Master Index of Archived Threads


"The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

41Forever Jun 13 2017 12:59 AM

Saw this Baltimore Sun story in Edgy's FB feed and it got me thinking. [url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bs-fe-zontv-nasty-media-20170606-story.html Here's a representative passage, though I encourage you to read the entire article: What’s going on in media and in society that has made the level of discourse so vulgar, combative, unrestrained and ugly – not just on premium cable, but basic cable and network TV as well? And who’s to blame? Like most media change in the last year, the answers start with Trump, whose presidency tests the press and shapes popular culture more profoundly than that of any other commander in chief of the modern era. But it only starts with him. The change runs deeper than his presidency, and it demands that media executives, journalists, performers and citizens also do some soul searching about their role in debasing the national conversation. After all, it’s hard to blame Trump for Bill Maher’s shockingly casual use of the N-word on his HBO show “Real Time” on June 2. The headline writer includes Trump, and the peg for the story is the recent string of comments and stunts from news anchors, talk show hosts and D-list comediennes. But I think this uptick in vulgarity started happening long before Trump even announced. We started allowing readers to comment on stories sometime in 2008 or 2009 and the comments section pretty quickly became a cesspool of hate speech. Sometimes I wonder if this is a function of the Internet and social media. When everyone gets the microphone, some people are going to abuse it. Or, when everyone gets a microphone -- or a talk show, or a blog, or a forum to post in or an HBO special -- you have to dial up the shock value just to get noticed. It also gets used as a weapon. I remember thinking that if I wrote about certain topics or quoted certain people I'd be in for three days of cyber assault and wondered if I wanted to go there and have to deal with that. I don't know. It was an interesting article and made me think. I don't know if the pendulum eventually swings back toward respect and civility, or whether we are on an irreversible course of viciousness and vulgarity.

d'Kong76 Jun 13 2017 01:22 AM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

Just admit it! You voted for Trump.

Edgy MD Jun 13 2017 01:41 AM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

Cathy Griffin and even Colbert certainly do their alleged causes no favors taking the low road. That stuff just becomes a recruiting tool for their ideological enemies. The president does himself no favors almost ever, but he's the president, so he knows something I don't. I don't believe in irreversible courses, though. Certainly not in culture.

Ceetar Jun 13 2017 03:02 AM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

'vulgarity' does not necessarily mean no respect. What's actually happening here is people, slowly, realizing they're just words. Words that everyone uses and understands. Life is not a polite round of debate club. People are choosing to speak that way because that's how they speak. it's unrelated to how they feel about the 'opponent'. Also i have zero respect for Trump and roughly 80% of congress. If I ran into one of them in Starbucks I'd definitely be more likely to say "That's that fucking turtle" rather than "hey look, the senate majority leader!" Now the barista I respect.

Lefty Specialist Jun 13 2017 12:00 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

When did it start? How about the 1980's, with the rise of conservative talk radio. Yes, Rush Limbaugh was always respectful and was never vulgar or mean. 1995 brought Fox 'News' and the Limbaugh style to TV. Roger Ailes had success and success breeds imitation. The 2000's brought internet trolls. So you're right, it does predate Trump.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 13 2017 12:40 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

Yeah, Trump isn't the cause. He's one of the effects.

metsmarathon Jun 13 2017 02:31 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

