Roasting Sacred Cows 430
Hans Gilde writes: "Pedophilia has been a big topic in the UK lately, there have been riots, beatings and vandalism resulting from [pedophile witchhunts]. In an attempt "to ask hard questions about the way society and the media deal with its most difficult problems" and point out "that famous people have a habit of denouncing things without knowing much about them", a comedian in the UK produced a TV show, described in an article in the NY Times, in which he actually got a member of Parliament to say the following, on the air, in all seriousness: "Using an area of the Internet the size of Ireland, pedophiles can make your keyboard release toxic vapors that can make you more suggestible."" This show is frankly hilarious, and the reaction to it is even better. You probably want to see the show, eh? It's available in .avi or Real and DivX.
Hillarious (Score:3, Insightful)
You see... (Score:5, Funny)
--End Sarcasm--
Re:You see... (Score:2)
I know this was meant to be sarcastic, but there are a number of factual errors here which should be pointed out in the interest of accuracy.
As a piece of background, it might be handy to know that I've worked with a number of adult survivors of childhood abuse. My wife has worked with many more than I. In every case we've dealt with, none were abused by a "people [...] that they never knew".
Research (e.g. by the WHO [who.int]) shows that this is not isolated. The common case is that a child is abused by a male[1], a trusted individual known to them, and usually in a position of authority (often a parent or other relative, neighbour, teacher, priest etc). Furthermore, the child most at risk for this kind of abuse is one who does not have a sufficiently caring and intimate family life. Abusers prey on loneliness and provide the intimacy that children need, albeit in a more damaging form.
Children being abused by the "stranger on the street" (or on the net, for that matter) is extremely rare. Naturally, it gets reported a lot when it does happen.
The moral of the story is that if the protection of children is the desired outcome, looking for paedophiles "out there" is precisely the wrong thing to do.
[1] BTW, in case you're curious why there's a sex disparity here, it might be helpful to know that females tend to abuse in different ways. Women (usually mothers) are more likely to be physically or emotionally abusive than sexually abusive. It does happen, but it's rare. Also, while men tend to physically abuse more, women tend to physically abuse worse, because they tend to use weapons. (Brooms, spoons, belts etc.)
Re:You see... (Score:2)
Which highlights a notable cultural difference between the US and the UK (indeed most of Europe). In the UK a pedestrian always has right of way on a public road (after all they were using them a thousand years before cars were invented.)
Re:You see... (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to see you try that in London without getting mown down by a battered looking Datsun Sunny.
Re:You see... (Score:2)
"What is a Datsun, sonny?"
Re:You see... (Score:2)
No they don't.
Re:You see... (Score:4, Funny)
What is this "pedestrian" crap you European's keep talking about? Is that some sort of pedophile on a horse or something? Makes sense that you would have those for thousands of years, you damn filthy Euro's and your liberal ways.
Here in God's country, we use the roads for what God created them for -- driving our SUV's.
Re:You see... (Score:2, Informative)
For rapists, there are programs to deal with the desires, and use masterbation etc.
And they have shown some degree of success, as opposed to simply not dealing with them.
Re:You see... (Score:2, Interesting)
because he was only 13, when caught and put into counseling I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... as we did the person who took advantage of the fact that I was 5 when they were 16.
if he were an adult, I'd have no problem beating him to death with a shovel, forget the life-long stigma.
if counselling is able to help him, good. if not, he'd best stay out of my city.
411? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, i'm not going to say people should be forbidden from expressing their opinions on such issues, but is this really the right avenue?
"Hello, Information."
"Hi, i've got a bone to pick with you. The recent witch hunt against pedophiles is going too far. If we don't get a grip on this hysteria, we're--"
"Sir, i really believe this goes beyond my training as a telephone operator."
You need to context to appreciate it (Score:4, Informative)
The tabloid press in the UK has, for the past few years, been using paedophiles as the new bogey men, and at one point there seemed to be almost a revulsion race to see which paper could revile them the most. One of them ("The News of the World") came up with the most disturbing: they would print photographs and addresses of known paedophiles. This seems reasonable, and it was defended by the NoW as such, but it lead directly the the aforementioned riots and, as the article says, witchhunts. This was entirely predictable.
The problem with the violence and the witchhunts is that things got out of hand, as they do when a mob tries to think. In one town they forced out a paediatrician by daubing "Paedo out" slogans on her house (see this [bbc.co.uk]). In other locations the naming of people a "Paedos" was enough to get them beaten up - there was a fair bit of score settling going on at the time - here [bbc.co.uk] is the BBC about Paulsgrove, the main estate where such things were happening.
There was also a bit of feedback going between the sections of press, hand wringing about the violence whilst implicitly condoning it - after all no one could be for paedophilia. So all was good in the world of the press - circulations were up, they were protecting children from evil, and they were secure in the knowledge that nobody could successfully attack them because that would mean that they were for paedophilia, and could instantly be slurred.
Enter Brass Eye. The press were livid, and instantly attacked. In fact, they attacked before the program went out, and the program was delayed for two weeks whilst the legalities were sorted out - Mr Collins was upset for some reason. The reaction to the show was amazing: every news bulletin, every newspaper, every channel reported it. And reported it negatively at first.
