I suppose you could say that I was a real Looney Tunes fan when I was a kid. It came on at 7:00 a.m. on Saturday mornings, and I got up, religiously, to watch it. None of my friends did that. At best, they might catch one or two of the cartoons before it ended three hours later. Often, when I would spend the night at a friend's house, I'd be the only one up on Saturday morning, which is why I know none of my friends got up to watch cartoons that early. I'd only turn the TV on, with the sound down low, sitting close to it so that I could hear, and sit and watch Bugs, Wile E., and Yosemite Sam in someone else's still-sleeping house.
Oh, and Porky Pig. You know, the stuttering pig. Not one time in all of my childhood did I ever think that people who stutter were being made fun of because of Porky's stuttering. That did not stop a wave of protests throughout the 90s, though, against the pig and the removal (at least for a time) of Porky's famous closing line "Th-th-th-that's all folks!" Evidently, people (or pigs) who stutter were not considered good enough to be on TV. They might offend someone else with same condition. It's good no one ever told Mel Tillis.
We have become a culture too scared to give offense and too willing to be offended. Any hint of offense must be met with an immediate and very public apology. It's ridiculous and has moved into the realms of being an unhealthy obsession. This reluctance to offend has become the largest barrier to free speech in the world. We're too busy self-censoring to even know what free speech is. It's all about fear.
Maybe Porky is an extreme example but, seriously, being offended by an animated pig is pretty extreme. Probably, being offended by any cartoon is extreme. What a way to hand power over your life over to someone else. But I don't want to get side-tracked on the psychology of why people are blatantly offensive.
The actual issue is that when we all try so hard to never offend anyone and spare everyone's poor little feelings then, when there is someone who is willing to be offensive and ridicule things that probably ought to be ridiculed (because, honestly, more things probably ought to be ridiculed; anything that people treat as religion, in fact, from actual religion to money to sports teams), then that person stands out, way out, and stands out in that way can make him a target for retaliation from people who have given all of their power away.
The problem is that too many people, almost all people, just go along. It doesn't matter if it's wrong or right, they don't give things enough thought to ever get to that determination. Religious people are the worst. I say that as someone who grew up Baptist and worked in churches for years. I say that as someone who lost his first church position because he spoke out against something wrong the church leadership was doing. I say that as someone who was told, "Teenagers are not a priority for us because they don't bring in any money. Unless you can figure out how to get their parents to come to church [and tithe], we're not going to support the program [beyond being a babysitting service]." I say that as someone who is no longer associated with an organized church because every organized church I've been a part of has been more concerned with money than doing its job. No, wait, only concerned with money. The "job" was only a means to bringing in money.
But, then, churches are another of the places that are primarily concerned with taking people's power away from them. Satire, in that sense, can be a way to give that power back to the people.
Charlie Hebdo was not unknown to me before the attack on January 7. I didn't read it (because, well, French), but I agreed with its ideologies. I admired those men for continuing to publish despite the very real (as the massacre demonstrates) threat upon their lives. As Stephane Charbonnier said in 2012, "I am not afraid of retaliation. I have no children, no wife, no car, no credit. It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." That's not actually a new quote, the part about dying on one's feet. It goes back at least 200 years... to another Frenchman. People, some small group of people, have always been willing to stand up and die.
I can't say that I'm not afraid of retaliation. I have children. I have a wife. I even have a car, a house note, and a dog and a cat. But... But I would rather die standing than have my children live on their knees. The thing is, if more people would take that stance, the people who would kill wouldn't stand any kind of chance. But most people just stop at fear. And refusing to think.
Look, I get that Charlie Hebdo was irreverent, and I remember just how un-funny I found Bored of the Rings back when I was 14 or 15 and thought it would be a good idea to read it (but I was 14 or 15!), but!
When irreverence is seen as a justification for murder, there is no place left for reverence.
"I am Charlie."
and
"I am Ahmed."
First, well said. People are afraid to do or say anything lest they be blasted for prejudice or intolerance.
