Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-14-2005, 08:40 AM   #1 (permalink)
Loser
 
Christian Fundamentalist Pornography?

(Some links are potentially NSFW. Or maybe all links are NSFW. Or none of them - you tell me.)

What makes <a href="http://www.howardstern.com/">this fantasy</a> or <a href="http://www.newsandentertainment.com/janet_jackson_superbowl.html">this fantasy</a> or <a href="http://www.clubjenna.com/">this fantasy</a> a societal problem that must be censored by the FCC while <a href="http://www.nbc.com/Revelations/">this fantasy</a> is considered "family entertainment"?

People have argued that sex is harmful and should therefore not be broadcast on television, etc. Where is the argument that religion manipulated into fear inducement is harmful?

People have argued that sex fantasy results in sexual disfunction which results in rape/molestation/etc. Where is the argument that fear-religion fantasy results in tolerance disfunction which results in abortion clinic bombings?

Normally I would have no desire, ever, to complain to the FCC about any content on television. But then I take notice that millions of others are doing just to that prevent me from enjoying my fantasies. It's a struggle for me, but maybe it's time to fight fire with fire.

Would you?
Manx is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 08:57 AM   #2 (permalink)
AHH! Custom Title!!
 
liquidlight's Avatar
 
Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.
I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.

Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.

What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs? The FCC regulations are setup by a series of committees to reflect the majority, it would be nice if censorship wasn't necessary but sadly in this day and age people aren't capable of being mature enough about the content that if they disapprove of it to simply not partake.

As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases? And why is it that we insist on blaming something in the persons environment rather than holding that person responsible for their own actions?
__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.
liquidlight is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 09:37 AM   #3 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidlight
I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.
I watched the first part last night, so I'm not simply basing my opinion on the show off their website. The show is a Christian fundamentalist fantasy.
Quote:
Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.
If we're not going to differentiate between broadcast TV and cable tv and pay-per-view - then the discussion would be moot. But since those three areas are significantly differentiated, the discussion remains.
Quote:
What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs?
I was actually rather explicit on this aspect. I have never made any attempt to prevent their fantasy. My fantasy is currently prevented. So what you should be asking is the same question I am asking: why should I be expected to tolerate their fantasies when they're not willing to be tolerant of mine.
Quote:
As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases?
The arguments I presented are not arguments I support - they are the arguments that are made to support censorship. I can't provide you evidence, though I'm certain a quick google search will provide you with "evidence" from those who make those arguments.
Manx is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 10:15 AM   #4 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I agree your first 3 "Fantasies" have been deemed wrong and have incurred governmemtal wrath. The 4th hasn't and won't because it is Biblical and religious (insert controlling people thru fear here).

BUT the saddest part is those who question why are being silenced, their platforms taken away or called extremists and therefore laughed at or ignored by the media (and they are the very ones who should be questioning the loudest).

On Stern's site you'll notice that our great GOP leaders in a government:
- who allows illegals (some of which could be terrorists) to come across our borders,
- who continue to "hide" taxes on things like phones, while giving tax cuts to the rich
- who continue to throw BILLIONS upon BILLIONS into a war while we cut social programs, the FDA and EPA

are spending time wanting to throw people like Stern and Opie and Anthony in jail........

Quote:
LINK: http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/43961.htm

April 6, 2005 -- A major Congressional leader now says he wants to make broadcast indecency — the smutty talk that gets Howard Stern and Opie and Anthony into trouble — a criminal offense.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III (R-Wis.) says criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner said this week at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference in San Francisco.

The current system — in which the FCC fines a station for violating the regulations — isn't working, he said.

"People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulator process," Sensenbrenner said. "That is the way to go. Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach."

Sensenbrenner could not say immediately how the law would work.

The FCC has fined CBS for the infamous Janet Jackson-Super Bowl incident and Stern for a too-graphic description of sexual acts on his radio show.

It was unclear how much support Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has for a such a drastic change in the law.
And our great GOP leaders (who go under this guise of less government conservatism) are talking about regulating what can be seen and heard on PAY cable and satelite stations..... so much so that the cable industry will probably remove Stern's show from E!......

Quote:
LINK: http://billboardradiomonitor.com/rad..._id=1000866255

Comcast Considers Dropping Stern's E! Show
April 05, 2005
By Paul Heine



Even as he moves to satellite radio to escape the clutches of federal regulators, Howard Stern may still indirectly feel the teeth of the indecency cops. Comcast Corp., the nation’s largest cable TV provider, is considering dropping Stern’s E! Entertainment TV show when its Comcast contract expires this spring, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is reportedly concerned that the presence of lightning rod Stern could cause lawmakers to take a closer look at indecency on cable TV.

In fact, cablers are frightened by the prospect of indecency restrictions being extended to their medium. Gathered in San Francisco for the annual National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference, several executives voiced concern about calls by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, to regulate indecency on paid subscription services like cable TV and satellite radio. “It’s scary,” one cable exec said, according to the Times.

