Jackass

I can think of two reasons:

1. The defenition of what is immoral is constantly changing. The first time something happens, it's a shock and things get banned. The second time, it's contravercial. The third time it's grudingly allowed to continue. The fourth time, it's no longer important.

2. With Beavis and Butthead, the actions of a child were blamed on TV even though it was hardly the TV's fault. This time though, it's obviously TV's fault, so it's not as contravercial because everyone would agree that it's TV's fault. Hence no personal fame is gained by crusading against it.

<pre>1 <font color=blue>Print</font color=blue> "You too can be annoying, if you try."
2 <font color=blue>Goto</font color=blue> 1</pre><p>

I didn't think sensible mature people watched Jackass!




<font color=blue>The #1 reason to upgrade your PC - to run faster benchmarks...</font color=blue>

That show is a total Tom Green ripoff. Bunch of morons. Tom Green is 100000000x better.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card!

Shows like Tom Green and Jackass were accually public access shows that were picked up and somehow got to the big markets.

The only reason people think Jacksass is so funny is because it is stupid and the stupid things they do on that show. Before the show starts and during the show it says to NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! People who have gotten hurt because they were copying that show have only themselves to blame. Most of the people on that show are professional stuntmen that know how not to get hurt.

Think about it-50% of the popluation is below average. This HAS TO BE TRUE with percentile scoring. It explains why kids listen to RAP music and then form gangs in rural and suburban communities. It explains why kids think it's OK to carry guns. It explains why my stepdaughter thinks ALL black guys are cool and hairy chest are disgusting. It explains why kids are mimicking WWF wresters in their front yards. It explains how a 12 year old boy recently killed his 6 year old sister trying to mimic a WWF stunt (and no, he really wan't trying to injure her). The Government of the United States has mandated that it is unlawfull to punish your kids or even to restrict their freedom, yet hold parents responsible for a childs actions. There is a concept that moral values go in cycles-eventually things get so bad that a moral revolution takes place, and then everything shifts toward moral oppression, then slowly reverts back to moral dissorder. The only middle ground occurs in the middle of the cycle.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

Bunnystroker..

I'm not sure how old you are, or which generation I should put you in, but for as young as I am I've seen TV shows change A LOT over the years.

I grew up on sesame street and mr rogers. I watched GI joe and transformers. Bugs Bunny and Scooby Doo. Charlie Brown and Yogi Bear...you get the idea. Star Wars might have been the most violent thing around basically. 2 Live Crew was probably the most vulgar.

Today kids watch Pokemon, Digimon, Jackass, listen to completely inappropriate music etc. Granted I'm going across a wide spectrum of ages, but one thing is a definite: I wouldn't have been ALLOWED to watch this stuff as a kid and neither would any of my friends. Yet today, these shows are tailored for kids, and they watch them.

You really don't think that TV and film are influencing our kids.....do you remember anyone jumping in a fire when you were younger (assuming you're around my age)? Do you realize how early drugs are introduced to kids nowadays? Where do they get the ideas for guns?

Maybe it's the parents fault, but is it their fault for allowing their kids to be influenced or is it their fault for letting these shows on the air at all?

I brought this up also because Beavis & Butthead was a cartoon and Jackass isn't. That makes a huge difference. Apparently that one kid that tried to jump over a car and was instead hit by his friend didn't get the idea from the show directly. He got the idea from the commercial preview! It doesn't take much.


<font color=red>Did you ever wonder WHY aliens only abduct idiots?</font color=red>

Sure, I barely watched TV. Maybe that's the major difference. Kids today are completely dependent on TV it seems.

<font color=red>Did you ever wonder WHY aliens only abduct idiots?</font color=red>

This is turning out to be an interesting thread.

First of all, I have to say that I found your post pretty offensive, Crashman. Believe it or not, people listen to RAP music because they find artistic value in it. Your whole "black guy" tangent made me uncomfortable as well.

But anyway, I'm 20 years old. So I grew up with Sesame Street and G.I. Joe and whatnot too. Is programming today different? Yes, probably. Is it "offensive" and "shocking" as a whole? I don't really think so.

It's kind of interesting how people always think of culture as static. It's not. Culture is constantly changing, reflecting the ideas and opinions of new generations. Naturally, those that are part of an older generation often are uncomfortable with the new values the younger ones hold. This has been happening for centuries. The ridiculous thing is that people convienently "forget" how shocking Elvis was 50 years ago, and how "outrageous" the Beatles were with their wild haircuts.