ReplyDeleteYour church was really off base with their position. Youth are the future and the salvation of souls at any age is what matters.
Alex: I agree. It's too bad that every church I've worked in has had the same basic view of teenagers.
DeleteI think your church might be an anomaly in our age, but since I haven't attended a vast number of churches or studied them intensely I couldn't say. The church that I attend certainly doesn't fit the profile you describe but maybe that's why I've gone there for so long. And for the record the church is Southern Baptist.
ReplyDeleteBut that aside I think you are so right about this. I get so sick of selective political correctness. Some groups must stay mum about others while other groups seem to be perfectly fine targets of attack. Disagree in the least bit about certain issues--no matter how much logic and reasoning you present--and you might not only get lambasted by the other side, you might even get boycotted, slandered, or even physically attacked.
Another thing that really bugs me is how the language keeps changing to accommodate certain groups when the original terminology was a logical definition. An example in the news now is "illegal immigrant". If they are breaking the law in the way they are immigrating to a country then logically they are illegally immigrating. Now certain groups want terminology that provides justification for the illegal act or to even condemn traditional ways of viewing the law and rights of governments that are for the most part universally accepted. In the new this morning I heard a report of a Santa Barbara newspaper that has been vandalized because they use the illegal immigrant term and some groups feel they can attack with violence that with which they disagree.
And there are so many examples that can be cited. Changing language does not change what things are but it changes the way the masses accept things. Those who dissent from the party line are ostracized or worse and the truth becomes trampled by the ideologies of those who want to limit freedom in the name of tolerance as they define tolerance.
We live in a moronic oxymoronic society where freedom of speech has a lot of limitations and free-thinking might result in paying a stiff price. We need more people discussing this issue, but the truth is a lot of us are a bit afraid to say anything. This silence is especially true if we are trying to market anything to the general public. Few of us want to be boycotted or attacked by ugly trolls.
Good food for thought for the few who wish to think. Everyone else might be afraid of getting a tummy ache.
Lee
Tossing It Out
Lee: Unless every church I've been in is an anomaly, I have to disagree. And I've worked in or been involved in more than a handful of churches across several denominations in three different states, and they have all been the same. The money comes first or, even, it is only about the money. I suspect that if you got behind the scenes in your church, you might find the same thing is true. Most churches put on a good face, but I'd be willing to guess that your church spends some amount of time -every- Sunday talking about money and giving, and I'm not talking about "passing the plate," I'm talking about the speech that goes along with it, the speech that wasn't necessary when I was a kid, because my church, then, hadn't yet switched to being just about the money, a shift that happened pretty much across the board in the 80s when churches adopted a business model of being rather than holding a spiritual model.
DeleteAmerica has become the most censored nation on the planet. It's all self-censorship, but that doesn't change what it is. Thank you 50s and Joseph McCarthy.
Actually I'm a long time board member of our administration council at our church and monitor the sermons, etc very closely so I know what is said and money has never been an emphasis at our church. We don't have many people who attend any more but I partially attribute this to the fact that our focus is on a gospel message and not the happy prosperity message that people like to hear. Our few members manage to sustain the church somehow and we have a bi-vocational pastor who does not take a salary and is very committed to trying to see growth in the church.
DeleteI think my church experience has been different in that I screen them carefully and don't stay when money is the big issue. I have been in those churches like you describe but only as a visitor and that has given me a good perspective on how our church stands in relation to others. I've been a member at my current church for over 20 years now and haven't seen any reason to look for anything else.
As far as the "business model" a church is in a sense a non-profit business so the business model does make sense for operations. Plus we have to report to the state and federal governments so there does have to been some kind of structure. Maybe you are thinking more in turn of the mega churches where it's growth at any cost and lots of money is needed to do that. I do think there are many churches much like the one I belong to. And we can't overlook the fact that operating something like a church can be very expensive with big utility bills and outreach programs that have to be funded in some way. But I agree that the message should not be to fill the plate and send more later. This is especially wrong when the message is the more you give the more you'll get back. There might be a Biblical truth to that, but if that's what the giver expects to happen then in the end they are probably going to feel betrayed and eventually reject the institution. Those churches are doing a great disservice to God and to the people who are looking to feed their spirits.