Then the press belated realised that a large section of the public were just not buying the story - see this [bbc.co.uk] for a fairly typical cross-section.
Certainly no one I know who has seen it thought it in anyway glorified paedophila. No one was particularly offended by it either. It wasn't about paedophilia - it was about media manipulation. It is vastly amusing to see the very same things that were so effectively satirised in the show wheeled out to attack it. This includes government ministers saying "I haven't seen the show but..." (I will except David Blunkett, the Home Secretary from this as he is blind).
How is this funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm off to put my troll-mod suit on.
Re:How is this funny? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing is funny! (Score:4, Insightful)
Humour Is Subjective (i.e., do not tell other people what constitutes a funny subject)
Take an example: If I were to make a joke regarding Rome annihilating Gaul, would you respond in disgust and anger? Probably not. If I were to make a joke about the Holocaust, would you, then? Probably, yes, indeed. Why? Because you feel more of a close personal attachment to the event of the Holocaust than to the even of the conquering of Gaul. They're both tragic genocides on a similar scale. One is not greater than the other, but we have more personal, emotional interest in tip-toeing around the issue of the Holocaust. That doesn't make it rational in any way shape or form, however.
neither does the ignorance of elected officials when it comes to technology, or any other topic, for that matter. Sure, we all get a chuckle from hearing how dumb people can be, but these elected officials are there to make laws, and if they're clueless about certain facts, we end up with stuff like the DMCA.
So because legislation is a "serious issue", it should not be joked about? Are you saying that any joke that involves circumstances that are less than beneficial should not be made? Making fun of our misfortunes is nothing if not the basis for comedy itself. Generally, I find that people who refuse to view the world with any sense of humour become extremely cynical.
From 58 BC to 54 BC under Julius Caesar (Score:2)
It's True (Score:2)
Later on, when you realize it's true, it makes you cry.
The problem with elected officials is that people tend to put them on a pedestal. They assume that all the words coming out of that official's mouth are blessed by God and unarguably true. Showing the people, dramatically and unarguably, that this is false is an absolute necessity. If the official is such a plonker that he must be reminded to breathe upon occasion, calling peoples' attention to that fact is also a good thing. Maybe then he won't remain an elected official for much longer.
Elected officials can not be expected to be experts on everything any more than you can. The fact that they are not the least bit informed about something that touches as many of their constituents as the internet does should be worrying a lot of people. I also expect my elected officials to get help from experts when they are going into territory with which they are completely unfamiliar. You'd think there'd be some little alarm bells in their head going "I know nothing on this topic; maybe I'd better ask someone before I go shooting my mouth off..."
George Carlin said it best: (Score:2)
Chris Morris == Satirical Genius (Score:5, Informative)
This is overlooked by almost everyone.
The point of the show, and of many of Morris' other shows, is that is an attack on self serving publicity hungry semi-celebritys. For example - Phil Collins in a "Nonce Sense" T-shirt (Nonce being an English slang word for paedophile) going to schools, and blindly repeating absolute gibberish fed to him by Morris.
Most people will say that Phil was doing a good thing, by trying to educate children. I side with Morris, that it was a self-publicising act on his behalf, and that if he had any real interest in protecting children he would have easily spotted it as a spoof. As Eammon Holmes (UK daytime TV presenter) did.
Other sections included a news report on how children were being crammed into football stadiums to "Keep them safe". How far is this from the truth? Media hysteria makes parents (Like myself) believe that it is impossible to allow children safely out at night, whereas attacks on children are at a relatively constant rate (Can't link to a newspaper - sorry).
Chris Morris has attacked not children with this show, but he has attacked the misleading media, and attention craving celebrities. For this he has been denounced, his actions upset the status quo - by showing celebrities as fools, by lambasting the newspapers who terrify us with exaggerations of how unsafe we are.
He is even described in the UK media as "Elitist" , a bludgeoning attempt to ensure people will not try to understand his comedy, for fear that they will be associated with such a negative connotation.
The UK viewing figures for this programme were 2 million at the start, 1 million at the end. Yet everyone cannot wait to tell each-other "How disgusting it was", in a ferocious attempt to prove that they too are not paedophiles. As though the very act of laughing at, or even watching the show inspires one to go out and attack children.
Mainstream media hates this man for exposing them as liars and fools.
That just makes me like him more ;-]
Re:Chris Morris == Satirical Genius (Score:2, Insightful)
He was also making fun about people with attitudes like yours. You seemed to miss that part.
Funny... (Score:2)
I think the points made in that thread (about code red) also apply here...
This TV program was headline news for like 3 days. Haven't they got something better to report?
Nonetheless, the program was as funny as f*ck. I am glad that alot of the Americans enjoyed it. This suprised me, as I have had embarrising incidents using sarcasm/satire with americans.....
In USA this just wouldn't do (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In USA this just wouldn't do (Score:2)
Taboos (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it is a horrible subject: grown people should nothave sex with children. But pedophilia is by no means worse than murder. Yet murder is a legitimate subject for satire, comedy, thrillers, whodunnits: a whole industry has sprung up around it. Ask P.D. James, or read about Kinsey Millhone.
