Slashdot Mirror
The Simpsons Reviewed For Unsuitable Nuclear Jokes
Hugh Pickens writes "CNN reports that television networks in several European countries are reportedly reviewing episodes of 'The Simpsons' for any 'unsuitable' references to nuclear disaster, with an Austrian network apparently pulling two episodes: 1992's 'Marge Gets a Job' and 2005's 'On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister,' which include jokes about radiation poisoning and nuclear meltdowns. Al Jean, executive producer of the show, says that he can appreciate the concern. 'We have 480 episodes, and if there are a few that they don't want to air for awhile in light of the terrible thing going on, I completely understand that,' says Jean, citing the example of the 1997 episode 'The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson' that was pulled after 9/11 because it included key scenes at the World Trade Center. 'We would never make light of what's happening in Japan.'"
radical news: someone behaved in a mature and sensible way!
to make fun of it.
/b/, but it had a macabre humour to it: (to the tune of spongebob squarepants' theme) "who lives in their houses under the sea?" "japanese people"
This probably originated from
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
They are obviously not talking about ignoring the problem, but about not making fun of people that are actually suffering radiation exposure.
And if somehow Death Metal fans managed to take over the world suddenly cartoon network would be under the gun. Where does it end? With the Oblongs of course.
tag the story toosoon :)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I hear what you're saying, but is it really "making fun" when the episode is filmed years before the disaster? I'm a New Yorker, the Trade Center episode not only doesn't bother me, I still find it hilarious to this day!
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
Who? People are probably suffering radiation exposure in Austria at about the same rate as they ever have.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Humor is rooted in pain and suffering. Story at 11. and 11. and 11.
If anything the Simpsons are a way of becoming more aware of the problem, not making fun of those who suffer for it.
My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
It seems somewhat over reactive, but I see the idea. It's not like they show bugs bunny nips the nips any more either.
On the flip side, they're allowed to show tits on TV in Austria, and the US has a meltdown when that happens.
Sent from my PDP-11
I loved "The City of New York vs Homer Simpson". Great episode even after 9/11.
People are not able to sensor bad taste and content, jokes or editorial by themselves needing instead gov or industry to do it instead. That day appears to be yesterday, rest our heads in a moment of silence for that day wasted.
It is not ok to joke about nuclear things, but it is ok to take nuclear waste home.
About criticism being mounted when the motion picture version of The two Towers was coming out... E.g. waybackmachine.org/../twotowerprotest.org
It's not like a new episode was banned, is an episode up for repeat and some one decided to play it safe and show another on of the 20 years worth of possible reruns. Lighten up it not big brother censoring the news, or someone setting up a government comity to discuss all the pros and cons, its "hey, I would if this may upset some one? Ah what the heck I'll chuck one of these in instead" as they point to a mountain of VHS cassettes.
Al Jean, executive producer of the show, says that he can appreciate the concern. 'We have 480 episodes, and if there are a few that they don't want to air for awhile in light of the terrible thing going on, I completely understand that,' says Jean...
Not sure I understand why you're so indignant when the executive producer of the show himself sees no problem here.
...that "King Size Homer" will get pulled in some markets, which is unfortunate because it has one of the best lines in any Simpsons episode.
Why would you want a flamboyant baboon?
And S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Fallout are banned too.
You are aware of what country sumo wrestling comes from right?
Knife goes in... guts come out...
He did say that he doubted anyone in Japan could do the job.
Although the logistics of bringing over a American or two. Damn thats a crazy idea.
You'd have to lash a few aircraft carriers together or something.
Three-eyed fish?
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
I appreciate the sympathy, however misplaced it is. I get a bit angry when everyone focuses on the nuclear stuff going on. The whole nuclear thing will affect some people in Fukushima prefecture (mostly economically) and maybe some of the neighboring prefectures. Still let's look at things in perspective: 3 hospitalized (they are fine apart from some 'sunburn') from the Fukushima plant issue; over 20,000 missing or dead from the tsunami plus a multitude more homeless and hospitalized. We aren't suffering from nuclear fallout, people, we are suffering from one of the worst natural disasters to hit Japan in over 20 years. Still that is the nature of the beast, 20,000 is just too large a number for people to internalize and sympathize with. However, we can all imagine our gruesome death at the hand of deadly radiation. We all know that these episodes aren't being censored out of sympathy. I just hope they don't replace the episodes with a tsunami episode.
This is ridiculous. The front page of my local newspaper (California, near the coast) is abuzz with "nyookulurr" concerns as well. Why don't they edit out the episodes having to do with, y'know, earthquakes and tsunamis, seeing as that's the brand of disaster Japan is facing right now. It seems to me that the situation with the power plants is being handled professionally and safely. If it wasn't for the public's irrational and uneducated fear of glowing green radioactivity, the nuclear power plants that we do have wouldn't be stuck at 1970's-level technology.
For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
It's not a meltdown. It's an unrequested fission surplus.
This is horrible! It's not like there are many other Simpsons reruns they could show instead.
Property is theft.
I dont see how this is more painful than the media people trying to make money out of the situation.
Somehow, I feel the risk they try to avoid is making people think the nuclear plants are operated by "Simpson like" personnel. Meaning... a real good-bye to public being opened to even listen arguments about nuclear energy being needed.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Editing out scenes that had the old WTC was stupid, and so is this.
Stop being oversensitive nutless wonders and expecting others to be the same.
Are they also going back and wiping any reference to earthquakes and tsunamis? So far, tens of thousands have been confirmed to have died to those events, but we don't feel the need to be sensitive about that. But a nuclear accident that hasn't killed anyone is worth rewriting history of a comedy cartoon? It's not like the jokes were made at the expense of the current situation, being that they have existed for years.
I never did understand the removal of the twin towers from things either. Do we really want to show our respect to those that passed by trying to erase any mention or footage of the buildings?
"but about not making fun of people that are actually suffering radiation exposure"
So, what you are saying in effect is that you can not make jokes about (note the difference between jokes about and laughing at):
the Japanese nuclear disaster?
the Japanese tsunami disaster?
the Japanese quake disaster?
the 2004 quake disaster?
the 2004 tsunami disaster?
the New York 2001 Sep 11 disaster?
the New York jews disaster?
the Holocaust jews disaster?
the Holy Chair disaster?
the Holy Cow disaster?
dairy cows?
farmers?
lumberjacks?
gays?
Why not nuke the Monty Python too?
Sorry, wasting core time on dead-on Japanese nuclear seppuku jokes probably will be around for some time. Hmmm, wonder what the half-life of those jokes will be?
Lisa (playing guitar):
We'll fight day and night
By the big cooling tower
They have the plant,
but we have the power
Lenny: Now play classical gas!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I've watched Simpsons since it was a short on Tracey Ullman, and they have once offended me enough that I turned it off. In fact, I turned the TV off for the night and went in the other room. In syndication to this day that episode makes me emotionally tighten up. I never filed a single complaint, wrote a single letter or missed an episode out of spite. If you watch that kind of series, you sign up for your ox getting gored occasionally.
