Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry?

[Bobby]

The ABC brainwash our kids using a transvestite called Courtney Act.

We pay for that with our taxes.

[Bogan]

Awww, shucks.

[UnSubRocky]

Okay, so you admit that you work, or you wish to work, as a writer for the entertainment industries? And you do not want your creative style cramped by censorship? Well, all I can say is, that this conforms to one of my premises, that the people most opposed to the censorship of the entertainment industries are those who work within the industry itself. And it also confirms my premise, that it is impossible to make anybody understand anything, if their job depends upon not understanding it. Now, your ability to completely ignore the avalanche of facts I have submitted proving that your opinion is wrong, including scientific evidence, makes sense.

I have an interest in writing a story about a thriller narrative that I think would be culturally significant to Australians. I do not work in the entertainment industry. Though, I may become interested in writing screenplays if my work is up to standard.

I do not mind censorship. Censorship is needed when something onscreen is so deplorable it needs to be removed from future viewing. Some movies I have watched at the cinema have been edited for dvd/blu-ray and televised releases. Although I still have the unedited version of "Hannibal" in my collection. Child killing, beheadings, bestiality, etc., are basically cut from public viewing. Although, the implied off screen depiction of such activity is generally left in the movie, if the subject matter is part of the narrative.

I actually believe that censorship does have its advantages. It leaves the viewer to make up their own interpretation of what happened in the story. If you have ever watched that Star Wars movie, you would have watched the part where planet Alderaan gets destroyed by the Death Star. You are not to feel much sorrow for the people of the planet, as the storyline is obviously fictional. Forty years later, someone made a depiction of what the people of Alderaan were doing in the lead up to their planet being destroyed. In one sense, it heightened the sense of loss that Star Wars fans had. In another sense, it took away the viewer's own interpretation of what happened on the planet. But, that is a debate upon a movie theme that I have long outgrown.

You seem to be denigrating me by inferring that I am a "keyboard warrior"? I am a typical (stereotypical) loner gun nut racist and my social skills have always been very poor. But I have a couple of talents. One is, a lifelong interest in Psychology (probably to offset my miserable social skills) and, I am very good at expressing myself in writing (even though I am poorly educated and my grammar and punctuation is all over the shop). When dealing with the problems that affect me it is natural that I use my writing skills to express my opinions. So, I reject your implication that I am some sort of weak "keyboard warrior", if that is what you were implying. If you think that writing reasoned arguments in on line debate sites is a form of weakness, then what are you doing here?

I also have an interest in psychology. I figure that I am intermediately-skilled in the topic. And my knowledge of body language is quite good. I however have a problem in expressing my thoughts into words. That might hinder my writing when I get back to doing my stories.

I do not know you -- at least I do not think I know you. So, I cannot make judgements about you until I get to know you. However, you have given me the impression that you exhibit some kind of sociopathy. But, that might be a bit harsh in interpretations of character. Mental health professionals have told me that I am obsessive-compulsive traits and I like to be reclusive.

I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I called or implied that you were a keyboard warrior. "Keyboard warriors" are those people that use the safety and anonymity of the internet to post aggressively what they are too cowardly to say in person to another. At the moment, you have only lumped me in with the entertainment industry, implying that I am trying to defend them. I really do not care one way or the other about the credibility of the entertainment industry. I just know that they are scapegoats for problems of society in which gun advocates try to shift the blame.

I think that the "horror" movie genre is like the "superhero" genre, it has been done to death, and it only appeals to adolescents. As such, it can seriously affect their behaviour. I understand that I am telling you what you do not want to know.

The horror movie genre is probably a diverse topic that has yet to fully realise its potential. You can come across movies like "The Shining" and "Hereditary" and even the Aussie movie "The Babadook" as movies that lead the way in how horror movies should be portrayed. Teens might like horror movies as a way of expressing a kind of rebellion. But, adults watch horror movies to look closely at the narrative surrounding the story itself. I would find it pointless not to think that there is more to the horror movie story than what is onscreen. Otherwise, I would watch the movie once and then never again.

R rated high school slasher movies have been produced starring teen idols, as well as movies about violent youth gangs which feature teenage pop stars. The appeal of these movies is obviously to teenagers and adolescents. Filmmakers know that adolescents and young teenagers are their main customers for these movies, which mix sex with exceptional scenes of violence, gore and gruesomeness. These films have become a favourite among children, who are dared by their peers to see if they can stomach the content. This demonstrates just how ineffective the entire film classification system is.

Possibly the only teen slasher movies I have in my collection are the Scream films and the Friday the 13th movies. I do have the Child's Play collection available. After I finish my television sitcom binge-watching, I am going to start the horror movie binge-watch. September to November is the horror movie viewing. Having done this tradition last year and the year before, I have empirical evidence that the effect of watching horror movies for long period of times has me feeling more motivated to get fit and I also have more motivation to study.