Pedophilia on te other hand is a taboo; today's taboo. Taboo subjects are subjects "not legitimate for discussion". "Taboo" implies a certain amount of irrationality. This should worry free thinking people. Past taboos have included non-Catholic religion, madness, witchcraft, sexuality, nudity, homosexuality (male and female), the earth turning around the sun, women having the same number of teeth as men, and so on.
When a subject is taboo, it is legitimate to investigate it. I would say, it is crucial. It is how progress in society is made.
Yes, sometimes that means investigating distasteful subjects. But the alternative is worse: a society run on the basis of fear, superstition, and unstated interests. That's not where I want to live.
Michael
Re:Taboos (Score:2, Insightful)
Says who?
How dare you foist your moral view point on other people!
Re:Taboos (Score:2)
Something being "wrong" probably should not prevent it being part of the plot of a novel or movie.
Re:Taboos (Score:2)
Note that some of these "past taboos" are still very much current. Also the paedophilia definitly overlaps with sexuality in terms of things such as ages of consent. Especially in the "first world" where people now routinely reach biological maturity whilst they are legally considered "childern".
When a subject is taboo, it is legitimate to investigate it. I would say, it is crucial. It is how progress in society is made.
Yes, sometimes that means investigating distasteful subjects. But the alternative is worse: a society run on the basis of fear, superstition, and unstated interests. That's not where I want to live.
Roving bands of viglantee thugs certainly dosn't help society.
Re:Taboos (Score:2)
With murder, the act is over and done with. The damage is done, and no more damage is incurred. With pedophilia, the crime continues to inflict pain and damage, often for generations. Victims of pedophilia (or, for that matter, just about all sex crimes) are significantly more likely to have disfunctional sex lives and relationships for the remainder of their lives. This means that not only does the victim get punished, but that victim's lovers, and children, and so on. It is a pain that continues to inflict long after the initial damage is done.
That said, I applaud the work of the satirist. There is a level of witch hunts going on for all sorts of crimes, including pedophilia, rape, and drugs. All that it takes in today's world to absolutely ruin a person's life is to accuse that person of one of these crimes.
Re:Relative (Score:2)
And, in case you're wondering, I have been the victim of a sex crime, when I was 12. It sucks. It has taken years to be functional in relationships (I'm 30 now). And I know there are ways that I will be messed up for life. And I'm one of the lucky ones. My case was a fairly mild one, as far as sex crimes are concerned. On top of that, I have a wonderful, loving family, and I was very emotionally strong and mature when the event happened.
The cynical among us would tell me, "then why don't you kill yourself". Well, that would be adding one bad thing to another. It wouldn't make it right. I can say that I think the punishment for this crime should be at least as great--no, in fact, greater--than the punishment for murder. Of course, I also don't believe in the death penalty. But, that's neither here nor there.
I stand by my original statement. As far as crimes go, sex crimes are more reprehensible, IMHO, than murder.
Re:Taboos (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Taboos (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I have a taboo with respect to pedophilia, but I believe it is also culturally based, and this is not something that should necessarily be imposed on other cultures. Much like Afghanistan imposing their beliefs on women in our country, we are equally well armed to justify the ethical position we harbour against pedophilia to those African tribes that firmly believe in female genital mutilations and who would, more often than not, violently oppose the destruction of their beliefs. We will equally oppose the destruction of the belief that children have the inherent right not to be voyeured or put into a sexual context, and many will probably violently oppose any change to that belief. (Ironically, on several levels, children are the ones who would be most open to the idea.)
For my whole life, I will probably fear and revile pedophilia. But that does not mean it is wrong, nor does it say anything about the actual ethics of pedophilia. But perhaps society will evolve through this, as you said - progress is made by confronting such issues (something society is notoriously bad at, I believe), and my children will be more open minded about it.
Re:"Pedophilia is *good*!" - Greeks (Score:3, Insightful)
>history of Western culture where pedophilia
>switched from white to black? And why?
Easy: With the introduction of christianity....
Re:"Pedophilia is *good*!" - Greeks (Score:2, Funny)
How do you separate the Greek men from the boys?
With a crowbar.
Re:Taboos (Score:2)
Definitions of "under age" are highly variable though. Would you mean "under age" where the picture was taken, where the viewer is now, where the picture is now, wheer the subject is now, etc, etc.
What if they are simply fictional illistrations? Computer models? Extremely realistic computer models? Computer generated movies.
Stautes tend to make these equally illegal, but their are loopholes. e.g. Star Trek Voyager isn't "child pornography" even with a character aged between 2 and 5 nor is the movie "The Fly II" even with a lead character aged 5. Being a big corporate probably helps though.
Re:Taboos (Score:2)
Use of such hormones is very recent. The actual factor is better nutrition.
What's been happening over the last 200 or so years is that whilst the age of physical maturity has been going down the age of legal adulthood has been going up (in the case of places like the US this is 21).
Thus you end up with a large number of sexually mature people legally considered "children".
Discussion or practice? (Score:2)
So when you say there's a taboo against discussing pedophilia, I think most people would respond "What's there to discuss?" I doubt there's any room at all for change in attitudes without endorsing what is tanatamount to child abuse.
