More puritanical idiocy from the USA

[Trogdor]

Yes, but how does this change the fact that rednecks, who are much more likely to be upset by a white women throwing herself into a black man's arms, watch a lot of football?

*Looks more closely at posts* Nothing. Sorry.

[Patrick Degan]

It looks some folks want it to be 1954 all over again.

Could this push that we're seeing to revert to a nostalgic 1950's America be correlated to the American economic supremacy of that era?

I'm wondering if this puritinism and pandering to fundamentalism is a symptom of a greater trend of the country being in a state of denial about our lessened status in the world since the end of WWII.

I think you're on to something. The US was The Man back in the 50's. Nothing could youch the US. Since 9/11 they feel vulnerable, and want those days back... including all the bad trappings.

This uproar would have occurred whether 9-11 had happened or not. The present regime in Washington represent those bound and determined to force this country into a time-warp back to the 1950s. Culture War. They see it as their mission to redeem America and they've had a sympathetic White House to back them up from the first day Bush took office.

[RedImperator]

I remember a short while back when the NFL declined advertising for Vegas, on the basis that good old Sin City was not the sort of image that the NFL wanted associated with it. One of the backers of the Vegas consortium came out and replied in so many words "Yeah, at least our ads don't have women wrestling in their panties and brassieres."

Referencing the infamous Miller Light Catfight ad, of course.

That might have been because the NFL is very twitchy about its relationship with gambling. On the one hand, it knows that the amount of money bet on pro football raises its profile and leads to things like people paying DirectTV to see every single game every week (come on--how many people who buy that package are football wonks who are really interested in seeing Arizona vs. Buffalo or expats nostalgic for their hometown team?). It's accomidating enough to Vegas to force coaches to list injuries days ahead of time, even though no coach wants to tell his next opponent where his weaknesses will be. But on the other hand, the league knows how much money is involved in the gaming industry and how many unscrupulous characters are in it, and it's very nervous about getting the smallest whiff of fixed outcomes anywhere near it. So it publically pretends gambling doesn't exist to the best of its ability, and definitely doesn't want to be associated with Las Vegas.

[Iceberg]

Ok, I don't know who "Tu Quoqote" is, I'm just saying other countries besides the US have some crazy, annoying people who ruin things for everyone else. My question is; So what?

The fallacy of "Tu Quoque" is responding to a criticism of something with "Well that guy over there's doing it too!" (or more commonly, "Well you're doing it too!").

[Edi]

Oh please. So because it's easy to get around the restrictions, it's ok?

I did not say it's okay, I said it was not as bad. Answer the fucking point about independently run vs point-to-multipoint-broadcast systems, or fuck off. As of now, I'm accepting your concession until you come back with a reply that addresses the point.

HBO isn't that expensive. And I want to play Half Life in the tongue of the Fatherland, dammit.

HBO is an additional cost that not everyone can afford to pay. Besides, after seeing the posts from our German members, there is no real problem, so I'm again going to accept your concession.

And quite out of reach of people who do not have access to it, and there is a lack of an equal-cost alternative. So this is irrelevant.

Edi

Basic cable isn't that expensive. Oh boo hoo, I have to pay an extra $50 a month for teh boobies. It's the end of the freakin world.

An extra $50 is goddamn nearly two weeks' worth of food for one person if you look carefully at what you buy, at least hereabouts, and certainly enough for one week's food. It is an ADDITIONAL cost, and your pooh-poohing that doesn't change the facts. So fuck off.

Edi

[Col. Crackpot]

Ok, I don't know who "Tu Quoqote" is, I'm just saying other countries besides the US have some crazy, annoying people who ruin things for everyone else. My question is; So what?

The fallacy of "Tu Quoque" is responding to a criticism of something with "Well that guy over there's doing it too!" (or more commonly, "Well you're doing it too!").

while using at justification for behaviour is obviously a fallacy, it does have have a place in an arguement if, say Mike was actively working against nudidty on Canadian television while criticizing the American networks for censoring nudity. But he's not, so it really doesn't matter.

[Uther]

Oh please. So because it's easy to get around the restrictions, it's ok?