If a child wishes to see the R rated "slice and dice" movie SCREAM, it is easy to circumvent adult controls. This is aided by the layout of modern, multi screen movie theatres. After buying the ticket at the counter, they hand their ticket to a teenage usher and slip into the darkened alcove of the foyer. From there it is easy to slip into whichever movie they wish to see. An adult who actually went to see the R rated cartoon show SOUTH PARK, reported in the Sydney Daily Telegraph letters column, that the audience seemed entirely composed of children.

I have actually changed movie theatres simply because I did not want to finish the disastrous movie I was watching that afternoon. I waited until the session time of another movie I chose to watch was to begin. Then I left the theatre I was in and found the movie theatre that was about to play the movie. The South Park movie was full of children watching, because South Park had a following of children and teenagers. When a friend of mine and I went to see the movie, his mother's friend asked him if he could chaperone her 12-year-old daughter into the theatre because of the MA rating would not allow the child to watch. Compared to the television series, South Park the movie was a musical which featured a considerable amount of unedited explicit language and sexual references. I picked up a copy of the dvd for $2 and rewatched it for the first time in a long time. If school aged children became traumatised by seeing that movie, they probably have had everything handed to them and sheltered from the world.

As for the movie Scream, I actually do want to outgore that movie. One part of my story involves campers getting stalked by a group of antagonists, where one victim falls prey to the elements of their camping site. But, this is not a Friday the 13th rip-off.

Ironically, Scream parodies the horror movie genre. I have just purchased a dvd copy of the last featured Scream movies. It is screamingly obvious (pun intended) that the makers of the movies wanted to poke fun at the art imitating life or life imitating art debate. The first movie claimed that the antagonists were hero homicidalists who wanted to push the idea that they would have a movie made about them as the only survivors of a serial killing. Of course, their motivations were revenge driven to try and set up the main character for the murders in response to her mother breaking up the family of the antagonist.

Wes Craven, who directed a few Scream movies, directed the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. I do not know where you get the idea that the movie is for children. But, would you not feel a bit of sympathy for the characters killed in this movie? The main effect that viewers of these kinds of movies have after watching them is getting the idea of the possibility that people like this exist. I do not know what kind of troubled upbringing you have had, but I have been the victim of abuse from childhood up until my adulthood. Even though the real life experience of the abuse has been a learning experience where I have developed coping skills for the problems I have witnessed and experienced. Any usual problems that we all face as adults seem to be well within my capability to overcome, by comparison. But, if I had been exposed to antisocial behaviour through the medium of televison or video at a young age, I probably would have grown up coping with adulthood a lot better.

The most frightening thing about these movies is that adults have been known to vomit in these shows or just get up and walk out feeling ill. But the kids of today think that they are great, and they can laugh right through the entire movie. This clearly shows the degree to which children today are already desensitised to violence.

I would suggest that any adult that cannot handle any movies screened in theatres to the point that they walk out or vomit are probably the type of people that would be helpless during a natural disaster. Australian censorship is quite strict on what can be depicted in movies and television shows. I have already had issues with facebook about their oversensitive responses to what is shown online. When an Al Quaeda leader was killed in a drone strike recently, I joked "What? GW Bush is dead?". That got my post removed and a 48 hour muting from the group. From what I understand, the implication that GW Bush is part of Al Quaeda's hierarchy goes against what the media want to have us believe. It seems that the rather mild heckle I gave the former president is too much for Australian media standards. So, I cannot understand how you come to find adults ready to throw up or leave the theatres when confronting horror movie content is displayed. If the movie content was too deplorable, Australian censors would have yeeted the movie from ever being broadcast.

In NSW, teaching is becoming an exclusively female profession. The NSW Education Department, has stated that males are shunning the profession, because they fear the consequences of being accused of vexatious sexual molestation charges by children.

I am not going to doubt you that males are not going into professions of teaching because they are worried about sexual molestation accusations. But the pay that teachers get is quite modest, considering the work hours that they have to do in school and after school. Their 40 work school life is more like 48 weeks of work for about 8 or more hours a day. I do not know how many weeks of paid leave they get per year. And if you are a chemistry, biology, or mathematics graduate, you are more likely to end up wanting to do a career in industries that pay more for less working hours.

In video stores, adult controls are easily avoided as the store is often under the supervision of a teenager. Some stores may strictly enforce classification standards but others do not. But it is those stores that do hire R rated video's to children, that are most likely to be in depressed areas where the parents are more likely to be either neglectful, or through circumstance, are unable to properly supervise their kids. Kids from these areas are the ones most at risk from being affected by the saturation of sex, drugs, violence and profanity.