I think the only space for any exploration is "When does mature sexuality begin?" and there's probably sincere people who think that in the special, unique contexts an adult-sexually mature teen relationship is possible. But beyond that sphere, there's little moral or practical room for movement on the issue of pedophilia, which is why people get cranky when you talk about it.
Re:Discussion or practice? (Score:2)
You can get this happening with any age groups. Even where the predator is younger than their "prey".
Strongly disagree! (Score:5, Insightful)
- It is very much a taboo. Even a show about it raises moral objections from the masses. A murderer gets complimented in jail; a pedophile gets murdered. My simple reply (in which btw I said I though pedophilia was distasteful!) elicited a "you sick fuck child rapist" response. Need I say more?
- There is a LOT to discuss. Is it indeed harmful? To whom? Can we minimise its incidenmce? Can we minimise its harm? Why are some people pedophiles? HOw can we minimise any harm caused? How should released pedophiles return to society? What therapies work best? Is the Internet bad for allwoing free communication? Should the Internet be banned becuase it contains child sex pictures? Is the harm partly or wholly culturally caused? I could go on for a while - and all these questions are taboo, as they generally just receive reactions like that one response to my post I saw that just saud "you sick fuck child rapist". That was a typical reponse not to a pedophile but to someone merely responding to a post ABOUT the subject! And that is what we should fix, and that is what the show no doubt hopes to achieve.
MichaelRe:Discussion or practice? (Score:2)
But is the issue age or "power". Currently the law does not distinguish between a teacher or babysitter (who may themselves be a "child" taking advantage of the person they are entrusted with and someone meeting a young person at a party/bar/club/etc.
Re:Discussion or practice? (Score:2)
Save questioning what, exactly, makes paedophilia tantamount to child abuse? Any scars left on the child are solely a product of the society's reaction to such an affair, disregarding rape. A newborn child is a blank slate by default, everything is imprinted.
(Admittedly, I have no kids. I also do not lust after children or possess any religious beliefs. I consider myself rather objective on the entire issue.)
Also, I note the use of the word "morals" in your post. Morals are irrelevant. They are naught but societal imprinting.
Re:Discussion or practice? (Score:2)
Also when this does happen what is actually causing the "scaring"
Are there controlled studies?
Odds on if anyone attempted to carry them out then they'd receive death threats. (In the same way that reseach in to domestic violence generated death threats when the results made a nonsense of feminist dogma.)
Re:Taboos (Score:2)
Our current ideas of age of consent (mixed as they are) are hardly universal through out history. What was the age of consent in ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire or the various American peoples 1,000 years ago?
Alternativly you can have a sci-fi culture which has any rules you'd like to invent about sexuality.
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:4, Insightful)
My opposition to pedophilia rests on one a priori assumption, which is fairly fundamental to my values: that imposing your will on others carries a high potential for evil. Another relevant assumption I make is that children, in general have underdeveloped choice-making capacity. This is not an a priori assumption, though proving that rhetorically is tedious and demanding. I would beg your indulgance on the point. (In fact, I will ignore you if you challenge me on it, as I have real work to do today. 8)
In the case of pedophilia, the potential evil attendant upon forcing one's will upon a person with limited capacity for choice is the disruption of normal human development caused by the untimly exposure to a powerful human drive that even adults have a hard time coping with psychologically. The potential for damage increases the younger the victim, and the closer the relation of the perpetrator.
In philosophical terms, the above argument has lots of holes. In common-sense terms, I believe it is nearly bullet-proof.
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:2)
I made no such blanket assumption. I asserted, without proving it, that children have a limited capacity to choose. This means that I beleive they in general have a limited capacity for consent, in the manner that adults may consent.
There will always be particular cases that contradict general rules like this. Nonetheless I feel that my generalization stands up.
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:2)
The basic problem here is that legal ages vary so wildly that it makes more sense to suppose that the whole thing is based of circular reasoning. Rather than an age being derived from any kind of objective study.
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:2)
- "Children have an underdeveloped choice-making capacity"
- Pedophilia is wrong
- Ergo: Children who choose pedophilia are wrong
That's not what I said. I said that forcing your will on someone has the potential for evil. Not all instances of force are evil in my opinion. In the case of pedophilia, there is a clinical history of psychological trauma in children "forced" (note the quotes) to have sex with adults. Is it unavoidable that such damage should occur in every instance of adult/child sexual intercourse? Of course not. However, it happens often enough so that it has to be a matter of serious concern. Unfortunately, people tend toward hysteria on this and other topics. Extreme measures such as outlawing images that appear to depict adult/child sexual activity get made into law in this country. Pedophilia is held up as the main reason for all sorts of bad proposals to control this or that information source. But don't react by assuming that whatever is being held up as the red herring du jour must actually be good for you! (It may be. But don't assume.)Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:2)
Or even chopping bits of babies' genitals. Which happens very often in the USA...
There's that Star Trek TNG episode where everyone runs around in skimpy outfits and it happy and carefree. The underlying message, though the closest they could come to saying it was have a bunch of teenage girls half naked, was that giving pleasure was considered a noble deed in their society. So women went out of their way to pleasure the male Federation officers and vice versa.
