Card's latest complaint about American society -- the Neil Simon one -- came with a letter from our moderator attached. Needless to say, I found myself again sympathizing with the broader thrust of her point, but disgusted by the manner in which she made it and the highly presumptive undertones that saturated her observations.
Here's the excerpt that most bugged me:
quote: Peter, Paul and Mary's most popular songs have never been my favorites. I didn't expect when I went to the concert that I'd be lucky enough to hear them sing (my preferred songs), but I did hope I'd be able to forget about the cares of the world and lose myself in some music. That's why people GO to concerts, for crying out loud. We don't go to be patronized and lectured and propagandized. We don't go to be reminded what's wrong in the world -- especially by people who don't have a clue that it's their attitudes that are doing the world more harm than all the things they're railing against.
Leaving aside the assumption that most people only go to folk concerts to "lose themselves in some music" -- an assumption that, given the activist origins of modern folk music, is one that I don't think can be granted -- I find it mind-boggling that Kathy can say, with an apparently straight face, that the pacifist and ardently (even stridently) liberal attitudes of Peter, Paul, and Mary are "doing the world more harm than all the things they're railing against."
Given that Peter, Paul, and Mary rail against war, intolerance, greed, despotism, violence, bigotry, and ignorance -- even if they do so ineffectually and, God knows, repetitively -- I'm left baffled by this statement. Surely Kathy recognizes the hyperbole inherent in her position. Does she really think that three FOLK SINGERS did the world more harm than, say, the Vietnam War? Are children dying in Africa right now not because of the kind of economic disparity, crushing hopelessness, and violent pogroms that Peter, Paul and Mary rail against, but actually BECAUSE Peter, Paul, and Mary are more liberal than Kathy expected?
See, what she fails to understand is that the same alarmist hyperbole that makes much liberal activism so tiresome is present in spades in the observations of the whiny traditionalists who complain about it.
The sky isn't falling. From EITHER direction.
[ August 22, 2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
See, i think source of problems in all of these sorts of discussions (which usually degenerate into arguments), is the disgust.
Is the disgust really necessary?
Kathy disapproves of PP&M's position, and attributes to said positions things that aren't reasonable (as tom points out). But then Tom attributes disgust with said disapproval.
I think the disapproval is unreasonable and really rather pointless (as is the main thrust of Tom's post), but i don't see why disgust necessarily needs to be brought up in all of this.
Really, the world seems to be made up of a whole lot of people who disapprove of things, and then get horrifically offended when they're told in a rather brusque manner that their view of the world is unreasonable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:what she fails to understand is that the same alarmist hyperbole that makes much liberal activism so tiresome is present in spades in the observations of the whiny traditionalists who complain about it.
In that case Tom, one's position on the subject merely becomes-- whose rant do I like the most? Peter, Paul, and Mary's? Or Kathryn Kidd's?
quote:I find it mind-boggling that Kathy can say, with an apparently straight face, that the pacifist and ardently (even stridently) liberal attitudes of Peter, Paul, and Mary are "doing the world more harm than all the things they're railing against."
Ideas can be as dangerous as actions. After all, no action can be taken without some thought placed behind it. An overworn example is that Hitler's persecution of the Jews never would have occured if the philosophical and (im)moral basis for his tyranny hadn't first been propagated.
Thoughtcrime!
I've long held that the modern folk music concert is Hippie Church. Bunch of old people getting together to listen to a domineering monologue about how the world is messed up, how they're the only ones who recognize it, how everyone else is stupid or powerless, and everyone goes home and nothing changes. I don't go to them because I don't believe the curriculum, and I don't want to be lectured on why my unbelief makes me an oppressive tyrant. I understand the attraction the concerts generate, though-- I am, after all a card-carrying, Sunday-school attending, Mormon, and we meet for three hours every week to commiserate on how terrible the world is, and how we're the only ones that can do anything about it, and then we all go home and do nothing.
The only difference is there are no acoustic guitars or harmonicas in Mormon meetings, which is a pity. Oh, and the obvious philosophical gap.
Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
I'd love to read Kathy's letter. Where can I find it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scroll Down Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:After all, no action can be taken without some thought placed behind it. An overworn example is that Hitler's persecution of the Jews never would have occured if the philosophical and (im)moral basis for his tyranny hadn't first been propagated.
Very true. But is Kathy really making the argument that Peter, Paul and Mary's opinions are leading to worse human disasters than the things they oppose -- like war, bigotry, and poverty? I mean, I suppose you can blame folk singers for the continued baffling popularity of tambourine music and wood-soled sandals -- but is that REALLY worse than nuclear holocaust? (Okay, don't answer that.)
Or is she making a very subtle point: that by being so whiny and annoying, folk singers encourage their opposition -- making it possible to elect conservative thugs to positions of political importance? I didn't think this was her argument, but I suppose it makes more sense than "folk music is worse than widespread plague and starvation."
[ August 22, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Old Martin Mull joke: Did you hear about the Great Folk Music Scare in the 60's?
That crap almost caught on.
(I probably mangled the original wording.)
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I found myself again sympathizing with the broader thrust of her point, but disgusted by the manner in which she made it...
Disgusted?
Can we please have a conversation, occasionally, where someone doesn't feel the need to trot out hyperbole?
Disgusted. Please.
There was absolutely nothing disgusting about Kathy's letter. If you want to feel disgusted, listen to Carol Mosely Braun for about 30 seconds.
I agree with Kathy's opinions, although I think she credits Peter, Paul and Mary with a bit too much power. Of course, I've never liked their music, so maybe it does have more of an effect on normal humans.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, no. I WAS disgusted.
Why?
Because Kathy's always seemed like a lovely person to me, and I think this letter was an indication that she too can fall into the same kind of revolting "culture war" trap that drowned Jettboy and is tugging at Jacare.
I've said before -- and I'll say again -- that I think the ONLY thing that could ever destroy this country would be a bunch of people fighting a "culture war" with the intention of saving it. And so I'm both depressed and disgusted when people I otherwise respect display symptoms of the disease.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Great post, Scott.
The problem, Scott, is that ideas are only one part of the whole equation. Hitler's ideas caught on because of the circumstances surrounding WW I, and don't forget that he forced them down people's throats such that they had no choice but to accept Nazi ideals or be shot. There were many people who disagreed with Hitler.
As long as people are free to choose, you will have heterogeneity and diversity of belief. You will have a vibrant dialogue that makes society stronger, that is procreative and fecund. As long as people are free to choose, you will never have one idea triumph to any large degree over another. Over any large length of time, people will only use ideas that work. It is only when people seek to have their beliefs enshrined into law (and I'm not sure that I'm not speaking of cultural law, as well. But for right now, I just mean civil, state law) such that no other action based on any other belief is possible that you run into problems. It is only then that a Hitler can occur.
What I'm saying is that Kidd is wrong that P,P&M's ideas are going to cause a lot of destruction. How can that be? If people see that P,P,&M's ideas are destructive or harmful, then they will stop using them. Why are people going to harm themselves? Because the idea somehow 'makes' them do it? This is contrary to the basic functions of any organism and, I think, the way most people think.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
No hyperbole in that post, Tom.
[ August 22, 2003, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, I don't think there is.
I sincerely believe that the single biggest danger facing America today -- far worse than drugs, crime, terrorism, poverty, or ANY of that stuff -- is people thinking that their culture is better than the other guy's culture, and that they should be using the law to enforce it.
So-called "liberals" are as guilty of this as "conservatives," mind you, although my personal definition of "liberal" would ideally preclude this behavior.
I AM afraid of people who talk about "culture war," because they not only think it'll happen but think they're fighting one already. And at some point, when people are backed up against a wall, we're going to have to compromise or split apart -- and with people in Utah not willing to put up with swear words, and folk singers singing about lesbians, I'm not sure how willing a compromise is likely.
The trick, as I see it, is to remember to like and love PEOPLE -- not as types, but as people. Dismissing adherents of a certain "type" of thought ultimately dehumanizes them, and makes it easier to legislate against their lives.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
...people thinking that their culture is better than the other guy's culture, and that they should be using the law to enforce it.
People like Peter, Paul and Mary perhaps?
I don't think that Kathy has ever used the phrase "culture war," BTW.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thankfully, this is true. However, she HAS said that she believes folk singers are worse for the world than nuclear war, so I'm going to file that in the appropriate category. *grin*
------
As to the "Peter, Paul and Mary are just as oppressive" issue -- you're probably right. You'll notice that at no time am I defending their tendency to divide the world into "us" and "them" camps.
In fact, if THAT had been the main thrust of Kathy's article, I would have applauded; I'll point back to my first post on this thread, in which I indicated that I agreed with the general thrust of her complaint, but not the specifics nor the way she made it.
[ August 22, 2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:and with people in Utah not willing to put up with swear words
Don?t forget beer and smokes. And Democrats. Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Tom, while i agree with your pov, there is a large group of people out there who won't grant your basic premiss. They genuinely believe that their ideals when codified as law, will lead to a better and more successful society.
This makes sense when their operational definition of what "good" is stems from the observance of these ideals.
Thus, you're not ever going to change absolutists (or at least, i haven't ever figured out a way).
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
and with people in Utah not willing to put up with swear words,
First of all, the theatre did not try to have its opinion of language that it considered to be foul "codified" into law. They just wanted to perform the play without the inappropriate language.
There was no law preventing the theatre from performing the play, filth in tact, except the laws of economics: the ones that say that you have to sell tickets to remain a viable economic enterprise.
In that particular community, many families want to have their children exposed to the theatre. They are very supportive of the arts. They just would prefer to avoid a whole lot of unecessary swearing, if at all possible.
Does that make them the Taliban?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think this letter was an indication that she too can fall into the same kind of revolting "culture war" trap that drowned Jettboy and is tugging at Jacare.
This sentence disgusts me.