I'm willing to bet that some retarded german politician will see a relation between "Duke Nukem Forever" and nuclear power and issue a ban on it before it's even released.
Doesn't the opening credits to every episode make fun of nuclear safety when Homer carelessly fumbles a radioactive rod around? As if exposing this material to the atmosphere is a humorous situation and not a serious one?
A little sensitivity is understandable, but this is absurd.
The half-life would be a graph hole. You know, considering it will never degrade... :P
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Coupled with a thermal exhaust failure!
(actually a meltdown isn't excess reaction - it's deficient cooling - emphasizing meltdown)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Ze Goggles do nawtheeng!
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
That's fine, but it would still have been insensitive and in bad taste to have aired that episode on 9/12. When bad things happen it's customary to be aware of the feelings of those who might have been impacted by it as a sign of respect. Stand-up comedians get away with it because they're supposed to be disrespectful and outrageous, but this is a TV station. If they're still banning the episodes next year at this time then I'd argue they're going to far.
This isn't "censorship" (a grossly misused term on this site). It's discretion.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
I never did understand the removal of the twin towers from things either. Do we really want to show our respect to those that passed by trying to erase any mention or footage of the buildings?
It is sympathy for those who directly experienced the incidents. The towers only fell once. People have only been exposed to deadly amounts of radiation a handful of times in the last 100 years (more or less).
As horrible as it is, people die in earthquakes and tsunamis regularly. It happens. And one incident doesn't necessarily evoke another. It's just part of life on Earth.
I'm a reasonably well adjusted adult with a reasonably sane outlook on life, and I am glad that the WTC was erased from popular media for a time, because I knew a lot of people who died there. Seeing the towers during that time in a fictional or humorous way would just bring me to tears for my friends who died.
If you are far removed from these traumas, that's fine. You can still watch these episodes on dvd or similar. And they will probably air them again in a year or so. And that's fine.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
"Pepe, It's not nuclear, it's nucular." - Homer Simpson
He did say that he doubted anyone in Japan could do the job.
And the grandparent's retort was that they have sumo wrestlers, so there was no reason to doubt. Perhaps this will clue you in.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I feel i need to even things out, so here is a Simpsons clip with the irradiated Curies destroying a Japanese looking city.
http://vimeo.com/21402842
Exactly. It's the owner's (Mr. Burns aka TEPCO) cavalier attitude towards safety that got them into trouble in the first place. Mr. Burns hides nuclear waste in trees, makes his employees eat the stuff(it's the TEPCO employees, not the managers, that are really going to suffer from this incident), bribes safety inspectors to look the other way etc, sort of like TEPCO did. If anything these episodes are needed more than ever to point out the flaws in the human side of safety management. Namely greed will often trump safety if there isn't real, impartial oversight.
Monstar L
Sendai has always experienced slightly higher radiation levels.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Kalkalash! Get your kalkalash!
No bowl, stick, stick.
I think most Europeans (and most Americans) are capable of changing the channel themselves, but it's safer for the networks to accomodate the small number of people who are offended, than the larger number of people who don't care much either way.
So we have to wait the mandated 22.3 years (as established by South Park) before we may make jokes about nuclear disasters again? At that rate we may as well never be allowed to again, or at least only in a very small window of about 3 years between incidents.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, meltdown. It's one of those annoying buzzwords. We prefer to call it an unrequested fission surplus.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Talking about it, "Homer, defined" is not on the list? It clearly is an episode of a meltdown almost happening as the core plot device.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is that people fear radiation because it is the monsters of childhood imaginations made real. Deadly, invisible, unstoppable, and, well, evil (from their perspective). They don't understand it, they can't see how it works, yet it can kill. With an explosion, a fire, a wave, you see what is happening, what caused the damage, and you see the problem coming even if you can't avoid it. It is easily knowable and understandable.
So because it is invisible and unknown (I mean to the people, not to everyone) it generates a deep, visceral, fear. It scares them like nothing else does and hence all the over reaction.
Heck in the US pharmacies across the nation sold out of Potassium Iodide. Never mind that even if Fukushima melts down there is no significant risk of any kind to the US, never mind that KI is only useful against one very specific problem (thyroid cancer caused by too much radioactive iodine), people are fearful and doing the only thing they can think of.
Hence you get stupid reactions like censoring nuclear Simpson's episodes.
For me, I worry very little about reactor, and not at all for my personal safety. I find it extremely unlikely it will cause any widespread harm in Japan. I worry about supplies, heat, and medical care for those still alive. The disaster is bad enough already but can get much worse. There are plenty of people who have not died, but who are not safe. They are who I have concern for.
Talking about it, what's the currently acceptable term for black people? Or cripples? Or old geezers? Or stupid people? You keep changing them faster than we can keep up over here in ol' Europe.
Pot, don't call the kettle a nigger...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We don't have like half a million channels here. I have about 50 and I am one of the lucky ones who can afford them and actually get them. Without sat or cable you're stuck with about 3-4 channels, depending on the country you're in.
Also, this IS about the "government channel" of Austria, akin to the BBC, Austria, too, has a "official" network. So, I guess, the government IS doing everything for us here, whether we like it or not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not everybody has the same (lack of) sensitivities as you. Some people do take offense to such things.
The question is why you'd get your panties in a bunch just because they choose not to air those episodes for a couple of weeks or months. Chances are that the episodes weren't even scheduled to air during the period anyway. It's not like this is a permanent ban on the episodes. it's not like you're missing out on anything; you'll just have to wait a bit longer for the re-re-rerun of those episodes.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What does a cartoon show have to do with real life? Nothing. People get offended by something that doesn't affect them yet again, and it is their own fault. The fact that something similar happened in real life does not mean that the joke is not 'funny' (subjective) or that it's 'bad' (subjective). It's irrelevant. People should, in my opinion, focus on real life, not on cartoons. I don't care if it's a joke about 9/11 or what have you. It is illogical to censor it. It has no affect on real life.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So it is funny to joke about nuclear disasters unless they really happen? Human humor indeed is strange, it's ok to joke about something if it's not happening but as soon as it is happening it is suddenly not funny anymore? What changed? The story didn't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't care if they were being made fun of. Why are people so easily offended? It is a cartoon that has no impact on their life.
"Bad taste" is subjective. "Funny" is again subjective. There should not be a few people, or even many, that decide the definitions of these for everyone else.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How is it mature and sensible to retroactively censor a TV show? Seems more Minitrue to me.
Those shows will probably be back on TV in a few months/years. Right now, with that disaster happening, it seems a little distasteful to laugh about such matters, don't you think?