A problem with popular sci-fi (IMHO) is that all too often supposed "aliens" act far too much like contempoary American humans... Certainly in terms of interpersonal relationships. Such that situations like this are very noticable.
If you were to raise a child alone on a desert island and taught that child to fulfill your every sexual desire where would the child acquire any sense of wrong or damage? Wouldn't it seem a natural and pleasurable action? The giving and receiving of pleasure?
In the US and UK right now sex purely for exchange and sharing of pleasure would probably be considered highly abnormal anyway
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:2)
Incisive analysis. I'd shorten core assumption to "Pedophilia is wrong in those cases where it does damage to the child."
Yup, "damage" is a term freighted with a ton of eurocentric baggage.. However, I'm not really interested in deconstructing it to the point of meaninglessness. I find such exercises damaging
Re:Pedophilia is Bad How? (Score:2)
No, I made no such blanket assumption. I assumed that imposing your will on someone without their consent has the potential for damage, and that children, in general, have a limited capacity to make choices. An unspoken assumption is that the younger the child, the less capacity for consent, the greater the potential damage.
It's my experience that people tend to hold hysterical and extreme views on human sexuality. Issues surrounding sex also seem to elicit a great deal of black and white thinking. I deliberately couched my comments in non-absolute terms, yet several responders read them that way anyway.
What about parents who force shots on their kids? How traumatic is that yet they are told to be good little boys and girls and endure it. Or force them to eat their vegetables and punish them when they don't?
Potential for evil. Next?
The specific issue is unimportant (Score:2, Interesting)
no registration link (Score:5, Informative)
Men are the targets of these witchhunts. (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is offtopic, but Slashdot has a brother web site (based on Slash) that covers news on men's rights issues:
http://www.mensactivism.org
They deal with the decline of men's civil liberties with regard to sex crimes, and many other topics.
An Anony Mouse
PS - the BritAir source can be found at:
http://www.mensactivism.org/articles/01/03/17/0
Re:Men are the targets of these witchhunts. (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, yeah, that sounds like a *real* problem. I would actually request that the airline NOT seat an unsupervised young child next to me on an airplane. Do you really want a mommy-less brat dripping snot and whining next to you for X hours?
Re:Men are the targets of these witchhunts. (Score:2)
Pedophile Hysterics (Score:4, Insightful)
If people woke up to the fact that there are sexual images of children, all around them, maybe I would take this whole 'save the children' thing a little more seriously.
It is ok for the RIAA to parade a 'pre-teen-appearing' Britanny Spears in the media to sell product? It is okay for them to do it to sell clothing or shampoo?
Marketing and Advertising uses not so-subtle techniques like these with abandon, just because it is not seedy and badly-lite dosnt mean it is acceptable.... or does it?????
Re:Pedophile Hysterics (Score:2)
Re:Pedophile Hysterics (Score:4, Interesting)
Have a look at this [cream.org] picture - it pretty much sums it up.
Re:Pedophile Hysterics (Score:2)
Re:Pedophile Hysterics (Score:2)
The problem with politicians (Score:5, Interesting)
She read about it. How's that for detailed and useful knowledge of a topic you will be deciding on?
Re:The problem with politicians (Score:2, Funny)
Hello, kettle.
Bullseye! (Score:4, Insightful)
`"How Mr. Morris must be laughing," Harry Owen of Horley, Surrey, wrote in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. "Perhaps Channel 4, instead of apologizing, should have simply said, `We rest our case.' "'
It's funny how satire becomes reality in that way. It's kind of like the South Park movie; the whole thing parodied, prior to the fact, the reaction of everyone to the movie after it was released.
Such satire is the most brilliant kind -- when a satire makes fun of the very reaction people have tot he satire. It's when you know that the satire's creators have hit their target right in the center of the bullseye.
Re:The problem with politicians (Score:4, Funny)
It's like on IRC or AOL when you say you are putting someone on ignore by announcing that. Everyone knows damn well you did no such thing because you just have to know what's going on but at the same time you have to make believe you really did...even when the person makes a statements and you can totally think of the perfect zinger so you end up logging in as a second person and then repeating the comment with a joking laugh so you can feign surprise and deliver the zinger and thus make up for all those times the person outspoke you and thus caused you to put the idiot on ignore in the first place
oh bloody 'ell you've gone and ignore me now.
Chris Morris is a total genius... More on him... (Score:5, Informative)
From there he did a radio show which became the BBC show The Day Today, which offered surreal news stories combined with the best parody of news reportage as stands in the Western world I've ever seen. His vaguely threatening goodnight, the use of insane graphics and pounding music... But then he got Brass Eye.
In the UK, humor and sex aren't as big a deal as violence, and you'd be amazed at what's shown on television here compared to the US. Before Brass Eye was even aired it became a news story, as several celebrities and politicians complained to the commisioning network, Channel 4, that he had gone too far.
During the height of Ecstacy hysteria in the UK, he had gotten politicans and celebrities to denounce the evils of a dangerous new drug ruining our children, called CAKE. As in, "We must ban cake." He did it so brilliantly that one of the Members of Parliament who he recorded denouncing cake ("which affects the part of the brain known as Shatner's Bassoon, which affects perception of time - cake is a made up drug, made up of chemicals") asked questions about it in Parliament. The then head of Channel 4 tried to get Morris to tone down the show's vitriol and abuse of celebrities. In the Science on Trial episode he had several UK celebrities talking about the dangers of "heavy electricity" which was killing people in the Far East. So Morris put a subliminal message in the final episode, calling his boss a cunt, which led to statements that he would never work for Channel 4 again. He returned to radio.
