Politically Incorrect: The Failure of Society
In today’s world it has become “politically incorrect” to offend someone, whether it be on the basis of race, creed, religious belief, gender, age or the celebration of a religiously-based holiday. Yet all one has to do is look around them at their little piece of society and see the world around them.
True love must be unconditional, meaning that it is based neither in fear nor in ambition, and is therefore a pure expression arising from the heart. The implications here are that we are not afraid to speak and to act openly and honestly, even if our actions are not going to be perceived as being supportive and uplifting, and even if this then does mean a separation of sorts, as in the loss of a relationship, or even a job for that matter. And yet realize that the intention behind all acts of unconditional love, whether perceived as being supportive or not, is to uplift the other person and to encourage them to become the expression of their true purpose within life.
However, people are so incredibly selective in their perception, that whenever they are told something they do not want to hear or whenever an action is taken which they perceive to be against them in some way, they usually end up feeling hurt, victimized, and hard-done by. Yet such people never realize that they are not their behavior, and therefore that whenever they are confronted, it is not they personally who are being confronted but only their behavior.
by Theun Mares, Shadows of Wolf Fire
Every single action, physical, emotional or mental is dependent upon firstly, MOTIVE, and secondly, CIRCUMSTANCE. Thus to measure action, we must consider whether it is life supportive or life destructive. Sometimes it is hard to know when to defer to the weaker person. A simple rule of thumb . . . we should be sensitive and gracious. While some actions may not be wrong, they may not be in the best interest of others. While we have freedom, we shouldn't exercise our freedom at the cost of hurting another. We are not to consider only ourselves, but we must be sensitive to others ... Do what you will, but harm no one.
Yet if someone is stuck in their view of the world about them and one wants to uplift them, the one has no choice or alternative than to shake them out of the perception which is keeping them stuck. However, in doing so, one's actions are never seen to be supportive, for invariably one is forced in to having to destroy that person's present perception in one way or another in order to make room for a new view.
Let us consider for a moment just a single area of American, and possibly the global society . . . television and the movie industry.
Both of these industries were brought about as a venue of not only entertainment but a dissemination of information to the general public. Before cable and satellite television some areas of the United States were lucky if they had but one or two television stations to watch. Television stations went off the air between 12 midnight and 2 a.m. to perform maintenance on the transmitters. When these stations went off the air, they closed the broadcast day with either the National Anthem or some other patriotic closing. Then early in the morning when they came back on the air, it was generally accompanied by the Pledge of Allegiance. When was the last time you heard or saw either of these on television?
What about program content? It was not uncommon in the sixties for a program or movie that contained even the slightest suggestion of sexual activity or innuendo to be rated “R” and definitely not broadcast on television. Neither was cussing or the suggestion of vulgar language permitted in either venue.
How about the “news” media? Before the advent of satellite communications to the general public, news stories that were carried live were limited to those that could be transmitted by telephone cables, unless it was an event happening here in the United States. Reports from the Republic of Viet Nam were not live, see it as it happened, as we have witnessed with Dessert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and others of recent history. Yes, we did see some tragic events on live television, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy.
It has been through both of these audio-visual media forms that we have witnessed a desensitizing of the global community. In the sixties and seventies, it was not uncommon for all the network television stations to carry the launches of Gemini and Apollo space missions, as well as their return to Earth and their splash downs in the ocean. Today we’re lucky if you can watch Space Shuttle launches and landings on 24-hour cable news stations.
The print and audio-visual news media will be the first to cite civil rights of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech to justify their articles or television news stories. But they don’t just report the events; they bring in their analysts to tell us what we just saw or just heard. Do they think the general populace is stupid and can’t comprehend what we saw or heard? Or how about these college sports half-time show analysts? In the sixties and even into the seventies, you didn’t have the entire half-time of a college football game filled with three guys in suits telling you about what should be done in the second half. You were able to watch the young men and women who busted their tails with hours of practice just like the players in performing the marching band half-time shows.
The public outcry towards the war in Viet Nam, and the loss of so many American men and women is an American tragedy. Yet can you fathom to think the level to which that outcry might have reached, if Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Chet Huntley or David Brinkley were standing their on a hotel balcony or in a rice paddy, like we have witnessed today’s reporters report from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, or Bosnia?
I’m not a clinical sociologist, but I do believe I have a level of common sense equal to most American people. In the sixties and seventies American society had it’s problems, the race riots of Watts and Detroit, but it would be an interesting study to compare the volume of hate crimes, sexual abuse and rapes, between then and today, especially with the differences of media content.
While some actions may not be wrong, they may not be in the best interest of others. While we have freedom, we shouldn't exercise our freedom at the cost of hurting another. We are not to consider only ourselves, but we must be sensitive to others. What cultural benefit is there so showing sexual content in television or movies? What cultural benefit is there to vulgarity? I’m not promoting censorship in the remotest way, but there are a time and place for such things.
