The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I think the Vermont thing is silly, from what you say.

Barbie is explicitly a role model. I'd certainly never buy "Math is tough" Barbie for my kid, beyond that, whatever.

Haven't addressed the Mormon thing, Foxfyre. Religion is a heavy thing. Not a discussion I necessarily want to have. Is it appropriate? What makes it appropriate or not?

You have already said that if it's just a family with a couple of moms, emphasis on maple sugar, you don't have any particular problem with that -- which I find laudable.

0 Replies

I think I passed over a point of yours that I agree with, Foxfyre -- yes, complaining about "Sugartime!" to the point of getting PBS to take it off the air is exactly in the vein of the worst kind of political correctness.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

OK, that's semantics.

Bill, which did you mean? In context it seems pretty clear that while you would prefer that PBS wouldn't have developed the episode at all (?) you're saying you don't think outside forces should impel PBS to pull the "Sugartime!" episode.

I don't see it as a legal issue is all. Like you, I'll write a station and complain if I see something I don't like... and if enough people do so and they alter their programming that's not censorship. I fully expect you to continue lobbying for such programming, but find it ridiculous the way some (like Blatham just did) find it necessary to demonize the opposition who are doing the exact same thing.

sozobe wrote:

Meanwhile, by that reasoning, I should have been firing off angry letters to PBS demanding that they not show the Mormon episode of "Buster." Religion is another sensitive subject, as you and Bill have brought up in "what would you do if...?" questions in the course of this discussion. If I'm the oversensitive one here, I would be extremely upset that the control over talking about religion -- particularly for us, since we're not religious and don't usually talk about it -- was taken away from me. I'd demand that PBS be more respectful of the prevailing public morality -- which is NOT a majority of Mormons -- and refrain from showing something so controversial.

You would have had every right to fire off those letters. I assure you, yours would not have been the only one. Feedback isn't tantamount to censorship. I sent a letter of complaint to HBO- and received and apology- when they replaced Dennis Miller with Bill Maher (I thought there was room for both). Does that mean I'm a Hyper-PC Humor Nazi? Laughing

Or does it simply mean that I was using my voice in an attempt to secure television programming that suits me?

0 Replies

Ok, so the leader of "Families for Religious Freedom" prevails upon the liberal, former member of Clinton's administration Education Secretary to get PBS not to air the Mormon episode of "Postcards from Buster". She sends a letter PBS saying in part:

Quote:

You should know that two years ago the Senate Appropriations Committee raised questions about the accountability of funds appropriated for Ready-To-Learn programs. We believe the 'Mormons!' episode does not come within these purposes or within the intent of Congress and would undermine the overall objective of the Ready-To-Learn program -- to produce programming that reaches as many children and families as possible.

After this letter, PBS pulls the Mormon episode.

Some conservatives post it as an example of rampant political correctness. "If those liberals don't want to watch it, all they have to do is turn off the TV!" Some liberals come in and say, "Well, religion is a very personal thing. I want to choose when I talk to my child about it, and not have subliminal messages sent under the radar."

How'd you react to that?

0 Replies

Bill wrote:

I don't see it as a legal issue is all. Like you, I'll write a station and complain if I see something I don't like... and if enough people do so and they alter their programming that's not censorship. I fully expect you to continue lobbying for such programming, but find it ridiculous the way some (like Blatham just did) find it necessary to demonize the opposition who are doing the exact same thing.

This is not an answer. Should PBS run "Sugartime!", or not?

If the answer is "no", should they have run the Mormon episode, or not?

Please answer these directly.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Bill wrote:
I don't see it as a legal issue is all. Like you, I'll write a station and complain if I see something I don't like... and if enough people do so and they alter their programming that's not censorship. I fully expect you to continue lobbying for such programming, but find it ridiculous the way some (like Blatham just did) find it necessary to demonize the opposition who are doing the exact same thing.

This is not an answer. Should PBS run "Sugartime!", or not?

If it's up to me? No. Not that episode. Not on that channel.

sozobe wrote:

If the answer is "no", should they have run the Mormon episode, or not?

Please answer these directly.

If it's up to me? No. Not that episode. Not on that channel.

The world is chuck full of better venues for those debates than the heads of 3, 4 and 5 year olds. I have no desire to be the tsar of children's programming and am no doubt profoundly unqualified for the position. But that is my opinion... and if something moves me enough to commit it to paper and send it to the station; that's precisely what I'll do. Just like you.

The bottom line is you're convinced your desire to eradicate prejudice trumps the importance of the oppositions desire to keep children out of the sea of fire. To separate the issue, you rely on "ya but, I'm right". So do they.

The main thrust of my argument is that neither side should initiate the debate in the head of children by showing what one side considers provocative programming on a channel considered by many to be the buoy of reason and good taste.

The parallel would be should PBS show an episode that suggests homosexuals are sinners who defy God? I think we all know and agree with the righteous indignation that would follow such a decision by PBS.

0 Replies

Bill, again, the show is not geared towards 3, 4, and 5 year olds. (How often have I said that?) I let mine watch. That's my decision. The show is geared towards, as far as I can tell, about 6th grade and up.

You said a long time ago that you were fine with Sesame Street being the first integrated cast on TV. And I looked up "miscegenation" before I started using it here. The definitions you left out:

Quote:

Cohabitation, sexual relations, or marriage involving persons of different races.
A mixture or hybridization: "There was musical miscegenation at a time when segregation was the common rule" (Don McLeese).

