The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Maybe it was Arthur Griffiths' book of the same title? Published around 1900, it's set during the Crimean war where the battle of Balaclava was the original "thin red line".

Thank you, I missed that one. I had searched for the title and search only showed the movie and the book by James Jones.
Apache

[issybird]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What I find silly are the warnings on older programs that they may not be suitable. Here's one from Disney that even is displayed for some episodes of The Muppet Show. I've watches some of these shows/movies and they've never done me any harm. Kids really do not need to live in a sterilized environment. They need to be exposed to things like this.

I'm finding an inconsistency here. You yourself won't read books you consider racist or anti-Semitic (although misogynistic doesn't seem to pose an issue), but you think it's good for children? Kids will believe what they see, and worse, kids who belong to marginalized groups may internalize the bias presented. Perhaps they didn't do you any harm as a white male? Also, the privileged have to pick up their biases somewhere.

I'm opposed to not making content available but I think adults in their lives should vet kids' content and not a nanny corporation. Because, cynically speaking, the nanny corporation is trying to have it both ways: they don't approve, but they're also willing to make money from it. Which if it was wrong then, is wrong now. They should skip the holier than thou warning, because self-evidently, they're not.

And... Disney did pull Song of the South. It's arguable that they need to drop other egregious films; I could easily make a case for Peter Pan just as one example. We're not talking great film-making art; it's no Birth of a Nation. Or even Snow White.

[Calenorn]

Those up-front warning statements provide parents with a teachable moment. Talk to the kids about what parts of the show could be offensive, and why. Teach them how to discern and they will be able to do it for themselves. If they don't develop such judgment while young, they will be vulnerable to more pernicious influences later.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

Those up-front warning statements provide parents with a teachable moment. Talk to the kids about what parts of the show could be offensive, and why. Teach them how to discern and they will be able to do it for themselves. If they don't develop such judgment while young, they will be vulnerable to more pernicious influences later.

The adults should use the show itself as a teachable moment, without the CYA warning from the provider. The reality is that the provider is continuing to exploit problematic material. Well, ok, but there's no mantle of morality to pull over it. Are they donating the profits to organizations that attempt to undo the harm done? No? Well, then.

[Calenorn]

I suppose the alternative to the warning would be to remove the content completely. As a parent, I'd rather have the choice.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Calenorn

I suppose the alternative to the warning would be to remove the content completely. As a parent, I'd rather have the choice.

It's not an either/or: no warning/no content. As a parent, why not choose to vet and interpret the content without the warning? Adults (because not all the adults in a kid's life are parents) should be vetting kids' content in any case.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Also seen on peanut butter is "This product was made in a factory that handles nuts.".

This makes sense, though, because peanuts are legumes, and "nuts" refers to "tree nuts" like pecans, hazelnuts, etc.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

I'm finding an inconsistency here. You yourself won't read books you consider racist or anti-Semitic (although misogynistic doesn't seem to pose an issue), but you think it's good for children? Kids will believe what they see, and worse, kids who belong to marginalized groups may internalize the bias presented. Perhaps they didn't do you any harm as a white male? Also, the privileged have to pick up their biases somewhere.

I'm opposed to not making content available but I think adults in their lives should vet kids' content and not a nanny corporation. Because, cynically speaking, the nanny corporation is trying to have it both ways: they don't approve, but they're also willing to make money from it. Which if it was wrong then, is wrong now. They should skip the holier than thou warning, because self-evidently, they're not.

And... Disney did pull Song of the South. It's arguable that they need to drop other egregious films; I could easily make a case for Peter Pan just as one example. We're not talking great film-making art; it's no Birth of a Nation. Or even Snow White.

Yes, I agree and I do NOT want Disney, or any other company, (especially of late!!!) making those decisions for me or mine. I hated, hated "Airplane version" movies; Hated what PBS did with UK TV (GOD FORBID adults should--gasp!!!--see a naked butt or boobs), and the like. thanks, but if I'm a kid-owning adult, I will decide, not them and if that means I have to watch it first, so what? Isn't that part of the job of parenting? It's not bad enough taht the boob tube, so to speak--is the electronic babysitter (that and now, smartphones), but we're going to also off-ramp the suitability of shows and movies for our kids to them? NO THANKS.

Hitch

[Renate]

Originally Posted by Hitch

GOD FORBID adults should--gasp!!!--see a naked butt or boobs

We're 'muricans.
The 2nd Amendment means that blowing someone's head off in a movie is good entertainment.
There is no amendment protecting boobies.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by issybird

The reality is that the provider is continuing to exploit problematic material. Well, ok, but there's no mantle of morality to pull over it. Are they donating the profits to organizations that attempt to undo the harm done? No? Well, then.

I haven't thought of that aspect of it. You're quite right, the warning text rings hollow when they're not willing to do anything that might cost them a bit of their profits to mitigate any harm caused by those outdated views.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by hildea

I haven't thought of that aspect of it. You're quite right, the warning text rings hollow when they're not willing to do anything that might cost them a bit of their profits to mitigate any harm caused by those outdated views.

Oh, now that is just nonsense. It wasn't that long ago that we were all complaining about edits made to Roald Dahl and other dead authors and what a crime it was.

Now Disney, doing something right (for once) in leaving unedited episodes of The Muppet Show available to view are ruthlessly exploiting outdated views to the detriment of future generations.

Come on.

[JSWolf]

I'd rather kids saw naked bodies then see all the ways to kill someone that's shown on TV.

[j.p.s]

I've always assumed that in the US, the warnings are some FCC thing. Is that not the case?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'd rather kids saw naked bodies then see all the ways to kill someone that's shown on TV.

Yep. I've always wondered why it is ok to show violence, but not ok to show human bodies in their natural state. Really weird and skewed, if you stop and think about it.

But of course we have many ludicrous cultural/societal norms. Like why it's taboo for men to wear skirts and dresses, but ok for women to wear pants? Why male nipples are ok, but female nipples are not? (Female nipples are meant first and foremost for feeding babies, and we have a rule that kids shouldn't see them?) O tempora, o mores...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Yep. I've always wondered why it is ok to show violence, but not ok to show human bodies in their natural state. Really weird and skewed, if you stop and think about it.

But of course we have many ludicrous cultural/societal norms. Like why it's taboo for men to wear skirts and dresses, but ok for women to wear pants? Why male nipples are ok, but female nipples are not? (Female nipples are meant first and foremost for feeding babies, and we have a rule that kids shouldn't see them?) O tempora, o mores...

In the UK it's OK to show nudity on TV but only between 9:00pm to 5:30am.

Shows of an adult nature are shown then. And you can set a pin code so such shows need to be unlocked so kids cannot watch them unless a parent agrees.