there's a difference, i think, between using profanity and partaking in vulgar, combative, unrestrained and ugly discourse. it is possible, for instance to use profanity in casual, friendly conversation. and indeed in casual, friendly arguments. it is also possibly to use vulgar, combative, ugly and unrestrained language that is not, of itself, profane. most of the best descriptive characterizations of trump on the remains of gawkermedia do so without the use of any objectively foul words, and yet are clearly vulgar, combative and ugly in their intent. i think that it is true, to an extent, that conservative talk radio may have helped usher in this current scenario, as well as the rise of internet and social media culture. we've lost respect for the other sides of our arguments, as a society as a whole, and in many cases each of us individually, and we've somehow decided that those who oppose us, or disagree with us, or who hold a differing perspective, have arrived at that place through some great tremendous failing, be it a failure of morality, intelligence, mental faculty, birthright, or body odor. we have dehumanized those who oppose us - much like the military strives to dehumanize our enemies in times of war (referring to them by some collective nickname so as to take focus off their residual humity, ie japs during ww2, or skinnies during somalia, as depicted in blackhawk down) - we no longer recognize hte underlying humanity belonging to those we face off against in argument, and are therefore free to levy any vile assertions and ad hominems against them, no matter the scale of our contretemps. they oppose us and must be destroyed, for the good of all that is right and true, no matter which side of the argument i am on. i would say, too, that our level of discourse has been dumbed down. and social media and call-in radio has helped this. when the majority of the voices we hear and see are spoken and written extemporaneously, there is neither room nor time for colorful descriptions, expansive vocabulary, masterful allusions and complex sentence structure. instead we are left with a small vocabulary, short sentences, quick bites of bile and as many "fuck you's" as we can riff off. we also follow our culture wherein it is fun and funny to be cruel and vulgar. dick jokes get easy laughs, especially when they are used against an enemy. and boy do they get clicks! we read what we see, we listen to what we hear, and we repeat it. individually and collectively. so what's the answer? dunno. but more thoughtful, more respectful voices couldn't possibly hurt, could they? just because someone disagrees with you, or you disagree with them, doesn't make them necessarily evil, or flawed, or broken inside. and while it may be funny to your friends if you berate, or mock, or curse, or otherwise dehumanize those who dissent against even your most avidly held positions, it ultimately will do little to send them on the same path towards enlightenment upon which you so clearly tread. so use your words more carefully, and more artfully, and perhaps more slowly, and someday, perhaps the tide will change. yes, yes, there is always a time and place for vulgarity, profanity, ugliness and unrestrained verbal combat. but it cannot be over everything and towards everything, or it only turns into so much noise, losing the power to command attention when it is most truly needed, and when the ugliness is warranted. instead of crafting ugliness with words, and fostering further discord, strive instead to find another way to sway the opinions of those who, to your mind, have gone astray. but some good-natured profanity is probably ok.

themetfairy Jun 13 2017 02:37 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

Fuck you! (j/k - well said!)

41Forever Jun 13 2017 02:43 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

Awesome post, marathon!

Ceetar Jun 13 2017 02:46 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

metsmarathon wrote: just because someone disagrees with you, or you disagree with them, doesn't make them necessarily evil, or flawed, or broken inside. and while it may be funny to your friends if you berate, or mock, or curse, or otherwise dehumanize those who dissent against even your most avidly held positions, it ultimately will do little to send them on the same path towards enlightenment upon which you so clearly tread. Disagree strongly to the first part. The second part is a different story, but we're not getting to progress by convincing the people that want to stay behind, but by dragging them forward by engaging in useful discussion and planning with intelligent people and ignoring the broken inside 'opposition' even framing it as opposition is legitimatizing a position that is wrong. It's everything that's wrong with politics. Looking to score points by pointing out the flaws of the "opposition" party is a platform for election, and simply having only two parties is a part of what makes everything so combative. But what's really at stake here is that people are NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. Not me of course, as I'm a white male. But legislating womens' rights to their own bodies, letting cops kill black kids, pouring waste into clean rivers, treating scared human beings fleeing death as terrorists...that's about as evil/flawed a position as you can get and we don't need to play "gotta hear both sides" with it. Those people don't need to be included in the discussions we have about moving forward (except of course that they're fucking elected officials). But we should stop asking republicans if they believe climate change is real. Obviously it's real. If we ask them anything, it's what they're doing about it. Let them then claim it's not real if you want, but we should treat that response like they're saying cows are fictional. like..don't give a fucking voice to the scum that deny Sandy Hook/etc.

metsmarathon Jun 13 2017 03:37 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

