If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deseret News)   Deseret News answers FARK's response to their original editorial on gun violence in films. Plays "it was an attempt to spur a discussion" card, declares moral victory   (deseretnews.com) divider line 121
    More: Followup, Deseret News, Sandy Hook, computational complexity theory  
•       •       •

8012 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2013 at 3:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-08 07:20:23 PM
But they are the first to protest that their cinematic glamorization of violence means absolutely nothing and doesn't influence behavior in the slightest. That's ridiculous. Sponsors pay billions of dollars each year in the hopes that their short messages interspersed with televised entertainment will change the behavior of potential shoppers. If what we watch doesn't have any impact on what we do, then every advertiser in the world is wasting money.

I made that point.

/maybe not that thread
//how much do they owe me?
 
2013-01-08 07:32:29 PM

Lev_Astov: So, they're now suggesting we view violent content like we view advertisements? So when I watch Kill Bill, my brain is really shopping for ways to kill people? What an absurd suggestion.

My buying habits are affected by advertisers whether I like it or not because those products are things that exist as morally acceptable things, one way or another. As long as I have even a modicum of moral sense, and almost all of us do despite what we might think, violent content is automatically taken in a different way by my subconscious.

The whole issue comes down to how to separate out those few who don't have the moral sense to keep the killing at bay.


They just didn't explain it well.

The government has already admitted that what people watch affects their behavior. That is the basis they have stated for why they have banned Joe Camel and other advertising to kids for products that are unhealthy. They have also gone after other things like fashion mags for preying on women and making them have an unhealthy image of themselves. So the question becomes, why is that all these things ABSOLUTELY affect kids in a way that requires them to be banned but violence has NO affect at all?

Bring on the science to explain how ONLY VIOLENCE has no affect but everything else does. We'll all be waiting.
 
2013-01-08 07:34:47 PM
Interesting word, isn't it: "glamorize." This is usually a word used by people who see something in a movie that they don't like that reflects society or the wants of the filmgoing public, with the unspoken implication that the thing on screen is in part responsible for the tragedies of real life.

It's weird how so many people think that ANYTHING on a movie screen is glamorous, as if we're still in the glittering days of the studio system with its sparkling stars and spotlight performances. I went to see Les Miserables last week - there was NOTHING glamorous about its portrayal of what passed for the early 19th century justice system. Seeing Anne Hathaway as a shorn, toothless hooker dying of tuberculosis in a hospital bed, never to see her daughter again, did nothing whatsoever to fill me with desire to emulate her position. Yet there's this idea that simply rendering it onto a movie screen is "glamorizing" it.

This was the tack Dan Quayle took when he accused Murphy Brown of "glamorizing" single motherhood - "it's on a screen, so therefore, ergo, they must be making it look appealing." I'm a little surprised that people are still trying to use it, but at least it's a flag. When someone uses the word "glamorizing," you pretty much know the rest of the article is that chess kid screaming "Stop liking what I don't like!"
 
2013-01-08 07:47:42 PM
The Deseret News sure does suck at this trolling game.

Did they really basically just say "LOL I TROLL U"?
 
2013-01-08 07:56:50 PM

peasandcarrots: Interesting word, isn't it: "glamorize." This is usually a word used by people who see something in a movie that they don't like that reflects society or the wants of the filmgoing public, with the unspoken implication that the thing on screen is in part responsible for the tragedies of real life.

It's weird how so many people think that ANYTHING on a movie screen is glamorous, as if we're still in the glittering days of the studio system with its sparkling stars and spotlight performances. I went to see Les Miserables last week - there was NOTHING glamorous about its portrayal of what passed for the early 19th century justice system. Seeing Anne Hathaway as a shorn, toothless hooker dying of tuberculosis in a hospital bed, never to see her daughter again, did nothing whatsoever to fill me with desire to emulate her position. Yet there's this idea that simply rendering it onto a movie screen is "glamorizing" it.

