Hey guys, did you catch that episode of Breaking Bad last night? Wow, the way he mowed down all those neo-nazis was mindblowing! Gee, I feel like we're connected so much on an intrinsic level! And gosh, that South Park episode about murder porn? Man, I totally thought the sex scenes and violence were great! You think so too? Wow! Shared experience!!!
Sarcasm? Maybe. But this is what you are saying, brought down to the lowest common denominator.
I have had countless
great conversations spurred by South Park and Breaking Bad. Those are great examples. If you can't look past the profanity and vulgarity in those programs, you may find many parts of history and contemporary affairs vulgar. South Park takes on a lot of serious issues and they are, surprisingly, critical of atheists and Christians and a wide spectrum of beliefs.
What I'm saying is based in the writings of nationalist scholars, specifically Benedict Anderson and his "Imagined Community." Culture is important and it acts as a sort of glue for society. Completely isolating yourself from the mainstream culture means that you cannot even critique the culture you may find repugnant. The best way to critique media is to watch it, it's very hard to launch an effective criticism when you have not seen something. Personally, I don't think it's bad to expose yourself to profanity, vulgarity, and other things most conservatives believe are "inappropriate." History, and even the Bible, is full of things that provoke disgust and revulsion. Watching something does not mean you are tacitly endorsing it, you can always watch with a critical eye.
Origins of National Consciousness wrote:
Along with the above historical happenings that laid the path to the consciousness of nationalism, the practice of print-capitalism facilitated the imagining of the nation. The expansion of the book market contributed to the vernacularization of languages. Print languages created unified fields of communication, which enabled speakers of a diverse variety of languages to become aware of one another via print and paper. These people, consequently, became aware of the existence of the millions who share their nation and language. Print-capitalism also gave fixity to language, which stabilized it and gave print language a sense of antiquity that enhanced the feeling of nationalism. Finally, the notion of print capitalism gave dominance to a few selected languages for their printability: dialects that were closer to print languages than others were the ones that were commonly used and persisted through history (44-46)
Read more: http://postcolonialstudies.emory.edu/be ... z2gha5AGyR
You are so condescending towards those who disagree with you on this. Do you deny the possibility that an adult may be highly intelligent, may have considered the options, is reasonable and open, and yet chooses spanking as a legitimate last resort? My parents spanked me, and I am fine; I will personally be willing to spank my own children, in love and as a last resort, as John III put it.
I am not denying that abuse is real, nor that your own (or any other HA member's) parents may have used spanking abusively. But you are dead wrong when you equate ALL corporal punishment to beating.
Someone asked me to plainly state my beliefs and I did so. I tried to explain why I believe spanking is so prevalent, but simultaneously a "bad practice." Simply appealing to tradition and saying "this is the way children are raised" is not enough. I'm not saying everyone who spanks is ignorant, look at my words I try to be precise: "I believe that spanking is a lazy parenting technique used by people who are generally
not educated in other methods." I'm not claiming sweeping generalizations, but I think spanking is very widespread and most people have not put much thought into it.
You object to my use of "beating" when discussing spanking, I realize that. I admitted my position would probably offend many of you. Please don't take personal offense. I'm here trying to just inform you about my perspective, which is shared by a large portion of mainstream society - especially among the "humanist intellgentsia."
Masked Midnight wrote:
I don't understand why family conversations can't be just as (if not far more so) yielding than a television program in terms of "shared experience".
Socialization is about more than just having conversations with family members. There is no reason you cannot watch television and have a family conversation about it.
The two are not mutually exclusive actions. Some of my fondest memories of childhood are when my parents introduced me to a particularly good film. Films and good television have the capacity to provoke imagination and thoughts just like a book
. I don't understand why everyone thinks books are always superior to television. If you read bad books, it's a waste of time. If you watch terrible television, it's a waste of time. Just like parents should help pick out good literature for their children, they should help them discern good media. Part of that is exposing yourself to media, at an age-appropriate level, and learning how to criticize and critique it. How is that activity now a productive one for a family to engage in? Would it be better to close to your children off from all television and not prepare them to criticize it? TV isn't going to go away.
You think you're radical
But you're not so radical
In fact, you're fanatical