OK, not really. But I do feel a bit unsettled in being compared to Jettboy since he is on the ultra conservative end of the spectrum and I generally consider myself moderately conservative.
I don't what else to say about this. Of course there are thousands of American subcultures but two really big, expansive paradigms which include many subcultures seem to be at center stage just now and the differences between the two seem to be growing, with a resultant amount of friction. There are all sorts of symptoms of this struggle: The Alabama judge and his monument, the recent supreme court ruling on sodomy, the Bush "faith based initiatives" and so on. Would it make people more comfortable if instead of referring to such things in terms of a culture war I just called them cultural frictions?
At any rate, it seems to me that the friction we see is symptomatic of incompatible underlying social philosophies. The difference between what is occurring now and what has occurred in the past is perhaps only in the eye of the beholder, but from my point of view (as a conservative) it seems as if the ultra-liberal vocal minority is growing more strident and effecting more change with the result that many moderates and becoming more polarized. I suppose something of the same sort occurred during the 70's with the sprouting up of communes, free love etc. The difference now seems to be that many leaders of "the establishment" have also bought into these ultra-left wing ideologies.
Of course I can see some other points of view. The one most commonly taken is probably that what we are seeing is just the same steady "progress" of society that has been occurring all along. This viewpoint sees things such as the recent supreme court decision as progress of the same vein as Brown vs the board of education etc.
Perhaps it is.
Or perhaps the apparent recent upsurge of religious fundamentalists and their ilk in the political arena is simply the standard pendulum swing that occurs every several yeasrs or so from liberal to conservative.
Or perhaps the conservatives are so concerned with maintaining the status quo that they are willing to allow oppressed minorities to suffer.
I don't believe any of these (grossly simplified) alternatives. I hope that politically we see more of moderation and comprmise and less of the party in power doing nothing more than shredding all of the other party's policies indiscriminately and forcing the voters to always choose the lesser of two evils rather than choosing good. But I doubt that such a change will occur anytime soon. I think that the seeds of very serious societal discord have been and are being sown, and I shudder to think what we might reap ten or twenty years from now.
Edit- too slow at the keyboard.
quote:I AM afraid of people who talk about "culture war," because they not only think it'll happen but think they're fighting one already. And at some point, when people are backed up against a wall, we're going to have to compromise or split apart -- and with people in Utah not willing to put up with swear words, and folk singers singing about lesbians, I'm not sure how willing a compromise is likely.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Will we compromise or split apart? It all depends on our future actions, of course. But based on present attitudes it seems to me that splitting apart is more likely than compromise. I don't know what that "splitting apart" might mean, but I am sure that it will be bad if it occurs.
[ August 22, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: there is a large group of people out there who won't grant your basic premiss. They genuinely believe that their ideals when codified as law, will lead to a better and more successful society.
I'd say that this "large group" is most everyone. Ihaven't met a person yet who didn't think that the world would be a better place if it was run according to their ideals.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
jacare, you bring this up frequently.
What on -earth- do you mean by ultra-liberal?
Because, once again, i have become increasingly more disenfranchised with the democrats over the course of the last few years. Of course now with the US being run by conservatives, i find myself swinging back to the defence of the democrats simply for the fact that i disagree with the republicans far more than the democrats.
In terms of national politics this can be seen in the manner that the Howard Dean campaign has managed itself. For instance quotes like "The democratic branch of the democratic party"
Bandying terms around is fine, but if people don't understand what you mean, the confusion starts Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
True Jacare, but I generally believe that other people are going to disagree with me and have no desire to legislate against actions that I may disagree with... EXCEPTING where a clear and present danger to citizens exists.
So, as an example, just because I may see starkly that a fetus is a human at conception, I realize that there is definite disagreement and perceived ambiguity in this area, and that my position rests solely on my beliefs/assumptions. Therefore, so long as I am not required to act in a way contrary to my beliefs, I will not attempt to stop others from acting in ways according to their beliefs (which may include getting abortions, medical contraception, etc).
I may try to convince others of my point of view in speech, press, and congregation (both civil and religious), as is my right, but that's as far as I feel I should go, as a citizen of a pluralistic society known as the USA.
-Bok
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
oh, i sort of mangled that post.
The point is that, this schism is noted in national politics by the Dean campaign.
There is a struggle currently in the democratic party on where the party should go, left, or center/right.
(i make this comment, because i would say the opposite, it has appeared to me that the moderates in the republican party have lost control of the party [if they ever had it] and that it's anyone who's left of center who are beseiged at the moment, and the similarity [with polarity switched] just struck me )
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: What on -earth- do you mean by ultra-liberal?
Ultra-liberal means different things depending on where you stand, of course. As a base how about this: most social policies supported by faculty from Berkeley or San Francisco politicians are ultra-liberal.
quote: So, as an example, just because I may see starkly that a fetus is a human at conception, I realize that there is definite disagreement and perceived ambiguity in this area, and that my position rests solely on my beliefs/assumptions. Therefore, so long as I am not required to act in a way contrary to my beliefs, I will not attempt to st
A good philosophy in theory, but in practice much more difficult. For example, if you think a fetus is a real human then you also think that abortion is killing a real human which constitutes a "clear and present danger". That's why I think we should compromise rather than debating either "no abortion for any reason" and "abortions for any reason at all".
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Jacare:
Heh, liberitarians and anarchists don't
I suppose you are correct though. I suppose this illustrates a bias that i have. People's belief structures lead them to want legislation on different subjects. So while i would prefer polution controls, and believe codifying marriage is preposterous, i understand that other people will believe differently.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:i make this comment, because i would say the opposite, it has appeared to me that the moderates in the republican party have lost control of the party [if they ever had it] and that it's anyone who's left of center who are beseiged at the moment, and the similarity [with polarity switched] just struck me
Again, a good example that the view depends on where you are standing. Actually, I was thinking of a quote from Dean too, though I don't recall exact words. Something to the effect that Democrats should go back to being Democrats rather than moderates <shudders>.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Jacare:
unfortunately, that, to me, is just as vague, because since Berkeley liberalism has i'm sure covered everything under the sun, and since San Fransisco seems to be nationally associated with homosexuality, i'm not entirely sure what that means still.
Usually, when i think california, i think high environmently control, to the extreme that it's actually damaging (yes, even i think that californian environmentalists are too far left).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This is exactly what I'm talking about. Will we compromise or split apart? It all depends on our future actions, of course. But based on present attitudes it seems to me that splitting apart is more likely than compromise. I don't know what that "splitting apart" might mean, but I am sure that it will be bad if it occurs.
I think Tom's point was that there is a third alternative: we can continue to live in the same nation as a bunch of different cultures rather than one conglomerated 'compromise' culture or a bunch of split-up nations. He meant that if enough people become obsessed with a culture war, they will force the nation to either become culturally uniform (unlikely and undesirable) or split up (very undesirable).
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
::grins::
Well it depends what you mean by moderate then.
Because i don't like where the democratic party has gone, but i don't think that "further left" sufficies for the changes that i wish to see. Even the green party, who i align with more closely on some issues, i think are absolutely ridiculous.
But the again, my point is that the republicans are pushing right, and that i don't see why people are flipping out that some democrats want to push the other direction. I personally support the push left, simply because i completely disagree with where the people pushing right wish to go.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Pod- how about this: Nancy Pelosi is ultra-liberal.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:So, as an example, just because I may see starkly that a fetus is a human at conception, I realize that there is definite disagreement and perceived ambiguity in this area, and that my position rests solely on my beliefs/assumptions. Therefore, so long as I am not required to act in a way contrary to my beliefs, I will not attempt to stop others from acting in ways according to their beliefs (which may include getting abortions . . . .
I don't get this. If you believed a fetus was not human or if you had no opinion, I could totally understand legalizing abortion or taking no action to illegalize it. But if you believe a fetus is already a human being, if you believe it is a live person, how can you in good conscience do nothing to prevent what your own convictions tell you is murder? Isn't it contrary to your beliefs to tolerate murder?
"I think it's murder but I could be wrong, so I won't do it, but I'll let you . . . ."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
How is Nancy Pelosi ultra-liberal? I mean, what has she done as a politician that is ultra-liberal?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dang I'm slow.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Dest:
Very observent.
Some Canadians apparently roll their eyes at the term the American Melting Pot. Toronto for instance refers to itself as a cultural mosaic, where one does not have to lose one's own cultural society to contribute and be a part of the wider toronto culture. Given my introduction to canadian politics has illustrated how this influences the socio-political dynamics in Canada.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: But the again, my point is that the republicans are pushing right, and that i don't see why people are flipping out that some democrats want to push the other direction. I personally support the push left, simply because i completely disagree with where the people pushing right wish to go.
This is actually kinda my point. The Republicans seem to be moving in a direction (I hesitate to call "right" because it sure isn't right) while the Democrats move left. So who do you vote for if you don't want to see us move either farther right or left?
I actually identify with the libertarians in most things with a few glaring exceptions. I even vote for some from time to time (to no effect).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> But if you believe a fetus is already a human being, if you believe it is a live person, how can you in good conscience do nothing to prevent what your own convictions tell you is murder? << (Icarus)
He wouldn't be "doing nothing" at all, and he said that quite explicitly:
>> I may try to convince others of my point of view in speech, press, and congregation (both civil and religious), as is my right, but that's as far as I feel I should go, as a citizen of a pluralistic society known as the USA. << (Bok)
[ August 22, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think Tom's point was that there is a third alternative: we can continue to live in the same nation as a bunch of different cultures rather than one conglomerated 'compromise' culture or a bunch of split-up nations. He meant that if enough people become obsessed with a culture war, they will force the nation to either become culturally uniform (unlikely and undesirable) or split up (very undesirable).
I don't know how this is possible. On many important issues you simply can't have it both ways.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Heehee, Jacare, i think i agree with Stormy, i don't know what's so ultra-liberal about Pelosi.
