The Age of the Low-Life.

I'm wondering, can we post a link to this, here? It is an article on the front page, but the language is kinda "interesting."

Don't get me wrong, it is a good idea, as well as a good story, but if Ed can cross the line, while complaining about crossing the line...

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00814/

steve

I find it rather amusing that he is advocation censorship, and points to the 50s as a sign of what we should look like.

Ed, have you forgotten about the Red Scare? How Hollywood was treated like one big pinko convention trying to overthrow America? How black artists were shut out for the sole reason of being black?

What a joke of a piece.

Alternative perspective.

Moral of the Story: We are all turds in an Outhouse.

Sorry, but I'm agreeing almost 100% with what Ed has to say. America and some other countries are being infested by lowlifes who's only goal is to make a quick buck by exploating the current, and disgusting culture.
Look around you, look at the average teenage woman. They are dressed as prostatues dressed in years passed. Worse yet, it is considered fasionable and is accepted by the majority. I find this absoutly disgusting. I don't want to see cleavage or anything else whenever female teenagers bend over or go up stairs in school. Its bad to the point that I probally spend 25% of my school day with my eye's crossed to avoid sights that I honestly do not want to see. And If you don't think that is bad enough, the US leads the world in the export of pornagraphy. I'm ashamed of this socity and i'm no longer going to passivly sit here while it detorioates to the point where you can see all you want just walking down the street.

Please note I don't mean this in a politcal way. I acctually have yet to pick a party. Generally I go for who I feel is the lesser evil.

sunrunner20 said:

Sorry, but I'm agreeing almost 100% with what Ed has to say. America and some other countries are being infested by lowlifes who's only goal is to make a quick buck by exploating the current, and disgusting culture.
Look around you, look at the average teenage woman. They are dressed as prostatues dressed in years passed. Worse yet, it is considered fasionable and is accepted by the majority. I find this absoutly disgusting. I don't want to see cleavage or anything else whenever female teenagers bend over or go up stairs in school. Its bad to the point that I probally spend 25% of my school day with my eye's crossed to avoid sights that I honestly do not want to see. And If you don't think that is bad enough, the US leads the world in the export of pornagraphy. I'm ashamed of this socity and i'm no longer going to passivly sit here while it detorioates to the point where you can see all you want just walking down the street.

Please note I don't mean this in a politcal way. I acctually have yet to pick a party. Generally I go for who I feel is the lesser evil.

Click to expand...

Sunrunner, I agree with you about 100%!! Ed was right on line, in his post.

I just questioned his use of language, though. I couldn't post the article here, without risking the wrath of some of my green friends.

Oh, on your last paragraph, is there a lesser evil? Most of the time, I hold my nose and vote. (Hope this isn't too political!)

steve

sunrunner, good luck in all you choose to pursue along those lines, but in order to do that may i make one suggestion. people aren't going to listen or be swayed by those who cannot communicate properly. This is a forum, of course, and it doesn't really matter, but you're going to need to learn some grammar like "exportation", etc. I would urge you to broaden your knowledge of the poli-social realm.

At that point, keep in mind, every person draws their own line. If your "ideas" start to draw lines for those very same borders, you've started to resort to fascism.

I liked the article, am a member of the ACLU, and know that the "media problem" in the US is as tangled and twisted as an afternoon soap.

I think Ed's article makes some very good points. I do agree that the language goes a little too far, but that is only human. The writer was obviously passionate about the topic, and I can't say that I blame him. These matters are serious concerns.

Clear and concise communication on such complex issues is important and is always appreciated sooner or later.

btw, nicspits said "keep in mind, every person draws their own line. If your "ideas" start to draw lines for those very same borders, you've started to resort to fascism"

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. It sounds as if you feel that having an opinion on other people's behaviour (and how that behaviour affects you) is fascist? Or perhaps you mearly caution against over-reaction?

Interesting thread, people!

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


That's just so we all understand the term, hehe. The key points are suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship. Belligerent nationalism and racism are the political realities if commonly shouted things like "Look at you, you're what's wrong with this country!" and every adaptation with the same point.

The problem is, the person who is shouting is declaring their perception of what the country is, was, and should be to be the absolute truth to the matter and therefore declaring whoever they're yelling at as enemies of that imagined nation.