Although your local news agency might have lost interest, the disaster is still happening right now, and it might affect millions of people.
where you wouldn't want to offend them just out of a sense of general decency
I wouldn't waste my time not trying to offend them. Anyone can, in theory, be offended by anything. Too bad for them. They should either stop being so easily offended (taking offense to something is their own doing) or just ignore it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The question is why you'd get your panties in a bunch just because they choose not to air those episodes for a couple of weeks or months.
I care because it's illogical. They get offended by things completely irrelevant to them (like cartoon shows). That is their own fault. A better question would be: if they're so offended, why don't they just not watch it instead of ruining it for everyone else? Or, alternatively, they could realize how pointless it is to get offended in the first place and that it is their own fault.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
You're equivocating. The options aren't "do not air for 22.3 years" and "air with indiscretion". There's a happy medium, probably in the neighborhood of 6 months at the earliest in this case, assuming the disaster doesn't significantly increase in severity. Considering the number of Simpsons episodes (nearly 500) they could air two episodes M-F and not repeat an episode until sometime next year without having a problem.
Shouting this behavior is somehow outrageous when it's entirely possible to do what they're suggesting in a totally reasonable manner is disingenuous. They're not being ridiculous and saying they should ban the program permanently because of the fuel rod in the opening sequence. Give them some credit and benefit of the doubt, and then when they screw up for doing something actually ridiculous you won't be considered a quack and a lunatic for raking them over the coals.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Mountain Dew or Crab juice?
Ewwwww, jeez! 0_0 I'll take the crab juice!
which is totally what she said
You have to admit, it is kind of offensive how some people get so easily offended.
which is totally what she said
Maybe people also disagree with the producer of the show?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Weirdly I didn't even notice the puns.. then again I spent most of yesterday high on caffeine, and decided to lay off it today..
which is totally what she said
Quid == £1
TV License == £145.50 :p
which is totally what she said
What about the small number of people who don't like censorship?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If Fox ever decides to finish The Simpsons I can't think of a better way than destroying Springfield with an earthquake, a tsunami and a meltdown, all in one episode.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This further censorship would encourage me to stop watching The Simpsons - if I hadn't done so when it stopped being funny 10 years ago.
Won't somebody please think of the children!?!
"remember, whatever you say can hurt a sensitive muslim, gay, or fat person, so please be as scilent as you can"
we have all been processed by this rather cruel fucking evolution, so how come that the only thing left seems to be overly sensitive people and morons?
Whether it's illogical or not, the fact is that stations have to be careful what they air at times like this or face spending and/or losing real money as a consequence. It might not be logical for people to complain, but it's entirely logical for the stations to anticipate complaints and circumvent them in this way. Besides, we all have our own eccentricities - I would hope that, by being sensitive to the needs of others, it might encourage them to return the favour some day, it's not like it's costing you or hurting you in any way.
I'm easily offended, you insensitive clod!
Maybe I'm just an insensitive clod but I don't find cartoons involving nuclear themes inappropriate or offensive at this point in time. Yes, I find it quite okay to poke fun at the reasons and the issues making this a lot worse than it ought to be. I mean, building nuclear plants in one of the Earth's worst earthquake zones... utterly stupid. Not maintaining them properly for 40 years... even worse. Especially considering the limitless and easily accessible thermal energy in the area. It's completely pollution free, CO2 neutral, no waste issues and as I wrote - practically limitless. I mean, the thermal energy of the Earth could easily power all the needs of a multi billion population using energy like the US does it currently for eons to come, and it would not even have a measurable effect on the available energy.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
It's kind of arrogant to assume you can predict who will be offended by what.
I mean, maybe they good use a good laugh about it, and if not then don't watch.
I'd also quibble the "decent documentaries" part, too. Panorama, our "grown up investigative journalism" programme almost always has a blatant agenda and skews all the information to support it, our "science programme" Bang Goes the Theory is like a dumbed down Mythbusters (if you can even imagine that), and everything else is just a CGI-fest, like a really expensive screensaver. Most truth on TV these days seems to come from satirical comedy shows like Mock the Week and Have I Got News for You, or else it's buried away on one of the non-mainstream channels (BBC3/4) where six people might watch it. </rant>
There is no call for such foul language.
which is totally what she said
Whether it's illogical or not, the fact is that stations have to be careful what they air at times like this or face spending and/or losing real money as a consequence.
I understand this, but it's not what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against the act of being so easily offended.
Besides, we all have our own eccentricities - I would hope that, by being sensitive to the needs of others
That's just it. There are no "needs" present. They are offended because they let themselves be offended. They do not need to be. And, in fact, it would be better if they weren't. That just leads to what I believe is irrational behavior, such as what we see here.
it's not like it's costing you or hurting you in any way.
The same could be said of them. Just don't watch it. But, really, it is preventing the people who would like to watch it on television from watching it. I wouldn't say that equates to harm, but it does prevent enjoyment. I would say that no action needs to be taken at all. No censorship. Not anything. But that could only be done in a world not ruled by money.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It is sympathy for those who directly experienced the incidents.
And it doesn't make sense. What good does erasing things from fictional material do? They need not be offended by it, and indeed, if they are, it is their own fault. Nothing forces them to be.
As horrible as it is, people die in earthquakes and tsunamis regularly.
Ah, I see. So if it happens regularly, the event is no longer a 'bad' thing and can be presented in a humorous manner? Some would likely disagree.
sane
Subjective.
Seeing the towers during that time in a fictional or humorous way would just bring me to tears for my friends who died.
That's quite illogical. It's a 'shame' that it happened, I believe, but if it bothers you so much (which I think it shouldn't), then don't watch it. Don't expect people to censor everything because you're sensitive.
You can still watch these episodes on dvd or similar.
And they can just not watch them at all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I totally agree that this is censorship. I live in Venezuela and the government considered the Simpsons inappropriate for a morning show so it got replaced by Baywatch. The official reason was "Televen (the network) presumably could infringe the broadcasting prohibitions during said schedule with messages that are a threat to the integral formation of children and teenagers." So I guess it's alright to make you stupid and have all the girls have a perfect role model of how breasts should be, but having a little humor is way out of line. Besides the funny part of it all is that kids are actually at school at 11 AM so the law is completely absurd.
You do realize that drilling for geothermal power is one of the few human interventions which are actually believed to possibly trigger earthquakes, right? (If this wasn't the specific type of geothermal you meant, you should be more specific.)
No? You missed this in your false-dichotomy-fantasy-world? Try to see things in shades of gray, it's much more entertaining. You can then see that nuclear power has both advantages and disadvantages, just like everything else (like geothermal), and pretty soon you might even hit the eureka that there's even more than one way to generate nuclear power and each specific reactor design has its own specific advantages and disadvantages!
Excuse me while I'm off to investigate whether there's been new advances in geothermal power which I missed. And whether geothermal power, which is based on long underground tunnels, would be as devastated as I think it would by a nearby major seismic event.