So, dhlucke, when you say that music today is "inappropriate", I simply can't agree. I don't believe that any artistic expression can be deemed to be "inappropriate". Does that mean that I like a lot of the music today? Of course not. I think a lot of it is absolute tripe. But I certainly don't think that it's "harming" a generation of children.

Do I think that TV has no influence on children? Of course not. But remember, kids went crazy and killed people long before there was rap music and "inappropriate" television. Statistically, in any large population a small percentage will simply have psychological problems that manifest themselves in horrible ways.

In the end, I agree with Pettytheft - the onus lies with the parents. The popular reactionary response of "THE MEDIA IS RUINING OUR CHILDREN!" carries little weight. If children have loving parents that care about them, they will be just fine. If they don't, than it's no surprise when they turn out to be screwed up. Still, the current vibe of the american public is to believe that if we can somehow "protect" the children from "bad" ideas, then bad things will stop happening. They won't.



<b>ßunn¥§troker 0wn§ j00!</b>

That was a good read!

1st of all there was never a stunt in jackass of someone trying to jump over a car. I even saw an interview with one of his friends who filmed the stunt, He said that they did not get the stunt idea form jackass. The show might have influenced him to try and do something crazy but who cares. I say it’s too bad he didn’t die. That way his stupid genes would have been removed form the gene pool forever.

I think parents are 90% to blame, I see so many kid running around unsupervised. We all have seen kids misbehaving in the store or restaurant. You know, the kid that is pounding on the table or pulling magazines and dumping them on the floor all the while the parents never seem to notice. Kids today have no self-control and no self discipline. It’s sad the way kids talk back to parents. Lots of parents just let the TV or the computer be the babysitter.

I agree the stuff on TV is much more graphic then before and the music is hard core now. Like ICP for example, those lyrics are super hard core. The Internet is not a place for kids unsupervised. I know what I would have been doing and age 12. Clicking on every link in the porn thread.

Face it parents your kids are F***ing at 12 and 13, smoking pot drinking and worse. What are all the parents doing, Hell if I know, maybe playing Everquest.

What’s the solution? All I know for sure is it’s not simple. It probably requires changes in all the subjects I mentioned and thing we and not even thought of yet. One thing is for certain. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

I know that not all kids and bad and not all parents suck, just most of em so don’t flame me for generalizing.

Don’t misunderstand me, I go to GWAR & NIN concerts (in the PIT), watch jackass and actually like some ICP songs. What dose all this mean? I have no idea. If you do let me know.
NEwayz that’s my rant degrading in ramble.

Thx & cya




<font color=red>There are only 2 types of hard drives. Ones that have crashed and ones that are about to.</font color=red>

Don't kill the messenger. I saw a report on one of those entertainment shows and they showed the kid's footage and the version that was from the show. The stunt was pulled from the show.

<font color=red>Did you ever wonder WHY aliens only abduct idiots?</font color=red>

Well, your entitiled to your opinion just as I am entitiled to my facts. If your too ignorant to understand that saying "all black men are cool" is the same type of stereotype as "all (put any race in her) are stupid", then that's your problem, but I think the more educated would agree with me on this FACT. And that MOST PEOPLE can be brainwashed into whatever the current popular ideology is is also FACT, otherwise you would have to assume that millions of Germans really were bad people under Hitlers rule, as opposed to being brainwashed. And the declining popularity of hairy chested men can only be contributed to the same type of bnadwagon chasing. Or the increasing popularity of any other cultural sect. These type of stereotypes disrupt the social balance, wheras in a balanced society everyone has value, not just certain people with particular physical characterisitics. IT is a negative influence which will eventually lead to a social backlash. Some particular group (Perhaps white hairy chest men? Not likely!) will be seriously hurt.

Why do so many kids involve themselves in school shootings? Someone else gave them the idea that it would be the best way to express themselves. Why do so many kids do drugs? You've probably never heard of "peer pressure"? Why do so many kids try stupid stunts to get onto jackass? Maybe because they think it's possible. I've come to the conclusion that most people do NOT have a will of their own, they are like lemmings following the flock. This can have positive influence, such as when people are encourages to reduce their waste production for the envronmental movement, or it can have negative consequences, such as millions of girls starving themselves so they can look like supermodels. Although I have not stated those last two points as being factual, most people can agree that they are the most likely causes of their associated problems.

While it may be true that these influences happen because of a lack of parental guidence, the FACT remains that they still happen.