Until this year, when changes at Channel 4 led to a rebroadcast of the series and the commisioning of the new one off special on pedophilia. He had a famous London radio DJ stating that pedophiles had more genes in common with crabs than you or I, and there's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact! It went on. The result was instant, knee jerk tabloid hysteria, I think best represented in this picture [cream.org]. What you should know is that earlier this year, thanks to a name and shame campaign a major UK tabloid did on paedophiles, a paedatrician was attacked by an angry mob and had her car firebombed. A few days after airing of the programme, several politicans got in on the act, admitting they hadn't seen the show. One of them is even blind!
But thankfully the British public have shown their sense of good humor and more calls of support were received on Channel 4's complaints line then actual complaints, so the entire issue is now being hushed up.
I think what really grates about Morris is that he deigned to show that you cannot trust any of the mainstream media you partake of, that celebrity endorsements count for nothing. My favorite moment on the paedophilia special was a presenter for the BBC's technology show stating that internet padeophiles can use penis shaped sound waves to molest children. I think it's far more frightening to the public to know that those people that put a comforting, sickly gloss on the world as it is today are patently full of shit. The result of Morris' work may be greater than any piece of culture I've had all year, because it's made me question everything. I can no longer watch the news without laughing and being shocked by the idiocy and dramatics of it all. For that he deserves to be knighted.
*doubletake, collapse into hysterics* (Score:2)
Re:Chris Morris is a total genius... More on him.. (Score:2)
Child sex in the media is way over blown (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I don't think a child/adult relationship would ever be healthly. There's too much a power/mental gap for such a relationship to ever be anything other than coercive. But the subject is way blown out of porportion in today's media.
And truthfully, most poeple really don't care about "saving the children", it's just a cause to talk about. If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
It's a hostile world for children, but not because of Evil Pedophiles lurking behind every corner.
Re:Child sex in the media is way over blown (Score:2)
But it's one which works well...
If we really cared about our children we'd stop the child on child abuse that's rampant in our schools, or hell, even bother to install seat belts in the school buses that take our children to school.
Also build the bus so that it won't go anywhere unless all passengers are belted in. Maybe also prevent parents from acting as a taxi service to school children, creating dangeous congestion and air pollution in an area full of pedestrians.
For the opposite perspective: (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want a good summary of the opposition, then I'd suggest reading it. It's a good read in any event.
Re:For the opposite perspective: (Score:2)
I honestly can't tell. Or is is 'more of the same', ie a spoof of these people. Is Chris Morris actually behind it?
The 'Open Letter to Channel 4' is fucking hilarious, it had me pissing myself.
Re:For the opposite perspective: (Score:2, Funny)
Deconstructing this letter: (Score:2, Insightful)
>1.Sexually explicit images of children, which were even classified on-air as being "obscene" by a former head of the Obscene >Publications Branch, were shown to the >unsuspecting viewing public. Broadcasting this foul artwork must surely have provided >cheap titillation to any perverts watching the programme.
The FORMER head was giving snap judgements. This section was showing how the people who decide what's obscene simply pull arbitrary judgements from thin air (for instance, a barbie doll with a penis attached to it isn't unacceptable, a womens naked body with a childs head grafted on isn't unacceptable, but a barbie doll with a penis attached and a childs head is)
>* Mockery was made of last summer's anti-paedopile protests by concerned mothers. It is simply unacceptable to criticise the >genuine fears of honest law-abiding citizens in this >manner.
These protests were absolutely disgusting. They were made by ill-informed people (banners used often had peadophile spelt incorrectly), their fears were totally illegitimate, and the hysteria came to such heights that a peadiatritcian was chased from her home my a mob. It is perfectly acceptable to mock peoples fears if they are ill advised fears that harmed innocent people. (We do not still respect the fears of the German people during krystallnacht for instance)
>* The sickening music of the notorious American paedophile rap musician "JLb-8" was openly promoted on this programme.
Is this letter a joke? (If so I shall continue writing as I'm rather enjoying this). Anyhow, JLb-8 is entirely ficticious, and this section of the programme satirised both the tabloid media's sensationalist views of rappers, and how young, middle class children buy music by people like eminem, despite it not being to do with anything they have, or will ever, experience.
>Numerous celebrities, including members of parliament, newscasters and a musician were ridiculed by their unsuspecting >involvement with this programme.
Celebrities thrust themselves into the public eye deliberatly, and as such are liable to be ridiculed, if they wanted to avoid such ridicule, they could have done the tiniest bit of reaserch into what they were saying. This section also made a valid point; that celebrities will endorse anything, so we cannot trust them alone to 'sell' a charity.
> Worst of all, real children appeared in this programme. It is clearly wrong to expose them to this sinister subject matter at such a >tender age. The experiences of this programme may permanently damage these poor infants.
