RLGaming.com

Hammer wrote: ↑

22 Aug 2022, 14:31

there is a huge difference in our society. Ever reflect upon why that is?

All societies/cultures inevitably change over time and we can debate all day about which of those changes were good and which ones are bad. To give you a few examples, things like divorce and pre-marital sex were major taboos in most Western societies until the second half of the 20th century while at the same time racism and homophobia were largely accepted. Violence was indeed toned down and much less prevalent in both films and TV but the real world (crime, war, etc) was no different from what it is now. Perhaps this has more to do with US society wanting to portray an idealized version of reality on TV and film which by the 70's became apparently futile?

I will argue that crime was quite different. Mass shootings? much less school shootings? Outright kidnapping of children off the streets? Did that really exist even as late as the 70's. I know I walked to school in K and 1st through a cornfield. No way anyone would let their child do that now (at least i hope not)? Same with going across the city on public transportation to middle school?

But do not kid yourself about pre-marital sex. It happened even pre-WW2, and likely before. Even with those not betrothed. But it was suppressed, and was considered taboo. The issue is now it is no longer suppressed and not really considered taboo, so is now generally accepted as the norm.. Just an example, but applies to the general decline of ethics and morals in our culture with much of it being pretty unpalatable to some of us.

Don't get me wrong about progress though. I despise racism, bigotry, etc. We ARE the Land of the Free (because of the Brave, mind you) and people are supposed to be able to do what and be how they want, within reason of course (affecting harm on others should not be tolerated). However, I do feed we should have some method of preventing the downward moral and ethical spiral we seem to be in. I am perhaps an interesting conundrum - quite conservative and at least moderate at the same time. ;)

I will be watching, but will likely binge watch all at once, which is my usual practice. Looks like a lively discussion here. I will go back and read sometime soon.

Grifter wrote: ↑

26 Aug 2022, 16:55

I will be watching, but will likely binge watch all at once, which is my usual practice.

That works well as long as you are patient! HBO only releases one episode per week so in a little over 2 months you'll be able to binge.

House of the Dragon episode 2 (last night).

This was a dialogue heavy "set up" episode for the impending Targaryen civil war. This show really was cast very well. Matt Smith is the stand out actor for me so far.

Dude, I have so much tv to watch, and then there is the football season and video games, waiting to binge it is no problem. Matt Smith is an excellent actor. If you haven't seen him as the Doctor in Doctor Who, you should check out those seasons.

Thanks for the recommendation Grifter but Dr. Who is not my cup of tea. No pun intended. :-)

<quote> Yah - I am probably a dork and a prude, but if you reflect back in what was the norm in your childhood (at least for the older guys like me) and what is now - there is a huge difference in our society. Ever reflect upon why that is?


Well my father was an officer in the army and he ruled us kids with a leather belt. Which gave us better morals and principles. Moral principles are guidelines that people live by to make sure they are doing the right thing. I admire the 1940’s era when more people had them..

There are a few issues that have had an impact in our society since then… Drugs pouring into our country in the 60’s that spawned many radical liberals - and the Internet that gives everyone the opportunity to gather an audience of over a million people and say what’s on their mind.

But in the end I would say it has more to do with drugs and the effect it can have over several generations. Today -Politicians will do or say anything to keep their jobs , such as allowing Open Borders and the Legalization of drugs in our country which will take all of us in the wrong direction.

Here’s a McDonald's commercial from the 1970’s

Here is a McDonald's commercial from THE 1980’S

And here a McDonald's commercial from Today

Displays of extreme violence and sex have been on the rise in media for decades, and whether or not that is a concern, I think, is rather subjective, and in my view largely depends on context and the producers' intent. To say that drugs haven't had an effect on culture would be naive, but to the degree you seem to be suggesting, I don't think drugs can be demonized for the presumably moral erosion in our culture, which again, I have qualms about that assertion in the first place.

During the last thirty years, it may be argued that the Internet has had more of an influence on our culture. It's true that the Internet has become arguably the primary engine for consumerism, for consuming media in particular, and has provided groups of people the opportunity to gather and create communities, such as this one or on large platforms like Reddit, and yes, it has allowed some individuals, for better or worse, to influence large audiences. However, it is difficult to decidedly label the Internet's influence on our society and culture as largely negative given all that innovation that it has proffered. Certainly, it could be argued that the Internet has provided a platform for the otherwise marginalized and silenced to voice their concerns and encourage political and social change for the better.

In any case, your argument is decidedly conservative and seems broader than the subject at hand. I can't disagree with your assertion that politicians will do anything to stay in office. For example, there are many Republican candidates right now espousing that Biden did not actually win the last election or that the most recent iteration of the vaccine is actually more harmful than Covid itself; of course, they are making these assertions in the hopes that they will be elected or reelected with the support of conservatives that believe in such conspiracies. Furthermore, the legalization of Marijuana isn't necessarily a bad thing. The research is fairly clear that the "war on drugs" was a failure, and that the dangers of Marijuana, while not necessarily comparable to those of alcohol, have been largely overblown. Legal or not, Marijuana and other narcotics have had their influence on culture, as you rightly point out, but not to the degree you're suggesting. I understand your argument that politicians are willing to open borders in order to maintain their offices, but immigration law doesn't seem particularly relevant to a debate on the supposedly moral erosion of our culture.