As to the parodox of my stepdaughter meeting a young black hairy chested man, I don't think she has ran into that delema yet, but when she does I believe it will be very confusing for her. It would prove that her opinion is illogical, sure, but I only restated her opinion, I did not validate it. It's not my problem, and I did not raise her. If I had, maybe she would see the value in all people, not just one racial group that she can asociate with her favorite type of music.
Speaking of music, do you think RAP would have been popular 30 years ago? Or modern rock in the 1800's? Most people's OPINIONS are shaped by their environment! Even though I try to be more reasonable than that, I must admit that even I get caught up by lifes luxuries sometimes. Let me not present too many FACTS for you to absorb right now, go rest your brain and give me another snappy comeback. Oh, and please THINK OUT A LOGICAL REBUTAL next time to prove me wrong, instead of simply calling me illogical without proof!

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

First off, please forgive me for taking so long to reply, but I'm just not on the internet constantly.

Now, to get to the heart of the matter about a few issues:

Bunnystroker, I think it's pretty appearant that you have a thing or two to learn. Dropping your self-rightous act and actually thinking for yourself and listening to others would make you a <i>lot</i> more insteresting to talk with.

For example, your whole "proven fact" rant only proved that you didn't actually try to listen to anything that I said.

Let me go over my statement.
It is a <b>proven fact</b> that <b>some</b> children will <b>try to</b> emulate that which they see people doing in TV shows and in movies.

It IS a proven fact, like it or not. I never once even suggested that ALL children do this. I merely pointed out the fact that SOME children TRY TO do this. Go ahead and try to disprove that if it really makes you feel better to do so. But I doubt that anyone would agree with you if you did argue against that statement.

That being said, <i>any</i> TV show or movie not specifically targetted at adults only carries <i>some</i> responsability for the behavior of children.

It is still, BY FAR, the parent's responsability for how their children act. But it is not entirely the parent's responsability. It is only MOSTLY the parent's responsability. Influences such as TV, radio, teachers, and even neighbors are all PARTLY responsible as well.

This is all that I was saying. That while most of the fault of bad children lies on the parent's head, society and it's media also play a small but definite role in the behavioral patterns of the bad child, and really ANY child, simply because parents cannot protect their children from society 24/7. Children will be influenced by things and people other than their parents. This cannot be helped. And it is irresponsible for anyone to assume that they are not a part of this because that, by definition, is what society IS.

You even say in another post later, "Do I think that TV has no influence on children? Of course not." So you readily admit that TV has <b>SOME</b> influence on children. How can you admit that TV does hold even a tiny fraction of a bit of influence, and yet bears <b>NO</b> responsability for making sure that it is a good influence?

You can't have it both ways. At least not without sounding like a confused person who doesn't really know what they believe.

Next, I NEVER said that any show other than BandB did anything with burning houses. There was absolutely <b>NO</b> misrepresentation. If you had actually <b>READ</b> my post with any intention of <b>LISTENING</b> to a word I was saying, you would know this.

So, for your edification, I will simply point out that what I was saying is that there is a large difference in someone on a TV show <i>saying</i>, "Fire is cool.", and a kid hearing that and going out and burning down a house, and someone on a TV show <i>doing</i> a stupid stunt and some kid going out and emulating that stunt. So to sum up my point, there is a large difference between <i>saying</i> something and <i>doing</i> something.

Now, as for your ludicrous offense taken from Crashman, I don't think you really understand just what discrimination is.

If I say something like, "All single white males with blue eyes and red hair are stupid.", <b>THAT</b> is me being discriminating.

If I however say, "My sister thinks that all single white males with blue eyes and red hair are stupid.", that is <b>MY SISTER</b> being discriminating. And I am merely using her bias as an example. In such a case, her bias should in no way be seen as my bias. For anyone to assume otherwise is discrimination against me.

If you want to take offense, fine. That's your choice. If you feel uncomfortable, fine. That's your problem. But just know that there is <b>NO</b> discrimination in the way that Crahsman said anything. So for you to take offense and to feel uncomfortable only shows your own inadiquacies.

And it is people like you who take offense over things that aren't even said in an offensive way that are screwing things up just as bad as the bigots.

For example, if I say to a co-worker, male, female, or other, that they are wearing a nice shirt, that is in no way sexual harassment to that person or to anyone else.

Yet there are cases where a person like you with inadiquacy problems hears someone tell someone else that they have a nice shirt, and then that person goes and files a sexual harassment charge against the person who gave a harmless compliment. And when asked why they feel harassed, they come up with the stupidest reasoning like, "Because I felt that if they were judging that person on their looks, then because my shirt isn't as nice I'm being treated differently and to please them I have to go out and get shirts that are just as nice. But even then because I won't ever look as good in even that same shirt as that other person will, I will always be discriminated against for not looking as nice."

