Thorny subject

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. I believe the behaviors you're talking about were no more acceptable then than they are now. It's just that in that time period people were much more conscious of "minding their own business". Society as a whole decided that the line many were uncomfortable crossing (i.e. - inserting themselves into something between a husband and wife in the privacy of their home) was valid to be crossed and enacted laws to remedy the situation. I remember as a child in the 50's the adults having disdain and no use for a man in the neighborhood who treated his wife badly. It wasn't "acceptable" then, but the laws had not evolved to make it easy for the authorities to intervene.

Actually, what I wrote was- "In my grandmother's day, domestic violence was largely tolerated and turned a blind eye to by society."

Keep in mind that our society largely deemed women as second class citizens, to obey the orders of the husband or else... When my grandmother was 20 the 19th Amend did not exist. This was the landscape of our societal standards and attitudes that made possible for society to tolerate and turn a blind eye to domestic abuse, not the simplistic notion of 'mind your own business'l, though I think that is part of the excuse.

My point is, when one takes a look at how completely screwed up many of our societal standards and values have been in the past, I'm pretty sure JA et al., and the standards or lack thereof that allow such to be tolerated, isn't too much for our society to overcome...or at least survive. I hope.

I think there is a tendency for many to see the worst, seeking some type of validation to a preconceived notion. In some respects these type discussions remind me of global warming activists who see each tornado, hurricane or warm day as proof of impending environmental holocaust.

And I respectfully ask that before you compare what these MTV "stars" do to the Three Stooges, you should personally take a look at it. Whoever made that comparison to you was, in my opinion, using a poor analogy.

Apparently, I'm one of the few who here, or perhaps only one, who lacks intimate knowledge of these JA movies. It's been my personal standard to not support such things. What's everyone's excuse here?

 

[NFrameFred]

Never saw the movies - wouldn't spend my money on it; happenstance to catch parts of the show while surfing across the channels - it's like passing a car wreck, you don't want to look but you can't believe what you're seeing. And then there's always the acquaintances who send links to YouTube clips that they think you "just have to see". After the first one or two I learned to just "recycle bin" the message.

Believe me - I've seen little of it but enough to know it isn't the "Three Stooges". Plus there's plenty written about what is done on the show. But if it makes someone feel better about it to equate it to violent cartoons and such . . . .

 

[Kelly Green]

It’s sad to see us change as a nation. Our national character was one based on honor, patriotism, personal responsibility and centered around Christian morals and principals. Today, we seem to be trading self-sacrifice and duty for self-expression and self-indulgence.

 

[Faulkner]

Celebrity or not, there are often bad consequences from driving drunk. Oh well . . . at least he won't be killing some innocent family on the roadway in the future.

 

[pawncop]

NFrameFred,

First I want to commend you for a well thought out and inciteful thread.

While there may be some minor differences of opinion, I gather that the majority of us responding, agree with you in principle if not in total agreement.

So the question now becomes thus - How can we take the principles of civility, discipline, work ethic, "morals" (for lack of a better word) of a different time and era, and be able to apply them to this society in a way where diversity, extreme tolerance, and an attitude that discourages judgement are celebrated as enlightened?

I do not have an answer. I know that one must be found.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

According to the intergenerational sensitivity class that I had to endure to continue billing ridicuilously wealthy large oil companies, there are so fewer kids behind us (so called gen-x-ers (born 1964-1979) and millenials (born 1980-2000) and therefore even decent ones are rare, they are unaccustomed to criticism so we have to break them into the real world gently and always be conscious of their feelings. Since there were so fewer kids around than there were for us spoiled (and greedy) baby boomers (born 1945-1963) they are poorly socialized and it is our duty to socialize them, of course, without hurting their precious feelings. There are also categories called the traditionals (born before 1945) the correct treatment of which roughly tranlates to subtly finding out why they haven't got the courtesy to get out of the workplace or die. That puts a day long expensive class in a nutshell. Just passing on what I was taught at absurd expense.