To be quite honest, i don't think its really possible to get into national politics and be a true left wing loony.
Example: michael moore is not a politician.
(he wouuld be someone who i'd call extreme left, although, he's not the furthest left)
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: How is Nancy Pelosi ultra-liberal? I mean, what has she done as a politician that is ultra-liberal?
quote:Pelosi's voting record is a classic in liberal profiling. For the past two years, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave her a 100 percent rating. The same 100 percent approval came from the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). Pelosi supports abortion on demand at any time, for any reason. She has voted against a measure to outlaw the procedure known as partial birth abortion, which sucks the brains from a fully developed baby as he/she emerges from the birth canal. She voted against a bill that would outlaw transportation of minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion unless it was to protect the girl's life.
Pelosi wants the federal government to offer marital status to any type of human relationship.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jacare, to show you a little bit about the hijacking of the term liberal, largely by and propogated by self-described conservative entertainers.
10 years ago, I was more liberal than I am today. I was a liberal, but not considered ravingly so.
Today, being more moderate (though not a "moderate"), I am a _liberal_, with all the implication of being pink in the middle that the label currently entails.
How is this possible, unless that there has been a real move to the right... Maybe not all the way to where you are, Jacare, but still a very definite move. That you don't see this is likely due to your own more local community.
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Some Canadians apparently roll their eyes at the term the American Melting Pot. <<
Some? Pretty much everyone who isn't from Alberta. Alberta identifies much more closely with America than the rest of Canada, largely because they're our most conservative province by a country mile.
>> Toronto for instance refers to itself as a cultural mosaic, where one does not have to lose one's own cultural society to contribute and be a part of the wider toronto culture. <<
Indeed. Now that I've lived in Toronto I believe that this is in fact the case.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Today, being more moderate (though not a "moderate"), I am a _liberal_, with all the implication of being pink in the middle that the label currently entails.
How is this possible, unless that there has been a real move to the right... Maybe not all the way to where you are, Jacare, but still a very definite move. That you don't see this is likely due to your own more local community.
There is nothing I can really say to this. I think there has been a move right AND a move left by the two big political parties. The resultant policies are a confused mish mash of "Big Brother" and "pinko Commies".
quote: How is this possible, unless that there has been a real move to the right... Maybe not all the way to where you are, Jacare
The funny thing is, most of my friends and relatives think of me as liberal. A buddy at work said "If you weren't Mormon you'd be as liberal as the rest of us normal people."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks, Jacare.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: don't forget that he forced them down people's throats such that they had no choice but to accept Nazi ideals or be shot.
But this is not entirely true, Storm. Not even HALF true.
Hitler persuaded Germany first. The guns came later.
[ August 22, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
SS-
quote: Thanks, Jacare
ummm...you're welcome?
What are you thanking me for exactly?
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
okay, everyone except alberta then twink
Jacare:
I think this illustrates the differences over what each of us is concerned about. The things that i care about are personal privacy, fiscal policy, environmental protection, and retaining a balanced policy on how business is handled.
I can take or leave affirmative action stuff, reproductive rights are something i'm concerned about and watch to some degree, but isn't one of my top concerns.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
twink,
I don't think trying to convince people to accept your pov is quite active enough when it comes to something you personally believe is murder. Is that all you would do if someone was murdering a (born) child? If you believe abortion is murder, I don't see how you can settle for less than making it illegal.
That being said, I think Pro-Lifers are their own worst enemies, because rather than make the argument about when life begins, they constantly fall back to pictures of Jesus and Mary, making it seem like a Church and State issue, when it doesn't have to be one. Man, they could use some better leadership. Talk about failing to talk the same language as the people you are trying to communicate to . . .
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
For what it's worth, I happen to agree with Jacare that there is a cultural war coming. We may not start at the same place, but I definitely agree with him. My belief stems from the realization that we have integrated central government into so much of our life, that people almost have no choice but to scramble to make sure that either their beliefs are not trampled by the law, or that their beliefs are represented by the law.
What I'm saying is that the argument has stopped being about, why make this law, why involve the government in the first place?, to what kind of government are we going to use here? A 'conservative' government or a 'liberal' government?
I'm not a Libertarian, though I think there is a lot of merit to 'libertarianism'. So, I'm not necessarily arguing for the total replacement of government with private enterprise. I am arguing that the flow of power does not come up from communities any more, but comes down from Washington or whatever your state capitol is, and this means that you are going to have a cultural war because, in the end, it means that there's only one place of power that means anything. And, to use a little of that hyperbole that SW was complaining about , I think it is going to kill everything that's great about America.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Couldn't there be some sort of middle ground? It seems like the sides just don't listen to each other. As if both sides make good points and are certain degrees of right and wrong. Instead you get this irratating dismissal of ideas. I'm an idealist myself, but I'm on the side of humanity. I don't care about race, sexuality, religion, I care about what is best for all of humanity, so if I protest against gays being discriminated against or something like that it's only because what good does it do to keep these sort of ideas alive if all they do is hurt a great deal of people?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So there is a need for a new party. I would bet that if the Moderates on both sides got together and formed a new party it might be hugely sucessful. I don't know exactly what their mission statment would be. But, it would be easier to classifiy oneself as a politician. I'm a Moderate with leanings towards the democratic party or I'm a Moderate that agrees a bit more with the republicans. But, most true moderates borrow a bit from both sides. (Possibly Arnie in CA might be the best example).
Most moderates actually believe and act on true fiscal responsiblilty, which is far better than either party at the moment
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't care about race, sexuality, religion, I care about what is best for all of humanity..."
The problem is that there are many people out there who would argue that race, sexuality, and religion are in fact major issues facing humanity -- which they are -- and therefore it's necessary to take a stand on some mandate or another about 'em.
Which is ultimately why I'm a social libertarian. And would probably be a full-bore libertarian if so many of 'em weren't gun nuts and conspiracy theorists. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I don't think trying to convince people to accept your pov is quite active enough when it comes to something you personally believe is murder. Is that all you would do if someone was murdering a (born) child? If you believe abortion is murder, I don't see how you can settle for less than making it illegal. <<
And I am free to cast my vote accordingly in elections.
I am NOT free to become a radical nutjob and start killing doctors who do abortions.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I thought this was a thread about Peter Paul and Mary, and putting their convictions into their songs. I also thought that this was a thread concerning the opinion of Kathy Kidd and folk music.
How did this thread derail so badly?
I keep hearing about this "culture war" which I believe is a natural consequence of change and growth. Does this have to infect every thread that tries to talk about ideals? It certainly isn't an issue in every thread that deals with them.
It seems to me like Jacare feels threatened by the differences in our society. I'm sorry, Jacare, but that is how you are coming off, even if it isn't true....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jacare,
your illustration of how Nancy Pelosi was, to you, ultra-liberal.
Scott
quote:
Hitler persuaded Germany first. The guns came later.
Hitler did not persuade all Germans. What Germans he did persuade were influenced by the circumstances surrounding WW I, the blockade of Germany to force the Germans to sign the treaty of Versailles, and the subsequent enshrinement in power of of the freikorps.
Once the nazis came into power, they appropriated all power. There was no dissent. People were not able to choose anything other than to be nazis or be punished.
So, when I say that ideas are not promulgated in a vacuum, what I"m saying is that I believe we have to take into account the physical world, the circumstances that people live in, as well. People aren't going to go for ideas that appear to be counter-productive from the outset. They won't stay with them, if they have any choice, if they turn out to be counter-productive in the long run.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: It seems to me like Jacare feels threatened by the differences in our society. I'm sorry, Jacare, but that is how you are coming off, even if it isn't true....
I can't say if this is true or not because I don't know what you mean. If you mean that I seem like I would like a homogeneous society where everyone is exactly the same then you couldn't be more wrong. I enjoy cultural differences quite a lot, as a matter of fact. What Jacare DOES feel threatened by is the apparent (to me) polarization of our society into stodgy constitution tramplers on the one hand and throw all societal convention out the window constitution tramplers on the other hand.
quote:y belief stems from the realization that we have integrated central government into so much of our life, that people almost have no choice but to scramble to make sure that either their beliefs are not trampled by the law, or that their beliefs are represented by the law.
Good point SS. One of the things I agree with libertarians about is the need to pare back the federal governments and to return more power to the states.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Thanks for the clarification. I enjoy the differences as well. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:One of the things I agree with libertarians about is the need to pare back the federal governments and to return more power to the states.
Stormy's fear of centralization applies just as much to state governments as to the feds. Remember that it was the states, not the federal government, that established the institution of human slavery. And today it is the states, not the feds, who go into people's bedrooms looking for sodomy (on the one hand) and set down unrealistic environmental laws like California's (on the other). State power is no less dangerous than federal power.
And I think most libertarians would tell you that the power to make oppressive laws should belong neither to the feds nor to the states.
[ August 22, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Dest- good points. The reason that I think getting the power more localized is good is because individuals have more influence the lower you go in the food cahin. A small group can make a huge difference in local elections, but not national ones. Of course their must be limits to how much the state can enter your life- that's what the constitution is for. I think that communities should be free within the confiens of the constitution to create laws that support the type of place they want their community to be.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Peter, Paul, and Mary... I did hope I'd be able to forget about the cares of the world and lose myself in some music. ... We don't go to be reminded what's wrong in the world"
Undoubtedly gets ticked off at Gospel singers for mentioning God.
"...people out there who won't grant your basic premiss. They genuinely believe that their ideals when codified as law, will lead to a better and more successful society."
On the contrary, they no such belief: eg, sects which oppose abortion have the highest abortion rates amongst their membership; pro-choice groups have the lowest. Criminalization is mostly a tool to enforce church doctrine upon their own membership -- sticking their nose into the private lives of individuals within the greater society is a mere side effect -- because they lack faith in the competitive strength of their ideals.
