NationStates

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:This isn't censorship and there's nothing wrong with ATP's choice.

How is it not censorship? From my perspective it's that or it's simple cowardice.

Gormwood wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Who said anything about hate? Also it's to balance things out, make sure the same standard is being kept.

So how can you show anti-SSM views on a children's cartoon without delving into bigotry and stereotypes?

By presenting the view point of the major religious groupings in America. Believe it or not, not everyone opposed to SSM, at least on the basis of morality etc happens to think it's this big evil thing that needs to be stamped out with fire and brimstone.

Rostavykhan wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Who said anything about hate? Also it's to balance things out, make sure the same standard is being kept.

By the same logic, because Arthur had an episode that was meant to represent 9/11 and how everyone deals with trauma differently, then it should have an episode portraying Islamic Terrorism and the fight against American imperialism to balance things out.

Except one is promoting violence which is a wee tad different. I'd all be up for an anti-imperialist message themed episode though, especially if it followed in the light of a pro-imperialism one.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Gormwood wrote:So how can you show anti-SSM views on a children's cartoon without delving into bigotry and stereotypes?

By presenting the view point of the major religious groupings in America. Believe it or not, not everyone opposed to SSM, at least on the basis of morality etc happens to think it's this big evil thing that needs to be stamped out with fire and brimstone.

I think Gormwood may have somehow stuttered over a text based medium. They said without delving into bigotry and stereotypes.

Wow, Arthur is still running?

Necroghastia wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:By presenting the view point of the major religious groupings in America. Believe it or not, not everyone opposed to SSM, at least on the basis of morality etc happens to think it's this big evil thing that needs to be stamped out with fire and brimstone.

I think Gormwood may have somehow stuttered over a text based medium. They said without delving into bigotry and stereotypes.

Yes I am aware.

Mushet wrote:Wow, Arthur is still running?

Tbh this is the most surprising thing of all.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
I think Gormwood may have somehow stuttered over a text based medium. They said without delving into bigotry and stereotypes.

Yes I am aware.

Then why didn't you answer the question? I'm looking at your post and I'm not seeing a reason that isn't rooted in bigotry.

Necroghastia wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Yes I am aware.

Then why didn't you answer the question?

I did.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
Then why didn't you answer the question?

I did.

Uh... care to address the part of my post you deleted, or...?

Napkizemlja wrote:

Gormwood wrote:So how can you show anti-SSM views on a children's cartoon without delving into bigotry and stereotypes?

By presenting the view point of the major religious groupings in America. Believe it or not, not everyone opposed to SSM, at least on the basis of morality etc happens to think it's this big evil thing that needs to be stamped out with fire and brimstone.

Should they also show that some people are religiously against interracial marriage in a positive light?

Necroghastia wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:I did.

Uh... care to address the part of my post you deleted, or...?

The answer is that you're seeing Bigotry where none exists.

Necroghastia wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:I did.

Uh... care to address the part of my post you deleted, or...?

There's no point, considering it's obvious you'll consider any position that is anti-SSM to be based upon hatred and bigotry. Even if it's mainly due to religious opposition as a result of trying to follow God's declarations on the matter because you happen to think that morality isn't entirely subjective.

Also it was mainly to point out that OP wouldn't care if it was "censored" had it been anti-SSM.

Neutraligon wrote:

Diopolis wrote:....Because they're opposed to homosexuality? It's not complicated. They don't want drug use presented to children either.

Actually yes I do, because there are children watching who have parents who are drug addicts, who are alcoholic and who have to deal with that stuff every day. A good kids show acknowledges that and tries to show kids methods of coping with those facts of reality.

Sesame Street is very good at this. They’ve had several different families on air, I remember one episode delt with divorce

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
Uh... care to address the part of my post you deleted, or...?

The answer is that you're seeing Bigotry where none exists.

What, pray tell, is not bigoted about not only being opposed to gay people, but wanting a children's cartoon to air an anti-gay episode? What sort of story could you even tell with such a "moral" that doesn't involve subjecting someone to homophobic attitudes and then glorifying it?

Neutraligon wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:By presenting the view point of the major religious groupings in America. Believe it or not, not everyone opposed to SSM, at least on the basis of morality etc happens to think it's this big evil thing that needs to be stamped out with fire and brimstone.

Should they also show that some people are religiously against interracial marriage in a positive light?

I mean there isn't a solid case for that, but if a program made one and then a region of the USA said "No, we don't think that'd go down well here" and refused to air it on their channel I also wouldn't bat an eyelash over it.

Thermodolia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Actually yes I do, because there are children watching who have parents who are drug addicts, who are alcoholic and who have to deal with that stuff every day. A good kids show acknowledges that and tries to show kids methods of coping with those facts of reality.