Where this happens on the intellectual level is where someone's ideas of the way it should be become subjective and thus distorted and left to abuse. You can follow this by the progression of the Nazi ideal from Gypsys, Jews, Etc. to anyone of impure German blood. The purists of which depended on physical traits that even by nature were not dominant.

So instead of making personal decisions for other people, like how they behave or dress, one must make their opinion of decency heard, try to promote it, and through discussion influence others to agree thus affecting society positively rather than condemning a portion of it. This is the right we have as Americans, what we don't have is the option of choosing for other people on a personal level (socially accepted standards must be changed on a social level, not an individual one).

Hope this clears my prior post up. This is a really good thread

-Nicholas Spitulski

nicspits said:

So instead of making personal decisions for other people, like how they behave or dress, one must make their opinion of decency heard, try to promote it, and through discussion influence others to agree thus affecting society positively rather than condemning a portion of it. This is the right we have as Americans, what we don't have is the option of choosing for other people on a personal level (socially accepted standards must be changed on a social level, not an individual one).

Hope this clears my prior post up. This is a really good thread

-Nicholas Spitulski

Click to expand...

Does this mean;

If I condemn someone for defecating in my lunch, I'm a fascist?

I don't think so!

How abouyt if they do it in everyone's lunch, and I condemn it? Am I still a fascist?

Sorry Nick, there are some areas, where a line HAS to be drawn! Period! Absolutely NO exceptions! There are some things that are wrong, with no discussion allowed. They are just wrong.

And, I'm NO fascist! I'm just a thinking person.

steve

nicspits said:

(socially accepted standards must be changed on a social level, not an individual one).

Click to expand...

Funny how you said there are some things that are just wrong period. Like eating people? Not to cannibals, people starving to death, etc. Rape? How many person's definitions would include the first night of many arranged marriages. The same exceptions and variations can be found for just about anything deamed wrong, that's the diverse world we live in. Whether or not these few examples are immaterial, there are societies and cultures in the world where much of what we consider "absolutely wrong" are common practice, and those people would be equally confused about our anger towards their action as we are confused as to their reasons for doing it.

Obviously an act such as you described, in our culture, is not acceptable by anyone's standards and thus would be punished. In Beverly Hills, it is not acceptable to run around with your shirt off. Hence, we have "indecent exposure" laws and ordinances that enforce such local standards. Your example could be considered destruction of property, vandalism, etc. hence an already established social norm that you could seak compensation for and the other person would be punished for.

Obviously my prior post used very broad terminology, if you want the fine print, visit your local library and I'll see you in a couple of years, lol. A degree is a better way to go but, speaking first hand, be prepared to sell a kidney.

Nick, at the risk of getting too political, I still think you are wrong.

Now that we have crossed one taboo, (politics) I'm about to cross another.

The (GREAT) majority of this country, much to the disgust of the ACLU, has religious beliefs. Those beliefs have "lines" in their doctrine. While not all of the various doctrines coincide, amongst the various sects, a majority of them do. I can think of Ten of them that are pretty much accepted nationwide, and are on display in the Supreme Court. (Again, much to the disgust of the ACLU.)

Taking what you say, and expanding on it, would leave us with the abandonment of ALL laws. Taking what I am saying, and expanding on, would leave us with a fascist totalitarian system.

There are some places where there is grey area, in the legal system, and there are places where there can be absolutely no "room for interpretatation."

Oh, how much did you get for your kidney?

steve

I started writing a reply to this thread and quickly found myself 1000 words into a reasonably good essay on this stuff. I'll save you from having to read it, as it is much the same as Ed's, and this isn't really the forum for it. There are a couple things though I do want to say.

In moderation sex drugs violence and obscenity have a place in media I believe. They have a place in life and media does us a disservice to ignore parts of our culture. I think we've gone way overboard though.

Ed talked about now vs. 50 years ago. Don't think for a second these things weren't in media at that time. Sex was shot much more discreetly certainly, normally only with a bit of foreplay, producers and directors of course knew that adults were perfectly capable of playing the scene through in their head. Violence was just as prevelant, just shot through much less gorry lenses. Drugs have been a part of music for as long as Bob Dylan has been playing the tambourine and Peter Paul and Mary have been puffing the magic dragon. Obscenity is the only dramatic change, but there are still Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV, plus another 70 or so of congress'. Really it's like Ed said, the world has gotten lazy and it's much easier to do it this way than the good ole days.