"Integration" was seen as too mild; "miscegenation" was the word used by racists at that time to resist the idea that blacks and whites were equal/ should have interaction. This was the time when, if a black person moved into a white neighborhood, "there goes the neighborhood" and "white flight" would result. A group of people of varied races who explicitly lived on the same street was actively going against all of that.

If this were really the first battle, maybe. In fact, though, it is following very much the same path as Sesame Street, in appearing after many of the hardest battles have been won, but before the war is over.

0 Replies

Oh, and we already covered ths:

Quote:

The parallel would be should PBS show an episode that suggests homosexuals are sinners who defy God? I think we all know and agree with the righteous indignation that would follow such a decision by PBS.

No, the parallel would be for PBS to show an episode about Mormons. It's all the same components. Not saying "this is the right thing to do" or "this is the wrong thing to do", no value judgement beyond the implicit, "some people are like this, and that's OK."

And according to you, you think that shouldn't be shown, either.

<shrug>

0 Replies

I was answering based on the definition I found at M-W, but I wasn't familiar with the word. This is a judgment call of degrees and we disagree. Nothing earth shattering or even debatable about that.

Do you dispute my hypothetical episode would be a better parallel or that I've accurately predicted the parallel response it would provoke?

0 Replies

points^^

0 Replies

Do you have ESP?

0 Replies

:-)

0 Replies

They were for while at the beginning, I won a lot. Then it averaged out to something more reasonable (700 something now.)

0 Replies

hehehehehehe

how many windows have you got open?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh, and we already covered ths:

We didn't so much cover it as you ducked it then too. You can only maintain the difference by denying the that showing homosexual behavior as normal (not sin) isn't a defacto endorsement of that opinion. Just as the mere sight of someone smoking cigarettes is considered an endorsement that has been prohibited for that very reason. Stop ducking this obvious parallel and the difference you're clinging to evaporates.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The same with a talking Barbie awhile back that uttered the line "Math is tough". The women's lib group loudly proclaimed that unacceptable. The Barbie was pulled from the shelves.

This is very much the same kind of thing.

Hey! I agree with Fox.

I havent been following this thread page by page anymore, by the way - its just too much!

But I happened upon this one. And yes, the Barbie thing (they waged a campaign against that?!) is an overreaction, and this is too.

If you dont like it, dont buy it or watch it - but dont try to force your standards of what should be allowed/sold/screened upon the rest of the country.

People should just relax a little and have a little more confidence in their kids.

Watching Barbie say "math is tough" wont make your daughter drop her math classes, and watching two happy women making maple syrup in their kitchen wont "sexualise" your child, let alone encourage him to become gay.

Tightarsism is the new political correctness, and its no longer a leftist prerogative. Tolerance and a sense of relativation seem to have become rare commodities in the States (as, admittedly, they sadly have become here).

0 Replies

Oh that's where it went! (The Scrabble comment.) Heh.

I agree, nimh, a lot of what I've been saying the last few pages.

Bill, Mormonism was tacitly endorsed, too. <shrug> Meanwhile, I think it's much easier to make a case that cigarette smoking harms your heath than Mormonism or homosexuality.

I haven't ducked anything. I said that both shows -- Mormons, coupla moms -- have an implicit message of "some people are like this, and that's OK."

0 Replies

(Oh and about smoking, I personally wouldn't care much if that's shown on TV. Again already covered that. Dlowan's avatar caused me to have a discussion about smoking with sozlet earlier than planned, but I didn't demand that dlowan change her avatar.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Oh that's where it went! (The Scrabble comment.) Heh.

I agree, nimh, a lot of what I've been saying the last few pages.

Bill, Mormonism was tacitly endorsed, too. <shrug> Meanwhile, I think it's much easier to make a case that cigarette smoking harms your heath than Mormonism or homosexuality.

Cigarette smoking isn't being used for comparative harm/no harm value. It is vividly illustrating that it's presence alone would constitute a defacto endorsement.

sozobe wrote:

I haven't ducked anything. I said that both shows -- Mormons, coupla moms -- have an implicit message of "some people are like this, and that's OK."

You have, and you continue to do so. You are ducking the relevant purpose of the smoking comparison. Presumably, because once you recognize it for what it is, you then have to admit that 2 moms is a defacto endorsement as well... which would make the most accurate hypothetical parallel an episode that implies homosexuality is a sin. This, of course, you don't want to do because you know damn well the undeniably predictable outrage that would cause.

0 Replies

But it only matters if it's a defacto endorsement if it's something wrong/ harmful. Heterosexual couples are shown all the time -- defacto endorsement. Kids are shown sharing all the time -- defacto endorsement. Black kids and white kids are shown playing together all the time -- defacto endorsement.

Bill, what part of "some people are like this, and that's OK" don't you get? It's like, I say "the sky is blue." You say, "You just can't admit that the sky is the primary color that is not red or yellow." I say "uh, yeah, the sky is blue."

:-?

"Some people are like this, and that's OK." Defacto endorsement. Same deal. Not ducking -- I said it first! Laughing

Defacto endorsement (since that seems to be your preferred term) of the concept "homosexuality is a sin" would be, I dunno, something like NEVER showing homosexuals on TV (ahem). How do you make a defacto endorsement -- not explicit -- that homosexuality is a sin? Because remember, from all accounts and our assumptions here (sure hope I can see it, haven't heard back from PBS yet), no explicit value judgements are made in "Sugartime!". It's not, "this is a good thing to do" or "this is a bad thing to do", it's "this exists, and that's OK."

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know