Carboys Desire wrote:
I'm watching the closing monologue now. Methinks DrWH2.0 must be a Michael Jackson fan.
Actually more of a Dark Knight fan. He actually made a good correlation between Americas zeitgeist and Jackson mania, it's his other attempts at commentary that I dislike.
Carboys Desire wrote:
Huh?
Reality tv, rap music, and Paris Hilton are part of popular culture. Each of the three have elements that also contribute to moral decay and if you pretend to not understand that then perhaps you have already been affected--I don't know. These things do not affect me as I had my head screwed on straight (at least in my mind) and tight before these three things came into mass appeal. But I am very happy to not have to raise a child with these cultural influences.
At 44, am I just getting old? Maybe, but that's my opinion. Just as you think Bill Maher contributes to the problem, I think there are many more things that are worse contributors.
Like these. If you find Reality TV or Rap music aesthetically unappealing or inherently "bad", you can't take it for granted. What pragmatic effects do these items actually have on the general culture? And why are you assuming that culture is nothing but a bunch of individual contributions and not a collage? I left out Paris Hilton because I truly, honestly am indifferent towards her. I meant it when I said I had no idea who she was until I heard someone complain about her.
As for Bill Maher, I never said he was a larger problem than any of your examples above. I said he contributed to cultural decay, if that in fact exists. Inadverently maybe, but he and people like him contribute nothing but arbitrary nonsense and call it "commentary". To use the aforementioned Paris Hilton example, what does she contribute to society? I say, what does Maher contribute? Pragmatically speaking, nothing.
It doesn't have to do with age as much as philosophy. You say that certain things are inherently bad or immoral, so the burden of proof is on you.