This is a disgusting attitude in my opinion. Surely we should expose children in order to educate them about peadophilla, sex and other taboo subjects, rather than keep them in the dark (to maintain the victorian notion of childhood innocence). Knowledge of peadophillia means the child is more likely to report this crime in the unlikely event that they expereince it.
Futhermore this 'crusade for innocence' has resulted in Britain having the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, as when this innocent child becomes a teenager they will be pressured to have sex, and because they know so little about it (contraception, and how to say 'no') they do it, and ruin their lives by becoming pregnant. This is why the final thing in the programme is a young teenager saying she will lose her virginity 'tomorrow, maybe'.
That's all I can think of right now, and this as been written pretty hastily so don't be suprised if there are copious spelling mistakes
P.S. I'm pretty sure that this 'open letter' was one big joke.
Slashdotted! :-( (Score:2)
The site has now been updated... now displays 'Closed for legal reasons', with a BBC test page...
Shame... Suppose I'll just have to borrow a VHS copy from a mate at work...
"Not for us, but For the Children" (Score:2)
Ye gods, anytime someone claims to do something "For the children", you know we're in trouble.
Look, a child-worshipping culture is just as bad as one that worships nobility. You teach children, you educate children, you do not sacrifice freedom or liberty for children.
An exemplary quote. In other words, Mr. Rapson, in a fit of "for the children", read something he did not understand or know anything about. The fact that he read it, no questions, based entirely on the claim that it was "for the children" ought to prove the satirist's case.
Re:"Not for us, but For the Children" (Score:2)
I work to provide for my children. I set them a good example. I make sure I do what I said I was going to do, treat them with kindness, and discipline them. I teach them to walk, talk, eat, say "please" and "thank you," dress modestly, and take care of themselves. We do without some things so my wife can stay home with them so they'll imitate her actions and not so much those of other children.
Heck, I drive the speed limit in residential zones and keep my eyes open for running kids.
It's all for the children. Aren't we in trouble now?
I do every day, and children are better for it. I'm glad there are other people that do - the ones that will not sacrifice anything for the children (not just theirs) are seriously misguided.
You haven't got children, have you?
Re:"Not for us, but For the Children" (Score:2)
Wow, you missed the point entirely. They just keep whizzing over your head, huh?
Sacrificing *your* freedom and *your* liberty for *your* children is fine. However, you cross the line when you -- through support of politicians and/or legislation -- that remove somebody else's freedoms or liberty for unspecified and unknown children is wrong.
It is fundamentally the same as restricting the freedoms and liberty of blacks for the sake of white people.
No, I do not have children -- thank goodness. I'm not married yet. I do plan to have children, and will provide a good, moral, healthy home and family for them.
'Legal Reasons' Explanation (Score:2, Informative)
Freenet as a distribution channel for videos? (Score:3, Insightful)
What if, instead of hosting the avis themselves, they had put the avis on freenet and given out the key on their web site? That would have taken care of the Plastic effect (which, btw, is an order of magnitude weaker than the Slashdot effect) and also any legal problems arising from distributing the copyrighted show.
Re:Freenet as a distribution channel for videos? (Score:2)
I just got freenet and I'm still trying to figure out how to use it. I *think* I just inserted the two 12-minute segments under the keys
brass eye special part 1 of 2 (divx)
brass eye special part 2 of 2 (divx)
How can I find out whether I successfully inserted the files?
The harm irrationality & hysteria does (Score:2, Insightful)
I am unable to go into the prefession (speech-therapy) that I wanted because people in this country have an attitude that if any male shows any disire to work with children (teaching or otherwise), then they must be a *paedophile*. Teachers are banned from hugging children (even if they are hurt) because it could be 'paedophilic behaviour", men receive dirty looks if they go anywhere near a swimming-pool with children in it, 3 & 4 year olds are given instructions at kindergarten about how to beware of paedophilic men, fathers are sometimes afraid to hug their own children in public, men are afraid to help out at school & school events, 17 year old boys who make love to their 15 year old girlfriends are charged with 'rape' (for being 'paedophiles'), hysterical news reports go on TV about 'paedophiles' molesting 15 year olds, & so on & so on.
The hysteria that surrounds paedophilla does infinately more harm to society than actual paedophilla does. All the means of protection society uses are doing more harm than good, and don't work anyhow. Paedophiles are actually quite rare, most perverted idiots who molest children aren't even paedophiles!
Gnutella Info (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, PLEASE share them back out once you get them! I've had 73 ppl download these from me already and there's only like 3 ppl on this section of gnet sharing this. Thanks.
-Jade E.
It's all around us (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's all around us (Score:2, Informative)
One of the sketches in Brass Eye *was* a scene that pretended to be from an American beauty pageant, where a couple had had false breasts grafted onto their 7/8/9 (can't remember) year-old daughter so as to improve her chances in the pageant.
They had one parent holding up the child, with another adoring parent going "Wow, aren't they realistic?" and the proud father going "Yes, and look <shakes child> they even jiggle!"
(I should add at this point that the breasts were apparently computer generated - and in any case they were then pixellated over, so you couldn't see them anyway.)