"There was no law preventing the theatre from performing the play, filth intact..."
Also no law preventing them from performing another play with no such "filth". What they wanted was to enjoy the economic benefits of performing a known-to-be-successful project, a commercial must-see, while branding the playwright an idiot. Not surprising, really. They also believe The Playwright to be an idiot needing bowlderization.
"...most social policies supported by faculty from Berkeley or San Francisco politicians are ultra-liberal. ... Nancy Pelosi is ultra-liberal." Course'n some folks 'd probably call feeding, clothing, sheltering, and healing the poor as 'jes being Christian' (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc, or humane). And cleaning up ones own mess (pollution, drug abuse, etc) as just being civilized.
"Would it make people more comfortable if instead of referring to such things in terms of a culture war I just called them cultural frictions?"
I'd prefer a bit of truthfulness. It's Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, humanists, etc VERSUS occultists (who eg pray to cause God into eliminating certain Supreme Court Justices) and Satanists (who eg prevent children who won't swear oaths to God from joining the BoyScouts "because it's a Christian organization" cuz their faith in Satan as a Power -- aka the Manichean Heresy rejected by every Jewish/Christian/Muslim sect and denomination -- makes them reject Jesus' "Let the children come unto me.")
[ August 22, 2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> A small group can make a huge difference in local elections, but not national ones. <<
A small group with a lot of money can make a huge difference in national elections, too... which supports your point Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It's worth pointing out that this is the reason the Supreme Court refused to define what constitutes "offensive" speech, etc. They let that be determined by the local governments.
Same thing with, say, foul language. Language is, by definition, what a group of people agree it is. Meaning by massive consent of the users. "D'oh" is in the dictionary, for this very reason. Stuff like this is a matter of either personal or majority opinion, and is, by necessity, subjective and arbitrary.
FREX, I may be one of the six people in the U.S. who still believe something is 'nauseous' means 'sickening' instead of 'feeling sick', but since usage determines correctness, I'm wrong, no matter what my fourth grade textbook said. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed. It's "nauseating." Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*thwap!*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Course'n some folks 'd probably call feeding, clothing, sheltering, and healing the poor as 'jes being Christian' (or Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, etc, or humane). And cleaning up ones own mess (pollution, drug abuse, etc) as just being civilized.
What in hell are you talking about?
quote: "...people out there who won't grant your basic premiss. They genuinely believe that their ideals when codified as law, will lead to a better and more successful society."
On the contrary, they no such belief: eg, sects which oppose abortion have the highest abortion rates amongst their membership; pro-choice groups have the lowest. Criminalization is mostly a tool to enforce church doctrine upon their own membership -- sticking their nose into the private lives of individuals within the greater society is a mere side effect -- because they lack faith in the competitive strength of their ideals.
Ummm...where did you pull these ideas from? You are making blanket statements with no support whatsoever. If we take Utah as an example of a place where a large majority of the population holds a religious stigma against abortion we can compare the abortion rate in Utah to that of the rest of the country to see whether your premise that those religions which oppose abortion are hypocrites:
quote: Pregnancies and Their Outcomes In 1996, 6 million of the 60 million American women of reproductive age (15- 44) became pregnant. 64% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 21% in abortions; the remaining 15% ended in miscarriage.
In Utah, 55,338 of the 472,658 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 1996. 77% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 7% in induced abortions.
In 2000, 1.3 million American women obtained abortions, producing a rate of 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The rate declined 5% from 1996, when the abortion rate was 22.4 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44.
In 2000, 3,510 women obtained abortions in Utah, producing a rate of 6.6 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some Utah residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate declined 11% since 1996, when it was 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in Utah represent 0.3% of all abortions in the United States.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: One of the things I agree with libertarians about is the need to pare back the federal governments and to return more power to the states.
Yeah, if you noticed in my post, I lumped state governments in with federal governments. They suck, too, and are just as overly broad in legislation. I mean, instead of legislating for 350 million people, you're 'only' legislating for some tens of millions of people. What an improvement! :/ In most cases, I much prefer legislation that is centered around small communities where everyone knows everyone else.
Edit: As Destineer mentioned.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Yeah, if you noticed in my post, I lumped state governments in with federal governments. They suck, too, and are just as overly broad in legislation. I mean, instead of legislating for 350 million people, you're 'only' legislating for some tens of millions of people. What an improvement! :/ In most cases, I much prefer legislation that is centered around small communities where everyone knows everyone else.
I should have paid more attention. At any rate, I'm of the opinion that in general the more local you make many gov. functions the better they are likely to perform since often there is a much higher level of accountability.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Wow, Jacare...where did you get those stats??
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: In most cases, I much prefer legislation that is centered around small communities where everyone knows everyone else.
Within reason, I could agree with you. But where would you draw the line? I would propose that the majority of issues that actually require laws (as opposed to a local ordinance or code) need to cover a pretty large group. How could you function if the laws changed six times for the six communities you have to pass through on your way to and from work every day?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm not sure, KarlEd. Perhaps as long as you and your stuff are in your car, you can't be charged with violations of the community you go visit or pass through on your way to your destination, but if you leave your car with contraband, for instance, then you can be busted. Under a strict Libertarian plan, of course (not what I'm proposing), everything is private property with the ultimate power resting in the property owner. And remember that we're talking about all of this happening with US citizens. The Constitution applies.
I guess my thought is, right now how do people go from state to state or country to country? How do we function now when working with different people of widely differing backgrounds and tastes? When you talk about human culture and variability, there doesn't seem to be change so radically such that people can't adjust from one place to another.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
The problem with communities making the majority of the laws, rather than state and federal governments is one of mobility.
Americans don't just spend their entire lives in a village somewhere. They tend to travel, living in different places and just passing through many, many more.
For example, if states and the federal government didn't regulate highway speed limits, can you imagine what the speed traps would be like along the Interstates? Or you could move in to Salt Lake City and find out that before your children were enrolled in public education, they had to attend a year-long class on the LDS. Or New York City could enact a "Stop And Gawk At The Tall Buildings" tax for people who come from cities with less than 1 million people.
I believe that we do have too many rules and regulations, but I believe the majority of them should be at the federal level moving down to even smaller at state, county and local levels.
Otherwise you end up with Tight-A$$ed-Gaited-Communityville, Fla. and Do As Ya Wish, Idaho.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Wow, Jacare...where did you get those stats??
Jacare I'd be interested in seeing if availability was a factor in abortion rates.
From your site, there were 47 abortion providers in MA, while only 4 in UT. From the stats, it looks like there are 3X as many women of reproductive age in MA than in UT.
So do you think that if clinics were more available/accessible, that UTs rates would go up? Or that, being a largely Mormon state, the rate wouldn't go up at the same rate as clinic increase, since Mormons are more likely to see abortion as murder?
I mean, it's a good thing in theory that less abortions are occurring in UT, but is that only due to the lack of availability? Are there women who do not have the religious qualms that are essentially denied abortions because they can't find or get to a provider easily?
-Bok
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Bok- good questions. I think that the answer is probably simple economics of supply and demand: there are fewer clinics because there are many fewer women who get abortions. If there were a demand it is fairly likely that there would be a supply. In that report there are statistics about how many women travel how far to get their abortions:
quote:In 2000, 87% of U.S. counties had no abortion provider. 1/3 of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2000, 25% traveled at least 50 miles, and 8% traveled more than 100 miles.
In 2000, 93% of Utah counties had no abortion provider. 51% of Utah women lived in these counties. In the West census region, where Utah is located, 19% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 6% traveled more than 100 miles.
As best I can tell it seems that women in Utah who got abortions actually traveled less than the average for the US which seems to indicate that their isn't a very big demand for more clinics.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Except that it may also indicate that many women who would have had an abortion didn't go at all, due to distance and knowledge. After all, it's usually the poorest counties that lack close clinics.
But it would certainly be nice if your theory was correct.
-Bok
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Jacare, I wonder if that accounts for any women who traveled out of state to get an abortion. I believe that is only for the women who actually had an abortion in Utah. If they travelled out of state (not unlikely, as abortion would be a bigger stigma in Utah, correct?) I doubt they would be counted in that particular survey. So, the original statement may be true. If the women in Utah fear someone finding out, the best course of action would be traveling a bit further, to a different state and getting an abortion there, which would skew those statistics.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Kayla, I would guess the best way, though not necessarily the decisive way, would be to compare UT rates with surrounding states.
-Bok
EDIT: All the states, excepting Nevada, were below the national average, certainly lending creendence to Jacare's idea. However, Interestingly enough, MA actually has a general population larger than any of those states, and a cursory look showed that the larger the state you were, the more likely you were to be above the national rate.
[ August 22, 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, but Nevada was way above the national average. That would lend credence to my position that women in Utah drive to Vegas for an out-of-town anonymous abortion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that the comparison between Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah is pretty informative. All four states have have a large percentage of their population who live in counties without an abortion facility but the abortion rate in Montana is 2 to 4 times higher than it is in the other states.
When I lived in Montana, traveling 100-200 miles to have an abortion didn't seem to be a issue. In fact, people from Bozeman typically went to Great Falls or Helena to have an abortion and the people who had abortions in Bozeman, were more likely to be from Helena or Kallispell than they were to be local. Montana comunities are just too small and no one wanted to risk running into someone they knew coming or going from an abortion. I suspect that the same is true in small towns throughout the west and midwest where most wouldn't want their neighbors to know they had an abortion.
There are two signifcant differences I can see between Montana and the other three states. Montana is the only one of these states which does not have a large Mormon population and the only one of the states which has neither parental notification laws or requirements for counseling.
A comparison between Montana and North and South Dekota shows similar trends even though there is not a significant Mormon influence in the Dakotas so it is most likely that the higher abortion rates in Montana reflect less restrictive laws rather than religious/cultural differences.