 

[617X10]

This is aimed at no one, it's just a general observation. If you are worried about how social standards have fallen since the good old days, how could you not see the inherent wrong in Ebert's comment? It's like dancing on a man's grave. We have protestors at the funerals of fallen soldiers doing the same thing Ebert did. I will even go so far as to say that I found the antics displayed by some after the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced disgraceful. Ebert's words made him sound as much like a young punk as the person he was commenting on. It's much better to do like the old saying and not say anything at all if you haven't got anything good to say. That is what's known as showing decorum. We could all learn to do a little leading by example. In other words, stop talking about relatives, coworkers, and the folks who've been skipping church at the dinner table.

 

[Wayne02]

I guess my point is that a civilized society must have some standards that do not fall below a certain point or it will cease to be "civilized". By allowing this kind of "entertainment" to be brought into our children's living rooms, turning a blind eye toward it and ignoring it as a passing fad, or whatever, we contribute in some small part to the further degradation of a standard of behavior and civility that makes society work for everyone.

Well reasoned and thought out post on this subject.

The question is what can be done about it?

Morals, values, beliefs, and an understanding of right and wrong are developed under the tutelage of the parents. Or at least it should be. Parents have 18ish years to influence a young persons sense of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in a properly functioning society. Parents have the ultimate responsibility in this regard. Miss that window of opportunity and the chances of the new young adult effectively learning these most important attributes is diminished substantially.

However, there are all kinds of things going on that can make the above more difficult. Broken families, all manner of outside influences, busy lifestyles with all hands on deck working to pay the bills and little time for family matters, etc. Some may say these are legit issues, others may say they are unacceptable excuses.

Now, absent substantial and proper parental involvement what mechanisms are we left with to shape societal behavior? Regulate and legislate 'proper' behavior to shape a polite and respectful society? That doesn't seem like the correct approach.

Another tool that used to be employed to help keep society in line was shame. People didn't do stupid things in part because it was embarrassing, and brought shame to the individual, and by extension their family as well. These days this attribute seems largely absent in parts of society.

I don't know what the answer is, but I keep coming back to the family home and involved dedicated parenting as a key cornerstone in the whole thing. If a young adult has not had his/her base values established, has not had some critical thinking and evaluation skills take root, and has not had some basic ideas of what's right and what's wrong ingrained in their thought processes, there is going to be problems.

If they leave the family home and enter adulthood without the above, then the media, friends, and their societal age group will be the primary drivers that shape the young adults understanding of what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Seems like a vicious circle to me, and until we can gain some ground in responsible parenting and the strength of the family home it will continue to recycle over and over again.

 

[NFrameFred]

If you are worried about how social standards have fallen since the good old days, how could you not see the inherent wrong in Ebert's comment? It's like dancing on a man's grave. . . Ebert's words made him sound as much like a young punk as the person he was commenting on. . . It's much better to do like the old saying and not say anything at all if you haven't got anything good to say. . . That is what's known as showing decorum. We could all learn to do a little leading by example.

Kind of my point . . . I was pointing out the irony that those who are some of the worst offenders in bringing this attitude to the public discourse don't care for it when crude actions are committed toward them.

My elders had a saying to the effect, "if you lay down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas". This applies to a lot of different things . . . .

 

[NFrameFred]

I appreciate most of the replies from those who have reasoned intellectual responses who did not shoot from the lip and respond from emotion. As I stated originally, this was certainly not a trolling post designed to offend someone or stir the pot. And like many of you I certainly don't know what the answer is, I just know the signs are there for anyone willing to see that things are not all well and it's a vain hope that by going in the same direction and trusting to luck that it will all turn out OK.

And for those who apparently didn't get where I was coming from, I certainly wasn't defending Roger Ebert. Another 'celebrity' who thought his status afforded him the right to make a crude public comment that was hurtful for a sound byte.