What exactly is your point? People from depressed areas tend not to be motivated to do well in life. Those upwardly mobile individuals tend to get some way out of poverty. What they see on television has little impact on their lives to the point that they can scoff at the depictions of mindlessness. Even the dumbest of people roll their eyes when they see nonsense on television. I have seen plenty of that on facebook. The implication from witnessing rubbish is to busy myself with better things to do.

It has been speculated, that the profusion of violent heroes in the latest R rated action movies, has come about for the sole reason that toy makers like MATTEL can sell multiple dolls and figurines for each movie. So for the X-MEN movie, kids must buy WOLVERINE, KRULL, TUSK, LOGAN, TOAD, ROGUE and MAGNETO. ACTION MAN is a movie that seems to have been produced for no other reason than to sell toys. Not only are there various ACTION MAN dolls, but ACTION MAN hovercraft, BMX bike, go cart, moon buggy, jet ski, jeep, submarine, space explorer, canoe, gyrocopter,survival base, skateboard and assault vehicle. In addition there is a wide range of costumes and uniforms, plus a plethora of military equipment and weapons.

I think you are a little off track here. Adults too buy toys and other kinds of merchandise in response to their approval of a tv show or movie related to the brand. And when you bring up Marvel themed movies, all credibility goes out the window. Not one of the actors showed a great deal of dedication to portraying a realistic type character for their role. I watched all of the Avenger themed movies and could not think of any way these guys were inspiring anyone to do anything bad. I doubt that I have ever been so bored by movies that have a production budget of $100 million+ per movie. I only see them for what they are: popcorn flicks.

If you wish to write a horror movie, USR, could I recommend that you have lots of characters the toy manufactures can make dolls and toys out of? You can then rest assured that your movie will be a endorsed by the toy manufactures, who are mates with the movie industry, and your script will be a success. Your belief that movies do not affect behaviour, is easily countered by the fact that every civilised country on planet earth has movie and computer game classification standards to protect children, because they know that you are wrong.

Well, considering that my proposed story is about Australian urban legends, I would be confident that Screen Australia could get involved with manufacturing the toys. And whilst my future movie might be rated R18+ because of the violence and gore, I would rest assured that the audience will not come away from viewing the film with evil intentions.

[Bogan]

USR quote

I have an interest in writing a story about a thriller narrative that I think would be culturally significant to Australians. I do not work in the entertainment industry. Though, I may become interested in writing screenplays if my work is up to standard.

Standards today are pretty low. You just have to write a script where a beautiful female lead takes her clothes off, and is just as violent as her handsome male co star and his ethnic minority side kick. Add in lots of explosions, bullets bursting through bodies, and lots of "product placement" where certain brands are displayed, and you will be a shoo in.

USR wrote

I do not mind censorship. Censorship is needed when something onscreen is so deplorable it needs to be removed from future viewing. Some movies I have watched at the cinema have been edited for dvd/blu-ray and televised releases. Although I still have the unedited version of "Hannibal" in my collection. Child killing, beheadings, bestiality, etc., are basically cut from public viewing. Although, the implied off screen depiction of such activity is generally left in the movie, if the subject matter is part of the narrative.

Actually, censorship of the entertainment industries already exists in the form of movie and computer games classification. This is because most people do recognise that the entertainment industries can affect children's behaviour. But by some process of doublethink, these same people refuse to recognise that it can also affect adult behaviour. Especially with those "adults" who's mental age is a lot lower then their chronological age.

USR wrote

I actually believe that censorship does have its advantages. It leaves the viewer to make up their own interpretation of what happened in the story. If you have ever watched that Star Wars movie, you would have watched the part where planet Alderaan gets destroyed by the Death Star. You are not to feel much sorrow for the people of the planet, as the storyline is obviously fictional. Forty years later, someone made a depiction of what the people of Alderaan were doing in the lead up to their planet being destroyed. In one sense, it heightened the sense of loss that Star Wars fans had. In another sense, it took away the viewer's own interpretation of what happened on the planet. But, that is a debate upon a movie theme that I have long outgrow,

Movies, and indeed all entertainment medium, can affect people's behaviour. When my friend, his wife, and their thee young daughters, watched the kids animated movie CHICKEN RUN which showed chickens being killed for the farmer's dinner, his daughters refused to eat any more chicken meat.

USR

I also have an interest in psychology.

Then the fact that the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, The American Paediatric Association, and the American Medical Association, issued a historic joint statement declaring in the plainest terms that on screen violence was directly associated with real life violence, should have got you thinking straight. One may wonder why it didn't?

USR wrote

I figure that I am intermediately-skilled in the topic. And my knowledge of body language is quite good. I however have a problem in expressing my thoughts into words. That might hinder my writing when I get back to doing my stories.

