Childrens Television Making Kids Dumb

Status
Not open for further replies.

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#21
I had a whole response typed up, and then I remembered that I said I wasn't going to stir the pot. I'm already too involved, so I'm removing myself from the conversation.

I am very opinionated and thus try not to get involved in these things if I can help it.

- Trip

Im not a shrinking violent Trip. Let it rip. What is it they say...."Dont talk about politics or religion."

OO was right, I did jump the gun labeling you, however experience has taught me that college students are an amalgamation of their experience, and that experience is heavily influenced by the education system and media and not tempered by experience. That is why many people move conservative as they grow older, their experience and deeper understanding trump the propaganda and brainwashing they recieved when younger.

So no offense was meant.


I realize that some get very upset when talking politics, because it can be emotional (even for me), but IMO not talking about politics (in general doesnt have to be on this board if its bad of board cohesion) leads to even greater misunderstanding and more conflict.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#23
Can everyone agree that the 60s New Left is the establishment these days? That all of the agendas of the 60s are in play and advancing further and further, via the march of Baby Boomer New Leftist radicals through the institutions.

Example (not a Baby Boomer) but an Alinsky Community Organizer is now in the White House. Affirmative Action is widespread. Leftwing activist judges have been dominating the courts for years (that has changed recently). PBS kids is promoting multiculturalism. The television news media is heavily Leftwing biased. Hell I heard the expert interviewee on NPR news sneer "Conservative" at Blue Dog Democrats for balking on a Leftist agenda legislation in Congress. This is the way it is.

In Europe in several countries its a much bigger problem. Why? Because their birthrates are way down and they are importing not Latino Catholics....but North African and South Asian Muslims. And the indigineous populations of Europe are starting to wake up and smell the roses....because they arent just importing foreign cultures and promoting them over the indigenous culture (reverse colonialism as it were), they are importing a supremacist agressive ideology, Islam that seeks to dominate and subjugate and oppress the other, politically, cultureally, etc. Its going to get ugly over there.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#25
Maybe we should look at the policies that have been promoted by the Western Left as multicultural policies bicker.....then my assertion will be shown to be the more accurate.

Tolerance is different than Multiculturalism. Do you understand the difference between them?
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#26
Im sorry to hijack the thread with Multiculturalism, because I think their are other issues of child manipulation with childrens TV.

But here is an excellent examination of what is going on in Western Civilization. The only thing I would add is that teh Western Left is driving this zeitgeist with and as policy. Driving a stake through the heart of Western Civlization with a sense of righteousness while doing so. Its very bazarre, this ideology or collection of ideologies bent on suicide and self flagellation and emolliation.


Here is Clair Berlinski review Delsols book Icarus Fallen (along with Magraths book). In a sense, Delsol is saying the same thing as Evan Sayet, but more intelligently and intellectually.

Fantastic stuff here....do not skip it.


BOOKS:
Is God Still Dead?

By Claire Berlinski

Claire Berlinski on The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath and Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World by Chantal Delsol and translated by Robin Dick

.....One might equally expect the reaction to be a condemnation of zeal and faith in all its forms, theist or atheist, in preference for the weak solutions of moral relativism — or the spread of general outright despair.


These, in fact, are precisely what we are seeing, according to Chantal Delsol, a professor of philosophy at the University of Marne-la-Vallée in Paris. (This institutional affiliation is noteworthy: It is striking that public figures in France with innovative and unorthodox ideas are no longer apt to be associated with the Grandes Ecoles or the traditional French educational elite; Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, recently elected chief of France’s ruling party, is not a graduate of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, the traditional feeder school for the French administrative and political elite.) In her subtle, highly intelligent meditation on the moral state of modern European man, Delsol considers his profound disillusionment: European man has in recent memory suffered two great losses, first his Christian faith and then its replacement — a vision of human perfectibility absent supernatural guidance. Failed experiments in utopianism, particularly in its communist and fascist expressions, have left him, like Icarus, singed at the wing-tips and fallen, paralyzed by self-doubt.