As a progressively minded person, I don't consider myself a liberal, but I hold many liberal views. I don't think we can argue that liberals are solely responsible for a decline in American values either.

As I said above, whether or not violence and sex should be so vividly depicted in modern entertainment, I think that the decision to do so depends largely on context and the producers' intent. Regardless, it is up to us as consumers to vote with our feet. It falls to us to be critically thoughtful about what media we choose to consume and what media we decide to ignore. Production companies will respond to the apparent demands of their audiences. Certainly, if people strongly believe that media violence and sex is gratuitous, they should probably openly oppose it in some sort of grass roots campaign, the sort of campaign that could be created on the internet, for example. But, to regulate such depictions more than they already are, there is a audience rating system in place, would be to start a whole other debate about infringing on first amendment rights. That's a whole other elephant.

I think the "degradation" (or progression? some might say) of our cultures' morals and ethics are far more complex than blaming/suggesting one or two avenues. Drugs, media (news and entertainment), internet, and the loud groups are what have all contributed. As we become more liberal, we enable becoming even more liberal. I am also a moderate, but we do not need to slide into oblivion.

Here is an example that makes me cringe: one of my daughters loves Harry Potter. we are watching on a network (I think FX) and the commercials that come on, during the day, will give her nightmares. blood, guts, horror, etc. how is anyone that is showing/streaming/broadcasting a Harry Potter movie allowing such commercials? meh, we bought the DVD's so we can avoid that crap. But someone feels the need to even create such things under the first amendment (which is absolutely NOT what the first amendment was created/written for) so they can gather more dollars from the public that feels it is OK because they *need* to see something a bit more sensational than the last movie/tv show.

alas, there are so many more things we could discuss here...

maybe I should take the relevant posts out of there and put them in a separate thread so we stop polluting Panzer's thread.

Feel free to move these posts, I have no objections. I agree with your assertion that the culture's morals are the composite of more than any one influence; I think that was my more subtle point. Although, I still would contend that the internet is perhaps the largest of those contributing influences by a landslide.

I would also agree that some media is, by it's very nature, subjectively abhorrent and unnecessary, lacking any redeeming qualities, and some forethought should be put into when this material is broadcasted. I've had the same experience. I'm watching a football game, and assaulted by some gory advertisement for the latest slasher film. I find those movies repugnant and wouldn't choose to expose myself, never mind a child, to that material. For this reason, I wish I could filter commercials out altogether. If it weren't for football, generally speaking, I would achieve that since I stream everything I watch advertisement free.

As to the first amendment and what it was written for, and what it now constitutionally protects, well, that's really a whole other elephant, as I said in my previous post. We'd need to define what the first amendment says and what it means in the modern era. Unless, of course, you subscribe to fundamentalist's reading of the constitution, but of course the argument would then devolve into a debate about that perspective. Several conversations, then, would need to occur, and for all of it, nothing would change.

Yes and Thanks! I would like that as well. Although there’s not much left to say… while at the same time there is everything to say. I think it would make a discussion topic. There are so many people out there who need to hear a little wisdom to make sense of it all.

Hammer wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2022, 11:53

maybe I should take the relevant posts out of there and put them in a separate thread so we stop polluting Panzer's thread.

Don't bother! Apparently I'm the only one in RLG who is watching this show right now or has bothered to post about it.

Grifter wrote: ↑

10 Oct 2022, 12:46

As to the first amendment and what it was written for, and what it now constitutionally protects, well, that's really a whole other elephant, as I said in my previous post. We'd need to define what the first amendment says and what it means in the modern era. Unless, of course, you subscribe to fundamentalist's reading of the constitution, but of course the argument would then devolve into a debate about that perspective. Several conversations, then, would need to occur, and for all of it, nothing would change.

The way I see it, the First Amendment protects citizens from being persecuted by any government (Fed, State, local) entity for airing their grievances against said government entity. In other words the "freedom of speech" deals with private citizens and government entities. This does not cover dealings between private citizens and the private sector.

Here we go professor , an entire generation of drug attics who will never live a normal life. And they have children who adopt their parents addiction , and so on and so on. This movie is from 1992 back when drugs were getting out of control , and today it’s like a cancer that is eating away at our nation. Cannabis is a gateway drug , doctors are prescribing hard drugs that are also addictive with the pharmaceutical companies making billions of dollars from it.


.

Cannabis is legal in some States like Colorado and Oregon but their overall drug problem is no worse than other States where cannabis is still illegal. The whole cannabis illegal issue was propped up to make sure all of those privately owned prisons remained fully stocked with new prisoners.


The opioid issue though (fentanyl and others) is most certainly exacerbated by being over-prescribed.

So, Panzer, how's that for family dysfunction? When was the last time you were woken up in the middle of the night because your son slashed his cousin's eye, and then his mom tried to stab you with Valeryan steel? Guess that family vacation was over.

King Valyrs, at this point, reminded me of Ed Norton's portrayal of the king in "Kingdom of Heaven," down to the (half) face mask. Given all the ailments and the stress he had, he really had a good long run! I'm thinking he's going to get an Emmy nod.

v6,
boNes