I have trouble expressing myself orally, but I am very good at expressing myself through the written word.

USR wrote

I do not know you -- at least I do not think I know you. So, I cannot make judgements about you until I get to know you. However, you have given me the impression that you exhibit some kind of sociopathy. But, that might be a bit harsh in interpretations of character. Mental health professionals have told me that I am obsessive-compulsive traits and I like to be reclusive.

I have not psychoanalysed you either. But I think you are an interesting case. I think your problem with understanding how the entertainment industry affects people's behaviour, is because you unconsciously identify with that industry, and you seek to protect it?

USR quote

I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I called or implied that you were a keyboard warrior. "Keyboard warriors" are those people that use the safety and anonymity of the internet to post aggressively what they are too cowardly to say in person to another.

Well, quite obviously, such a category could be applied to anyone who posts on debate sites.

USR wrote

At the moment, you have only lumped me in with the entertainment industry, implying that I am trying to defend them. I really do not care one way or the other about the credibility of the entertainment industry.

Then put aside your conscious (or unconscious) need to defend this industry and start thinking straight. I have submitted an avalanche of facts to you which clearly displays the connection between the entertainment industries, it's connection to culture, and the way culture guides people's behaviour. You should have reached a tipping point by now.

You are acting exactly like the people I confront on other debate sites who really do believe that the earth is flat (yes, really) or who think that Darwin's Origin of Species and Evolution is a commie plot. You can not reason with such people. They have a deep psychological need to believe in what they do. If you were able to change their minds, their whole value system which they use to evaluate the world around them, would be destroyed, and they would be unable to understand the world around them.

U

SR

I just know that they are scapegoats for problems of society in which gun advocates try to shift the blame.

While I am defending firearms from the problems in society in which the protectors of media excesses try to scapegoat onto gun owners.

USR wrote

I have actually changed movie theatres simply because I did not want to finish the disastrous movie I was watching that afternoon. I waited until the session time of another movie I chose to watch was to begin. Then I left the theatre I was in and found the movie theatre that was about to play the movie. The South Park movie was full of children watching, because South Park had a following of children and teenagers. When a friend of mine and I went to see the movie, his mother's friend asked him if he could chaperone her 12-year-old daughter into the theatre because of the MA rating would not allow the child to watch. Compared to the television series, South Park the movie was a musical which featured a considerable amount of unedited explicit language and sexual references. I picked up a copy of the dvd for $2 and rewatched it for the first time in a long time. If school aged children became traumatised by seeing that movie, they probably have had everything handed to them and sheltered from the world.

As for the movie Scream, I actually do want to outgore that movie. One part of my story involves campers getting stalked by a group of antagonists, where one victim falls prey to the elements of their camping site. But, this is not a Friday the 13th rip-off.

Ironically, Scream parodies the horror movie genre. I have just purchased a dvd copy of the last featured Scream movies. It is screamingly obvious (pun intended) that the makers of the movies wanted to poke fun at the art imitating life or life imitating art debate. The first movie claimed that the antagonists were hero homicidalists who wanted to push the idea that they would have a movie made about them as the only survivors of a serial killing. Of course, their motivations were revenge driven to try and set up the main character for the murders in response to her mother breaking up the family of the antagonist.

Wes Craven, who directed a few Scream movies, directed the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. I do not know where you get the idea that the movie is for children. But, would you not feel a bit of sympathy for the characters killed in this movie? The main effect that viewers of these kinds of movies have after watching them is getting the idea of the possibility that people like this exist. I do not know what kind of troubled upbringing you have had, but I have been the victim of abuse from childhood up until my adulthood. Even though the real life experience of the abuse has been a learning experience where I have developed coping skills for the problems I have witnessed and experienced. Any usual problems that we all face as adults seem to be well within my capability to overcome, by comparison. But, if I had been exposed to antisocial behaviour through the medium of televison or video at a young age, I probably would have grown up coping with adulthood a lot better.

Thank you for confirming my premise that children find it easy to circumvent the movie classification system, which is meant to protect them from being influenced by movies featuring extreme violence, sexual themes, and the idea that committing serious crimes can be fun. Your claim that children must lead sheltered lives if they can't handle it, is countered by the fact that every single civilised country in the world has a classification system to protect kids. It is as obvious as the nose on your face that children can be affected by what they see on movies, cartoons, and on TV. This is why it is absolutely disgusting for the entertainment industries to target children for media which deliberately confront them with images which can harm their social development.

