someone thought someone ELSE shouldnt be doing something?
Have you EVER heard of someone writing a letter to their congressman, relating something to the effect, "I have a gambling problem. I dont believe I am adult enough to be responsible for my own actions, so I would like you to pass a law making it illegal for me and others like me to gamble." No, course you havent. It's always been, "I see people gambling, I dont like gambling, so they are a danger (judgement) and I dont think they should be allowed to do that." End of aside. Sorry about that, but your very general question about morality makes it impossible to get specific in my answers. It's funny how often morality is used to justify repressing others, to get them to be "more like me".
The advice I give to people who don't like a situation or policy or whatever is this: (For Example) People complain there arent enough of a particular racial group on TV. I reply, instead of complaining, start your own TV station and start producing TV series featuring the racial group you believe is under-represented. I would offer you the same challenge, Write a funny TV script full of clean, relevent humor. I'm sure there are enough people out there who, feeling as you do, would support and watch such a show. BUT, you have to make it funny. Which means someone has to be hurt or embarrassed. It's not funny any other way. Humor comes at someone's expense, simple as that.
There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional morality. If a particular "moral" practice is popular and widely accepted i.e., suitable or necessary for the survival of the species), it wont be funny and hence, probably wont be made fun of in the future. If the practice is weak and the public gets behind the humor of the situation, that "Moral" will be scrapped or modified to be more appropriate.
This is not meant to be an attack, but do you feel your own morals are so weakly ingrained in you, that some TV show can pervert you? If not, how about creditting the rest of us with the same moral fortitude as you feel you have?
And to the people who use their answers here as a commercial for reinstituting prayer in schools, I say this. While I do agree with the separation of Church and State, if Church wants to be a larger influence in government, whether at the state or local level, then they should reject their "tax-exempt" status and start payiing their share like any other business. Religions make millions of dollars every year and pay nothing in taxes. Yet they feel they have the right to run a government they dont pay for. Would you accept someone else telling what you house you should buy, when theyre not the ones paying for it? Religion is not the answer.
2006-07-08 14:08:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
10⤊
2⤋
Basically, we've taken our freedoms of speech a little too far, I would presume. As Americans we have the freedom to speak our minds with relatively little backlash from censoring agencies. The media has a powerful influence on our culture as a whole, so if tv and movies promote immorality, it becomes more acceptable in society. It sounds kinda sad to say that we are herded by the media, but then consider this: prior to the 2nd Clinton Administration sex was sex no matter what the specific form of it; afterwards, it became very vague, so much so that even in sex ed it has become a bit more harder to be concretely defined-- my point being that that is the impact that only one man (albeit the president at the time) had on influencing our country's morality.
2006-07-08 13:42:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by jermaine 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
With the exception of some Muslim countries the United States has always been more strict on its controls of TV and entertainment but perversion and immoral thoughts, actions, and behavior have always been there. Years ago it was more concealed as Broadcast TV, Radio and print was far more controlled but as Government began to remove prayer from the schools and restrict the Church and as Courts began to implement rulings that called anything that was associated with the Church, Christianity etc off limits due to separation of church and state then our society has gone down and respect for religion, morals and life itself has unfortunately been lost. I don't look for it to improve either. Another factor has to be the explosion of information via TV, Cable TV, Satellite TV, and the Internet. Everything is so much more in the open and you see now behind the curtains that used to be closed behind the only three networks that existed. As competition expanded people pushed the limits to appeal to a greater and wider audience and standards were relaxed as well and in part due to cries from the public as well as entertainers.
2006-07-08 13:44:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by alagk 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
when you consider that whilst has any Christian pronounced that those issues are proper? In exceedingly a lot each occupation that comprises interplay with infants, you will get pedophiles regardless of their ideals. that's purely a lot extra major (and a lot extra media-lined) whilst somebody from the Church does it, by way of fact they are supposedly the holders of the moral severe floor, a minimum of traditionally. So any hypocrisy stands out like a sore thumb. even with the incontrovertible fact that it does not recommend that Christians are from now on perverted than each individual else. in fact the quite records are possibly the same for the time of all human beings even with faith or perception. that's no longer the Christianity that makes them perverted. that's the human beings themselves who're already perverted.
2016-12-10 06:41:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Problem is the very thing you complain about makes money. Example In find Rap repulsive and offensive yet Rappers sell millions of records. Filth sells its that simple. Lenny Bruce was a famous comic many decades ago. Do you know why he was famous? Not because he was funny but because he used filthy words in his act. Sex filth etc sells until it stops it will only get worse.
2006-07-08 13:39:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because in this society unfortunately ,it began with the removal of God , and now wrong is right and right is wrong, i am of the last generation (1977) who caught the end of a clean tv and radio society, it's sick and perverted. so I personally boycott tv and radio. I watch King of Queens dvd and i am careful what i watch if i do watch tv, I watch no news at all
2006-07-08 13:38:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The reason is because most consumers do not complain where it counts: the adbertizers. When people begin to boycott the products that sell sleaze, then and only then will it make a difference. I do not buy from "questionable" advertisers .
2006-07-08 13:46:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by missmayzie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you considered that maybe you are in the minority since, as you have noticed, most of the world disagrees with you? Maybe the problem is just that you are too judgemental of others.
2006-07-08 13:39:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Larry 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why is the rest of the world so uptight?
2006-07-08 13:37:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Blunt Honesty 7
·
0⤊
0⤋