When one is younger it is admirable to have a desire to change the world for the better, even if the idea of how that is accomplished is naive or ill-informed. As you approach the time when you contemplate the certainty of leaving this life and going to the next, you try to make sense of what you've learned and observed over a lifetime and wish to leave behind better than you had. It's a bit frustrating to feel like that may not be possible. And anyone with any sense of shame and responsibility has to examine him/herself and wonder what part they played and if their contribution while here was more positive or negative. We all do things in the "exuberance" of youth that we look back on and acknowledge it probably was something we would do differently were it possible to get a "do over".

Bad enough when we do it to ourselves, but when we do it to multitudes . . .

 

[Herknav]

Good observation. Are you (not just the OP--all of you/us) doing anything to fix it, or are you just going to sit there and gripe? Yes, it's the parents' ultimate job to train kids, but I happen to agree with (I'm gonna get flamed for this) the whole "it takes a village" concept. Ridicule it all you want, but there were parents, grandparents, friends of my parents and grandparents, teachers, folks at church, Scoutmasters, and all sorts of other adults who helped shape my life. My parents couldn't be everywhere at once, and I became very close to some of these people because they took the time to show me things or even just to talk to me. They cared. You have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and I've never seen a good organization turn down quality volunteers.

I hear a lot of older folks say they want nothing to do with kids because they've raised their own. Fine, but don't complain when the kids feel unwanted by society.

I attended a similar class to the one HoustonRick did. What he didn't say was that one reason young folks are so disenfranchised is that we've given them nothing to believe in. Traditionalists tend to value God, country, and family. When they (traditionalists) grew up, these concepts meant something. Over the years, religion (often confused with God) has been a constant let-down, as they (young folks) see adults not live up to the concepts taught at church. The country (as represented by politicians) is no better with scandal after scandal, and family obviously didn't mean enough for mom and dad to stay together. So, why should they (young folks) care about it if nobody else does, despite what they say?

I agree with what you said. I just wanted to kick in some food for thought.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Never saw the movies - wouldn't spend my money on it; happenstance to catch parts of the show while surfing across the channels - it's like passing a car wreck, you don't want to look but you can't believe what you're seeing. And then there's always the acquaintances who send links to YouTube clips that they think you "just have to see". After the first one or two I learned to just "recycle bin" the message.

Since interactive programing guides came out many many years ago, I don't think I have ever accidentally watched MTV or anything else I didn't intend to. Rather than surfing through channels, I surf the guide and then select. Friends and acquaintances do not e-mail those type video links to me for my entertainment. However, if my inbox was being polluted with what I felt to be offensive material I would ask the offender(s) to knock it off rather than learning to accept it. I can't fix society, but I can influence those around me.

 

[cmort666]

I think they were a race of aliens from "Star Trek" that didn't like
the "Federation of Planets" in their space sector.

They REALLY didn't like the Bajorans, kind of like Japanese and Chinese.

 

[cmort666]

Since interactive programing guides came out many many years ago, I don't think I have ever accidentally watched MTV or anything else I didn't intend to. Rather than surfing through channels, I surf the guide and then select. Friends and acquaintances do not e-mail those type video links to me for my entertainment. However, if my inbox was being polluted with what I felt to be offensive material I would ask the offender(s) to knock it off rather than learning to accept it. I can't fix society, but I can influence those around me.

I haven't watched MTV since Daria went off. I prefer my satire to be intentional, and not utterly clueless SELF-satire.

 

[617X10]

Kind of my point . . . I was pointing out the irony that those who are some of the worst offenders in bringing this attitude to the public discourse don't care for it when crude actions are committed toward them.

My elders had a saying to the effect, "if you lay down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get fleas". This applies to a lot of different things . . . .

I think Mr. Eberts words were unseemly or worse. I don't recall any of the ******* cast bashing someone else in the public media as did Mr. Ebert. Therefore I don't find the reaction to his words ironic, I find them par for the course. I have no delusions of grandeur that make me feel capable of making the world a better place, but I refuse to step down to the level of those whose actions I dislike. People love to convince themselves that the world is going to heck in a handbasket, but do you really think there is more evil in the world now than there ever has been? It's not like the Germans are annexing Poland as we speak. The availability of information is the only thing that has really changed.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

A - I guess it would be better to start thinking of it as a meter for just how messed up we are getting.