Just like the tobacco industry, the entertainment industry is turning into a vice industry aimed mainly at the young and immature. In the same way that Joe Camel beckoned children to smoke, the entertainment industry is producing movies, games and music, that the industry itself rates as unsuitable for children. It then markets these products in ways that appeal to kids. Ads have appeared in computer gaming magazines popular with teenagers, promoting R rated violent games with the lines, "Let the slaughter begin", "As easy as killing babies with axes", "More fun than shooting your neighbors cat''," Kill your friends, guilt free". An advertisement for RESIDENT EVIL 2, a computer game rated only for adults, was displayed in the magazine SPORTS ILLUSTRATED FOR KIDS. It is interesting to speculate on the furore that would have ensued, if advertisements promoting cigarettes, alcohol or handguns had appeared in a kid's magazine.

In the United States, research by the Federal Trade Commission, found that advertising for explicit content music recordings, routinely appeared on popular teen television and radio programming. All five major recording companies placed advertising for explicit content music on television programs, and in magazines with substantial under 17's audiences. While liberals scream about internet censorship, the internet is increasingly being used by music promoters to allow children to sidestep parental controls. Music with deeply offensive lyrics can be downloaded using MP3 and Napstar technology.

The much criticised R rated (rated MA in Australia) SOUTH PARK, is a vulgar cartoon show produced entirely for young children. I say young children, because even teenagers would have to be bored and repelled by it's stilted graphics, tedious format and puerile storylines. It relies entirely upon scatalogical humour and profanity to get any laughs at all, and could only appeal to adults who have an intelligence quotient somewhere around moron level. The marketing of this show clearly indicates that it an R rated show aimed at kids. It is promoted by a line of toys, including DEAD KENNY dolls and other SOUTH PARK character figurines. The characters are also emblazoned on children's lunch boxes, stationary and clothing. The show was even extensively promoted on TV during peak times for children's viewing.

One SOUTH PARK episode MECHA STREISAND, depicted the character Kenny fooling around with a rope. Two boys, one aged 10 and the other 11, accidently strangled themselves to death in the US, in separate incidents, imitating the rope prank. One boy's mother, Antoinette Dockendorff, appealed to Comedy Central who produced the show, to pull the scene right out of the episode before any more kids killed themselves. But Comedy Central refused. When the SOUTH PARK movie , BIGGER, LONGER, UNCUT, was released, it was a complete bomb. The R (rated MA in Australia) rated classification meant that the movie was clearly for adults only. But no adult in their right mind could watch it and not be bored to death. The pathetic adult attendance figures bore this premise out. So the creators of the show, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, then appeared on TV, advising kids how to sneak into the movie.

BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD is another R rated anti social TV show that is aimed at children.(rated MA in Australia) Like SOUTH PARK it's format and graphics are so primitive that no halfway intelligent adult could watch more than an episode or two, without switching off the TV in bewilderment. It is presented in the usual high school setting which appeals to kids, and the heroes are two cretinous, sociopathic high school boys. These boys harass girls, torture animals, start fires, steal, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, commit acts of vandalism, sniff paint thinners and engage in various acts of criminality and stupidity. No society that considers itself enlightened would expose it's children to images like that.

In one episode, the two hooligan heroes drop a bowling ball off a high building to see the effects. On February 9, 1994, within days of the episode being shown, one or more youths dropped a bowling ball off a highway overpass in California. The ball smashed through the windscreen of a moving family car and killed a toddler sitting in the back seat. Such stupid behaviour has also been seen in Australia. A group of youths killed a young married semi trailer driver who's wife had just given birth, when they dropped a large rock on his truck from a highway over pass. The rock smashed through the windscreen, killing the young father and almost killing more people when the now driverless 38 ton truck and it's load truck went out of control on the highway.

Similarly, a five year old boy who's mother admitted that he was a BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD fanatic, set his home on fire after watching an episode where the two schoolboys commit an act of arson. His two year old sister was burned to death.

USR wrote

I would suggest that any adult that cannot handle any movies screened in theatres to the point that they walk out or vomit are probably the type of people that would be helpless during a natural disaster.

Even if you were right, (which I doubt) there is nothing wrong about normal human beings being repulsed by images of extreme violence. I myself refuse to watch slasher movies or any other medium which is gory and too violent. I find them puerile, and I wonder about the mental equilibrium of people who have a fascination with such images.

USR wrote

Australian censorship is quite strict on what can be depicted in movies and television shows.

While I do not think that they are anywhere near strict enough.

USR wrote

I have already had issues with facebook about their oversensitive responses to what is shown online. When an Al Quaeda leader was killed in a drone strike recently, I joked "What? GW Bush is dead?". That got my post removed and a 48 hour muting from the group. From what I understand, the implication that GW Bush is part of Al Quaeda's hierarchy goes against what the media want to have us believe. It seems that the rather mild heckle I gave the former president is too much for Australian media standards. So, I cannot understand how you come to find adults ready to throw up or leave the theatres when confronting horror movie content is displayed. If the movie content was too deplorable, Australian censors would have yeeted the movie from ever being broadcast.