Utopian ideologies were, as she says, “systems of reference structured like cathedrals,” and her use of this rich simile is no accident. Europe has spent the past several centuries, not just this one, in a series of struggles to find a replacement for its lost Christian faith. Until recently, for example, nationalism was a substitute for religious belief; in France, the idea of France itself and its civilizing mission lent meaning to the lives of Frenchmen, just as the mystical Aryan ideal stood in for religious belief in Germany. The nation-state, the arts, music, science, fascism, communism, even rationality itself — all of these were substitutes for Christianity, and all failed. “We have watched all the cathedrals fall into ruin,” Delsol laments, “one after another.” But where McGrath sees in this the inevitability of religious revival, Delsol discerns no such thing. She finds her contemporaries’ fear of ideological certainty fully reasonable: Rigid orthodoxy, after all, did give rise to both the Inquisition and the Holocaust. So a return to the past is impossible, and no one has the faintest idea what the future might hold.

Man continues, nonetheless, to long for utopia and for the absolute — this is a design feature, to paraphrase Delsol, not a bug — and for a means to interpret his existence. But he no longer possesses a coherent ideological vehicle by which to express this longing. Here she sees the source of the profound risk-aversion of the modern European: “In general,” she writes, “our contemporary cannot imagine for what cause he would sacrifice his life because he does not know what his life means.” Though Delsol does not explicitly say as much, this is as good an explanation as we are apt to find for Europe’s recent approach to international affairs: How better, for example, to explain the willingness of the Spanish people instantly and obediently to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists who last year slaughtered some 200 of their countrymen?

Lacking any sense of purpose, Delsol asserts, modern man enshrouds himself in technological and physical comfort, leading a life that is at once free of risk and mediocre, mouthing vapid, unexamined clichés. These she calls “the clandestine ideology of our time” — clandestine because no overt adherence to ideology is now socially permissible. Yet the banishment of the economy of ideology, she astutely remarks, has encouraged a black market to flourish in its place: “This underground moral code is saturated with sentimentality yet arbitrarily intolerant.” The code is a close cousin to the political correctness of the Americans, and it is the unspoken foundation of the modern European welfare state — a society predicated on an ever-expanding sense of entitlement:
Anything contemporary man needs or envies, anything that seems desirable to him without reflection, becomes the object of a demanded right. Human rights are invoked as a reason for refusing to show identification, for becoming indignant against the deportation of delinquent foreigners, for forcing the state to take illegal aliens under its wing, for justifying squatting by homeless people, for questioning the active hunt for terrorists. It is not only desire or whim that leads to rights claims, but instinctive sentimentality and superficial indignation as well.

Another principle of this code is the estimation of tolerance above all other virtues. Once defined by the absence of state prohibitions against certain ideas and behaviors, tolerance has come to be conflated with legitimization — as the state itself now actively encourages those ideas and behaviors through legal and material aid. Delsol finds this pernicious, and rightly so. One need only look at the Netherlands to see exactly where this orthodoxy leads: When an artist created a street mural with the words “Thou shalt not kill” in response to the murder — by a Muslim radical — of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Dutch police immediately destroyed it in the name of tolerance. Deputy Prime minister Gerrit Zalm was widely criticized for declaring the Netherlands to be at war with Islamic extremism. “We fall,” said Green-left leader Femke Halsema, “too easily into an ‘us and them’ antithesis with the word war.” No more perfect example of Delsol’s thesis can be imagined. “Dominated by emotion,” she observes,
our era overflows with treacly sentiment. It is almost as if the feelings that were once associated with a certain type of piety have contaminated the whole population. . . . Seeking the good while remaining indifferent to the truth gives rise to a morality of sentimentality.
My only quibble: This is not just a morality of sentimentality; it is a morality of eager, collective suicide.

Delsol’s is certainly not the first baleful assessment of our ambient culture of moral relativism — perhaps quasi-relativism is more apt because, as she rightly notes, its practitioners unquestionably accept moral absolutes (“one must be tolerant”) while insisting that they indignantly reject them. But her criticism is particularly lucid, and her analysis of the reasons for the rise of this ideology — and the kind of culture to which it in turn gives rise — unusually canny.