The question of whether the lower abortion rates in Utah, Idaho and Wyoming truly reflect fewer women seeking abortions or if these women are simply fleeing to Nevada and Colorado to have abortions is still open. It would be interesting to look at abortion statistics in Nevada border towns.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
maybe some people enjoy their railing songs. I do....so if they think that's what people enjoy, why not play them?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Unfortunately, the data at Jacare's website do not say whether they were reported based on the location where the abortion was performed on the womens state of residence.
I did find some data at here for which they compile abortion statistics based on state of residence. It includes the ratio of state residence who obtained an abortion in state to those who obtained an abortion out of state. For Utah this ratio was 6.6 in 2001 compared to 6.9 in Idaho, 12.0 in Wyoming and Nevada, 16.6 in Montana and 6.6 in Colorado. So Utah women do seem to be more likely to seek an out-of-state abortion than other women in the region, however, the numbers are clearly not large enough to significantly skew the abortion statistics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Exactly Toretha,
Peter, Paul and Mary are hardly the sort of intellectual elite who are supported by university salaries and NEA grants. They are successful because a whole lot of people are willing to pay money to attend their concerts and buy their recordings. This is exactly what Card says the arts should be. So what is Kathy complaining about?
Is she suggesting that there are no alternatives? If so she is just plain wrong.
Is she suggesting that PP&M should not play this music because it doesn't mesh well with her values? If so, she needs to reread the 1st amendment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I did find some data at here for which they compile abortion statistics based on state of residence. It includes the ratio of state residence who obtained an abortion in state to those who obtained an abortion out of state. For Utah this ratio was 6.6 in 2001 compared to 6.9 in Idaho, 12.0 in Wyoming and Nevada, 16.6 in Montana and 6.6 in Colorado. So Utah women do seem to be more likely to seek an out-of-state abortion than other women in the region, however, the numbers are clearly not large enough to significantly skew the abortion statistics.
Rabbit, I'm having trouble figuring from that site out what the numerator and denominator for that would be. (The guy who runs the site lists many sources, but it isn't clear which data comes from where, so I can't easily tell by looking at primary sources.) I think he may (?) actually have just used the forward-slash as an abbreviation for "and", as it is under the "abortion %" column, not the "abortion ratio" column. He defines "abortion %" as "percentage of abortions among pregnancies ending in live birth or abortion," not including miscarriages. But how is that number explicitly defined?
Also, the comparable areas in the other two large columns are for "residents, in and out of state," and the graph is getting a little squooshed-looking toward that end. If his subdivided columns are consistent, then the "/" would be shorthand for "and."
Might you help me figure out how to interpret the numbers? I'm not really sure where to start, and I'm not sure we're dealing with a ratio there at all. However, if it isn't a ratio, what is it?
[ August 23, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
CT, I had the same trouble trying to interpret the data and don't have a clear answer for you.
A second look at the data indicates that you are correct in asserting that the / is intended as an and rather than a divide.
I have tried to reproduce their % numbers from the raw abortion data they present. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. The best I can figure out is that the column under % Abortions label "all in state". Is the percentage of pregnancies which end in abortion although its a bit fuzy. Sometimes the number works out to be the ratio of total abortions (reported and unreported) divided by the sum of the live births and abortions. Sometimes it is exact and sometimes its close and sometimes there aren't numbers in one of the columns so it is impossible to tell. The numbers in the second column (residentes in/out of state), seems to be the total precent of resident pregnancies that end in abortion. The numbers are generally close to what I get using the raw data in the previous columns but are rarely exactly the same. Perhaps their has been some adjustment for non-resident live births but the data just isn't there.
If this interpretation is correct, then if the percentage in column 1 is greater than the percentage in column 2, more non-residents are getting abortions in that state than residents who are getting out of state abortions. Of course, Unfortunately, there really isn't enough data to be certain. Of course, non-residents could be immigrants rather than people crossing the state line for the purpose of getting an abortion.
[ August 23, 2003, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
With all due respect to Kathy, it was Peter, Paul, and Mary's concert, so they pretty much get to decide what songs they play and what they say between the songs. Surely she knew of their politics before she bought the tickets - it isn't like they make a secret of what they believe.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Rabbit, I'm pretty sure that he intends for the data to be presented clearly. He looks to be someone who takes pains to be accurate and as objective as possible. It's really frustrating (well, not as frustrating as being up at 11:30pm, but you know what I mean) to then not be able to figure out what he means to get across.
I bet that he'd appreciate feedback. I'll send an email tomorrow.
Regardless, it's unlikely to have substantial effect on the arguments here. WOuld be nice, though, to have good tabulations of such data.
(Thanks! )
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Oddly enough, a lot of this discussion space is being spent on an abortion discussion, where Kathy Kidd pointed out that was the one topic that WASN'T covered in her horrible evening out with Peter, Paul and Mary. In fact, according to her letter, she was surprised there wasn't a song about how grand abortions are! It is this last statement that made me feel disgusted with the letter, as well. I know that folks on here are upset when people get disgusted, but agree with her core points or not, her method was nasty and beneath her (as was the Card essay, which was far beneath what I expected of good writers).
Pairing both of those two essays together confused me. Other than their smug and superior tone, they had little connecting them. One wanted to rail against the liberal elite because they feel their work should stand on its own even though small town America feels the need to censor the work. The other railed against liberals for their ideas and how dare they share such ideas for hours on end at a concert! Other than their self-satisfied rant and liberal use of the broad brush, I can't see why they put them together. Maybe to show that two quality writers can have a bad day?
Kathy should never have bought tickets to the show. Or maybe, having bought them, she should have done some basic research and listened to some of their music again, just to make sure she remembered who they were. And, having realized she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, she should have left. I saw a horrible movie once...well, part of it. I left before it was over. Same with some plays that I saw that were just horrible. Sure, I paid my money but like a bad bet at a Vegas crap table, you win some and you lose some. That is the risky part of art. Some art shows are amazingly successful and moving while others are tepid and unispiring. Some performances of some of my favorite plays are ruined because of choices I disagree with, but it is the interpretation that makes them art and that is the risk, that you won't necessarily be happy with the results. But c'mon, what can one expect going to just about ANY folk concert? While the risk of being put to sleep (PP&M do this for me) is high, the risk of hearing conservative or at least polically neutral messages was pretty low to non-existent.
Phil
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:In most cases, I much prefer legislation that is centered around small communities where everyone knows everyone else.
quote:I should have paid more attention. At any rate, I'm of the opinion that in general the more local you make many gov. functions the better they are likely to perform since often there is a much higher level of accountability.
Yeah, accountability, just like there was during all of those lynchings of blacks during the first two-thirds of the last century, not to mention (more recently) the first trial of the beaters of Rodney King. Local government is no panacea, except for the most limited of problems. Corruption on a local scale may be less devastating, but it is also much easier to entrench. Look at old Louisiana under Huey Long.
Allow me to resurrect an older part of the discussion:
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Tom's point was that there is a third alternative: we can continue to live in the same nation as a bunch of different cultures rather than one conglomerated 'compromise' culture or a bunch of split-up nations. He meant that if enough people become obsessed with a culture war, they will force the nation to either become culturally uniform (unlikely and undesirable) or split up (very undesirable). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know how this is possible. On many important issues you simply can't have it both ways.
But right now we do, and I think it's working fine. Abortion may be a special case; that may be something the society as a whole needs to work out, because the worry is that it amounts to murder, which is not a cultural practice that should be permitted (because it is physically, manifestly harmful).
But with other things it's easy. A perfect example is gay marriage. If you don't believe in it, don't marry another man. If you think it's dangerous for the institution of marriage if culture accepts it, the easy solution is not to belong to the mainstream culture. Come to think of it, you already don't -- you belong to the Mormon culture.
It is an ancient truism that you can choose your friends.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you think it's dangerous for the institution of marriage if culture accepts it, the easy solution is not to belong to the mainstream culture.
That's the EASY solution?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Frankly, I never thought I'd hear the word "lesbian" in a song -- and if given the choice I would have spared myself the experience.
Wait, is it really that offensive to hear the word "lesbian"? Is it a curse word to some? There are a lot of lesbians in America, God forbid she actually meet one :gasp:.
quote:The only one that was missed was abortion, and I firmly believe that's because nobody has yet written an "ain't abortion grand" folksong.
Yes, because all of us who oppose making abortion illegal love it to death. Its not out of repect for a woman's choice over her own reproductive destiny, we just like to cheer every time a fetus is killed. Go Abortion!!!
quote:The young people in the crowd (and fortunately there weren't many of them) were told to go out and break whatever laws they don't agree with, because it's only by going breaking the laws that you make things better.
Martin Luther King and Ghandi were pretty good at doing just that. Its called non-violent civil disobedience, and it works great. But speaking of MLK...
quote:There were two songs about Martin Luther King. I have nothing against Martin Luther King, but two of them? In one concert? That's overkill.
(Italics mine) Nothing against him? Odd, most of us celebrate him as a national hero of the civil rights movement.
quote:There was a folksong about the gay kid who got murdered in Wyoming. It was called "Jesus on the Wire," because, I can only assume, when the bigots threw the gay kid on the wire fence they were really hanging Jesus up there.
"Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." How is what they did to the "gay kid" any better than what they did to Jesus?
quote: If you can believe it, there were two songs ("Blowing in the Wind" and "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?") where a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud slowly appeared on the curtain behind the performers, and remained there for the duration of the song.
Is there something wrong with reminding people that they have a nuclear warhead aimed at their heads at this very second? For those of us in favor of nuclear disarmament and opposed to the extinction of the human race, it seems like people aren't reminded enough.
quote:We don't go to be reminded what's wrong in the world -- especially by people who don't have a clue that it's their attitudes that are doing the world more harm than all the things they're railing against.