IMO, the specific audience that is attracted to JA, et al.(whatever that group might mostly represent) isn't a good barometer of America.

Let's take a look at one of the largest audiences on Earth, the Super Bowl audience. Over 100,000,000 Americans tune in. I'd say such an audience represents a reasonable cross section of America. In 2004, for a fraction of a moment, a portion of a breast was exposed..."Wardrobe Malfunction". There was a collective spasm across America from coast to coast. Screaming complaints, investigations, explanations and apologies went on for what seemed forever. FCC went bonkers, media pundits were wringing their hands, politicians were stumping, MTV was forever banned, lower courts and even the Supreme Court were involved for years over fines and things. --- Meanwhile, most of Europe rolls their eyes at what they perceive to be prudish and uptight American social standards.

Instead of a portion of a breast exposed for a fraction of a moment, what do you think the reaction would have been to 30min of JA video clips being played during halftime? When it comes to invading the living rooms of America (Super Bowl is considered a family event) I think there's evidence to suggest that America isn't so tolerant of this nonsense as some might believe. That said, I think that the fringes of society have become much more extreme.

 

[nostraDONus]

Andy Griffith, Don Knotts, Carol Burnett, Lucille Ball, Red Skelton, Milton Berle, Sid Ceasar, Carl Reiner, Tim Conway, Jackie Gleason, Art Carney...........make me laugh. Creative talented people.

The 30 seconds of ******* I've seen is disgusting low brow humor. Live a fools life, die a fools death. But, I'm sure his parents are proud of his legacy.

 

[Gutpile Charlie]

I think Mr. Eberts words were unseemly or worse. I don't recall any of the ******* cast bashing someone else in the public media as did Mr. Ebert. Therefore I don't find the reaction to his words ironic, I find them par for the course. I have no delusions of grandeur that make me feel capable of making the world a better place, but I refuse to step down to the level of those whose actions I dislike. People love to convince themselves that the world is going to heck in a handbasket, but do you really think there is more evil in the world now than there ever has been? It's not like the Germans are annexing Poland as we speak. The availability of information is the only thing that has really changed.

___________________________________________________

With all due respect, I think that we are at the very beginning of that world that you describe.

I was in education, off and on from 1963 until 1997...then had a connection with youth up until just a few years ago. I will tell you, they are getting worse and worse. Yes, there are some great kids, but civility is dead. Common sense is dead. Decency seems to be dead. Taking responsibility for you own actions seems to be in the minority.

We elect criminals for politicians and do not demand....or remove them from office. Half the population has an entitlement mentality. Half the population believes in "redistribution of wealth." Half of the population believes that "what is mine is theirs."

Lying, cheating and stealing seems to be becoming the norm, instead of aberrant behavior. Politicians do something that "offends public sensibilities" and they "fix" it by saying...."I take full responsibility for my actions"....... Baloney!

No, the Nazis are not invading Poland or rounding up the Jews.....yet.

The cards have been played, the pulbic has been prepared and a "fundamental change" is coming.....unless something happens.....very soon.

No, I don't buy the idea that things are just the same, or that "kids will be kids", etc.

We have been in a declining society for a long time now, and if you don't acknowledge it....well then, you might just be part of the problem.

 

[belairdave]

If you OD on drugs or get drunk and run into something with your car, you've just filtered the gene pool a little bit.

WELL SPOKEN... Later, Dave

 

[Engineer1911]

This Forum has strict behavior standards and seems to be growing pretty fast. Maybe that's a good sign. -- ChattanoogaPhil

Lee,

Thank you for setting those standards.


There are 300,000,000 Americans. Only 100,000,000 watch the Super Bowl. The other 2/3 of the American population is setting the standards for us, as in you and me. I don't like the new standard.