Lee
Tossing It Out
Lee: In that case, I will say that your church is the anomaly; there aren't many of those around.
DeleteAnd by business model, I don't just mean paying the light bill, etc. The motivating force in business model churches (nearly all protestant churches, at this point, at least in the US) is to fund the salaries of the staff and fund their yearly raises. The pastor, then, becomes focused on the church meeting its budget goals so that he can be paid rather than any services he could be doing instead. Also, "pastoring" has been left behind in the vast majority of churches, in favor of just "preaching." Rather than tending his flock, the "pastor" spends his week preparing a WHIZ BANG POP sermon to make the congregation feel good. That's what the modern church in the US has become.
I guess in my niece's preschool class they can't even celebrate birthdays because it might offend someone. Too often political correctness gets taken to extremes.
ReplyDeletePat: My kids' school can't acknowledge Christmas because it's a "Christian" holiday. It's a "winter festival" during which it's okay to mention any other religious holiday, but Christmas may not be mentioned.
DeleteI agree that people should be hindered by the fear of offending someone, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be more sensitivity in the world. Sometimes a person can't even suggest something might be offensive without being attacked or even threatened for it. So it's not political correctness gone mad. It's just people hurting others when they don't get their way.
ReplyDeleteJeanne: It's also (and I think mostly) people hurting others for doing things or thinking things that they don't agree with. It's one thing to be upset because someone isn't letting you eat chocolate; it's another thing entirely to shoot someone for eating chocolate just because you believe people shouldn't eat chocolate.
DeleteI don't agree with you but I support your right to say it. That has been a guiding principle for me. But yes, we are all afraid to give offense. I hadn't realised before how pernicious this all was. I was discussing about African Americans and do we call them African Canadians (not that I have heard anyway). Why can't they just be Americans and Canadians so we don't give offence all the time. People are so thin skinned these days and it takes very little to offend them. Like with offensive TV. Turn it off.
ReplyDeleteJo: I agree with that. As long as we are pointing out skin color or anything to do with it, we are pointing out skin color and anything to do with it. We don't, for instance, say "Irish Americans," although at one point in time being an Irish American was a pretty bad thing to be.
DeleteCame over from The Squid. Great post today.
ReplyDeleteI so agree with you, religion+ money and political correctness drive me crazy.
Living in California the ground zero of political correctness, is not called La La Land for nothing. I loved where I was living but had to leave.
I have a sad/funny story about doing a "Christmas" design for the grade school 35 years ago that had to be taken down because it might offend someone.
As for Charlie Hebdo pretty sure I would have never read it but I stand by their right to print.
I have lots to say about a religion that says if your not a believer then you need to die, sharia law, education, health care, violence again women, so much more... ack !
Plus I love Looney Tunes and I have never dropped an anvil on any ones head.
cheers, parsnip
angryparsnip: Thanks for coming over!
DeleteI think it's probably a good thing that anvils are heavy. I have to admit, they do tempt me. And safes. And pianos.
Hmm... Now, I'm curious about religions that have not said you need to die if you're not a "believer."
Intolerance for others has become the norm. And using terrorism to make make statements of intolerance has become the norm. Violence is just so accepted, from bullying, law suits, to organized terrorism. Religion is especially intolerant.
ReplyDeleteWhy does so much of the world claim to be Christian, yet it is not ok to say Merry Christmas? And why is it not ok to be proud to be an American, yet we must identify immigrants as -whatever American?
I don't know, I just wish the alien's would hurry up and arrive for refuge and tell Earthlings it is offensive for us to not consider their feelings prior to blowing us up.
dolorah: I have frequently said that it will take an alien invasion to unite humans as humans.
DeleteVery well said.