I disagree completely with political censorship.

USR quote

What exactly is your point? People from depressed areas tend not to be motivated to do well in life. Those upwardly mobile individuals tend to get some way out of poverty. What they see on television has little impact on their lives to the point that they can scoff at the depictions of mindlessness. Even the dumbest of people roll their eyes when they see nonsense on television. I have seen plenty of that on facebook. The implication from witnessing rubbish is to busy myself with better things to do.

The point is, that classifications standards exist because even people with your overly liberal attitudes to entertainment industry censorship can understand that children need to be protected from images which adults see as entertainment, but which they see as a script for how to be an adult, or just a funny kid. THAT is why it is so reprehensible for the entertainment industries to create TV shows which are obviously aimed at kids, which teaches kids that engaging in serious criminal behaviour is a fun thing to do.

I am utterly amazed that you refuse to make this self evident connection. Maybe when you get married, and the police ring you up one day and say that your son just killed a truck driver by dropping a brick on his truck from a highway overpass, you might make the connection?

USR wrote

I think you are a little off track here. Adults too buy toys and other kinds of merchandise in response to their approval of a tv show or movie related to the brand. And when you bring up Marvel themed movies, all credibility goes out the window. Not one of the actors showed a great deal of dedication to portraying a realistic type character for their role. I watched all of the Avenger themed movies and could not think of any way these guys were inspiring anyone to do anything bad. I doubt that I have ever been so bored by movies that have a production budget of $100 million+ per movie. I only see them for what they are: popcorn flicks.

Once again, you refuse to see the obvious connection. Toy manufacturing is a $100 billion dollar pa industry, and there is a suspicion that most violent and criminal behaviour endorsing movies and TV shows, which feature a number of role model characters, are deliberately being sponsored by the toy industry as a means of getting kids to buy toys. Toys where they can act out the on screen violence of the on screen heroes. Children's "play" is a means by which children "practice" acting out normal social interactions. If you let children act out using violence as a means of social interaction in normal situations, well gee willackers USR, isn't that a very good explanation as to why children, and "adults" who still possess the brains of children, are today committing very serious acts of violent criminal behaviour?

USR wrote

Well, considering that my proposed story is about Australian urban legends, I would be confident that Screen Australia could get involved with manufacturing the toys. And whilst my future movie might be rated R18+ because of the violence and gore, I would rest assured that the audience will not come away from viewing the film with evil intentions.

Along with your female lead running around naked, (or in her tight fitting knickers) and her male hero co star and his obligatory ethnic mate, kicking the ever lovin' shit out of anybody who crosses them, don't forget to put in a scene where your role model hero gets his kicks dropping bricks from highway overpasses. And also, don't forget to add a scene where a bunch of kids have fun by setting houses on fire, and then have fun by torturing another kid to death. Especially if you can figure out a way to make the characters into dolls so that the kids can play at being murderers and sociopaths. Add a few scenes of people getting shot and bullet bursting through their bodies, and a few explosions, and you will have a blockbuster.

[UnSubRocky]

You want the full story? I was coming home from a club rabbit hunt near Wagga Wagga in my old G60 hunting car, when I wondered why everybody was looking at me askance, everywhere I went. It was only when I got home that I found out that Martin Bryant had massacred 35 people, including two little kids, and seriously wounded a couple of dozen more.

As usual, the fake news press attacked guns and gun owners as the reason for the growing problem of massacres, both in Australia and overseas. I genuinely thought that this was a load of crap. The central question which nobody in the media would ask, was why was it that this sort of behaviour had never happened previously, when firearm laws were almost non existent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia

You will find that gun massacres (and massacres in general) occurred many times throughout history. And most massacres occurred before the invention or widespread usage of television. The frontier wars in Australia in particular occurred as a result of the revenge tactics settlers had on indigenous people who had killed settler families -- citation pending. In centuries to come, indigenous people were rounded up and put into townships specifically for them. Unfortunately, some tribal members were mixed in with other tribal members. Fights ensued -- citation pending. You would not be betting that television encouraged that sort of chaos.

There is so much wrong with blaming the media instead of the liberal gun laws. For instance, we have seen a 15-year success in reducing gun massacres in Australia until the year 2011. Whereas, liberal gun laws in the United States have seen weekly gun massacres occur. Had we introduced the concept to allege that the media was soliciting violence, we would have added strict media controls (even though they are already strict) alongside making it illegal to have a firearm for your ownership. The irony of trying to blame media for violence in society only compounds the need for stricter gun laws -- not to deflect it.