Oh but the Soviet Union was the enemy while Japan is an ally? Don't you see? If one of our citizens, or allied nation's citizens dies while traveling in a remote and/or desolate country we are more likely to hear about it than a foreigner of a country deemed hostile to us dying in our own countries. In a way the foreigner in question is not that important so it's ok to make insensitive jokes about it, or so they think.
And, apparently, you let yourself be offended by all this.
You can't rationalize human emotions.
Just because you don't share their particular needs, is that a reason to ignore their needs?
You yourself seem to have a need to watch old Simpsons re-runs on TV in the original order and without exception, which seems quite irrational to me. Does your need outweigh the needs of the people who request a temporary hold on a few episodes?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
And, apparently, you let yourself be offended by all this.
What evidence do you base this assumption on? Because I posted? That's just a false dilemma. I could have posted because I like arguing, because I like posting, because I, as you said, was offended, or for another reason entirely.
You can't rationalize human emotions.
No, but you can speak out against the ones that lead to the most illogical behavior: anger and sadness.
Just because you don't share their particular needs, is that a reason to ignore their needs?
Yes. Especially if it is something like this. Them taking offense to this is their own fault. What about other people's needs? What if they wish to watch the show on television? Why don't these people just not watch it? They have that choice, do they not? The people who wish to watch it on television no longer have their choice.
Second of all, they have no "needs." This is not a need. They will be fine even if it doesn't happen. What they have is wants and desires.
Furthermore, should we censor everything simply because a small group of people wishes it to be so? What if people took offense to the fact that other religions existed? What if people took offense to the word "the"? Are we simply going to dismiss these people and say they are being irrational whilst tending to the desires of others? Who makes those decisions? Why? The default solution, I believe, should be to not censor anything and let those people that take offense to it either analyze the situation logically, or just not watch it.
You yourself seem to have a need to watch old Simpsons re-runs on TV in the original order and without exception
Yet another assumption. I do not even watch the Simpsons.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Do you find these episodes hilarious?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caCX4dEqD9E
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I can assure you it is reality, I've seen their house! http://rathausartprojects.com/blog/tag/architecture/
You probably believe the Matrix isn't real, either.
This offends me and my religion more!
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The only reason why sumo world champion isn't American is because all the prospective candidates are too heavy to relocate to Japan to take part in the tournaments. ~
How many episodes have you watched to judge it so poorly and full of anger?
Might I recommend episodes like "The mystery of the urinal Deuce", "Douche and Turd" or "Rainforest Schmainforest" as an experiment to see if you maintain your views about the show?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Fair enough. But that makes for a long list of people they disagree with: the channels doing something on a voluntary basis, the executive producer of the show for not challenging their right to make independent decisions, and all the people that think it's a small courtesy to show some sympathy for dead and dying people caught up in a national crisis.
You have to ask just what is their motive for whining about censorship? Does the voluntary delay of a few re-runs that have been shown before, and will be again, and are available elsewhere, really count as censorship in their minds? Just how safe, cotton-balled and full of trivialities must their lives be to come to that conclusion?
I've found that most people that hate South Park probably have only viewed episodes from the first couple seasons, where it was strictly toilet humor. They likely haven't watched the newer episodes.
I recommend 'Smug Alert!'.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The time to discuss critical views of risks is precisely when the majority of the public is talking about a real episode that shows the nature of the risk.
If people don't want to watch _The Simpsons_ because its jokes will upset them, they don't have to watch. If publishers want to protect those people, the episodes can include a message that they make fun of the very not funny current disaster unfolding in Japan. The vast majority of people in Austria and elsewhere don't need Daddy protecting them from decade old jokes about somewhere else that are still true about Japan today.
Preventing public discussion of problems when the problems hurt most is one of the biggest reason we never learn from the problems and avoid them in the future.
--
make install -not war
Really? Look at "The City of New York vs Homer Simpson" -- it was off the air for several years, and was only allowed to return after an editing pass to cleanse it of offensive materials.
So, yeah....
and I closed all three of my eyes.
No one's making fun of anyone. Satire can have dark bits, but there has been a honest attempt at exposing the problem in the Simpsons for years, unlike the media that forgets about those things until they are the flavor of the month. And most of all, it's a cartoon. You need to take it with a grain of salt.
Talking about it, what's the currently acceptable term for black people? Or cripples? Or old geezers? Or stupid people? You keep changing them faster than we can keep up over here in ol' Europe.
African American, Disabled, Elderly, Congressman
Someone really just wants an excuse to get paid to have a Simpsons marathon.
Yes, but my point was this: what if they stopped watching that station (like they imply this vocal minority might do)?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It certainly is censorship, even if temporary.
Just how safe, cotton-balled and full of trivialities
The fact that worse things happen does not negate the negative impact this has. The issue may be important to them for whatever reason. I just don't like censorship of any kind, especially not the kind that is brought about by people being 'offended'.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I love the Simpsons and have watched every episode since their birth on Tracy Ulman's show. Year's old jokes about radiation or tsunamis wouldn't bother me, but I'm not in Japan.
What did bother me was the (probably unintentionally) mean-spirited joke they made about the star of "Precious" on last Sunday's episode. Did anyone else find Bart's comment about her only hope of another movie roll being as a new Death Star to be offensive? Quite a mis-step IMO.
Otherwise I find the show's skewering humor to be generally on-target. Just my semi-relevant 2c.
They are not ignoring a problem. The simple fact is, the anti-nuke crazies have been extremely effective at scaremongering. Its in everyone's best interest to mitigate the public anxiety about current events.
The simple fact is, nuclear isn't going anywhere. The more anti-nukers make it impossible for newer, safer reactor designs to be built, more likely this is to happen again in the future. Thusly, the anti-nuke idiot scaremongering isn't fed, the better off everyone is. Even better, it helps ensure lower energy prices and a stable energy markets.
Ignoring a problem is not the same thing as making an effort to not feed morons.
Becuase at the start he throws the nuclear fuel rod in to the street
Someone with a sense of humour?
The associated video is pretty fun. The logic is, it must be true because why else would they center text, as is commonly done in print. That logic really is funny and yet, sadly, I'm sure some dope, somewhere, actually believes that garbage.
Just remember, next time you hit that center text button in Word and OO, you're killing a kitten! Oh no! Text is centered again...the world is ending!
Homer Simpson has been working at a Nuclear Power plant for 22 years! Shit people get a fucking sense of humor.
Most definitions of censorship would not apply here. The material is not considered immoral, obscene, politically or commercially damaging, or heretical. It is a free decision made by individuals, as a minor gesture, at a moment in time, with no intent to force that view on others, that does not prevent you from viewing the material in question.
It's true that it is censorship - strictly speaking, according to a particular definition, with no sense of perspective or sympathy. Interpreting words in such a manner is a hallmark of the easily offended. It's so much easier to get all self-righteous when you have strict definitions you think everybody else should live by.
If you're worried about the negative impact of not showing a couple of widely available cartoon re-runs, rest assured you have more in common with "offended" people than you'd like to think.