seeking clarification here. "just because someone disagrees with you, or you disagree with them, doesn't make them necessarily evil, or flawed, or broken inside." this is the part you disagree with. this part, right here. the part where people disagreeing with you makes them evil and flawed and broken inside. by necessity of the fact that they have disagreed with you. about something. anything. they are less human because you are so right and infallible that the only way they can be wrong is to be wrong to the very core of their being, wrong to their heart, to their everliving soul. that is what you take exception to. not that mocking people and deriding them won't move them to your side of an argument - because clearly that always works! - but that if someone disagrees with you, then they are the worst kind of person, that they are less than a person in your eyes, and are no longer worthy of being accorded any respect in the matter at hand and at all matters inconsequential to the matter at hand. because you have a difference of opinion. ... man, i am a terrible human being. i'm just the worst. i suck even. i don't punctualize and have hairy armpits, and i probably don't write good poetry either (it's ok, i can admit it). ... it's not an issue of "gotta hear both sides" of an argument. at least when there are arguments with a viable "both sides". no, there is not really a both sides of flat-earthing that needs to be recognized and given voice. (note that i'm intentionally sidestepping the matter of the more inflammatory flat earths of truthering, or sandy hook denial, or holocaust denial, or even rape culture) but, see, there is an "other side" to abortion, and womens' rights, and police reform, and environmental regulation, and immigration, and lgbtq rights, and climate change, and creationism, in as much as the positions that are held by the other side are held by actual real humans who have come to their side of the argument the same way that you have - not by walking the path of the enlightened upon which only the soles of the feet of the most pure of heart and keen of intellect must be allowed to tread - but through the lens of the course of your life's experiences and through the collective experiences of those around you and the way in which you yourself have experienced those experiences of others. the real actual people who hold those opinions - not the politicians who claim to hold those opinions, or the media that claims to present those opinions - but the human beings who hold those positions, are deserving of humanity. are deserving of respect. are deserving of thoughtful discourse meant to change hearts and minds. are deserving of the opportunity to have you share with them your perspective and how you came to your position, and likewise are deserving of the opportunity to share their perspective and how they came to their position. not through zero-sum verbal combat, but through additive communication. if someone tells you "climate change isn't real because i heard it on the radio" that doesn't make them the scum of the earth, someone who should be spat upon and shunned from polite society, an idiot who must surely wear velcro shoes over his mismatched socks and smelly feet. talk to them. speak your mind and your experiences. tell them not that they are wrong, but explain why you are right. and if they are the scum of the earth, the worst of the worst, pure unmitigated human filth, you won't change their mind. but you might change the mind of the person standing next to them, who happened to also have held the same opinion, but arrived there through different, more humane means. ... you argue at the same time, that the two party system is what causes the combativeness. and yet you seem to argue FOR the combativeness, that those who disagree with you must be ignored and left behind. because you are so righteous and so are those who share your opinions. if a person claims cows to be fictional, show them a cow. let them see it, let them hear it. let them smell it, and drink of its milk and feast of its tasty, tasty flesh. but don't call them a fucking idiot scum because they grew up not near to farms or had many of their own friends and leaders and mentors telling them the whole time that hamburgers grew from trees and milk came from factories. instead of forcing them to hide their cow-denial out of shame, draw them in so that they too may bask in the all-knowing, munificent and everloving light of your rightness.

Ceetar Jun 13 2017 03:58 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

see, but the cow-denials don't even care if cows are real or not. they're disagreeing as a political stance. THAT is what doesn't deserve recognition. When we discuss milk production, they don't need to be included. If we agree to tax cow milk, we don't need to discuss whether or not cow's are real. People who are disagreeing are idiots. If we start listening to every crackpot tangent, we'll never get anything done. #Government. And to further this point, these people are disagreeing not because they disagree specifically, but because they're attacking their opponent. to stop with the analogy, republican's aren't saying abortions are bad because they firmly believe that they're bad. They're doing it as a political attack against their opponent, whipping up a frenzy, and suppressing evidence and science that show that the proposals they're making will lead to more abortions. This isn't an initial disagreement that I'm calling out as evil, it's doubling down after overwhelming evidence that your position is wrong, and harmful. "Here's proof", "I reject your proof. Let's agree to disagree" "no fuck you, this is ACTIVELY HARMING people." Yes, people are freely welcome to disagree that the NL should adopt the DH. There are arguments on both sides, and lots of opinion. I can respect either side. The single season home run leader in MLB is Barry Bonds, based on the records and facts recorded by the league in question. That is undeniable fact and disagreeing makes you an idiot.