[Bogan]

U

SR wrote

You will find that gun massacres (and massacres in general) occurred many times throughout history. And most massacres occurred before the invention or widespread usage of television. The frontier wars in Australia in particular occurred as a result of the revenge tactics settlers had on indigenous people who had killed settler families -- citation pending. In centuries to come, indigenous people were rounded up and put into townships specifically for them. Unfortunately, some tribal members were mixed in with other tribal members. Fights ensued -- citation pending. You would not be betting that television encouraged that sort of chaos.

You are trying to equate frontier warfare by settlers against indigenous people with massacre type behaviour in the present day, where youths take guns to school and shoot their fellow students, or where people just massacre innocent people who have either done them no harm, or who the perpetrator thinks he has a genuine grievance against. I do not accept your premise. It looks like desperation to me.

USR quote

There is so much wrong with blaming the media instead of the liberal gun laws. For instance, we have seen a 15-year success in reducing gun massacres in Australia until the year 2011. Whereas, liberal gun laws in the United States have seen weekly gun massacres occur. Had we introduced the concept to allege that the media was soliciting violence, we would have added strict media controls (even though they are already strict) alongside making it illegal to have a firearm for your ownership. The irony of trying to blame media for violence in society only compounds the need for stricter gun laws -- not to deflect it.

I agree that strict gun laws have succeeded in reducing the incidence of firearm massacres, although an incident occurred in Queensland on two weeks ago where three people were murdered by their neighbour with a firearm, in a property boundary dispute. But other massacres have occurred. Who can forget the man who threw petrol into his wives car on the Gold Coast and who burned his wife and his three adorable toddler kids to death? Then there was the backpacker fire in Queensland where a disgruntled customer got his revenge on the hotel pub which ejected him, by lighting a fire in which 15 backpackers burned to death? Then there was the truck driver who drove his semi trailer into the pub in Alice Springs and killed 3 innocent patrons.

What we are seeing is revenge type behaviour. If our media glamourises cigarette smoking, people will smoke cigarettes. If the media glamourises illegal drug abuse, people will take illegal drugs. If our media glamourises violent ethnic street gang membership to disaffected (and low IQ) young ethnic males, surprise, surprise, these young me will become violent street gang members. If the media constantly reinforces the concept that revenge type behaviour is the distinguishing characteristic of a Real Man, then low IQ young males, who are poorly socialised, have low self esteem, live isolated existences often living in a world of fantasy, who are shunned and rediculed by their peers, who have deep grievances they are unable to act upon, and who so desperately want to be seen as Real Men, have just been handed a script by the entertainment media on how to achieve that particular goal in life.

[Bogan]

Whoops, farked that one up. I will correct and reposte it.

USR wrote

You will find that gun massacres (and massacres in general) occurred many times throughout history. And most massacres occurred before the invention or widespread usage of television. The frontier wars in Australia in particular occurred as a result of the revenge tactics settlers had on indigenous people who had killed settler families -- citation pending. In centuries to come, indigenous people were rounded up and put into townships specifically for them. Unfortunately, some tribal members were mixed in with other tribal members. Fights ensued -- citation pending. You would not be betting that television encouraged that sort of chaos.

You are trying to equate frontier warfare by settlers against indigenous people with massacre type behaviour in the present day, where youths take guns to school and shoot their fellow students, or where people just massacre innocent people who have either done them no harm, or who the perpetrator thinks he has a genuine grievance against. I do not accept your premise. It looks like desperation to me.

USR quote

There is so much wrong with blaming the media instead of the liberal gun laws. For instance, we have seen a 15-year success in reducing gun massacres in Australia until the year 2011. Whereas, liberal gun laws in the United States have seen weekly gun massacres occur. Had we introduced the concept to allege that the media was soliciting violence, we would have added strict media controls (even though they are already strict) alongside making it illegal to have a firearm for your ownership. The irony of trying to blame media for violence in society only compounds the need for stricter gun laws -- not to deflect it.

I agree that strict gun laws have succeeded in reducing the incidence of firearm massacres, although an incident occurred in Queensland on two weeks ago where three people were murdered by their neighbour with a firearm, in a property boundary dispute. But other massacres have occurred. Who can forget the man who threw petrol into his wives car on the Gold Coast and who burned his wife and his three adorable toddler kids to death? Then there was the backpacker fire in Queensland where a disgruntled customer got his revenge on the hotel pub which ejected him, by lighting a fire in which 15 backpackers burned to death? Then there was the truck driver who drove his semi trailer into the pub in Alice Springs and killed 3 innocent patrons.

What we are seeing is revenge type behaviour. If our media glamourises cigarette smoking, people will smoke cigarettes. If the media glamourises illegal drug abuse, people will take illegal drugs. If our media glamourises violent ethnic street gang membership to disaffected (and low IQ) young ethnic males, surprise, surprise, these young me will become violent street gang members. If the media constantly reinforces the concept that revenge type behaviour is the distinguishing characteristic of a Real Man, then low IQ young males, who are poorly socialised, have low self esteem, live isolated existences often living in a world of fantasy, who are shunned and reduced by their peers, who have deep grievances they are unable to act upon, and who so desperately want to be seen as Real Men, have just been handed a script by the entertainment media on how to achieve that goal in life.