Sesame Street is very good at this. They’ve had several different families on air, I remember one episode delt with divorce

Yep it did. Arthur has also had some really good episodes about trauma.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Should they also show that some people are religiously against interracial marriage in a positive light?

I mean there isn't a solid case for that, but if a program made one and then a region of the USA said "No, we don't think that'd go down well here" and refused to air it on their channel I also wouldn't bat an eyelash over it.

So what if there is not a solid case for that, it is an opinion people hold due to religious reasons. Would you bat an eye at a program that simply had a scene of an interracial marriage and the publicly funded channel refused to air it simply because it had that scene in it?

Napkizemlja wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
Uh... care to address the part of my post you deleted, or...?

There's no point, considering it's obvious you'll consider any position that is anti-SSM to be based upon hatred and bigotry.

Hmm. Wonder why.

Even if it's mainly due to religious opposition as a result of trying to follow God's declarations on the matter because you happen to think that morality isn't entirely subjective.

Ignoring the massive debate on whether that's even a thing in the Bible at all, tell me: how would you write an episode with an anti-SSM message without having a character experience homophobia, and glorifying said experience? Because that's a pretty unambiguously bigoted thing.

Also it was mainly to point out that OP wouldn't care if it was "censored" had it been anti-SSM.

It's almost as though we shouldn't be promoting bigotry in childrens' shows.

Napkizemlja wrote:There's no point, considering it's obvious you'll consider any position that is anti-SSM to be based upon hatred and bigotry. Even if it's mainly due to religious opposition as a result of trying to follow God's declarations on the matter because you happen to think that morality isn't entirely subjective.

Can you give an actual rational reason supported by evidence why SSM is bad rather than making a faith-based argument? Not everyone shares the same faith and to argue on that ground wont further the discussion because you've gone into an argument with your mind already made up rather than analyzing new facts and evidence presented to you.

Explain to me the harmful or negative effects of a kid watching two fictional characters getting married.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
Uh... care to address the part of my post you deleted, or...?

There's no point, considering it's obvious you'll consider any position that is anti-SSM to be based upon hatred and bigotry

By all means, feel free to on any way disprove how it wouldn't be framed as such in an anti gay episode of a show.

San Lumen wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
This is a frankly bigoted viewpoint. APT owes you nothing. The people of Alabama owe you nothing.

Should the people of Alabama protest the decision then sure.

How is it bigoted? Air the episode and if parents are upset then that's their right. The tv channel should not be pandering to bigotry.

If the character and his husband feature in later episodes are they going to censor it too?

Honestly, I'm just surprised they're still making new episodes of Arthur.

That's been going on since I was a kid.

Maydona wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:There's no point, considering it's obvious you'll consider any position that is anti-SSM to be based upon hatred and bigotry. Even if it's mainly due to religious opposition as a result of trying to follow God's declarations on the matter because you happen to think that morality isn't entirely subjective.

Can you give an actual rational reason supported by evidence

This is where I'm going to stop you here, mon ami, so you don't waste your time. Full rationality is impossible and is itself irrational. I do not hold that all things in life are rational and make sense, plenty of things can and will not make sense. Sometimes it will though. And that is the flow I go with as it is the best way to maintain ones sanity.

Maydona wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:There's no point, considering it's obvious you'll consider any position that is anti-SSM to be based upon hatred and bigotry. Even if it's mainly due to religious opposition as a result of trying to follow God's declarations on the matter because you happen to think that morality isn't entirely subjective.

Can you give an actual rational reason supported by evidence why SSM is bad rather than making a faith-based argument? Not everyone shares the same faith and to argue on that ground wont further the discussion because you've gone into an argument with your mind already made up rather than analyzing new facts and evidence presented to you.

Explain to me the harmful or negative effects of a kid watching two fictional characters getting married.

Well, apparently Alabamians believe the faith based argument and that's their right to stand on that principle.

Neutraligon wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:I mean there isn't a solid case for that, but if a program made one and then a region of the USA said "No, we don't think that'd go down well here" and refused to air it on their channel I also wouldn't bat an eyelash over it.

So what if there is not a solid case for that, it is an opinion people hold due to religious reasons. Would you bat an eye at a program that simply had a scene of an interracial marriage and the publicly funded channel refused to air it simply because it had that scene in it?

Personally? Probably, but that's because I consider racism to be great big no no, with little moral backing behind it. Then again, if it was in an area that was notoriously racist, I'd probably work on changing their views before trying to shove that stuff down their throats, given the huge backlash it can and probably would produce. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc etc. Further, regarding my assmaditry, it would depend on if there was a complete ban by any channel as ordered by the state government, which would be actual censorship.

Unless you're willing to admit that Youtube refusing to allow Richard Spencer videos on its channel is also censorship. Considering censorship is wrong, right?