Ed always makes some good points, whether he's right or wrong (more the former than latter), but I've never seen him cross the PG-rating typically held on the front page, so it's a little disappointing he would do so now.

First, the 'display' of the ten commandments is actually a painting amongst other paintings that give a history of law. There is nothing that says they are to believed or trusted amongst or above any other laws. Let us not forget that even the best thought of, the best laid out laws do not hold true universally. The number of things outdated even in the constitution are amazing. The phrase "three fifths of all other persons" comes to mind... the point I'm trying to make is that nicspits is right, there are no universal moral truths. Though shalt not kill isn't followed by fine print saying unless in war, capital punishment or abortion. I did not see Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, unless you live in a paligamist society in there either. Because I'm approaching taboo topics let me say that I'm not trying to bring discussion of these laws themselves, nor the religious or political aspects, rather as a point that what may reflect the best thinking and morals of one time may not hold true at another time, and in that aspect nicspits is right.

I disagree with him to say that it would facist to censor--to some degree--the crap that loads media now. We have an opportunity greater than anytime in history to communicate with others, access to a greater wealth of information at our fingertips, and technology beyond the wildest fathoms of so many people not so long ago and what we've done with it is not only to create games like GTA, but people have additionally put time and energy into cracking a game like that to find MORE filth. Censorship may be the only responsible action left.

Voodoo Rufus said:

Ed always makes some good points, whether he's right or wrong (more the former than latter), but I've never seen him cross the PG-rating typically held on the front page, so it's a little disappointing he would do so now.

Click to expand...

Ed's language was perhaps strong and offensive to some in places, but he did not resort to using it every third word. Swearing in that context is offensive for the most part, in the way in which he did it conveys emotion and passion for the subject. This is the very purpose of such words, even if you're not allowed to say them on TV. Eloquence may require different words; passion certainly does not. I think a little bit of passion's a good thing. Swear away Ed!

I think there were some very bad comparisons in this piece.

First off, yes I do agree that there is alot of sex and vilence in society today.

Second, There is a huge difference between putting hidden "extras" on a game that need to be hacked to exploit and calling someone up and saying you want to crap on there floor. For the first example you have to go out and actively try to view that p0rn (i see this similar to haveing to pay extra for the playboy channel on cable) for the second example you are pushing your crap on me.

I feel that this whole thing is a political stunt to make cunsumers feel better about themselves.

Very good summary of life in America today, Ed. Good job!

cooter said:

Second, There is a huge difference between putting hidden "extras" on a game that need to be hacked to exploit and calling someone up and saying you want to crap on there floor. For the first example you have to go out and actively try to view that p0rn (i see this similar to haveing to pay extra for the playboy channel on cable) for the second example you are pushing your crap on me.

Click to expand...

Isn't that just marketing? Did you notice that they've had to take legal action ("do not call" lists, and having to threaten suits in order to make companies acknowlegde your request to not be called) to stop you from being spammed on the phone? You see all the spam email? Same stuff. Yes, you can block it, but the whole point is YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

I disagree with what Ed's saying. Although I might be the only one here. HIs argument tends to lean on this: It was so much better in the old days. When thats not necessarily the case.

First of all, I don't see anyone getting hooked on the GTA 3 sex mod. I cant imagine some 12 year old thats hooked on the gta 3 sex mod when he can just go on a porn website. Secondly, there are ratings to the game, and parents should FOLLOW those ratings. If a game has an Adult rating on it, dont get it for your 12 year old kid. This isn't leaving crap on someone's door step, this is allowing that person to do so by being an irresponsible parent. If you don't want your kid exposded to sex, drugs and violence, don't buy a game that has an ESRB rating of such.