[lisa jones]

Bogan...are you from Wagga Wagga? If so then I totally get why you opted for "Bogan" as your id

[UnSubRocky]

You are trying to equate frontier warfare by settlers against indigenous people with massacre type behaviour in the present day, where youths take guns to school and shoot their fellow students, or where people just massacre innocent people who have either done them no harm, or who the perpetrator thinks he has a genuine grievance against. I do not accept your premise. It looks like desperation to me.

We do not see youths go to school with guns and shoot their fellow students. That sort of demented activity is only noteworthy in the news for places like the USA. We do not see this happen in other countries, due to strict gun laws.

I agree that strict gun laws have succeeded in reducing the incidence of firearm massacres, although an incident occurred in Queensland on two weeks ago where three people were murdered by their neighbour with a firearm, in a property boundary dispute. But other massacres have occurred. Who can forget the man who threw petrol into his wives car on the Gold Coast and who burned his wife and his three adorable toddler kids to death? Then there was the backpacker fire in Queensland where a disgruntled customer got his revenge on the hotel pub which ejected him, by lighting a fire in which 15 backpackers burned to death? Then there was the truck driver who drove his semi trailer into the pub in Alice Springs and killed 3 innocent patrons.

The basic problem with your argument is that you are saying that the perpetrators would not have committed any crime had they not been watching media violence. That is a difficult premise to make. And I would compare that argument to the twinkie defence. The issue is why would it be only these people and not the rest of society who also watch tv and are subjected to objectionable content on tv? Is it because there is something wrong with the perpetrator whereas the rest of society are completely mature and stable enough to endure conflicts found in life?

What we are seeing is revenge type behaviour. If our media glamourises cigarette smoking, people will smoke cigarettes. If the media glamourises illegal drug abuse, people will take illegal drugs. If our media glamourises violent ethnic street gang membership to disaffected (and low IQ) young ethnic males, surprise, surprise, these young me will become violent street gang members. If the media constantly reinforces the concept that revenge type behaviour is the distinguishing characteristic of a Real Man, then low IQ young males, who are poorly socialised, have low self esteem, live isolated existences often living in a world of fantasy, who are shunned and reduced by their peers, who have deep grievances they are unable to act upon, and who so desperately want to be seen as Real Men, have just been handed a script by the entertainment media on how to achieve that goal in life.

What we are seeing is about 20 channels of free to air television playing and replaying news footage that shows someone having committed a heinous crime. The viewer is then given the impression that multiple crimes have happened in a short space of time because of the repeated playback of the news item or the video footage of the crime that had been committed. If anyone recalls staying up to watch the news reports of the September 11 attack in New York, the news coverage showed the plane hitting the second tower over and over again. When the towers fell, the news showed footage of the collapses over and over again. The viewer is given a false impression (although obvious that it is a repeat) that there have been multiple attacks (other than what was depicted on the news). And what was the effect from watching these terror events? Millions of Americans rolled up their sleaves to donate blood. They also donated food, water and other supplies to help in this emergency situation. And although there were elevated reports of attacks and threats against Muslim Americans, it was not as though other crime rates rose in the aftermath of the terror attacks.

In a scaled back transition to another topic, you brought up the topic of glamourisating cigarettes. Smoking has been glamourised in movies for many decades. However, as of recent decades, cigarette smoking has taken a tumble in popularity. Why? It is chiefly to do with the cost of cigarettes. People cannot afford to smoke these days because of the high taxation on the product. The solution is to quit smoking. The other main reason for the people quitting smoking is due to the health concerns. No amount of Kate Winslet or Leonardo di Caprio smoking will glamourise smoking enough to arrest the decline in smoking rates.

For someone like me, I happen to be a drinker. Scotch mainly. But, I was a bourbon drinker back in the day. When a character in a movie said "Hey buddy... make mine a bourbon", I was not more inclined to drink a bourbon, given that I was already a bourbon drinker. But, when a (relatively) famous actor I met in person asked me to try a scotch (one from one of his, then, $150 bottles of scotch), I gave it a whirl. I switched over from bourbon to scotch drinking that week. The only thing that got me to cut down. Weight gain. The weight gain lead me to diabetes and other related health concerns. And having read up on details about what alcoholism could do to you, I went from drinking at least once a week to about once a fortnight. And then long periods of sobriety. Now, no amount of glamourisation of alcohol will get me to drink when I do not want to drink.

[UnSubRocky]

Citation pending for the comments about September 11.