Revolution

Let me clarify. From my perspective only, a show glorifies something if it simply is on the air. I don't care if the bad guys get smeared into pond scum by a giant steamroller; if the show is on the air, then its subject matter is glorified.

The only kind of crime/gangster/drug dealer shows I want to see on the air are documentaries where they show real scumbags getting their just desserts. I have no need or desire to see 'drama' or 'comedy' shows on these topics (not that the shows mentioned are comedic in any way).

I guess that's why I give Dexter a pass: he gets rid of scumbags, so that elevates him to not-quite-so-scumbag

But that is not what glorification means. You can't make a word mean something else, even if you really want it to. People will misunderstand your meaning and start to deliver arguments that you won't know how to respond to, because you won't understand why they're making such a big deal out of something.

That's why everybody agrees on a language. So we'll know what people're talking about at any given time. Understanding is derived.

While you might say I'm belaboring the point, I am also being clear and concise in my informing you.

And as such, it is not an attack upon your person, but rather shows that I care enough to take the time to teach you something important.

Also I am hopped up on painkillers due to back injury. I retain the right to disavow anything written in this post.

Now would somebody please lead that unicorn out of here? I'm afraid it'll bust a poop.

-Fred

Ok so to clarify, you don't like crime shows period and you think Dexter is different cause he is more of a vigilante like batman, but slightly more sadistic and doesn't wear a suit.

I think that gets straight to point and is not open to interpretation.

I'm sorry Fred, but there is an interpretation of 'glorify' that most definitely applies here. You're looking at it from a very narrow viewpoint. From your description it sounds like you're applying it to the story or plot of the show - I'm not.

I'm using 'glorify' in the sense that making something widely known or publicized, written about, broadcast, or otherwise extolled, is actually 'glorifying' it. My interpretation has nothing to do with what is actually in each episode. It has to do with the very idea of making fictional shows about such subject matters. In the sense that it puts them out in front of people, they're broadcast over the airwaves, cable, and satellite TV, they're being glorified.

It's the same concept as is used by people who perpetrate crimes for publicity. They crave publicity and some of them will commit horrifying atrocities for, in their own words, the 'glory'. Law enforcement officials often have to choose between making information public so they can garner leads versus 'glorifying' the atrocities and thereby feeding the perpetrator's ego, encouraging the perpetrator to commit further crimes.

BTW, everybody does not agree on a language. That is particularly true of English, which has many subtle meanings for a lot of its words. Language is fluid, constantly evolving and changing. Words that meant one thing at a particular time come to mean something entirely different at another time. 'Gay' today mostly means a homosexual person, most often a male. In the 1800's and before it meant a man who was adventurous, daring, a risk-taker. It had nothing to do with sexual orientation.

If you want a fun example of language evolution, try reading Beowulf in its original form. If you hand a copy to most people, they will not be able to read it. They will say they can't read it because it's written in a foreign language. They're usually shocked when they're told it's written in English (I am, of course, speaking of people fluent in English).

I am aware that language is fluent, but glorifying something means to laud it, to exalt, celebrate and praise it. What you are talking about is creating awareness. Which, in fact in your own words there, is broadcasting it.

And while language is indeed fluent, it's viscosity is thick. Like molasses. If you start adding new interpretations to words, don't expect to be understood in the manner of which you meant to convey your information; the information can and will be lost in translation.

If you had said you were against it being broadcast, I wouldn't have had any problems with your choice of words.

I do however respect your opinion of not wanting such shows broadcast. I don't agree with it, I love many of these shows and think the world is a better place because of them (some of them teach moral lessons other shows wouldn't be able to touch upon, for instance) and I take great enjoyment in watching them.

Also, I'm realizing I'm turning into some kinda pedantic grammar nazi Frankenstein's monster; a bonafide, certified, unsatisfied, unpreoccupied, unmodified, snide and identified worldwide member of the vocabulary constabulary.

Oh, and I was applying my description to the show's themes as a whole, not just the story and plot. But they are interrelated, so I was amiss in not making that clearer earlier.

Again - no disrespect intended.

-Fred

I guess I'm a victim of my days studying with McLuhan. Even back then we discussed how broadcasting something didn't just make people aware of it. It goes way beyond that. The medium truly is the message.

Television has a life of its own. As soon as something appears on TV it suddenly gains a cache that is often well beyond its reality. The masses are impressed by something for it simply being on TV. It hardly matters what it is; they're impressed anyway. Reality TV is a perfect example. Ordinary people are suddenly major celebraties. People are famous just because they are on TV.

There's no substance behind most of these celebraties, at least no more than there is behind most people. The only difference is that they're on TV.

My point is simply that putting something on TV does a lot more than 'publicize' it. It gains a whole new level of social reputation and/or credibility; in most cases undeserved. This applies to shows about mobs, gangsters, etc. too.

Studies have shown that there is little evidence that people take moral lessons from such shows. They are more in awe of them than critical. That is not universal of course. People such are yourself do see the moral implications of these shows but, unfortunately, you're in the minority.

BTW, I am absolutely not in favour of banning these shows, or anything of the like. I abhor censorship. I was simply stating that I don't watch these types of shows, and why. I totally respect that you enjoy them and your right to watch them (my own brother watches Sons of Anarchy faithfully).

In closing, I'll just quote one of the meanings of 'glorify' from one of the online dictionaries:

2. To cause to be or seem more glorious or excellent than is actually the case:

So what you meant was that it is SEEN as being glorified by the majority of television viewers. This is, however, not the same as the show itself glorifying anything. There's a distinction here. Which was what I was getting at.

Nevertheless, you've made your views clear now. This is clear communication. No discord, dissonance or misunderstandings left.

If only everybody would strive to make their views this clear, this peacefully.

Thanks!

-Fred

This was done with such tact.

Kudos to you both.

lestat666 wrote:This was done with such tact.

Kudos to you both.

Thanks lestat666. I take it you were thinking one or both of us is angry or otherwise upset. I can't speak for Fred, but I assure I was never angry or upset. I was, perhaps, a little confused at first by what Fred was saying, until I realised he had a fairly narrow focus in mind while I was looking at a much broader picture.

Both viewpoints have merit, but they focus on different things.

I never get angry. And while you might argue that my viewpoint was narrow, the understanding of the point I was trying to make extends to all things. So, in a way, it wasn't narrow at all.

But that's an entirely different discussion

-Fred