ReplyDeleteI didn't come up with the sentiment, but I recall hearing, and still profess, that a God who can't stand to be ridiculed isn't much of a God. That goes for any great ideal, god, religion, or prophet. While nobody should mock just to mock, nobody should die (or be punished) for mockery. Satire is mockery with a purpose, but even if you are just a kid drawing ugly crude figures of Jesus or Mohammed with no greater purpose than being a dumb kid, that ought not punished, especially by death.
I think you've hit the nail on the head: most people don't care, or don't think about it enough. People don't realize that even if the mob never turns on you, we still all benefit from a free exchange of ideas -- including reprehensible or risible ones.
People don't realize a lot of stuff.
Also, way to make me look bad. While you are here posting great thoughts on the essential quality of liberty of expression, I am posting about cookie butter.
ReplyDeleteBriane: Hey, someone has to post about cookie butter, and I'm not likely to be the one to do it, so you're just filling a needed gap.
DeleteAnd, yes, unfortunately, people don't realize a lot of stuff. Just last night on FB, someone was posting about how it was really Charb's and the other cartoonists' faults that they got killed. You know, if you didn't want to get mugged or raped, you shouldn't have walked down that street.
I also think being pc has gotten a bit crazy, as have those who over-zealously defend free speech and right to privacy and other rights, to their dying breath. Everyone now identifies themselves with a group or lobby and go after their "due," and to hell with everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in the 60s/70s when we had great reporters like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid. I felt that generation really tried to be fair and honest. Last week I realized just how far we'd fallen. On nearly the same day as the Paris killings, almost 2000 people were murdered in Nigeria, mostly women, children and old people who couldn't run fast enough to get away. Did anyone cover it? No. The journalists were too busy covering their "fallen brothers" instead, waving the flag of how this little paper's victims were martyrs. There wouldn't have been nearly so much news coverage if the 17 had been employees of a plumbing company or a bakery. So now, journalists have become a lobby/special interest group and lookout for #1 - themselves, and what sells the most. I don't trust anything I read anymore...
And I just came across this. Being "pc" has definitely crossed the line of common sense.
Deletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/oxford-university-press-warns-authors-not-to-write/
Lexa: Well, see, that's why you read fiction. You can trust fiction, because you know right at the start that someone made it up.
DeleteThere wasn't much coverage about the school that got attacked in Pakistan, either, another topic I'll be covering soon.
(And, yeah, I saw a thing about the pork stuff. It's ridiculous.)
Bill Clinton once said in an interview with Jon Stewart that satire is essential to democracy - and he was saying it in reference to people like Stewart lampooning him. Even if people are offended by the cartoons, there are far better ways to address that offense than murder.
ReplyDeleteTAS: Or riots. Evidently, there is rioting taking place in places in the Middle East, right now, over the new issue of Charlie Hebdo. The officials are trying to mollify the populace by explaining to them how us Westerners love our freedom of speech.
DeleteI think my comment got eaten. :/
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I was saying that I agree with you, and I think one the worst ways PC corrupts is that by its very definition, people say things in a certain way only to not offend, when instead it should be a "human" reason... something that is said a certain way because we feel that party deserves the respect.
Alex H: Yeah, I agree. It's a bit like being forced to apologize for something you're not actually sorry for. Sometimes, it is exactly having to apologize for something you're not actually sorry for. I suppose the thinking is is that if you have to do it enough then you will come around to that way of thinking, but I don't know if that works.
DeleteFirst of all....I love the Bugs Bunny cartoons! When I was a kid they were on on Sunday nights...."..brought to you by Kraft.."...my favourite character was, and is Foghorn Leghorn. I love that guy! I hope that's not offensive to southeners! lol!
ReplyDeleteI agree that political correctness has gone way too far, and I found the whole discussion of churches really interesting. I don't think that churches, or religion do anything but steal and lie (at the least) and they do it not only with a straight face, but a cheesy grin. I used to go to church, many years ago, and at this point it would not only be meaningless to me, but actively annoying.
Eva: When I was a little kid, my favorite was Yosemite Sam, but I also came to love the Wile E. and Marvin. I used to be able to do a great Marvin.
Delete