It's a cartoon. And overly-sensitive types do not have to watch it.
I'm a little confused. The Simpsons episode with the World Trade Center shows Homer outside them, going to the top floor of one tower to use the bathroom only to find out it's out of order, then he goes to the top of the other tower to use the bathroom and see's his car get ticketed from the top. That's it. No terrorists. No mention of any violence.
Since 9/11 do we have to pretend the World Trade Center never existed? We can't have any pictures or cartoons of it on a TV show? What the hell?
Meanwhile, the news program that runs before it had no problem showing many replays of the towers getting destroyed (and still run them from time to time) and there are commercials that run during the show selling the World Trade Center attack commemerative coin.
Selling a worthless coin commemorating the WTC attack? Fine. Showing the video of the attack? Completely acceptable. Showing the WTC as a building not being attacked or threatened? Offensive.
This sentence no verb.
We got way too sensitive. If we don't nip this thing in the bud quickly, the next thing you know, people on the street will be smiling at you for no reason and asking "how are you", like they do in America. And the next thing you know, there will be large men wearing heels, carrying tampons in their purses, like they do in America...
The material is not considered immoral, obscene, politically or commercially damaging, or heretical.
Except that they're doing this because some people might be offended by it.
It's so much easier to get all self-righteous when you have strict definitions you think everybody else should live by.
"Live by"? Aren't you taking it a bit out of context? I merely said that it could be considered censorship. Some definitions of it fit.
If you're worried about the negative impact of not showing a couple of widely available cartoon re-runs, rest assured you have more in common with "offended" people than you'd like to think.
Such as? The mere fact that I posted does not mean that I am offended. The fact that I do not like censorship or that I believe it is illogical does not put me into the same group as those that are so easily offended by fiction. Although, I do not know what you meant to imply by that comment because you did not explain it adequately enough.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
To be fair, the episode titles don't help your case much.
I'm surprised there is no reference to 1995's "King-Size Homer", in which Mr. Burns rewards Homer saying, "you turned a potential Chernobyl in to a mere Three Mile Island."
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Douche and Turd is an inspiring commentary on the two-party political system currently in place in the US.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
believed to possibly
Good enough for me, lets ban it and any cartoon references to it.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
yet, sadly, I'm sure some dope, somewhere, actually believes that garbage.
Sadder still, that dope also probably believes in ESP, but wouldn't apply a subconscious premonition as an explanation, because believing the Simpson's cartoonist was a spook is more scary.
Someone had to do it.
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because believing the Simpson's cartoonist was a spook is more scary.
Of course! Everyone knows South Korean cartoonists make the scariest international spooks!
Homer: I don't see Barney "Let's crash the space shuttle into the whitehouse and kill the President" Gumble...
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If taste is going to be the criterion for what's allowed and not allowed to air on television now, I demand that every reality TV series be removed first.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Since it'll be awhile before you get to hear these gems again, here ya go:
(After Homer vents gas from a nuclear reactor and destroys crops of corn)
Farmer: Oh no, the corn! Paul Newman's gonna have ma' legs broke!
Mr. Burns: Homer, your bravery and quick thinking have turned a potential Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island. Bravo!
(After Homer causes a nuclear meltdown in a simulator)
Nuclear Safety Engineer: I don't understand it! There wasn't any nuclear material in that van!
Remove all references to nuclear meltdown from popular culture, lest the public be shocked at how a simple cartoon managed to project tragedy so perfectly into the future, yet the brightest brains in the industry are standing around a smoldering ruin (but not too closely mind you) wondering what the hell went wrong/is going on? Whocouldanode? Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
I don't know if it's stupid to be corrupt... unethical maybe, but not stupid
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Such as adhering to particular, strict interpretations of words, and then using them to disapprove of other people's decisions, even in matters as trivial as selecting cartoons. You really do seem to be in pretty much the same group.
A TV scheduler's job includes simple concepts like, "put light entertainment material in the light entertainment slot." It's entirely reasonable that in their view, jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster are not light entertainment.
I think they should be completely free to make that choice. You clearly don't, and are judging other people's scheduling decisions. This is closer to the logic of censorship than it is to free speech.
I don't know if it's stupid to be corrupt... unethical maybe, but not stupid
We call the smart ones "Senator".
I know. That was kind of the point. You look at those "childish" titles and might instantly belittle them because of it but, just like you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, you shouldn't conclude the quality of a South Park episode based on a couple of bad words.
South Park might have low spots and dark humor but it's nowhere near what Hazel Bergeron described.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
We barely knew ye!
-Dave Haynie
No, it's censorship. A powerful entity has determined what someone within their control can o can not see. It's censorship.
You do NOT need to be a government to censor. You just need to be a powerful enough group. Government, Church, Large Corporation.
The ignorant idea that only a government can censor is hurting you.
It's one of the worst kinds of censorship; whitewashing the past.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It didnt even have offensive materials. Oh no the twin towers! WE MUST BAN THIS. I could understand if it had 2 planes flying into the twin towers, even then imo it should be left as is. You dont pay respect to something by wiping out all traces of it from all forms of media.
Such as adhering to particular, strict interpretations of words, and then using them to disapprove of other people's decisions, even in matters as trivial as selecting cartoons. You really do seem to be in pretty much the same group.
You misinterpreted me. I do not disprove of it because a single definition of the word "censorship" fits this situation. I do not approve of it because I do not like the situation itself and what it represents. The ability of a few sensitive people to remove content for everyone simply because they find it offensive.
You clearly don't
You clearly misunderstood me greatly. While I do disapprove of their decision, I by no means said that they shouldn't be allowed to make it. I've also been criticizing the people who are so easily offended.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
That would be for the best. It would do them no good to get angry or sad in the first place.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I hate south park. It's generally pretty stupid and only exists because it has momentum to exist.
It's like MASH.
The douche bag of the universe episode was moderately funny.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Stay classy, eurofriends. Nobody's going to deny the holocaus^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe dangers of nuclear power.
Actually, Cartoon Wars would be a more germane example.
(I'm no longer watching South Park because the Comedy Network apparently lost its licensing rights to have the current and back episodes online in Canada, so I no longer have a legal way of watching them--and more importantly, linking to them. If I ever feel like watching South Park again, I'll have to find some illegal way to access them)
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I've watched every episode.
The trashy humour relaxes me.
And the primitive political messages humour me.
I'm not sure whether Parker and Stone are pro-libertarianism or just trolling libertarians by giving them a warped sense of legitimacy while everyone else regards them as political neonates. Every "message" in South Park is cringingly simplistic and formulaic.
Children, there's a time and a place for everything. It's called college.
I drank what? -- Socrates
When filling up my water bottles at a local water filtering place here in Cali, the guy mentioned that all the iodine tablets were sold out.
I was beside myself at how selfish and completely scared everyone is.