Re:(-1 Overrated) (Score:4, Insightful)
Hardly. If there's a single, take-home message from the series, it's that charities, parliamentarians, government, the press and mass media collude to make rational public debate impossible: "major news topics" derive their sole significance from the extent to which they afford lobbyists, parliamentarians and the news media a pretext for creating mutually self-serving moral panics.
So, in a programme that dealt with the social and media hypocrisy surrounding child sex abuse, the point was made that anyone dissenting from the current hysteria (and suggesting, say, that paedophiles require treatment rather than demonization) would be either ignored or vilified.
Funnily enough, within a day of transmission Morris was vilified in the tabloid press and the programme condemned -- sight unseen -- by three government ministers.
Compared with the rest of a brilliant series, the programme was arguably below par. But to conclude from the fact it was under-written that Morris is somehow a "hack" is frankly stupid.
Re:(-1 Overrated) (Score:2)
This guy had concerned and serious public spokesmen warning the public solemnly about:
This is the funniest thing I've heard of for _decades_. When I read the few details about the 'Cake' show in another thread, my brain sort of went 'gleep!' and shorted out. There's a difference between stupid and unbearably, gloriously loony- and not even the Goons had _real_ _people_ mouthing this sort of thing in all earnestness.
Oh, how wrong you are :) it's a terrible shame Peter Sellers didn't live to see this :)
Re:(-1 Overrated) (Score:2)
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Who's follies are he ridiculing. Collins and Blackwood. That might fit a dictionary definition, but it certainly isn't hard hitting.
That may well be the point and its certainly the point of good satire, but Morris isn't even close. If he had induced the politicians to say the dumbass things they've said about his show as part of his programme, it might have been good satirical fare.All Morris shows is that minor celebs will do anything for exposure. Stop the fucking presses.
Re:(-1 Overrated) (Score:2)
Re:(-1 Overrated) (Score:2)
Re:Pedophilia's just as wrong as rape or murder (Score:2)
If you convince government to equate rape/molestment with murder then the victim's life is very likely to be over. Since they might feel they have less risk of being caught without a live witness against them.
A rapist or child molestor is really a man who keeps his victim alive, so he can torture her/him
Not all rapists and child molestors have a penis. Given the sexist surrounding the whole issue its impossible to tell how many are men and how many are women however.
Re:Rape and murder are not equivalent! (Score:2)
However it is not politically correct to consider so, indeed attempting to do so tends to be regarded as "trivialising it".Morons who equate rape with murder trivialize both, and are part of the problem that causes rape victims to be set apart culturally. Do you give a shit about rape victims? Then stop making them feel like their life is over. Stop insisting that they've been irreparably harmed.
Not all of these people are "morons", some of them appear to be very smart in milking the whole issue for their own (typically sexist) political kudos.
Re:I wish I was british. (Score:2)
And it isn't quite humour, although some of it was funny. It's a serious issue, when you can demonstrate that leading social figures will bang on about something they know nothing about, given very little encouragement. It makes you think a bit more about the pronouncements that the politicians come out with on policing, drugs, etc - how much of these have they actually thought about themselves, or how much are they simply doing for self-publicity at the instigation of one or other single-issue pressure group?
If you want plain hilarious, then Dom Joly will do. But there's nothing significant in the results of that. Half an hour after Dom Joly, you'll have forgotten it, unless there's a particularly good bit to tell your friends the next day - you certainly won't think about it any deeper. Brass Eye sets out to make you think about it.
An even better program was one done by a leading stand-up comedian (Lee Evans, IIRC), which involved exposing various major social political institutions. For instance, reporters won't actually ask politicians hard questions at a press conference, bcos then they won't get invited to the next press conference. When this guy got up at a press conference and actually asked the hard questions, there was a look of horror and embarrassment from all the reporters, like the reaction to someone telling a fart joke loudly in a posh restaurant. Like "how dare he, doesn't he know what the rules are here?"
These may be funny in that they show up leading figures, but the real issues underlying them are not at all amusing.
Grab.
Re:I wish I was british. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I wish I was british. (Score:2)
Re:I wish I was british. (Score:2)
Maybe you should try to think differently. I mean, make an effort. Sure,. Try to understand foreign cultures. It opens your mind.
To be fair, there is a lot of stuff in the Brass Eyes that really requires you to be British, or live there, to get. Trust me, many of the jokes are even funnier when you recognise the strange intonation on the voices during the narration. A simple "Yes", delivered by Morris shoots right over the head of non-Brits... whereas most Brits hear it as a near-perfect piss-take of Jeremy Paxman and his interviewing style.
Re:That's wrong... (Score:2)
Re:Minding each other's own business:you're wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet ISN'T taking care of this problem by itself. And people are making money off of the rape of children. This is wrong. and if you think this is acceptable (i don't care what Ginsburg did) then YOU are wrong.
this isn't a "but what about the CHILDREN" sort of thing. We don't let children drive because given the time of development for the human mind, it's a crapshoot risk. we don't allow children to make sexual decisions with adults for the same reason. Yes, in the roman period, women and men were often married in their teens. guess what, this isn't the roman period. deal.
go to andrew vachss [vachss.com] site for more info about predatory pedophiles.
Re:Minding each other's own business:you're wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
-tfga
Re:Minding each other's own business:you're wrong. (Score:2)