Tom said it best. Disgust.
quote:Ideas that wash over a person are infinitely harder to eradicate, and more dangerous to the health of the person who has been exposed to them than an evening's worth of tobacco smoke.
What ideas are those, that homosexuality isn't so bad? That nuclear war isn't very fun? That MLK was a hero? That killing gays is a bad thing?
[ August 23, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Excuse me, Javie, but it's exactly that kind of ultra-liberal thinking that causes suffering in the world. I mean, jesus, pro-equality and anti-war? How far left can you go?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's the EASY solution?
It really is very easy. We all do it. The mainstream culture in the US is almost custom-made to allow people to opt out of any part of it. We all deviate from it in a million little ways.
quote:Wait, is it really that offensive to hear the word "lesbian"?
Guess Kathy Kidd doesn't listen to Weezer.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry, Destineer-- Mormons know what happens when they chose not to "be a part" of mainstream American culture. They have extermination orders levied against them. . .
And THAT, my dear friends, is my contribution to the hyperbole bowl. Which is OVERFLOWING. There's enough hyperbole in this thread to fill Paul Bunyon's work boots.
Which, incidentally, are covered with mud. Sloppy mud. Like this thread.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott: there are many groups out there that choose not to be a part of mainstream american culture (you might talk to plaid for instance), and they don't have extermination orders being leveled against them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Small, closed, societies are not seen as a threat to haters. Big ones are.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You guys already do opt out of the mainstream culture. The trick, which Mormons seem to understand most of the time, is not to drag anyone else out with you.
Not by force, anyway.
Of course, you can beg and harangue others to leave the mainstream culture, which Mormons do better than anyone. Nothing wrong with that.
The best way to insure that you are never attacked by other faiths again is to keep them from getting too closely involved with the government.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Wow.
You really DO want us to shut up and go away.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Perhaps "beg and harangue" were the wrong words. I really didn't mean to bash missionary work; I don't have any problem with that at all.
I don't want anyone to shut up and go away. If I didn't enjoy hearing what Mormons have to say, I'd go to a different forum. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The best way to insure that you are never attacked by other faiths again is to keep them from getting too closely involved with the government.
The BEST way to keep from being attacked by anyone is to persuade them to agree with you.
I have yet to be attacked by someone who loves me, after all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the main point of tending your own patch of garden is a good one, though. Liberals will let non-liberals watch all the good, wholesome entertainment they can handle. Non-liberals will return the favor by not dictating what everyone else should or should not see in their own home or business. Public space will be a barren wasteland so as not to offend anyone. If either party is offended at the other party's choices, then they can avert their eyes and hold their nose. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The problem is when the liberals start vomiting their highly offensive entertainment at my family.
Then what?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: The problem is when the liberals start vomiting their highly offensive entertainment at my family.
Okay, I'll bite.
fil
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strange, I thought the most offensive mainstream programming on TV was from the conservatives, ie Fox . . . Makes you wonder, don't it?
Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
Scott R,
Thanks for linking me to the column and letter. The OSC column was particularly interesting because I'd never have known about this incident otherwise.
Since I don't want to ignore the 2 previous posts - before I address the main topic I will say to fil: children are not discerning TV viewers which is why they want you to rush out to buy everything they see advertised during their "shows". When alternative lifestyles or choices are presented as the norm couched within "children's programming", children can become "indoctrinated" with ideas contrary to their own family's values. Enough said.
fugu - Fox shows like The Simpsons, Futurama, Malcolm in the Middle and all the reality shows? I'm not following you.
Back to OSC column and Kathy Kidd's letter. The "fatal flaw" that each writer made was expecting entertainment from these artists. Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but Neil Simon obviously pulled his play for the publicity and to snub the Mormons. Removing the f word has no effect on a playwright who has been adapted, rewritten, edited, etc. for film many times over. OSC is merely stating the obvious.
Kathy Kidd shouldn't have ever expected entertainment from Peter, Paul and Mary! If any of their songs have ever been sheer entertainment then it's been purely by accident. They are living 40 years in the past and attempting to continue to make a living off of selling their antique music that is rooted in protesting current events. Those events are now called history.
That said all entertainment must have a message or it has no theme. It's up to the viewer (or parents of the view) to be very selective to separate sheer entertainment, ie Bringing up Baby from propaganda, ie Triumph of the Will.
end of rant. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That said all entertainment must have a message or it has no theme.
Themes, and the process of finding them, only matter to elitists.
The rest of us yokels are content to enjoy the artistry.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The problem is when the liberals start vomiting their highly offensive entertainment at my family.
Then what?
quote: Since I don't want to ignore the 2 previous posts - before I address the main topic I will say to fil: children are not discerning TV viewers which is why they want you to rush out to buy everything they see advertised during their "shows". When alternative lifestyles or choices are presented as the norm couched within "children's programming", children can become "indoctrinated" with ideas contrary to their own family's values. Enough said.
A ghostly figure materializes in the thread. From the black recesses of his cowl, a voice intones,"Use the remote, Luke. Use the remote."
In this day and age of cheap cable and 100 plus channels of satellite programming, there's going to be something out there that even the most concerned parent can find for their kid.*Points in the general direction of PAX TV and the like*
Even as far as the 'big three' go, it is ridiculous to assert that any so-called alternative choices are ever presented as valid in any kid's shows. I watch the Saturday morning toons all the time. I don't have cable. My particular favorite is Jackie Chan Adventures, but I basically have surfed through most of them. I have yet to see any gay figures or single parents anywhere. Wait, I guess you can make the case that there is no mother figure in Jade's life in the Chan household, but, I don't know. Uncle can be matronly. :/
Anyways, I'm actually putting the cart before the horse. What do you mean by 'alternative lifestyles'? Don't go to some website that catalogs it, please. You tell me, what have *you* seen that really bothered you as far as children's programming that offended you, KEGE.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: The problem is when the liberals start vomiting their highly offensive entertainment at my family.
See, whereas my problem is the endless, unvoidable preaching "vomited" by conservatives in their "wholesome entertainment"!
But when that happens, I take Storm Saxon's advice and change the channel (or put down the magazine, or turn off the radio, or read a different thread ... ).
Everyone has the right to hold whatever beliefs they choose. It's when you start trying to force them on others through things like legislation that you run into trouble. No one forces you to watch the TV, or even to own a TV (or read a newspaper, etc.) I do not listen to conservative talk shows, because I KNOW I will be enraged and offended. However, they have the right to believe that, and I don't have a problem with that, as long as they're not trying to dictate those beliefs into my behavior.
When it comes down to it, I suppose no one forces you to follow laws, either, but there are obvious penalties for breaking the laws. What are the penalties for turning off the TV?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The BEST way to keep from being attacked by anyone is to persuade them to agree with you."
This is needlessly restrictive.
The best way to keep from being attacked by anyone is to make it unnecessary and counterproductive for them to attack you.
Persuading them to agree with you is indeed one way to do this, but by no means the only way OR the best way in all cases.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes it is.
So nyaahh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the problem, Scott:
Persuading people to agree with you, depending on the subject, may require changing their basic assumptions about the universe. It is my contention that this is not always possible, and frankly would lead to a REMARKABLY boring planet if someone somehow found a way to achieve this with 100% effectiveness.
A world in which this had occurred would, to be completely honest, give me the screaming, crawling heebie-jeebies. It's why I don't live in Utah; I'm scared of the Pod People. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't WANT to live in a world where it would never occur to a folk singer to write a song about lesbians. (That said, a world without folk music is one I would consider visiting.)
It's great when people are able to come to terms through persuasion -- but, frankly, I think compromise is often just as good a solution.
Moreover, insisting on -- and holding out for -- a world where everyone AGREES will inevitably lead to frustration and confusion, especially if your culture is a minority culture that makes a point of disagreeing with the larger one. You're basically setting yourself up for continual disappointment and bitterness, and eventual withdrawal from the world altogether (see Jettboy, commune dwellers, and folk singers).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Themes, and the process of finding them, only matter to elitists.
The rest of us yokels are content to enjoy the artistry.
A Cardian sentiment that I find bizarre. Who are you to say that any particular way of deriving fulfillment from literature is wrong or stupid? That sort of view is elitism, which I think was Stormy's point in beginning the other thread.
Of course, many (most?) people who read literature from a 'critical' standpoint will belittle other ways of reading just as Scott did. They are also acting like elitists.
This kind of elitism may only be natural. Perhaps it is only because I find myself frequently enjoying both plot and theme (which is why Simmons's Hyperion is my all-time fave) that I can see this issue both ways.
quote:You tell me, what have *you* seen that really bothered you as far as children's programming that offended you, KEGE.
Tinky Winky, the gay Teletubby, of course!
Scott- part of my original point was that (non-violent, non-legal) ways of persuading people are just fine. Go on doing what you're doing. Practically speaking, though, you can't honestly believe that it will take less than a hundred years to convert the rest of the USA to Mormonism. Thus it also makes sense to seek legal protection from the excesses of other denominations.
I sympathize greatly with you guys; you are one of the few religious groups to have suffered actual large-scale, organized, violent attacks in American history. People act like it can't happen here, and so there's no harm bringing religion into government, but it has happened here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, there *is* Kermit the Frog's song about 'the rainbow connection', now that you mention it....
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Reading this discussion, I find it ironic that it started out with Tom suggesting that there really was no cultural war, and that it is all in the imagination of Card, Jacare et al.
"Use the remote, Luke"
As in: turn off the TV, right?
We don't have cable or satellite anymore. I will admit that I don't watch TV very much, and part of the reason is that it is too hard for me to find something that I can actually enjoy without having to use my inner 'cultural censors'. Things like tuning out cuss words, having to think about how I shouldn't expect them to follow my own religious teachings, etc. The problem is that these people don't represent my ideals and values. I can understand and empathize, for some TV shows. In others, I simply switch in disgust. And others, I avoid like the plague.