I did not say it's okay, I said it was not as bad. Answer the fucking point about independently run vs point-to-multipoint-broadcast systems, or fuck off. As of now, I'm accepting your concession until you come back with a reply that addresses the point.

HBO isn't that expensive. And I want to play Half Life in the tongue of the Fatherland, dammit.

HBO is an additional cost that not everyone can afford to pay. Besides, after seeing the posts from our German members, there is no real problem, so I'm again going to accept your concession.

And quite out of reach of people who do not have access to it, and there is a lack of an equal-cost alternative. So this is irrelevant.

Edi

Basic cable isn't that expensive. Oh boo hoo, I have to pay an extra $50 a month for teh boobies. It's the end of the freakin world.

An extra $50 is goddamn nearly two weeks' worth of food for one person if you look carefully at what you buy, at least hereabouts, and certainly enough for one week's food. It is an ADDITIONAL cost, and your pooh-poohing that doesn't change the facts. So fuck off.

Edi

Ok, actually I looked it up. It's $22.02. Plus there are some additonal installation/equipment costs. That's like 3 hours of work at minimum wage. Basic basic cable (not expanded cable) costs a whopping $14.45. Come on, you'd basically have to be homeless to not be able to afford cable.
Of course there's a problem, the German legislature likes slapping prohibitive costs on materials that don't conform to their bizarre, paranoid notions of the youth being corrupted by Gordon Freeman shooting an Army Ranger in the face.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ok, I don't know who "Tu Quoqote" is, I'm just saying other countries besides the US have some crazy, annoying people who ruin things for everyone else. My question is; So what?

Its obnoxious, for exactly why listening to Third Graders say "well he did that too" is.

[Edi]

Ok, actually I looked it up. It's $22.02. Plus there are some additonal installation/equipment costs. That's like 3 hours of work at minimum wage. Basic basic cable (not expanded cable) costs a whopping $14.45. Come on, you'd basically have to be homeless to not be able to afford cable.

When are you going to address the point about independently run single-user systems versus point-to-multipoint broadcast systems? Concession accepted.

Of course there's a problem, the German legislature likes slapping prohibitive costs on materials that don't conform to their bizarre, paranoid notions of the youth being corrupted by Gordon Freeman shooting an Army Ranger in the face.

Sorry, but I think I'm going to take the word of our German users here over yours, they should know a bit better how it works there, and they have already provided the relevant information. Concession accepted, troll.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Ok, I don't know who "Tu Quoqote" is, I'm just saying other countries besides the US have some crazy, annoying people who ruin things for everyone else. My question is; So what?

Obviously, you don't understand that "puritans ruin it for everyone else in the US" is not in any way refuted or minimized in any way by "people in Quebec are assholes too".

[Uther]

Ok, actually I looked it up. It's $22.02. Plus there are some additonal installation/equipment costs. That's like 3 hours of work at minimum wage. Basic basic cable (not expanded cable) costs a whopping $14.45. Come on, you'd basically have to be homeless to not be able to afford cable.

When are you going to address the point about independently run single-user systems versus point-to-multipoint broadcast systems? Concession accepted.

Of course there's a problem, the German legislature likes slapping prohibitive costs on materials that don't conform to their bizarre, paranoid notions of the youth being corrupted by Gordon Freeman shooting an Army Ranger in the face.

Sorry, but I think I'm going to take the word of our German users here over yours, they should know a bit better how it works there, and they have already provided the relevant information. Concession accepted, troll.

Edi

Aw hell no. You didn't even make a point about your vaunted point to multipoint deal. You just mentioned they were different and claimed regulating one was worse than regulating the other, without any justification. So I don't see why you're getting your curls in an uproar. Newsflash- Books are a single user system, and banning them is bad. I think, I really don't know what you're talking about.

The friendly Berliners already admitted that the government forces self censorship, using devastating restrictions on distribution if their perfidious, draconian standards of "deceny" are not met.

[tharkûn]

Obviously, you don't understand that "puritans ruin it for everyone else in the US" is not in any way refuted or minimized in any way by "people in Quebec are assholes too".

No but I always figured that if one sect of raving loons didn't inhabit a country, another would be found to fill the void.