Japan is 10+ hours by flight away... and folks here are spending money on iodine tablets because of the "radiation cloud". W. T. F.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
But, but, I like Austin Powers - International Man of Mystery. It's kinda' funny.
I drank what? -- Socrates
having jokes in the Simpsons about nuclear catastrophes does not ridicule victims of nuclear catatrophes but rather people not taking the seriously enough. Deleting this jokes makes it sound like nobody ever thought about the possibility of such a thing, thus making the position of the people who do not take it seriously enough stronger.
No, my interpretation is rock solid, as you yourself explain. You are using this definition:
censorship The ability of a few sensitive people to remove content for everyone simply because they find it offensive.Your post is a tautology: your disapproval isn't because it's censorship, but because of what the situation represents, and what it represents is censorship. My fundamental point remains when you start by disapproving of the situation, and then choose to use a particular, strict definition of a pejorative to describe it.
Slightly worse, in fact - now you're choosing definitions to suit your delicate sensibilities. That is most definitely a hallmark of the easily offended! Sorry, you don't the word being applied to you, do you? A "hallmark of the quick to disapprove", then.
I'm surprised you think TV networks should be completely free to act as censors. It would explain why you use "censorship" to describe minor scheduling decisions, if you think it isn't something that should be challenged in any practical sense.
My fundamental point remains when you start by disapproving of the situation, and then choose to use a particular, strict definition of a pejorative to describe it.
I see. Then what word shall I use to describe it quickly? I guess I'll just say "they're removing a few episodes of The Simsons from their network temporarily because a few people found some of the jokes offensive." Is that much better?
That is most definitely a hallmark of the easily offended!
Actually, now you're just making assumptions. There could be a number of reasons that I wish for my desires to be fulfilled or that I post here. It would make me happy, it would anger me for them not to be, I just like commenting, I just like arguing, or another reason entirely. Really, this is just an ad hominem attack at this point.
It would explain why you use "censorship" to describe minor scheduling decisions, if you think it isn't something that should be challenged in any practical sense.
All you've actually done is attack my word usage, and seemingly nothing more. You try to downplay the situation and act as if, because you think it is unimportant, it is unimportant for everyone. I've already explained why I disagree. The fact that a few sensitive people could have a show removed, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, makes me not even care to watch those channels if they're going to try to appease these people. I understand why: money. But I still don't agree with it. I presented a solution: these people can either just not watch it (which doesn't involve taking away a choice for someone else), or they can realize that it is fiction and that it is useless and counterproductive to be offended and alter their mindset.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Is that the half-life for a Simpson's episode?
Why not 7? Or 5 months and 26 days? Everyone will have a different opinion, therefore it's impossible to please everybody, therefore it's futile to do it at all.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Last time I checked the news the disaster was earthquakes and waves that killed many many thousands of people. The reactor has not even come close to being on the same scale.
Why are they not censoring earthquakes and waves in Simpson episodes? There the cause of the loss of life.
But there's always somebody who'll be upset by something. Aww, puppies, how cute! Well my puppy just died, you insensitive clod!!!!!
I'd say that messing around with schedules actually hangs a lampshade on it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Farnsworth, don't take this personally, but at some point you simply have to get over it. My joke above is pretty tasteless, but it doesn't mean I didn't love my mother, we were very close. But at some time you just have to move on. Hiding from the issue only extends it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well, this is an online discussion. Words are kind of fundamental to the whole process, in my experience. Would you prefer hieroglyphics? It should be clear that if I'm happy to use "disapproving", "sensitive" and "easily offended" as replacements for each other, I'm more concerned with substance than with labels. So no, I'm not attacking your word usage, but what they imply about your thinking. Unless you're about to propose there's a way I could read your mind, we're just going to have to live with the whole "using words to communicate" thing.
Is the latin supposed to be impressive? "Ad hominem attack" is just a pretentious way of saying "personal criticism" (as compared to the logical fallacy the phrase is more usefully applied to). Which is funny, because implying that you are beyond personal criticism is yet another tendency of the easily offended.
I couldn't care less what your reasons for posting are, just what you say in those posts. I believe that what someone says should count for something. Although if you don't mean anything you say, I'd still enjoy the whole process because it's a little intellectual exercise in wading through sophistry to get to the core of an issue.
I support free speech. It would be interesting to me if you had a solid argument based on negative consequences, as compared to the insubstantial "I disapprove of people making decisions I disagree with" approach you're taking so far.
Not at all. I think that if it is unimportant, then it is unimportant, and claiming the direct opposite would be indicative of being overly sensitive. Seeing as we're talking about a couple of cartoon re-runs, my assumption that it is unimportant is reasonable. Where's the evidence for the opposing argument?
Well, kind of. For your argument to make sense, we have to use your definition of censorship, assume that your assessment of their motives is correct (having never met them or communicated with them), assume that being offended is the same thing as not being entertained, assume that it is bad for people paid to provide light entertainment to feel an obligation to provide it, and fear un-named consequences.
There is a high degree of similarity between that kind of judgemental and fearful argument by assertion and, say, those of a fundamentalist Christian who takes a strict view of morals and the US Constitution to justify their hysteria about abortion.
Don't get me wrong, though. Just because you quack like a duck doesn't make you a duck.
Which is funny, because implying that you are beyond personal criticism is yet another tendency of the easily offended.
I didn't imply that, either. What I did imply, however, was that continually making comments about my character, status, or feelings is both a mere assumption and useless to this particular discussion. Is that not correct? I do not know where you are pulling these words that I did not speak from, as my statements did not even imply them, as far as I see. If they did, then it certainly wasn't intentional.
It would be interesting to me if you had a solid argument based on negative consequences, as compared to the insubstantial "I disapprove of people making decisions I disagree with" approach you're taking so far.
"Negative consequences"? "Negative" is subjective. But, alright. I believe that a few people who are easily offended having the ability to have content taken away from others, temporarily or not, because they are offended by it, would count as a "negative consequence." It removes the choice from other people (and they had a choice to not consume the content in the first place).
my assumption that it is unimportant is reasonable.
"Reasonable" is subjective.
Where's the evidence for the opposing argument?
Evidence for opinions about what others think is important?
assume that being offended is the same thing as not being entertained
Sorry, but the article implies that some people could be offended. I am speaking of this scenario, and I thought it was obvious.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Yes, you did. Your point about an ad hominem attack was a rebuttal to my comments, which directly implies that you do not think personal criticism is valid. I've repeatedly demonstrated that I'm responding only to what you say. There's no assumptions about your character, status or feelings. If the comparisons make you uncomfortable, that's a matter for self-reflection rather than complaints. Denial does not an argument make.
As for the useless bit, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing you could say in an online forum. This is just a discussion on Slashdot. Maybe you'll even go away thinking about the fact that you're not actually able to justify your disapproval, in which case great. An open mind is a wonderful thing, and I'm happy to help. Probably you'll stick to waving around your own little book of rules of right and wrong, and keep disapproving of people that don't live up to your glorious standards. Even so, it is reassuring for me that I'm not condoning censorship by any reality based definition. So I find that useful.