Silver Eagle
True love must be unconditional, meaning that it is based neither in fear nor in ambition, and is therefore a pure expression arising from the heart. The implications here are that we are not afraid to speak and to act openly and honestly, even if our actions are not going to be perceived as being supportive and uplifting, and even if this then does mean a separation of sorts, as in the loss of a relationship, or even a job for that matter. And yet realize that the intention behind all acts of unconditional love, whether perceived as being supportive or not, is to uplift the other person and to encourage them to become the expression of their true purpose within life.
However, people are so incredibly selective in their perception, that whenever they are told something they do not want to hear or whenever an action is taken which they perceive to be against them in some way, they usually end up feeling hurt, victimized, and hard-done by. Yet such people never realize that they are not their behavior, and therefore that whenever they are confronted, it is not they personally who are being confronted but only their behavior.
by Theun Mares, Shadows of Wolf Fire
Every single action, physical, emotional or mental is dependent upon firstly, MOTIVE, and secondly, CIRCUMSTANCE. Thus to measure action, we must consider whether it is life supportive or life destructive. Sometimes it is hard to know when to defer to the weaker person. A simple rule of thumb . . . we should be sensitive and gracious. While some actions may not be wrong, they may not be in the best interest of others. While we have freedom, we shouldn't exercise our freedom at the cost of hurting another. We are not to consider only ourselves, but we must be sensitive to others ... Do what you will, but harm no one.
Yet if someone is stuck in their view of the world about them and one wants to uplift them, the one has no choice or alternative than to shake them out of the perception which is keeping them stuck. However, in doing so, one's actions are never seen to be supportive, for invariably one is forced in to having to destroy that person's present perception in one way or another in order to make room for a new view.
Let us consider for a moment just a single area of American, and possibly the global society . . . television and the movie industry.
Both of these industries were brought about as a venue of not only entertainment but a dissemination of information to the general public. Before cable and satellite television some areas of the United States were lucky if they had but one or two television stations to watch. Television stations went off the air between 12 midnight and 2 a.m. to perform maintenance on the transmitters. When these stations went off the air, they closed the broadcast day with either the National Anthem or some other patriotic closing. Then early in the morning when they came back on the air, it was generally accompanied by the Pledge of Allegiance. When was the last time you heard or saw either of these on television?
What about program content? It was not uncommon in the sixties for a program or movie that contained even the slightest suggestion of sexual activity or innuendo to be rated “R” and definitely not broadcast on television. Neither was cussing or the suggestion of vulgar language permitted in either venue.
How about the “news” media? Before the advent of satellite communications to the general public, news stories that were carried live were limited to those that could be transmitted by telephone cables, unless it was an event happening here in the United States. Reports from the Republic of Viet Nam were not live, see it as it happened, as we have witnessed with Dessert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and others of recent history. Yes, we did see some tragic events on live television, the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy.
It has been through both of these audio-visual media forms that we have witnessed a desensitizing of the global community. In the sixties and seventies, it was not uncommon for all the network television stations to carry the launches of Gemini and Apollo space missions, as well as their return to Earth and their splash downs in the ocean. Today we’re lucky if you can watch Space Shuttle launches and landings on 24-hour cable news stations.
The print and audio-visual news media will be the first to cite civil rights of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech to justify their articles or television news stories. But they don’t just report the events; they bring in their analysts to tell us what we just saw or just heard. Do they think the general populace is stupid and can’t comprehend what we saw or heard? Or how about these college sports half-time show analysts? In the sixties and even into the seventies, you didn’t have the entire half-time of a college football game filled with three guys in suits telling you about what should be done in the second half. You were able to watch the young men and women who busted their tails with hours of practice just like the players in performing the marching band half-time shows.
The public outcry towards the war in Viet Nam, and the loss of so many American men and women is an American tragedy. Yet can you fathom to think the level to which that outcry might have reached, if Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Chet Huntley or David Brinkley were standing their on a hotel balcony or in a rice paddy, like we have witnessed today’s reporters report from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, or Bosnia?
I’m not a clinical sociologist, but I do believe I have a level of common sense equal to most American people. In the sixties and seventies American society had it’s problems, the race riots of Watts and Detroit, but it would be an interesting study to compare the volume of hate crimes, sexual abuse and rapes, between then and today, especially with the differences of media content.
While some actions may not be wrong, they may not be in the best interest of others. While we have freedom, we shouldn't exercise our freedom at the cost of hurting another. We are not to consider only ourselves, but we must be sensitive to others. What cultural benefit is there so showing sexual content in television or movies? What cultural benefit is there to vulgarity? I’m not promoting censorship in the remotest way, but there are a time and place for such things.
Silver Eagle
posted by Silver Eagle | 5:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home