41Forever Jun 13 2017 04:24 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

It seems as if you are saying that the only possible reason someone would disagree with you is because of partisanship. I would argue that I know many people who hold different views than yours, are good and thoughtful people who could offer what they consider to be proof and are not involved in politics at all. I don't think many issues are as black and white where one side is right and the other side is evil. Now, Holstein cows are both black and white. My father-in-law was a bovine veterinarian for the University of Illinois. He would not only enjoy marathon's example, but offer to show a non-believer both the insides and outsides of cows.

metsmarathon Jun 13 2017 05:32 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

Republicans includes a very large swath of people who do not hold political office and do not hide behind keyboards and microphones who wish to wage political war and whip up their base to allocate for themselves a greater slice of power and the money with which it comes. there is more to the political landscape of this country than the politicians and their mouthpieces. unless you also think it appropriate for you to be lump-summed as a "DEMOCRAT" who wants to kills jobs a fuck trees because white men are all assholes and they just want to get power by giving away hard working white people's money to brown people who are probably criminals and on drugs. if you're in a discussion with actual real people, how does "no, FUCK YOU, this is actively harming people" tend to go over? does it win you many converts? as much as you decry our two-party system, you seem to fall for its trappings. why label someone who stands firmly anti-abortion as a republican, whittling down their existence to one word - that of the enemy in your verbal combat? they may have a perspective that is valid. it usually is, to them at least. and abortion is a sticky wicket if your main point is that it's hurting people, as the principle counterpoint is that it's killing people. but i digress. how many members of the NRA do you win over by calling them "pussies hiding behind their bullets"? how many MAGAs are won over by calling them "ignorant redneck imbeciles stuck believing in a 1950's america that never happened"? how many believers in the DH are won over by calling them "bloated hemorrhoids on the unclean assholes of those who hate america and all that is good and wholesome"? but hey, what's an arguement without a little personal perspective. i used to firmly identify as a republican. believed that i held conservative values. good christian mores, pro-war, small government. that sort of thing. agreed that abortion should be illegal. drugs too. and why should the gays care about marriage if they can have civil unions which are kinda the same thing - why do they need our word, amirite? wanna know what changed my mind? here's a hint - it wasn't talking about it to people who called me an asshole and who shouted "fuck you" at me if i offered a differing opinion. i came around to a different opinion by listening to the perspectives offered by others, by challenging my own beliefs and by not accepting as holy-gospel-truth the beliefs of others. by incorporating information and experience and the information and experience offered by others. and gosh darnit. i changed my mind. about almost all of it. because there are two sides to most arguments. one side might be right about it, and the other, ultimately, wrong. but the wrong side isn't wrong because they are evil and wish to be evil. they are wrong because they have erred, or been misled, or misled themselves. or perhaps they are naiive. sometimes stubborn - it's true - it happens! or maybe, just maybe, they have a radically different viewpoint that makes them fundamentally incapable of seeing your, ahem, innate rightness. and that viewpoint can indeed be valid, and not evil. so lets not boil down our political and ideological opponents into bileful labels and acerbic soundbites. engage. engage. engage. it's all about hearts and minds. i mean... you're generally anti-war right? probably not so much in favor of bombing the shit out of the middle east to put an end to ISIS and al queda, right? so how do you think it would go over if you told every muslim "fuck you, you all fucking suck, you're so wrong and evil and bad - all of you - for believing (many of) the same things as the people who are actively causing harm"? isn't the goal there to win over hearts and minds, through positive engagements and sharing of perspectives? is that not the course which lays towards peace, and understanding, and an end to the harming of peoples? i'm still pretty pro-war though. i mean, not the actively shooting of enemies and enemy states, mind you, but the preparedness to be able to do so if the unfortunate need arises. which is probably a much different argument for another day, and about which both sides may indeed hold meritorious perspectives. but that should probably be in a different thread within which we argue arguments, not one in which we discuss the means by which we argue arguments. so again, lets talk about the relative merits of acetic acid versus apiary-insect-derived supersaturated solutions of monosaccharides for their flycatching effectiveness.