That would certainly be a negative consequence. One problem, however, is that doesn't seem to have happened here - nowhere is it even implied that the easily offended have this ability. Another problem is that you need to explain how simply not enjoying jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster in the middle of a natural disaster claiming thousands of lives qualifies as "easily offended". It's really just a basic demonstration of human empathy.
Oh, absolutely. Arguably, it would be reasonable to recommend to someone buying a new car that they ask for it to be painted lime green with cyan polka dots on the roof and purple doors. It's just that most people would tend to think that such an argument is ridiculous. Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume re-scheduling a few cartoon re-runs has no negative consequences.
Given the world has a lot of people confined to asylums, that kind of catch-all argument is as useless as hiding behind "subjective". How about instead just "others", we say "people who don't make things up to support their case"?
Sure, but "unsuitable" also has other implications. I've drawn out them out repeatedly and explicitly, but you keep ignoring them to focus on the specific thing that upsets your sensibilities. As well as simply enjoying the debate, it's getting quite funny how you keep doubling down on fundamentalist logic.
Your point about an ad hominem attack was a rebuttal to my comments, which directly implies that you do not think personal criticism is valid.
Not in general. If we want to be on-topic about this discussion, then yes, I believe that they are.
There's no assumptions about your character, status or feelings.
Proclaiming that I am offended as you did a few comments ago is indeed an assumption about my feelings. By all means, continue, but it won't do any good.
As for the useless bit, that's possibly the most ridiculous thing you could say in an online forum.
Why? Everything is likely equally useless. This, I believe, is useless to this particular discussion. You're free to think otherwise, of course. You wouldn't be wrong.
Denial does not an argument make.
Indeed. Be careful with the absolutes.
Maybe you'll even go away thinking about the fact that you're not actually able to justify your disapproval, in which case great.
Justify an opinion?
An open mind is a wonderful thing, and I'm happy to help.
I think so, too. Have I changed my mind about anything? No. Have you changed your mind about anything? Not that I see. Does that make a person "closed-minded"? Maybe. It really depends on who you are arguing with.
Probably you'll stick to waving around your own little book of rules of right and wrong, and keep disapproving of people that don't live up to your glorious standards.
I don't understand where you're getting this. It's just assumption after assumption. I don't even believe in absolute "rights" or "wrongs." Censorship is 'bad' only to me, and I'm disagreeing with people who say otherwise. Of course, that doesn't make them 'wrong'.
That would certainly be a negative consequence.
To you.
One problem, however, is that doesn't seem to have happened here - nowhere is it even implied that the easily offended have this ability. Another problem is that you need to explain how simply not enjoying jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster in the middle of a natural disaster claiming thousands of lives qualifies as "easily offended". It's really just a basic demonstration of human empathy.
If no one is offended, then why would someone need to show "human empathy"? As I already stated, the article does suggest that some people could be offended. I am speaking of such a scenario, if it happens. Furthermore, I don't think not finding a joke or two funny warrants taking off episodes. Again, an opinion. Offended or not, there is no reason that I see to take off these episodes. "Funny" is also subjective, after all.
Yes, I think it's reasonable to assume re-scheduling a few cartoon re-runs has no negative consequences.
It depends on your definition of "reasonable" and "negative."
Given the world has a lot of people confined to asylums, that kind of catch-all argument is as useless as hiding behind "subjective". How about instead just "others", we say "people who don't make things up to support their case"?
You asked to prove how something is important to other people. That is not an absolute, and that is the only thing that I replied to.
I've drawn out them out repeatedly and explicitly, but you keep ignoring them to focus on the specific thing that upsets your sensibilities.
As far as I know, I've answered most, if not all of your points.
As well as simply enjoying the debate, it's getting quite funny how you keep doubling down on fundamentalist logic.
Such as?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Here's the Collins dictionary on "rebuttal":
rebuttal noun: disproof, negation, refutation, invalidation, confutation, defeatSee the bit where it says, "invalidation"? That's the bit that tells you that yes indeed, a rebuttal generally implies you think the thing rebutted is invalid. As for what is and isn't on topic, isn't it hypocritical to think that people disapproving of what others choose to do, would not accept the same in return? It's not unusual to see the "hey, we were talking about them, not me" argument, but it's a self-serving approach I'm happy to ignore. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that jazz.
You're confusing an "assumption" with a "conclusion". I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements. You can disagree that "easily offended" and "quick to disapprove" are similar things, if you like. It's a fairly straightforward process to explain the overlap if you insist on digging that hole.
I have been, weren't you paying attention? It's actually quite time consuming writing out all the little caveats, drawing comparisons rather than making assertions, and so on. The debate would probably be more substantive if I didn't have to tread so carefully around you.
No, your disapproval. There's a significant difference between, "I wouldn't do that," and "I disapprove of others doing that". The former is just an opinion; everyone has them. The latter is a basis for active interference in individual choice. It's the difference between just having an opinion (probably just given once), and being self-righteous (the kind of thing you might repeat, as you did, in multiple threads).
Like I say, I think words should count for something and I comment on that basis. If you want to write as if yours don't count for anything, that's a shame, but you can't reliably expect others to treat them that way.
Open minds are about more than being willing to change them. This is a one on one debate on a particular subject; it stands to reason that we might not change our minds. However, in the sense that having an open mind means that you shouldn't be quick to disapprove of others, then you could be said to have a closed mind. In the sense that I'm making an effort only to disapprove of one specific individual based on actual evidence, it could be said I'm trying to keep an open mind.
First, it's interesting that as I repeatedly explain how my comments respond directly to your actual statements, you repeat the word "assumption" like a mantra. Second, it's just a little debating trick to highlight an opponent's tendency to over-react. I use a little hyperbole; you fall back on cookie-cutter, catch-all statements, the "get out of jail free" card of irrational debate.
That's the whole self-righteous thing right there. You're not disagreeing with people who say that censorship isn't bad - you're disagreeing with people who say this isn't censorship at all. In the process, you're judging people's innocuous, sympathetic TV scheduling. You're even setting yourself up as someone of higher standards, someone willing to denounce censorship where others will not.
Classic self-indulgent, self-righteous nonsense.
It's not unusual to see the "hey, we were talking about them, not me" argument, but it's a self-serving approach I'm happy to ignore.
Alright, but as I said, that in itself does not answer my original argument. It will merely end up being a waste of time.
You're confusing an "assumption" with a "conclusion". I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements. You can disagree that "easily offended" and "quick to disapprove" are similar things, if you like. It's a fairly straightforward process to explain the overlap if you insist on digging that hole.
I see. However, because you do not know my true feelings, it remains an assumption, does it not?
No, your disapproval. There's a significant difference between, "I wouldn't do that," and "I disapprove of others doing that".