With the exception of the squeaky clean Walt Disney Co., all of the media conglomerates that own the majority of the nation’s cable channels oppose widening indecency rules to include cable.
How can these "conservatives" who believe in less government, who cry that they pay too much in taxes for social programs ...... ALLOW AND CONDONE (and by electing these scum sucking censorship pigs, you are doing just that) live with themselves. This GOP "Conservative" bullshit is just that...... they are censoring what "they" deem is offensive, and spending billions and billions on the enforcement....
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 04-14-2005 at 10:35 AM.. Reason: removed PHP to make quotes.
pan6467 is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 11:22 AM   #5 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Censorship is the meeting place of the radical right and the radical left. The last person I heard advocate sending peddlers of indecency to jail was Andrea Dworkin. Now the Republican Chariman of the House Judiciary Committee is doing the same thing!

In today's political climate it's getting harder and harder to tell reality from fantasy . . . .

Last edited by raveneye; 04-14-2005 at 11:26 AM.. Reason: time to sleep
raveneye is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 11:33 AM   #6 (permalink)
Addict
 
lindseylatch's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Ok, so we're comparing pornography with a tv show on ABC? Ok...
Well, if the tv show showed massive violence or naked people, it to would be censored.
I think it's more an issue of what people are willing to let their kids see. They don't want them seeing naked people, or excessive violence (although that ones getting less and less these days). It's not about "my fantasy vs their fantasy."
__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire
lindseylatch is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 11:41 AM   #7 (permalink)
Loves my girl in thongs
 
arch13's Avatar
 
Location: North of Mexico, South of Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidlight
I'm not seeing how precisely you're correlating the mediums? In reading the synopsis for the show it would seem that you're making some rather large assumptions about it's content.

Also, what's keeping you from your fantasies? ABC is a standard access channel, yes, but I can watch Howard Stern and whatever nude guest he has on pretty much every night on E!, Janet's "wardrobe malfunction" wasn't supposed to be part of the show as far as the producers are concerned, and quite often you can get Jenna on premium cable channels, or with about 5 minutes of downloading on the internet, so access to these fantasies is rather a moot point in the end.

What I would really ask is why is it that they should be expected to tolerate your fantasies when you're not willing to be tolerant of theirs? The FCC regulations are setup by a series of committees to reflect the majority, it would be nice if censorship wasn't necessary but sadly in this day and age people aren't capable of being mature enough about the content that if they disapprove of it to simply not partake.

As for the arguments about the fantasies leading to behaviors, do you have any evidence where that's been the proof in any of these cases? And why is it that we insist on blaming something in the persons environment rather than holding that person responsible for their own actions?
Becuase three are regulated and considered harmfull, while one is not. that is the question presented. Why are three worthy of tight regulation when one is not?
I don't disagree that Stern should be kept to pay-access venues, or that the superbowl incident was uncalled for (Though I don't have problem with breast on TV for both genders) as it was not part of the plan.
But if stern cannot be shown on public airwaves, and has been censored heavily for sexual content, why is religion which I do not want OKay on the publics airwaves?

If religion is okay, so is a breast. You cannot say one is acceptable for public consumption but not another without making a moral judgement. And who has that right?

As for regulating cable, that is bullshit. failed parents with no personal responsability have no right to bitch about what cable shows, as they are aware of it when the ordered it, and are still willing invite it into their house. Cable is not a basic right, nor a neccesity, and one must willingly pay to have it pumped into their brain. And yet they don't like what cable shows? Then they can cancel it. Anything less is avoiding taking responsability.
__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever
arch13 is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 11:50 AM   #8 (permalink)
AHH! Custom Title!!
 
liquidlight's Avatar
 
Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arch13
Becuase three are regulated and considered harmfull, while one is not. that is the question presented. Why are three worthy of tight regulation when one is not?
I don't disagree that Stern should be kept to pay-access venues, or that the superbowl incident was uncalled for (Though I don't have problem with breast on TV for both genders) as it was not part of the plan.
But if stern cannot be shown on public airwaves, and has been censored heavily for sexual content, why is religion which I do not want OKay on the publics airwaves?

If religion is okay, so is a breast. You cannot say one is acceptable for public consumption but not another without making a moral judgement. And who has that right?

As for regulating cable, that is bullshit. failed parents with no personal responsability have no right to bitch about what cable shows, as they are aware of it when the ordered it, and are still willing invite it into their house. Cable is not a basic right, nor a neccesity, and one must willingly pay to have it pumped into their brain. And yet they don't like what cable shows? Then they can cancel it. Anything less is avoiding taking responsability.

That's my objection is that the basis of this, the "fight fire with fire" is that rather that attempting to gain acceptance and reduce censorship on the current mediums it seems that you're advocating MORE censorship in an effort to tip off some sort of philosophical pissing contest to prove that your ideal of what's moral and acceptable is more appropriate than someone elses.

I agree with you fully on the complete lack of personal responsibility in this society, it's one of my personal peeves about the world in general that no one is willing or seemingly even capable of accepting their own fault or responsiblity in almost any situation anymore.

The simple fact at the moment remains that the sheeple of the world are comfortable watching a show about something perceived to come from the bible or other religious aspect, but they're not willing to even comprehend the other side of the coin. The current American paradigm is that violence and religion are ok, sex is not, this just happens to also be contrary to most of the rest of the world when looking at their entertainment.

