LVNSD would be much more informative than “Rated R,” or, “PG-13.”
- L - Language
- V - Violence
- N - Nudity
- S - Sex
- D - Drug use
- B - Blasphemy
Let’s include recommended age at the end, so theaters can know whom to exclude (legal reasons):
Family Guy LVNDB-18
Dexter’s Lab V-8
Looney Toons VD-8
Telly Tubbies 0
LOL at blasphemy.
I feel the same, but the US literally outlaws it on TV.
Take a look at 31: https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-68-words-you-cant-say-on-tv
54 being 69 hurts my brain
Jesus Christ what a Goddamn backward shithole.
39 what a 31 backwards 53hole.
It’s ridiculous how some people disregard things like blasphemy. You’d think Atheists who believe in science would know better at least.
I am religious but not in an extreme way. I don’t care what is shown or what others think.
But if something on TV is blasphemous, it would upset A LOT of people. That isn’t an opinion, it is simply a fact, like it or not.
If the majority of the world is going to be religious, it will have to be catered to, or else a lot of people will make a fuss.
If you want to protect other people’s hurt feelings so much to include “they made fun of my sky-owner!”, then you’d surely want to include Vegans, trans, blind, gay, onelegged and people with allergies…
Or is it just about YOUR feelings that are important for the rest of the world to pamper? 😉
What do atheists have to do with this? You can find at least two people who disagree on where the line is in the same church/temple/etc, much less the same religion. Hell, I know people who sit on the same pew and disagree on K-POP Demon Hunters. Taking the position that it’s all made up as they go sounds like they are the ones who know better. Just ask everyone who believes in a god to come to an agreement. Or take the easy route and slap a B on everything.
I find most things are generally just not offensive at all when it comes to religion just because they don’t include anything relating to it anyway.
Sure you can just slap a B on everything and it’ll sorta agree with what I originally said, in a way, except needlessly alienate some people? Is media not made for profit and trying to please as many consumers as possible?
Although, I guess it’ll trigger some of these people replying to my comments who like to go off at the mention of any religion lol
The flip side to your argument is what would be decided as blasphemy. A Mormon blasphemy could be different than a Catholic blasphemy but under the same warning.
We’re simply talking about a warning here, so I’d say for anything considered offensive to any religion?
It’s annoying watching a movie, just to have the more extreme religious people around you getting offended and going on a rant.
It would be great if it was more openly advertised so you could say “why are you watching it, if you’re just gonna get offended?” Pretty much the same as violence and sex.
If magic wands earn the same warning label as depictions of Mohammed the warning label is useless.
So you’re going to have to flag Teletubbies as blasphemous, since Jerry Falwell publicly condemned the show due to Tinky Winky.
If you’re just going to find any religious nutso to make your argument, I don’t think you’re really arguing in good faith.
I watched the Teletubies a lot in my teenage years with my baby sister and there was no mention of religion I can remember. Someone guy carrying a handbag is offensive to homophobes, nothing to do with religion at all.
This whole topic was about adding a B as part of warnings for media, to specifically warn people that might be upset if it happens to specifically be offensive about religion. I don’t see why that could be a bad thing when a quick Google search is saying 85% of the world is identifying as religious.
The problem is you’re counting on the censors to be reasonable, unbiased and even-handed with these judgments. The reality is, they won’t be like that - at least not 100% of the time. They can and will be influenced to slap the label on simply because the powers that be don’t like something, and give “blasphemy” as an excuse. Now, all of a sudden, you have a biased ratings system creating new cultural issues and inflaming tensions that didn’t exist before.
My opinion on this is simple - if you don’t like it, don’t watch it. If you have children and you care about monitoring their media diet, review media first before they consume it. That should be the parents’ call, not outsourced to a ratings/censorship group that can be influenced. If you’re part of a religious group who makes recommendations against certain pieces of media, that’s fine if you want to follow your group, but those classifications should not have any bearing on the rest of society outside of that group. And finally, governments should have no business declaring what is and isn’t blasphemy - everything is blasphemous to someone, and it could never be fully inclusive to all belief systems.
But there is no censorship of media being suggested here.
Simply a warning at the start of the movie to say “If you don’t like that it could be considered blasphemous, then don’t watch it” same for your kids or whatever.
This may seem a bit different, but it’s the only example I can think of to explain my view. I’m into True Crime podcasts, but often, if the podcast includes crimes against children, there will be special warnings ahead of every episode. Simply because it upsets a lot of people and they don’t want to hear it.
I hold the view that wether you agree or not with another persons views, there is no need to be offensive.
Adding a letter in front of a movie that says “this may be offensive to anyone with the well known religious beliefs” hurts nobody.
Jerry Falwell was a significant Baptist pastor who had a large congregation. He founded a college and also was a significant conservative activist. You could say he was problematic, but he was a significant religious leader.
I don’t know about him but it doesn’t change what I originally said.
Billions of people are religious, if they were all so problematic, the world would not function as it does now.
The reality is most people are quietly following their religion alone at home. Some crazy guy is gonna be louder and more on TV, but that doesn’t mean he represents all.
It’s really funny when you look at “leftist” Americans for example. They say they didn’t vote for Trump so don’t judge them for his actions, but they ignore that no religious people got to vote for any of those radical and loud few in a position of power either.
You dismissed a highly ranked and influential religious leader because you didn’t agree with the take. This isn’t a crank, but someone who had a large congregation and was influential in one of the larger religious organizations in the USA. It goes back to my argument of defining blasphemy. If a major pastor says something is is blasphemous, did that require a warning?
Violence, drug use, nudity exist, unlike your magic man in the sky.
Of course some will argue this, but it’s a belief at best.
And no you have no right to ask me to cater to your beliefs.
All these religions have their quirks and things not to do.
Can’t drink alcohol, can’t do shit on Saturday, wear this or that only for this occasion, can’t open a jar of pickles on your toilet, etc…
If someone from their own cult doesn’t do this, or say something about them, they can complain to them.
For the rest of the world it doesn’t exist and don’t need to be bothered with it.
Religions and cults imposing their ways on non-believers are a known part of history.
They have literally killed for it.
It is a matter of principle to not give in to any infringements of personal freedom.
No matter how little effort it would take.
I don’t care if that upsets you.
the majority of the world is unfortunately.
But “you have to bend because there’s more of us” is not an argument.
It is obnoxious at best if not threatening.
It’s a small step from “don’t say something bad about our invention you have nothing to do with” towards “follow these rules of our invention you have nothing to do with”
I find arguments like this a bit silly. I believe that religion has to be confined to personal life, and religious harm has to be reduced through a socialist government, but religious people killing others is an idealist argument. Religious people didn’t just kill because of ideals, but rather because of the material reality that gave rise to their religion. I personally believe that religion, like the state, might wither away through socialism, but just like the state, it’s about handling class contradictions and engaging through a historical and materialist lens, else we’re just being idealistic ourselves. Not only that, but practically speaking many of our comrades are religious, as long as they agree with us on examining society through diamat and commit to reducing religious harm, I don’t care if they pray or not. Let their religious views inspire them towards positive change, and influence their own religious communities through organizing.