OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[John Reimer]

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.


-JJR