Hello Bill,

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM, John Reimer <terminal.n...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hello Bill,

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM, John Reimer
<terminal.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Walter,

John Reimer wrote:

Walter, I've heard a lot of arguments for defending the
expression of "art", but this one's a doosie.

Ever watch Monty Python? I asked a brit about the accents they use
in their skits, because there are many different british accents.
He laughed and said the accents were a parody of the british upper
class accents.

I suspected that, not being  british, I was missing half the jokes
<g>.

There's also Spongebob Squarepants. It's ostensibly a kid's show,
but at least in the early episodes there are a lot of digs at
Jacques Cousteau's 70's tv series "The Undersea World". What kid
would get those jokes?

I tend to care a lot about things and think a lot about
implications and idea and how they affect people,  including the
manner and language used when one expresses oneself to another.  I
don't particularly care for a lot of the humour available on
television today (I don't watch it anymore, anyway). However, it
seems that a lot of people enjoy lampoons because it acts as a balm
to their mind to help /avoid/ taking most things too seriously.  I
can appreciate that, but I think there's also a caution involved
there.

The main problem with many of the new television shows is that,
like fashion decides the fad in clothes, someone is deciding for us
what is fair game to be laughed at.  The limits are pushed
continually. For all the talk about religion's apparent control of
people's minds, I think there's a whole lot more to be worried
about as people feed on the what the boob tube serves up. With long
time exposure, I'd say there is possibly a strong influence on
their tolerance for what they consider acceptable behavior.  Humor,
of course, is only one aspect of this.   It used to be that the
productions in television tried to model the real world.  I think
the opposite is now happening to some extent as we derive more
relevancy from the fantasies and culture created in the imaginary
worlds portrayed to us from television.

Concerning profanity and swearing.  I think many forms of
expression should warrant more careful thought.  I don't believe
profane or irreverant expression has a neutral effect on hearers.
We've already seen plenty of evidence of that in here.  You may
think it's cute and artsy, but I think it does any combination of
the following:  creates a language barrier, trivializes the
original meaning of certain anglo-saxon words, shows general
disrespect in communication, demonstrates poor vocabulary, reveals
carelessness in thinking of others feelings, etc and on and on.
It's like throwing dirt in somebody's face and thinking that's a
normal way to interact.  We can stamp a "art" sticker on it and
call it funny when it is clothed in a comedic role (or any
situation really), but this is just as effective as sticking an
"ice cream" tab on a pile of manure; there's no way to make it
pretty.

It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.  But
I've been keenly aware of how the same profanity is expressed with
ever so much force and rancor when a person is angry. Then it
becomes very clear that the words fit the role perfectly with the
malice that expresses them (not to say person should swear when he
is angry :) ). It's no wonder that the expression of them becomes
confusing when they merge back into everyday speech for no apparent
reason.

Very thoughtful piece there, John.  I agree with you pretty much
completely.  I think the issues you speak of are particularly
pervasive in American culture these days.  Can't speak for other
parts of the world, but things definitely don't seem as bad to me
over here in Japan.  Then again it could be just that my Japanese
just isn't good enough to pick up that level of nuance, but I really
don't think Japanese culture has taken a heavy hit from the sarcasm
bucket yet.

--bb

Thanks for the encouragment, Bill.  You just might regret it later,
though. ;)

I agree with your assessment that there's an issue, and it concerns me
too.   But I may not agree with you on how it should be addressed.
:-)   Seems Walter is reading your observations as a call to direct
action to control people's speech.  I didn't read it that way.
--bb



Oh, I see. I guess that's a problem that precident creates. No, my discussion here is merely a discussion. I wasn't insinuating that he should control people's speech here... ouch....

Though I'd prefer if people tried to aim for a higher mark. :)


-JJR


Reply via email to