Alister mcgrath contends that a new “cultural sensitivity” has “led to religious beliefs being treated with new respect.” Yet on the pages of our major news organs we find the faithful described in the most disrespectful terms. Here is novelist Jane Smiley, in Slate, depicting them as “unteachably ignorant,” advising us to “[l]isten to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are — they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence.” Brian Reade of the Mirror calls the faithful “self-righteous, gun-totin’, military-lovin’, sister-marryin’, abortion-hatin’, gay-loathin’, foreigner-despisin’, non-passport ownin’ red-necks.” Maureen Dowd, predictable as sunrise, sees “a vengeful mob — revved up by rectitude — running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.” And Nicolas Kristof echoes his New York Times colleague with his nod to “wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting” Americans. If Delsol’s thesis needs further confirmation, consider this: These critics are exercised about the intolerance of the religious.

No, not much newfound respect for religion on display here — just a good deal of what Delsol calls the “ideology of the apostate.” Mainstream moral thinking remains, above all, structured around the rejection of religious morality. “The drama of the present age,” she observes, “does not lie so much in the return of certain figures of existence as it does in the fact that these figures were — and in many cases still are — despised.” Evidence for Delsol’s somber assessment of Western man, with his limited, repulsive view of truth and transcendence, is everywhere, belying McGrath’s sunny appraisal of man’s renewed spiritual sensitivity.
 
Last edited:

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#27
The difference between tolerance and multiculturalism is bolded in the above quote. Tolerance vs the active promotion of other cultures, values, religions, and well being of "the other".....over the Western indigenous peoples.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#28
That article I just posted should be required reading, its deep and their is a lot to digest in there.

Lets take the sneering at the "Western Redneck" for example by the Western Left and the Western Leftist elite (this can be seen in the outrageous slanders and slurs and attacks on Sarah Palin as a prime example, or in the "bitter clingers" comment by Barack Obama in San Fran after having just campaigned in Pennsylvania). The utter disdain that these folks have for these backwards uncivilized Western Rednecks and their culture....does not translate into the same for other cutlures (at least not outwardly expressed and Politically Correct). You see them fall all over themselves celebrating and protecting other indigenous people and their cultures, primitive African cultures and tribes, savages in the Amazon jungle...extolling the deep virtures and wisdom of these folks, while at the same time sneering at the Western redneck. This double standard is not hypocrisy though, its just indicative of the Anti Western ideology of the Western Left....its hostile to the West. Very twisted. You can see that the Western left is turning or has turned on Israel....another example of just how twisted their ideology and agenda has become.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#29
Look wop, you dont have anything on the Irish. Irish need not apply. Catholics need not apply.

BTW, I heard that Have-a-Tampa is closing its production fascilities this year. Kind of emblematic of America's problems.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#31
Tolerance is different than Multiculturalism. Do you understand the difference between them?
Do you?

Multi-culturalism is the perspective that supports tolerance. Unless, of course, all you care about is looking like you're tolerant, instead of sincerely being what you pretend to be.

(And no, I'm not going to read your overly-long propaganda piece, so don't refer to it in questions directed my way.)
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#33
Do you?

Multi-culturalism is the perspective that supports tolerance. Unless, of course, all you care about is looking like you're tolerant, instead of sincerely being what you pretend to be.

(And no, I'm not going to read your overly-long propaganda piece, so don't refer to it in questions directed my way.)
You obviously dont understand how Multiculturalism has been implemented.....do you see kids celebrating WASP culture on Dora the Explorer or Sesame Street?

You dont understand tolerance at all. Tolerance isnt celebrating other peoples culture or behavior, its tolerating it.

Thus the difference between multi-culturalism and tolerance.

Multi-culturalism fosters conflict eventually as groups do not integrate thoroughly and isolate themselves into enclaves of majority neighborhoods where they celebrate their own cultures, while the host Western society is not allowed to celebrate their own culture without diversity sensitivity training and inclusiveness training. What it amounts to is that all groups cultures are respected except the majority indigenous Western culture....which is defined as inherently racist and exclusivist and if such groups form to act politically in there interests, they are spat upon as racist....where as La Raza and the NAACP....2 racist organizations are pandered too and lauded for their great racist works.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#34
Anyway, I though real life not out of a book, speech or paper life experiences would shed light on the multicultural debate.
Great post Piggie! I think it explains things perfectly.....the pendulum has swung way to far from one extreme to the other. That is the problem.