Frankly I don't fault the network at all, they want to keep the viewers happy, and that includes keeping the fundies and other assorted people happy as well. As far as I know this garnered no FCC action so it isn't exactly a question of legality. I've long held that you can broadcast just about anything as long as you have a "warning" (i.e. "warning: graphic violence which may give small children nightmares following"), and what should be broadcast is whatever the networks beleives to be the most economical.

I'd actually prefer it if the fundies sounded off at the networks and market mechanics gave them their safe little enclaves of happy television; it is a much better and more practical solution than continiously bringing in the FCC and the ACLU.

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, you don't understand that "puritans ruin it for everyone else in the US" is not in any way refuted or minimized in any way by "people in Quebec are assholes too".

No but I always figured that if one sect of raving loons didn't inhabit a country, another would be found to fill the void.

Not all idiots are the same, or have the same effect on everybody else's lives.

Frankly I don't fault the network at all, they want to keep the viewers happy, and that includes keeping the fundies and other assorted people happy as well. As far as I know this garnered no FCC action so it isn't exactly a question of legality. I've long held that you can broadcast just about anything as long as you have a "warning" (i.e. "warning: graphic violence which may give small children nightmares following"), and what should be broadcast is whatever the networks beleives to be the most economical.

I agree that the network is just doing what one would expect, given its incredibly neurotic customer base. It's the customer base that I am attacking.

I'd actually prefer it if the fundies sounded off at the networks and market mechanics gave them their safe little enclaves of happy television; it is a much better and more practical solution than continiously bringing in the FCC and the ACLU.

They have that already; there are Christian-friendly stations, but that's not enough for them. They want to control all of broadcast primetime TV, not to mention the Internet. They haven't gotten very far at censoring the Internet, but that's not for lack of effort.

[tharkûn]

They have that already; there are Christian-friendly stations, but that's not enough for them. They want to control all of broadcast primetime TV, not to mention the Internet. They haven't gotten very far at censoring the Internet, but that's not for lack of effort.

I'm not saying they don't try, nor that they would willingly accept my solution; however it is a possibility (rather remote) that they will find it to be more practical to vote with their remotes than try to work via regulation.

[Edi]

Aw hell no. You didn't even make a point about your vaunted point to multipoint deal. You just mentioned they were different and claimed regulating one was worse than regulating the other, without any justification. So I don't see why you're getting your curls in an uproar.

Oh yes, forgive me for assuming you could actually discern the implications inherent in the differences of those systems. This is the second time I made the mistake of assuming youi had more intelligence than single-celled creatures.

Regulating independently run single-user systems affects a far smaller number of people than regulating a system where content distribution is controlled is at a single point. And with a single-user indep system, it is possible to go around those regulations for the same cost. Regulating a point-to-multipoint system affects everyone who uses that system (which is pretty much everyone in the case of TV broadcasting), and there are no real alternative options that offer the same service sans the regulatory restrictions.

With indepedent single-user systems, individuals have the option in each different instance of making the decision whether to go around regulations or accept them, in a broadcast system they have no choice at all, because all distribution is controlled from a single point. This is why control of that point should not be given to the lowest common denominator.

Newsflash- Books are a single user system, and banning them is bad. I think, I really don't know what you're talking about.

Who talked about completely banning books or even the computer game so far mentioned? Regulating content is different than banning. For example, inciting violence against an ethnic group or a minority is a crme here, and if somebody writes a book that does that, they get prosecuted. But depictions of violence are not in and of themselves incitement to same. You're equating banning one with banning the other, or implying that they are the same.

The friendly Berliners already admitted that the government forces self censorship, using devastating restrictions on distribution if their perfidious, draconian standards of "deceny" are not met.

German standards of decency are generally far more relaxed than American ones, thank you very much. Their rules about computer games are stricter than in the US, but how about broadcast TV? They don't have this stupid shit about fines running into hundreds of thousands of dollars for a bare female breast being visible for all of a few seconds. Apparently you have no problem with graphic violence, but you have a big problem with bare female flesh.

You're arguing that censorship is bad, then defending the FCC censorship? Why don't you try for something like a consistent argument. My argument is that both the German censorship of games and the US censorship of broadcast TV are bad, the latter just happens to be worse.