Personally I'd be most happy with seeing a complete dissolution of ALL censorship, I'm capable of making my own decisions about what I object to and avoiding it on my own, but that's not likely until the technology advances to the point that computers and television are consolidated and I have a protected personal profile which grants me access to what I want and not to what I don't, a system that would also allow me to personally decide what my children are exposed to.

I want it to be MY best interests, not what someone else feels my interests should be.
__________________
Halfway to hell and picking up speed.
liquidlight is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 01:13 PM   #9 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lindseylatch
Ok, so we're comparing pornography with a tv show on ABC? Ok...
Well, if the tv show showed massive violence or naked people, it to would be censored.
I think it's more an issue of what people are willing to let their kids see. They don't want them seeing naked people, or excessive violence (although that ones getting less and less these days). It's not about "my fantasy vs their fantasy."
We are comparing sexual fantasy with religious fantasy.

You state what is presently deemed acceptable: no massive violence and no naked people in the fantasy. Anything more is censored. Yes, that is how censorship presently works. But on what basis should it work that way? Simply because you or someone else wants it to work that way? I don't want it to work that way.

It is purely about "my fantasy vs. their fantasy". I contend that there is no harm in sexual fantasy. If someone claims there is, then I will counter that there is equal harm with religious fantasy.
Manx is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 01:20 PM   #10 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidlight
That's my objection is that the basis of this, the "fight fire with fire" is that rather that attempting to gain acceptance and reduce censorship on the current mediums it seems that you're advocating MORE censorship in an effort to tip off some sort of philosophical pissing contest to prove that your ideal of what's moral and acceptable is more appropriate than someone elses.
Well, I haven't done anything in regards to pressuring censorship of material I have no interest in as a retaliation for the censorship I experience for material I do have an interest in. The discussion of the matter is what I'm seeking here - so I appreciate your comment, as I agree with it.

However, as the mobility presently favors those who wish to censor my fantasy, with their more powerful group efforts, it becomes a valid consideration as to whether providing them with a practical demonstration of censorship of their fantasy is a valuable next step. I.E. I expect they would feel as I presently do if the FCC were to shut down the broadcast of Revelations.
Manx is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 11:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: California
Those three things don't have much in common with the fourth. The only connection your making is that they're all "fantasies" of some sort. In that case, everything could be considered a "fantasy."

I do see your point that government censorship targets liberal material rather than conservative, the "Revelations" tv show isn't really a conservative analog of those other sites. They're simply unrelated and reasons for censoring them are different.

The first three are censored because of sexual content, which some people see as inappropriate. I won't argue about whether or not they're appropriate, but obviously some people think they are.

You're suggesting the "Revelations" tv show should be censored, presumably with the rationale of religious intolerance or that religion doesn't belong in the media. If enough people thought that was true, then it probably would be censored. I bet in some Western European countries, they would ban that sort of show because of religious content.

My point is, religion isn't simply the inverse of pornography.
joeshoe is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:27 PM   #12 (permalink)
Please touch this.
 
Halx's Avatar
 
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
Censorship is the tool of people who seek to subjugate ideas different than theirs. It has little to do with the actual harm these things do. Rather, they seek to purify the culture in their image of purity, simply for the power that comes with it. The first step is to villainize something. Then you package it with your target culture. Then you seek to abolish it. It's cultural gerrymandering.
__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]
Halx is offline  
Old 04-20-2005, 07:59 AM   #13 (permalink)
Mjollnir Incarnate
 
Location: Lost in thought
This censorship talk reminds me of this site, offering edited versions of movies. What I can't understand is why you would want to watch something that has been changed to remove something intended to be a part of it. Like Sex and the City being edited for TBS. I haven't watched it, but there must be quite a bit edited out to make it "public safe". And the website I mentioned offers a "clean" version of Passion of the Christ, supposedly without graphic violence. Wasn't a good 75% of the movie comprised of graphic violence?

Instead of banning or editing to please some of the public, why not do something else. Maybe if you don't want to see something, you can change the channel. Or aren't all TVs supposed to have V-Chips by now? Why not broadcast categories as a part of the ratings system. You don't want to see porn? Gone. Don't want to see religious programming? Gone. Absolutely hate shows about dinosaurs? No worries.

And the word gerrymander always makes me smile.
Slavakion is offline  
Old 04-21-2005, 07:51 AM   #14 (permalink)
Copacetic
 
Spektr's Avatar
 
Location: Nati
I completely agree with you, Slavakion, but the problem is that your solutions deal with logic and common sense. These two factors, while completely necessary are very difficult to implement in a society that glorifies a copacetic, lethargic approach to every day life. It's much easier to make decisions when an authority figure makes them for you. Therefore the issues that people are concerned with a bred from what those in power want the populace to be concerned with in order to accomplish their own goals behind closed doors. People are much easier to control when they are stupid, uninspired and completely in the dark about just how bad things really are.
Spektr is offline  
 

Tags
christian, fundamentalist, pornography

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360