I am not saying people need to dump their culture. My grandparents went too far dumping anything Italian. The current Latinos are hanging too tight to the ethnics. Part of this is I believe they are being empowered by the govt to remain an ethnic group. Where at the turn of the previous century there were not such incentives, just the opposite.
Absolutely!

And what they are creating is long term conflict, by keeping folks in little enclaves of different cultures. The Left and Democrats support the victimization narrative and offer legal and government fixes or special priveleges and protections in return for votes and power. Whereas the Conservatives or Republicans offer individuals protection not cultures and encourage people to be judged on the content of their character and not on superficialities, but also encourage cultural integration....but dont force it on anyone.

Im firmly in the 2nd camp....as opposed to the racist racialist Leftwing camp.


The American model (as it were) is with less welfare safety netting, so that when newcomers come to America, with no impetus from government they are encouraged to self integrate....because no one wants to deal with uppity ethnics demanding special rights at work. In order to prosper economically, you self integrate. Where as the European nations with bigger Welfare States (created after the ethnic cleansing of WW2) operate better with homogenaic populations, where there is no cultural battles to wage, and a sense of the common good, based on a common culture and group....is implemented. When immigrants come in large numbers there.....they are very well off often compared to where they came from by just being on the dole and living off the welfare state.....and then they have a large number of children and are not encouraged to adopt the host populations values and culture (because that would be the white man forcing his ways on the dark skinned folks = a big no no), and what you get is a replacemnent culture and peoples for Europen countries. Add Islam on top, and youve got a big big conflict brewing in Europe. They have essentially taken themselves out of the global power game, because they will be fighting the Balkan War over the Western half of Europe for the next half a century....as they are balkanized with poor to no assimilation with 30 years of ever increasing immigration, with Islam the icing on that cake.
 

1inxs

DTVUSA Member
#35
The USA used to be a melting pot of many cultures. We should all enjoy the memories of our heritage, but we should integrate into the US culture as a society. Does the Public Education system foster disintegration of multi-culturalism? These are pictures from Montebello High School of California. Are we teaching the integration of cultures in this society?


 
Last edited:

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#36
Could you imagine 20 million gringos moving to Mexico illegally on top of 20 million legal gringo immigrants and not learning Spanish and insisting on maintaining their heritage and calling Mexican Latinos and Native Americans racists for not prostrating themselves and their country to the gringos and their culture?
 

1inxs

DTVUSA Member
#37
And to think it may well have all started watching Dora the Explorer? Now me on the other hand! I'd pass by PBS and go right to Looney Tunes for some bang them up and smash them programs,with solid substance.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#38
Looney Tunes is evidence of the violent patriarchal racist culture of the Western European, or so Ive been educated and informed.
 
Last edited:
#39
Tom & Jerry FTW!

That and a great more variety of 1960s-70s cartoons. it's hard to imagine how many different ones Hanna Barbera made in one decade! i still haven't seen all of em, i've got a DVD of all of them or at least most and i never heard of Marine Boy or Speed Racer until now. hard to believe anime existed then!

TVs didn't have ratings and i don't think kids tried imitating cartoon violence or we'd hear all over the news of anvils or pianos being dropped on people's heads or the oddly placed ironing board falling out conveniently in the path of oncoming people.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#40
You obviously dont understand how Multiculturalism has been implemented.....
Actually, I do. Apparently you don't.

You dont understand tolerance at all.
Actually, I do. That's why I made the point that I made (which you apparently either didn't understand or ignored, because it cut the foundation out under point you wanted to make.

Tolerance isnt celebrating other peoples culture or behavior, its tolerating it.
In your mind, perhaps, you consider patronizing people by "tolerating them" as something beneficent. "Celebrating" isn't the ethic: Understanding is an ethic. Mutual respect is an ethic. Tolerance without understanding, and without mutual-respect, is arrogant and insulting.

[Anti-social rhetoric skipped]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top