Edi

[HemlockGrey]

Had they shown this ad last year, before TO's arrival, the Eagles reciever would have dropped the woman.

[wautd]

Dunno if I gotta laugh or cry.

Bunch of retards

[Xon]

You're kidding. Their entire basis for their argument is "There is bad stuff out there like nekkid people enjoying themselves!"

You better believe it. The former Minister of Communications(cant remeber his name) did everything in his power to prevent the widespread adoption of broadband and hammered the speeds down too. All because it would allow for pornographic material to be moved easily.

[Marksist]

Had they shown this ad last year, before TO's arrival, the Eagles reciever would have dropped the woman.

ZING!

[Joe]

I saw the ad yesterday. I found it to be pretty sleazy, not that it's worth all the fuss.

In any case you can be sure that this stunt will work at least partially for ABC; the ratings of that Desperate Housewives show will probably surge. Monday Night Football will probably be fine, also.

[The Cleric]

Had they shown this ad last year, before TO's arrival, the Eagles reciever would have dropped the woman.

I don't know why, but I can't stop laughing at that.

[Uther]

Aw hell no. You didn't even make a point about your vaunted point to multipoint deal. You just mentioned they were different and claimed regulating one was worse than regulating the other, without any justification. So I don't see why you're getting your curls in an uproar.

Oh yes, forgive me for assuming you could actually discern the implications inherent in the differences of those systems. This is the second time I made the mistake of assuming youi had more intelligence than single-celled creatures.

Regulating independently run single-user systems affects a far smaller number of people than regulating a system where content distribution is controlled is at a single point. And with a single-user indep system, it is possible to go around those regulations for the same cost. Regulating a point-to-multipoint system affects everyone who uses that system (which is pretty much everyone in the case of TV broadcasting), and there are no real alternative options that offer the same service sans the regulatory restrictions.

With indepedent single-user systems, individuals have the option in each different instance of making the decision whether to go around regulations or accept them, in a broadcast system they have no choice at all, because all distribution is controlled from a single point. This is why control of that point should not be given to the lowest common denominator.

Newsflash- Books are a single user system, and banning them is bad. I think, I really don't know what you're talking about.

Who talked about completely banning books or even the computer game so far mentioned? Regulating content is different than banning. For example, inciting violence against an ethnic group or a minority is a crme here, and if somebody writes a book that does that, they get prosecuted. But depictions of violence are not in and of themselves incitement to same. You're equating banning one with banning the other, or implying that they are the same.

The friendly Berliners already admitted that the government forces self censorship, using devastating restrictions on distribution if their perfidious, draconian standards of "deceny" are not met.

German standards of decency are generally far more relaxed than American ones, thank you very much. Their rules about computer games are stricter than in the US, but how about broadcast TV? They don't have this stupid shit about fines running into hundreds of thousands of dollars for a bare female breast being visible for all of a few seconds. Apparently you have no problem with graphic violence, but you have a big problem with bare female flesh.

You're arguing that censorship is bad, then defending the FCC censorship? Why don't you try for something like a consistent argument. My argument is that both the German censorship of games and the US censorship of broadcast TV are bad, the latter just happens to be worse.

Edi

Sure there are alternatives- basic cable. Yes, you won't be able to get NFL coverage with Janet Jackson breasts at the same time. Sorry

Just because you scandanavian liberal paradise hedonists love staring at penises all day doesn't mean I should have to. Today it's Janet's boobs, tommorow it's Justin Timberlake's willy. And when that happens, it will be a dark day indeed for America.

So, let them whitewash and sanatize the broadcast networks! I don't care. There's very little worth watching there, and what little there is won't be affected one whit by FCC paranoia. And, if for some strange reason I should want to look at penises, I'm free to try cable, or better, the internet. Yes, now everyone is happy.

[Durandal]

Had they shown this ad last year, before TO's arrival, the Eagles reciever would have dropped the woman.

[Joe]

Had they shown this ad last year, before TO's arrival, the Eagles reciever would have dropped the woman.

Dude, I am so going to use that joke. You rock.

[Executor32]

This whole fiasco has me wondering one thing: Just what the hell is the difference between this and all the body lotion/beauty product commercials I've seen with womens' bare backs shown?