I like my Half lives, and my Dooms, and my GTA's. Why? Becuase I wouldnt want to play an action game about converting people to christianity, or play an Rpg about being a cubscout. Sure I like my Kotors and my Morrowind, but I kinda like blowing up someone's guts or gunning someone down from a car. Does that make me and the millions of people who play/create these games low-lifes, I don't think so. I don't see millions, thousands, or even hundreds of people killing others because of game. Actually these reminds me of parents blaming Rob Zombie (and bands like that) for kids behavior. IT is SO easy to point the finger and blame something else for kids actions. I know my parents always did. They would always blame my friends or my cousin or someone for my stupid actions, when i made my own decision from my own will. How about better parenting, helping others, using the v-chip, putting internet filters of your kids comp, and getting correct ESRB ratings for kids. And oh yea, I almost forgot, being part of your kids life, so that you actually know when they are making pipe bombs and blowing up cats.

And yes there is a lot of garbage in the media, but there are also lots of great and interesting and provoking things out there. Shows like 24, Arrested Development, Law & Order, movies like I heart Huckabees, Sunshine of the Spotless Mind etc. I mean it SOOO easy to generalize and say everything is garbage and worst off. Well I disagree. I admit there is a lot of garbage, but if you look past the garbage there are a lot of very smart, very funny, very "non-base" entertaining stuff. More so than ever before.

and last when ed says "When you glorify base sensations and the low life, you end up with a lot of base low lifes." First, who is he to say whats base and low. I don't think sex and violence is base IF its used in a certain way. It creates realism, becuase we dont live in a fairy world were no one has sex or gets mugged or shot. Sex and violence is just a part of life, can it be base? If its used in a certain way yes, but does it always have to be be base? No.

I also disagree with the Ed saying that we live in an outhouse. I'm sorry if we aren't in the 50's where a woman was a wh*re if she wasnt married by 35. I'm not saying our society is perfect, but i'm not saying its absolute crap either. I'd like to say that our society is OK, there is lots of room for improvement, but we are decent. I mean how many people helped out the tsunami victims? Most of the money that america gave to the victims came from private sources. So many kids these days help out and do community service (more so than 50 years ago). Its ok for a colored person to be succesful and it is a reality. When Sept 11 attacks happened there were less incidents of muslims being attacked (because of their faith) than in London train bombings. We've come a LONG way, and we have a long way to go, but I wouldn't say that our society sucks or is in an outhouse. It's just to easy to sit back and look at all the bad stuff that happens and discredit the good stuff.

Just my .02 cents

Okee doke, I'll keep this one short because I'm hungry and there's food awaitin.

Skou: you can read spartacus' follow throughs. In addition, it would not be the abandonment of all laws. Once again, there are norms and standards, not all can be adhered too and defended, giving them a dynamic existence. The dynamics of them are the hard part to understand, notice, and most of all influence. My explanations on this are simply attempts to open your mind to thinking socially rather individually or "if I had it my way" style.

Personally, I don't think that a little censorship would be fascist, I think if there was one person deciding what to censor, that would be fascist. That is why we have regulatory bodies and organizations to decide such things, unfortunately they have become subject to influence and undeniable prejudice (I recommend reading the bios of the members of the board of the FCC, etc.). Even more personally, I think they've let more go than they should have and that there are plenty of things on TV that I feel have no real entertainment, educational, or any real value at all except as a time passer. But I don't watch TV hardly at all so maybe they got those shows off

Lastly, as far as religuous issues go, you'd be surprised how many laws directly reflect what is written in scripture from religions all over the world. Having read several books on the creation of our own constitution and subsequent ammendments, it's also very surprising to find how many ideas and principals from 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, and 20th century philosophers, political theorists, economists, and sociologists. Intellectual Origins of the Constitution springs to mind.

The law is written word and always open to interpretation, ask ANY lawyer or judge.
I got a credit card instead, I'm thinking the kidney will be taken out after my masters is finished.

I'm sorry, but censorship only has one justification: fear.

Everyone here who has justified it has said just that. I'm afraid of what could happen if someone expresses an idea. Ironically, it is this strong fear that keeps a lot of these ideas there.

I will just say this, since I don't want to anger the moderators or harm unborn babies or something along those lines.

Sex and writing about sex are not new. They have been around for thousands of years.

Ironically, since more and more violence is shown on tv and in music, violent crime rates are on the drop. Yet people associate the two; what gives?