This was the tack Dan Quayle took when he accused Murphy Brown of "glamorizing" single motherhood - "it's on a screen, so therefore, ergo, they must be making it look appealing." I'm a little surprised that people are still trying to use it, but at least it's a flag. When someone uses the word "glamorizing," you pretty much know the rest of the article is that chess kid screaming "Stop liking what I don't like!"


Yep. Remember Dole going on about Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction glamorizing drug use? (I saw Pulp Fiction quite a few times in the theater. The Uma Thurman overdose bit always got the most squeamish groans from the audience, presumably because it was so glamorous.)
 
2013-01-08 07:58:32 PM

I should be in the kitchen: You could fit the Pagans in there between cavemen and Jews.


I have that farker farkied "antisemite" in Troll Grey 1.

/Besides I'd rather not share the kitchen: You can kibbitz from over there.
//Not a bad cook.
 
2013-01-08 08:04:33 PM
Not to mention dead babies being glamourous.

These people that use that as an argument are really really desperately grasping at straws to justify a belief.
 
2013-01-08 08:29:41 PM
When conservatives start caring about little 5 and 6-year old kids as much as the unborn, this problem will get solved pronto.
 
2013-01-08 08:39:36 PM

Matticus: it makes them do some pretty funny flips


now that was funny.
 
2013-01-08 08:45:06 PM

Mrtraveler01: The Deseret News sure does suck at this trolling game.

Did they really basically just say "LOL I TROLL U"?


No, it was more like "LOL thx 4 the page hits MOAR plz."
 
2013-01-08 11:01:30 PM
Re: "There simply is no evidence to support the notion that violent movies lead to violent behavior."

Yeah, tell that to those who've lost family members to disturbed people either imitating, or trying to impress or address perceived slights of fictional movie characters, including the latest in a long series -- the Joker of Aurora.

While those in the soft sciences may have yet to prove the hypothesis, it's pretty clear to real people that there's a causal link.

This from the comments is classic DERP: "Real people" just know THE TRUTH in their gut that science has failed to show!
 
2013-01-09 12:12:58 AM
Can't be much of a newspaper if they felt the need to respond to Fark. Don't they have real news to discuss?
 
2013-01-09 12:14:40 AM

Nadie_AZ: Deseret News: Mormon owned, Mormon approved.


So they aren't lamestream MSM libtards?
 
2013-01-09 12:16:39 AM

Elzar: Mormons are a cult of Protestantism which is a cult of Catholicism which is a cult of Judaism which is a cult of some really old caveman religions.

/ Have I left anyone out that needs to be offended?


Xenu.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:56 AM

Hot Carl To Go: simplicimus: "fark.com logic"?
When did that creep in?

The Geek tab was briefly tainted with it in an incident that is best forgotten.


hehe you said "taint" hehe
 
2013-01-09 02:05:44 AM

utah dude: Rockstone: One thing I have discovered on FARK is that you have to have a thick skin. Everyone and their grandmother will get offended.

/ On the flip side, no one is left out.

this offended me. i've been on skin-thinning medications for years now and have seen no relief.


Wait a few more years. You'll be old, and your skin will be thin all by itself.
 
2013-01-09 05:51:54 AM

Elzar: Mormons are a cult of Protestantism which is a cult of Catholicism which is a cult of Judaism which is a cult of some really old caveman religions.

/ Have I left anyone out that needs to be offended?


You forgot Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Syriac, etc.
 
2013-01-09 07:06:33 AM

whither_apophis: Whar "welcometofark.jpg"?? Whar?
/the one with the crying high school chick please.
//she's 18...


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 07:07:15 AM

apt311: First A


this
 
2013-01-09 07:08:15 AM

apt311: FTFA: "Our editorial, then, was not a call for the repeal or even the modification of the First Amendment."

Wait. What are we talking about?


this
 
2013-01-09 12:34:02 PM
"Let's discuss an intractable problem with no real answer . . . because it helps us sell advertising. On that score, it seems we succeeded. "
 
Displayed 21 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report