Ceetar Jun 13 2017 06:04 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

If it was up to me I'd practically dismantle the entire military and let roughly the entire nation of Syria into the country, so..but I don't know what you mean about Muslims vs Isis or whatever. I don't care what anyone believes, it's the starting wars over it like it's fact that bothers me. I don't tell people I'm having disagreements with that they're idiots, and I was framing most of this conversation in relation to the very public/political discourse that's going on, often among people in power and in the media. This isn't about me trying to persuade random people on the street. One woman did ask me, randomly, on inauguration day if I'd watched and I said no, i want nothing to do with that guy. She spouted all this rhetoric, belief. the lies of Fox news. I politely disagreed, told her that wasn't true, that he'd already spoken harshly about immigrants (of which she was one) and immigration, and she'd have none of it. I wished her well and moved on. I didn't call her an idiot, and she's not evil. voting for a person is not that same as enacting evil policies that will, and have, gotten people killed. I'm speaking to willful ignorance and sticking to rhetoric over facts. If you want to stop abortions, and I point to a study that shows that doing X reduces abortions, and then you actively block the enactment of that...well, that pretty much says to me that you're not interested in education and logic. That's what I'm after, is more education. I want the 'smartest' people making the decisions. Not good soldiers in the war between Republicans and Democrats (of which I'm not one) in the battle of control. That's what I mean when I say to exclude the idiots that deny climate change. This is a change that needs to happen, and any debate for power should be about what we're going to do, not whether or not it exists. We're never going to get the milk to everyone that ones it if we're still framing the the question in terms of whether or not cows exist.

Lefty Specialist Jun 13 2017 07:55 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

I agree that Trump is the result, not the cause, of the vulgarity, meanness and denial in so much of the media. He exploited it brilliantly, although I think he blundered into it as much as anything else. Right-wing media had been demonizing Hillary for 25 years, so you could take something like John Podesta's e-mails and spin it into whatever they wanted. There was already a base willing to listen to it. Joseph Goebbels himself was right when he said that 'a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth'. That's why people believe that Democrats were running a child sex ring from a DC pizzeria. They'd been conditioned to think of Democrats as the enemy. For a long time Democrats laughed this stuff off. And they had nothing remotely comparable to the right-wing media giant. MSNBC is the closest they've come and any station that has 3 hours of Morning Joe and an hour of Greta Van Susteren every day is weakly liberal at best. So it's been asymmetric warfare. Democrats also relaxed because even though Republicans were doing crazy things, Obama could always veto them. But now, as the kids say, shit gets real. Bad policies that hurt people suddenly can become reality. When Grandma relies on Meals on Wheels, or your parents can only afford to be in a nursing home only because of Medicaid, or your kid is getting treatment for a pre-existing condition you couldn't afford without subsidized insurance, and you see clearly that somebody wants to take that away so that they can give a tax break to somebody who makes 100 times as much as you do, well, you're liable to get pissed. And you may curse. The irony is that many of those who will be hurt the worst won't see it coming. And they'll be conditioned to blame Democrats, even though they have absolutely no say in it whatsoever. They're the ones who have doubts if Sandy Hook was real. They think Obama's a Muslim born in Kenya. They're the ones afraid that if we don't act fast we'll be under Sharia law. They will deny the cow exists even as it stomps them to death. And I can't feel sorry for them, because their gullibility could screw up my family's life. That's the line in the sand for me. It's like smoking. My dad used to smoke 3 packs a day, often at the kitchen table. When I was a cheeky teenager I would tell him, "it's okay to kill yourself, just don't take us with you." That's how I feel about Trump voters. (By the way, he eventually quit cold turkey and it probably added 10 years to his life)

41Forever Jun 15 2017 12:53 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

My wife and I were discussing this article last night, noting how when Rep. Giffords was shot, some were quick to blame talk radio, and after yesterday's shooting, some were quick to blame the recent events that sparked the column. Mrs. 41 pointed out that neither were correct, and that angry talk radio or vulgar CNN reporters likely had no more connection to troubled people doing terrible things than the Beatles' White Album did to the Mansion family's crimes. We did talk about how such a toxic environment is among the challenges faced today by people who go into public service. Someone in government I deeply respect -- who has done some amazing things -- is retiring, and told me that the way things are now, he'd can't recommend that anyone go into public service. We also discussed the topic in the other thread where a governor was compared to Hitler, the affect that has on our public discourse and even how such talk affects office holders, along with their staffs and families, and how that, too, would discourage someone from entering public service. "We get the candidates we deserve," my wife said. That resonated with me.

Ceetar Jun 15 2017 02:33 PM Re: "The rise in vulgar, mean media talk"

definitely the problem is that people might say mean things about politicians. I mean, I don't think it's possible to be nastier than the country was to Obama, and yet we got 8 years of pretty good presidency. Americans wanted Hillary Clinton, and while maybe not the 'best' choice, she does seem to legitimately care about people.