Even with cable, most of my favorites were non-fiction.
That feels a cultural war to me, when I feel left out of the majority of the art produced for the masses. And that art produced for or by the elite is even worse, in that it doesn't merely depict a morality I am not a part of, it preaches against my own cultural values.
[ August 24, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I agree with Storm. If 'liberal entertainment' is vomitted on you, then you shouldn't stand under the liberal window! TV is choice. Movies are choice. Music is choice. Radio is choice. Internet is choice. Theatre is choice. Not one of these venues are forced on anyone. Heck, Ms. Kidd had to pay for tickets and make her way to the concert on her own! It didn't come to her! yet she feels the same way some of these posters do...that she was "vomitted on" by "liberal dogma." Sheesh.
To get the gobs of channels out there, you have to actively pay for it. If you only use the local channels, you have to turn it on. You get the point, as others have said it on here. Parents shouldn't blame liberals or conservatives for their lack of control over their own children's viewing habits.
That last post's definition for "cultural war" was exceedingly creepy. If I get the poster's point, "cultural war" comes out of a minority of folks feeling out of step with the majority of folks in terms of culture? I thought a war was a conflict in order for one side to dominate and destroy another side. I think that if you feel out of step with the majority of television, books and movies, get in line. The nature of the entertainment industry is that MOST people could or should feel that way, unless they are...er...easily entertained. I am for the most part a dyed in wool liberal, I suppose. Yet, this industry that supposedly caters to my life choices surely leaves me cold just as much as anyone else. We don't watch a ton of tv in our house with our 4 year old daughter. We watch movies from time to time and at times do some cartoons (usually PBSkids). As adults, we did the Buffy <sniff> and BBCAmerica. Most other channels leave us cold. Some folks can't find programming to fit a conservative religious bent and iIwould agree. It is also hard for us to find non-violent entertainment for our daughter, shows with strong female role-models, shows that don't objectify women, and even when we find a show that we enjoy, the ads in between break all of our criteria, etc.
So we mostly just don't watch. Books are better. Movies are good, too. Can choose the entire content and no ads in between. Play time is best. The point is, we can see where the holes are in programming and choose not to fall into them. I don't blame the conservative media for its tireless effort to sell ad time vs. providing quality programming. I don't think I am at war with some other culture because most television sucks. I just think there is more to do in this world than worry about the entertainment industry.
If you feel at war with part of the culture you don't like, declare a cease fire and move on. There is still plenty of room in this country for everyone to walk around and not get in each other's face.
fil
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
fil,
We can control what our children watch, but do you suggest I take them out of public schools to avoid the interaction they'll have with other children who are raised on the television? Entertainment media is merely a reflection of what the majority of the culture wants, and that conflicts with what I want. So what do we do when our child comes home using a crude word they never heard from our mouths or the TV.
I know, we have to teach them. And I'm willing to do that. But the fact of the matter is that in this world where people travel so much, and there is no such thing as a village anymore, people who don't follow the majority culture feel marginalized and defensive. So yes. We do feel like we are fighting a war against a predominantly secular and amoral attitude seen in most entertainment.
It doesn't feel like a war to you, because every time you see a normal two parent family on TV it is normal to you. But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well. It is not to me. That is one of the shows I will never watch, simply because of it's name. Will I tolerate a certain amount of this? Of course. But where you have to exert no effort at all to enjoy the proceedings, I have to 'forgive' the characters for doing things that I consider wrong, in order to relate to them.
There are some levels to this. Seeing other people drink in social situations doesn't bother me too much (I'm LDS and we don't drink alcohol). But 'seeing' or having the implication of people having sex at the first rise of hormones does bother me a great deal. Watching shows that make the religious conservative (like me) out to be a narrominded, blind, bigoted jerks bothers me.
Being told that I am full of hate because I believe certain things are a sin bothers me a great deal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I have to 'forgive' the characters for doing things that I consider wrong, in order to relate to them."
I'm sorry, Amka, I really am, but I can't muster much more than a "world's smallest violin" worth of sympathy, here.
You've made the conscious choice to be "better" than the surrounding culture.
That means, natch, that you ARE "better" than the surrounding culture. This also means that the surrounding culture will almost ALWAYS disappoint you.
I am a fat man. This means that certain things -- like shopping at the Gap, or enjoying amusement parks -- are difficult or off-limits. Do I resent the amusement park because they don't make roller coasters to accomodate the ludicrously obese? Of course not.
So why do you resent the majority culture for not accepting your fringe values?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KEGE- I was specifically referring to the reality shows Fox has been showing. Those have been far more morally revolting than even Sex and the City (and sex in the city shows nudity!).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Watching shows that make the religious conservative (like me) out to be a narrominded, blind, bigoted jerks bothers me.
Being told that I am full of hate because I believe certain things are a sin bothers me a great deal.
What shows do that? I haven't seen a lot of TV that actually attacks specific ideals, liberal or conservative (except on 'news' shows). Seems like that would be a bad marketing move.
To tell the truth, I also think the people on Sex and the City are quite sleazy. Most films which portray fast-moving sexual relationships have them take place between characters who are in extremely stressful situations, which at least makes it a bit more believable.
The only promiscuous sex I've seen happen among adults has much to do with alcohol, which shows you LDS folks are on the right track -- monogamy and sobriety are closely related. Kids, of course, are frequently promiscuous because they're at the age when primates in the wild are supposed to start reproducing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Persuading people to agree with you, depending on the subject, may require changing their basic assumptions about the universe. It is my contention that this is not always possible, and frankly would lead to a REMARKABLY boring planet if someone somehow found a way to achieve this with 100% effectiveness.
I contend that the type of unity acheived by reasonable persuasion is both possible and emotionally/mentally stimulating.
At the very worst, unity of thought cannot be more boring than watching people beat dead horses ad nauseum, ala--
Let's take a poll-- which icons express positive thoughts, and which negatives? Which icon would you rather have at a party?
<- Tom's idea of utopia.
<- Scott's idea of utopia.
<- Ralphie's idea of utopia.
<- Jettboy's idea of utopia.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well.
Why do you immediately associate "liberal" with "promiscuous"? The two most certainly do NOT go hand in hand. I am an agnostic liberal, and I was a virgin until I was married. I know plenty of people from whom this is true.
On the reverse, at my undergrad. institution, I also knew plenty of conservative fundamentalists who were extremely promiscuous.
Liberal does not necessarily equal promiscuous, just as conservative does not necessarily equal virtuous.
I realize this is a bit off-topic, but this sort of demonization of the "other side" really bugs me--when it comes from either conservatives or liberals.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Scott--In response to your poll, if my alternatives are a world in which I must be persuaded to believe as everyone else does, or a world in which everyone thinks for themselves and comes to their own conclusions (as diverse and contradictory as they might be), I'll take the latter.
I think compromise is a much better solution than, "No, you're wrong, you must think like me! Here are the reasons..." This, however, may be my instinctive resistance to someone attempting to persuade me how wrong my views are. My mental response is always, "I've thought this through...what makes your answer any better than mine?" Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, I'm afraid your smilies don't quite work. A world in which everyone had been persuaded to agree on everything would, indeed, be a group hug smiley -- but all the smilies would be exactly the same color.
MY utopia -- in which smilies would not be required to share the same opinions -- would be one where smilies of different colors were, indeed, separated by a big wall. But instead of beating their heads against it, they'd install a door and occasionally pop over to the other side for a group hug, then retreat when one of the smilies does something kinky that scares the other smilies.
Sadly, our array of smilies is still relatively small for the purposes of extended utopian metaphor. (Note: this is not a request to the mods to expand that array further. *grin*)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A world in which everyone had been persuaded to agree on everything would, indeed, be a group hug smiley -- but all the smilies would be exactly the same color.
How does unity in thought lead to stultification?
How does the ability to be persuaded lead to a lack of freedom of thought?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, unity in thought seems to be a ludicrous goal for the world, based on history. Second, unity in general is a really bad survival practice: when the world changes, a unified (ie basically identical) group of beings dies out. Third, if unity is chosen, and it turns out what was chosen for unity is wrong/flawed, everyone is screwed (this is somewhat of a variant on reason number 2).
I applaud you for being so certain that your choice of philosophy is right, Scott, but this country was built on an idea that I greatly admire, that each person gets to choose what they think is right in as great a range as possible for a civil society, and that this diversity is what secures each of us in that ability.
Attempts at unity lead to great oppression of the minority.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: <- Ralphie's idea of utopia.
Hey!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well.
Well, I don't think they come much more liberal than me, but I'm offended by that statement. That show doesn't seem "normal" to me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: know, we have to teach them. And I'm willing to do that. But the fact of the matter is that in this world where people travel so much, and there is no such thing as a village anymore, people who don't follow the majority culture feel marginalized and defensive.
Why do you think there is a majority culture? I think there is a median that public (and by that, I mean the three major networks) television shoots for, but I don't think that defines the tastes of the majority of people. So, what that means is that there is always going to be something on television that is going to be either too wholesome or too dirty for some viewers. As I mentioned, if you have cable, there are networks like PAX and some others that carry nothing but family television. I don't understand why you don't subscribe to cable and get them.
I say this not in the sense that you should give up, but in the sense that it's what everyone does. Specialized tastes are what makes pay for TV able to survive. And when you get right down to it, all it is is a matter of taste, is it not? For instance, I want to see 'good' science fiction and fantasy like I read in books. I know a lot of people like me, but I also know that as a reader, and especially as a reader of sci-fi, comic books, and fantasy, I am in a small minority. Where am I going to see it on television? Even the so-called Sci-Fi channel only, for the most part, carries dreck. It's pretty clear to me that my and my friends' tastes are based upon good, solid reasons. It saddens me that there isn't more programming that I like, but I like to think that the reason for it is because I have refined tastes.
