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!"

Don't believe me, ask this guy how guns can protect people from home invasions and other crimes.



An Atlanta mom took matters into her own hands on Friday when confronting an intruder. The unidentified woman hid with her 9-year-old twins in a crawlspace as a man broke into her house and began rummaging through it. The alleged burglar, Paul Ali Slater, eventually found the family's hiding space, but not before finding himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver. The woman fired six shots, five of which hit Slater in the face and neck, but he managed to flee after the family ran to a neighbor's house.

Well, if the Deseret News wanted to spark a rational discussion they should have known tha FARK is the last place they should come.

as for our (so called) leadership in Washington DC...

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.

Weaver95: On that score, it seems we succeeded.

c'mon...our fark GOP shills troll better than this crap.  at least blame video games or something.  don't just scream 'I WON SO THERE" and run away into the night.  that's just plain stupid.

They did(well, movies in general) in a pseudo-scientific way.

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.

The failure in perception there is that modern ads are not to get you to eat bad, it's to see their brand of bad and choose it over another. It's no longer notification to the public that they exist, but that they're the right choice of the alternatives.

It's a result of the Escalation principle, similar to the arms race. IF they don't advertise, and others do, they will lose business. It's a maintenance issue, not a new customer issue.

As for TV/movies teaching violence, it's apples and oranges to how people are influenced. Millions of people see violence, very few do violence. You take a violent person, they're going to be violent no matter what they're exposed to on TV, no amount of Lifetime^TM movies are going to change them. You take a non-violent person, and they're going to continue to not kill people, no matter how many gore fests they watch on TV.

As far as rational adults go. You expose babies to such things on a grand scale, and it may warp their views somewhat, but that's not the claim. The claim is that TV made me do it, and it's patently false.

You take a person who never eats fast food, no amount of commercials are going to make them eat fast food.

You take people that eat lots of fast food, that little reminder, "hey, we exist and we taste good" may influence a decision.

You take a violent person and show them a violent movie, they may be motivated to try a different technique.

But in all, the outcome has already been determined, whether it's "be violent" or "eat fast food". The only question is a matter specifically, of how that manifests.

Similarly, as to the author(s) of the article, you show an idiot a rational discussion, and odds are he'll just continue being an idiot. That has already been determined.

Their failure, at base, is in the assumption that all people are equal templates to be imprinted upon by the media which they consume.

In the face of a lifetime of influences, to include genetics, what is seen on TV will only have a minor effect on people and will not change them drastically.

Normal people will not be turned into axe murders. Idiot's will not be made to be intelligent. And those dregs of society that are murderers and rapists will not be reformed by watching Dora the Explorer.

They're living some innane daydream of utopia where there is an easy fix.

"Our editorial, then, was not a call for the repeal or even the modification of the First Amendment. And it was most certainly not a claim that if the Quentin Tarantinos of the world were silenced, then violence would go away. Instead, it was an attempt to spur a discussion on one component of a complex problem without a simple remedy."

Way to shift those goal posts

Nadie_AZ: Deseret News: Moron owned, Moron approved.

FTFY

The Larch: thomps: i feel like we're right on the verge of solving this gun violence problem, we probably only need four or five more fark threads discussing it.

Is there some way to tie guns and Benghazi together into one uber-sized fark thread? Maybe we could say that Ambassador Stevens was killed because he was going to tell the press about Obama's secret CIA training program for mass-shooting wack jobs?

Because I think that would be a fark thread better than a swimming pool full of maggots eating rotten meat.

Fark megathread checklist

-Benghazi
-Pro-gun/anti-gun
-Fast and Furious
-PONIES!
-Reality shows
-Obama(birth certificate)
-CIA program for mass shootings
-Special guest appearance by Alex Jones with support from Ric Romero

oh and what the hell throw all the stuff from Bush in there too.

We shall call it "The FARK Thunderdome"

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.