A difference, yes, but it is all still an opinion. However, I do see what you're trying to say. Very well.
However, in the sense that having an open mind means that you shouldn't be quick to disapprove of others, then you could be said to have a closed mind. In the sense that I'm making an effort only to disapprove of one specific individual based on actual evidence, it could be said I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I do accept the fact that I may be 'wrong'.
you're disagreeing with people who say this isn't censorship at all.
I do, because as you said, it fits one of the definitions. As far as I know, it doesn't have to fit many to apply. The definitions are all fairly closely related, as well.
But, really, I didn't mean to use that word again. Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes and the reason behind it.
You're asking why anyone would need to show empathy in a scenario where tens of thousands of people have died?
Yes. What does this have to do with a piece of fictional entertainment? If no one is offended by it, then why is there a need for "empathy"?
Not true, of course - you've been reading my posts and therefore you've seen reasons to take off those episodes.
I've read your posts, but I don't agree with them, just as you don't agree with me.
TV schedulers therefore use their subjective judgement.
I see. That does make sense. I would disagree more if they were making the assumption that no one else thought that they were funny as well. But that probably didn't happen, did it?
Fixating on a scenario that you yourself introduced into the conversation.
I fixated on the one that the article suggested. The one that I do not agree with.
Relying on particular interpretations that ignore concepts such as context, evidence, perspective and empathy.
What? We're speaking about a possible scenario. There is indeed evidence that something similar has happened in the past because of the scenario I am focusing on. Because people were offended. And they most certainly were there. It's similar, but naturally, it's not entirely the same (this one isn't exactly temporary).
Assuming motives and allowing for no other.
I allowed for others. I suppose my mistake was that I didn't state everything clearly in my comments. Yes, other scenarios, such as the ones you listed, are possible. However, I am focusing on the one that the article partly suggests (that people might be offended).
Complaining about negative consequences that don't actually happen.
The "negative consequences" are that it could become more commonplace to remove content that presumably offends a vocal minorit
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes and the reason behind it.
Should be: "Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes if they were removed merely because some people were offended."
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Could I just say I admire the way you're continuing the debate even though I am making comments that, for all the fancy wording, do refer to your character directly? For what it's worth, I think that your argument is understandable and well intended and largely "correct". But the hardline interpretation has negative consequences. I think there is a threshold to be passed before editorial decisions become censorship; it is only on this basis that we can go beyond disagreeing with it but actually build a case for taking steps to prevent it. Censorship that really fits the meaning of censorship should be prevented, I believe.
Now, back to being an asshat...
Your original argument was that I was making assumptions about your feelings. I have in fact answered that several times, and will again:
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact. As well as confusing "conclusion" with "assumption", you seem to be assuming that conclusions must be irrefutable to be considered valid.
True, but using other definitions it is not. Effectively asserting that yours is both relevant and to be considered in isolation is similar to fundamentalist logic. I believe it should be challenged, not simply accepted. Assuming that dictionary definitions can be applied with the precision of a mathematical proof is not, in my subjective experience, reality-based.
"Censorship" is bad in my view, something to be resisted on principle. You could, however, apply a strict definition such as "withholding information from the public by a body" to any and all acts of scheduling, filtering, editing, selecting or prioritizing. Those are all essential activities for a TV network, so in practice the word loses any substantive meaning. However, I believe that words should count for something, because free speech is worth fighting for.
So would I. But why make that assumption? I don't think it follows from the article.
Again with the "quotation marks", I see. Again, without any demonstration of understanding what empathy is, I can't really answer that question for you. For my part, empathy is not only a valid consideration in any decision involving other people, but usually desirable and sometimes essential. Read around; it's not unusual to find empathy given as an essential part of living a happy, fulfilling life. I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
Absolutely. I just pointing out the difference between disagreeing with a point of view, and acting like it doesn't even exist.
I wouldn't make that assumption. Many people might not find jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster particularly funny. They've been getting the news about earthquakes, deaths and meltdowns, see a meltdown on a TV show, and start talking about Japan instead of just chuckling at Homer and Bart. That seems a realistic scenario to me. It's that empathy thing, you see. You keep suggesting empathy isn't r
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact.
If you say so. But at this point, it doesn't look like you're not going to believe me, anyway.
But why make that assumption?
It's a suggested scenario. I said "if."
I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
I just don't understand why empathy is needed if no one is offended or hurt (which, technically, would be their own fault anyway) by a fictional piece of entertainment. I really don't see another reason why empathy would be needed according to some people. It might technically remind people of the disaster, but being saddened in such a situation is rather useless and is completely up to them.
Well, I doubt they'd assume that no one would find them funny, but weren't you just saying to be careful with the absolutes?
The last sentence was in the form of a question. It implied that I believe it probably didn't happen.
No, that is a scenario that the article suggests.
You previously spoke of treading carefully around me. This seems to be exactly what I myself need to do. That was also a mistake.
Yes, but we'd be speaking about at least two if you're weren't so fixated, ones that include context and perspective.
The thing is, I don't really care about the other scenarios because they aren't what I disagree with. I'm going to mention the one that, if true, is what I disagree with.
No, you said you saw no reasons, which quite explicitly doesn't allow for them.
Yes, I previously saw no reasons. Then more were suggested.
It talks about "unsuitable" and "sensitive" material, not "offensive".
What do either of those even mean in this situation?
Disagreeing repeatedly with another's independent decision based on strict interpretations and pre-formed scenarios is the starting point to restrict individual freedom.
Restrict freedom? I already stated that people should be allowed to make the choice. I will try to explain why I disagree and try to make them believe otherwise, but that's it.
You start having to put "in my opinion" in front of everything, and you just can't catch everything.
You have a point.
The "aw shucks, I ain't perfect" philosophy is another of those catch-all approaches favoured by the fundamentalist.
No, I was agreeing with you.
Oh? How about this:
More mistakes, it seems. I questioned them in such a way previously because they were stated as facts. But I can see why you did that from your next point.
Second, my point was that you seem to be closer to the easily offended that you might care to think.
Perhaps it does seem that way. But when I think of "offended," I think of "hurt" or "upset," which are not things that I felt while replying. I felt nothing.
If you keep to your suggested format, where most people would tend to claim whatever makes them feel best about themselves, there's little chance it will make any difference.
It's hard to describe, but I rarely feel anything. This time was no exception.
Even fans of close-to-the-bone comedy are quite happy with the whole idea of "too soon", and how "suitable" timing is different for, say, family viewing vs. HBO special. I think that's a healthy culture.
I think that it's an illogical culture. It is counterproductive for them to feel saddened or upset. That's what I believe that people should be taught. They are the ones who make themselves that way, not anyone else. I speak of the scenario where people are offended, of course. It would be pointless to follow the idea of "too soon" if no one felt anything from watching the show (if they didn't feel anything, then they also didn't feel sad or upset at remembering the incident).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!