I think the case is analogous to your sitution. Your tastes are different from most other people's for obvious reasons, but what it comes down to is having refined tastes. I don't understand why you don't understand why you can't find anything to watch when it is clear that commercial television shoots for the lowest denominator. If that is so and your tastes are even a little different from the lcd, then of course there's going to be something that offends you in most television. The fact that your tastes reflect religious values just means that when you experience what the rest of us who have refined tastes experience, you just experience it to a harsher degree, I think. There are, ah, rather more serious connotations to it. I shouldn't just blame it on your religion, though. I'm sure that being intelligent and being able to imagine the social consequences if what is being shown on TV is taken to its worst possible conclusion scares you as well. I know it does me. I mean, to give you another example, there is a whole slew of government agent shows that glorify the state as protector. This bugs me to no end. We need more programming with average joes and less hysterical, the sky is falling stuff, I think.
I guess what I'm saying is that everyone experiences what you're experiencing. Everyone's kid, if they go to public schools, experiences values different from their own. You are no different from me or a lot of other people. Thus, I guess what I'm tring to say is that we, you, create a lot of the cultural divides that we experience. If there is a cultural war, then it is all our fault, don't you think?
This is not to say that refined tastes are wrong. Certainly not. Leave the rest to their stuff. Just don't take away what you and I need to feed our soul.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:unity in thought seems to be a ludicrous goal for the world, based on history.
Based on history, LOTS of goals seem ludicrous. Because no one's accomplished them yet. Get it?
quote:but this country was built on an idea that I greatly admire, that each person gets to choose what they think is right in as great a range as possible for a civil society, and that this diversity is what secures each of us in that ability.
Certainly. That's why I specified 'persuasion.'
And there's a reason why E Plurbis Unum is on our money. . . And America wasn't built on diversity (as if diversity is the crown jewel of secular law-- it ain't). . . And diversity does NOT secure agency.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
America was very much built upon diversity. I mean, literally built. It was diversity, for instance, that drove the great expansion to the west.
Perhaps diversity does not ensure autonomy. But I will argue to my death that uniformity will ensure the lack of autonomy.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Actually the expansion west has more to do with greed than diversity. I would also say that our country was built on the inalienable rights of freedom and liberty.
Diversity is overrated.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
But isn't diversity an inevitable symptom of a healthy amount of freedom and liberty?
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, you misunderstand e pluribus unum. It is a celebration of diversity. "Out of many, one". A country that is a unity in spite of all the difference that make it up. Benajamin Franklin was one of the greatest proponents of the motto, and he was very fixed on that idea that one should be accepting of differences so as to form a greater whole.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And you have not been building upon persuasion. You ahve been complaining about television shows you don't like. If persuasion is how you feel things should work, feel free to try to persuade people that such things shouldn't be watched/shouldn't be on the air (and heck, feel free to complain to me that you don't like them, I don't mind), but if you assert persuasion as the way things should go, to assert that what is broadcast should conform to your beliefs before you have persuaded people is more than a little contradictory.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not infringe on the rights of the majority . . .
Of course, the largest problem with that is that, at sufficient granularity, there is never a majority in anything. Conversely, at a small enough granularity (of a given choice) one can engineer almost any majority.
I'm not saying the rights of the majority should be trampled. I am saying that one should make darn sure one is actually talking about the majority, and one should also make sure one is not trampling on the rights of the minority if at all possible.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You ahve been complaining about television shows you don't like.
No I haven't.
I've been complaining about PEOPLE I don't like.
Geez.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"How does unity in thought lead to stultification?"
How can it NOT? The only conceivable circumstance in which unity in thought does NOT lead to stultification is one in which all the united thought is already flawlessly perfect and ideal for all situations.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The only conceivable circumstance in which unity in thought does NOT lead to stultification is one in which all the united thought is already flawlessly perfect and ideal for all situations.
Can you elaborate on why?
Why such a strong reaction against what is the essential human emotional need-- utter connection with other people?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: I would also say that our country was built on the inalienable rights of freedom and liberty.
Diversity is overrated.
quote: Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
Is it just me, or does Ryan seem like he'd be happy with an all white, straight, Republican country?
Ryan, one word. Idaho. Check it out. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Just you, kayla.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Actuall North Carolina's mostly that way too. But I will look into it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but Neil Simon obviously pulled his play for the publicity and to snub the Mormons.
Sorry, that insulted someone's intelligence right off.
Please go to the Salt Lake Tribune and read the articles about the situation. Not only did Simon not obviously do anything, it's very likely he wasn't aware of the situation until it made the news. The people doing the play have admitted that they knew they weren't supposed to be making changes. Simon didn't do anything. The company licensing his play simply enforced a clause that the producers of the play knew about when they signed the contract. The production group had the options of doing the play as written or not doing it. The fact that they had already been working and designing costumes and sets for two weeks is, frankly, their own fault.
[ August 24, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but Neil Simon obviously pulled his play for the publicity and to snub the Mormons.
Or, possibly, they were breaking the law. Not a criminal law, but a civil law. That's insulting. Were they hoping to get away with it? Talk about your strong moral convictions. I'd rather spend the evening hearing the F-word seven times that watch the farce of holier than thou people purposfully thumbing their noses at legal document they signed. Yeah, they have the upper hand in the moral superiority department.
Ryan, Ralphie was wrong. You couldn't be any more alienating if you ran around kicking people in the shins.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
FWIW, I love folk music, especially Peter, Paul, & Mary, and hope to see them live some day before they stop touring. Though I do agree that some of their more recent songs are trying a bit too hard, and being more than a bit too earnest.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
Ryan, what's your take on the whole Civil Rights movement thing?
(Not trying to be inflammatory, I'm truly interested.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I saw Peter, Paul, and Mary in concert last year. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
I frankly wasn't sure how to interpret that statement.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Color me jealous!
I would love to take my kids to one of their concerts, especially, if they played some of their more heartwarming songs.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Way to go Mr. Bridges! I wonder if Mr. Card will recant some of his cant?
Yah, I too feel insulted when it is assumed that everything a conservative christian hates in culture, the media, etc. is automatically assumed to be loved by the leftist heathens. Give me a break. As noted in my original response, I am just as disappointed in most television, too, as well as most major studio released movies or studio released CDs. Sure, the shows we have in common are probably different. You probably won't like "Coupling" on BBC America while I may think "Touched By an Angel" isn't my cup of tea. Yet we probably would both agree on TONS of shows that we both would rather avoid. Does that make us at "war?"
Yes, your children will be exposed to people different than you. That is the point of living in such a society as ours. If the big city is too much, move away. There are parts of this country where you can disappear into a homogenous group if you don't think you or your children are able to handle it. That isn't war, that is choice.
Diversity "overrated?" Who said it needs rating? It is kind of like gravity...it is the law. The tensions that come out of diversity happens when folks can't live with it, not just because there IS diversity. My church accepts members of all faiths, many of which don't necessarily jibe in all ways. Yet, we all get along and find strength in our diversity. I feel badly for those who can't live in such a world.
fil
[ August 25, 2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:But then "Sex in the City" is normal to those of a 'liberal' bent as well. It is not to me.
Please add me to the list of people who take exception to this statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why such a strong reaction against what is the essential human emotional need-- utter connection with other people?"
While I agree that CONNECTION is an essential -- perhaps even THE essential -- need, I disagree that unanimous agreement is a necessary component of connection.
Christy and I disagree on a number of fundamental issues; that doesn't mean that I'm less "connected" to her, or that I'd be happier if she were a Stepford wife.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
What if she were the Nichole Kidman model of stepford wife?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm going to reply virtuously that I'd eventually get bored with all the wild sex, photo opportunities, and eager, fawing servitude. Um. Yeah.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
The Civil Rights Movement was a great thing. Segregation is an abomidable thing. I completely support the actions of Martin Luther King, however when things take the turn of Malcom X, things have gone too far.
I only meant that racial tension is an undesirable biproduct of diverstiy.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: . I completely support the actions of Martin Luther King, however when things take the turn of Malcom X, things have gone too far.
This statement puzzles me. What do you mean by "the turn of Malcom [sic] X"? What do you think you know about him that leads you to make this statement?
Earlier you said:
quote: Diversity is a good thing, just not when it begins to infringe upon the right of the majority. There is definantly the possibility of a lack of unity with diversity. Racial tension would be an example.
What rights of the majority are you referring to? Racial tension is more a by-product of the slowness of the majority to release their historically monopolistic grip on basic liberties than it is on the diverse minority infringing on anything.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well said, KarlEd.
I think there is a perception among the majority, when a minority group is trying to assert its rights, that this is infringing on the majority's rights. However, this is a perception that is actually defensiveness on the part of the majority because they don't want to give up the exclusive privileges that they have become used to.
The majority perceives that something is being taken away from them. This is silly, because they are not losing anything but exclusive possession of rights that should have been universal in the first place. They aren't losing any actual rights, just the sole posession of them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This is silly, because they are not losing anything but exclusive possession of rights that should have been universal in the first place.
It is NOT silly. The 'majority attitude' may be wrong, but there is reason for the feeling.
We are talking about a culture change. We are saying one group's culture is unjust, repressive, or bad for society in general. This is a serious accusation, so don't be surprised when those opposed to the changes make serious efforts to keep the changes from happening. Their reaction is not silly, and treating it as such can only delay the culture change because it will inevitably create resentment in those who oppose the change.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Umm Ryan, wasn't racial tension much, much heavier before diversity became a goal?
And please, quit painting North Carolina as your perfect place. We're not filled with narrow-minded idiots, contrary to your microscopian views of the community that surrounds you. Trust me, pal, you are in the minority.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
<- Ralphie's idea of utopia. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
<- Scott's idea of utopia.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
<- Jettboy's idea of utopia.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)