And worse, at times stupid judges and jurries have actually sided with the person who had inadiquacy problems and set precidents that now make it impossible for any one in the workplace to ever compliment another co-worker without fear of being taken to court over a perfectly beneficial compliment.

And it's that kind of garbage where people take offense over things that aren't even in the slightest way offensive because they're just oversensitive that is screwing up the world just as much as some [pick any race, gender, religion, age, etc.] bigot who goes out and says that all [pick any race, gender, religion, age, etc.] suck.

So I suggest to you that before you take offense over something, maybe you should think about it to see if anything actually said was ever offensive in the first place, or if you're just being over-sensitive on an issue.

If I say, "Hitler hated Jews.", I am not in any way being discriminatory. I am merely pointing out that Hitler was. And if anyone takes offense to me saying that Hitler was a bigot, then that person taking offense really needs to examine just why they found it offensive, because it's a completely different thing than had I said, "Jews suck." (Which I would never say such a thing other than in this rare example of things that what I said doesn't mean.)

-Computers are like a box of chocolates. What's inside varies, but anything removed gets noticed.

I think Crahsman's point is not that it's bad to be attracted to a certain type of person, but to think that ALL of that certain type of person are great is being a bit biased.

Especially when you've never even met ANY of that type of person to begin with.

How can you think that someone is great if you've never even met them?

You wouldn't pre-judge anyone like that unless for one reason or another it has been imprinted upon you to. I wouldn't quite go as far as to say brainwashing, but others would.

I think that's Crahsman's point.

Correct me if I'm wrong Crahsman.

-Computers are like a box of chocolates. What's inside varies, but anything removed gets noticed.

Thanks for being the only person on the forum strong enough to admit he understands my point! I think this issue is too hot for most people to touch! As soon as you mention race, religion, culture, sexual preference, or anything else like that two things happen-the majority of people run and those who stay are the ones who are willing to fight! A great way to start a good debate!

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

Oh, I am bi-racial. My mother is native american, my father is Swedish. Perhaps that's why I am attacted to people of medium skin tone with dark hair, and light skined blonds? Now that, sir, would be imprinting. Even I am not totally imune from it. As for my step daughter, she had made up her mind about certain groups of people without having met them. If you favor a certain group with total conviction, it is as bad as disfavoring a certain group with the same conviction.

Why did I bring up the race issue? To start a debate. It is obvious from knowing my stepdaughter that EVERY opinion she has is imprinted from outside the home. It is just as important to remember that teachers can have MORE influence on children than their parents, expecially when the teacher spends MORE TIME with the child than the parent does.

The same can be said of television. What's worse with TV is that children see kids of their own age group that they can identify with acting a certain way. Which helps to explain why the 1980's was the decade of partying, while the 90's was the decade of self-loathing.

Do you like disco? Would anyone have liked disco had it not seemed like the "thing to do" at the time? I had a freind who, at the age of 8, jumped off the roof of his house with a cape because he thought the cape would make him glide to the ground. I wounder where he got that idea, any thoughts?

Although much of this nonsense is the fault of parents, it becomes harder to hold them totaly responsible when we understand that, at this time, both are expected to work, and neither are allowed to teach their chidren values under our modern educational system.

So if parents are unable to raise their children properly because of external social pressures, who do we blame for that fact, the womens movement that took women out of the home? But they have the right to work also, so maybe more men should stay home to raise their children? Women cannot have it all, if one decides that she wants to raise children, she should put that task AHEAD of her career. If she cannot, then she should not have children.

Why should we place such a heavy choice on a womans shoulders instead of the mans? Because women SHOULD nurse their children at least until they are old enough to eat solid food-that is what nature intended. If a man agrees to stay home with the child instead, that is up to the individual couple, but the fact remains that ONE PARENT should be there FULL TIME for the child at least until that child is old enough to go to school.

Our modern "enlightenment" is leaving our children without direction. It is societies fault, and since I am part of this society, I am obligated to speek my mind concerning this matter.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

This thread got a bit weird. It's more a play on words now than anything. I'm staying out of it.

If anyone still doesn't believe me regarding the guy trying to jump over a car, please contact the TV show EXTRA. I'm pretty sure that's where I saw it.

Crashman, can you read swedish? I occasionally whip some out when people write incoherent posts

To draw some kind of conclusion (and honestly I'm pretty confused about what people think now after reading about 50 pages of posts), I've got to think that the media has some kind of influence. Parents nonetheless are ultimately responsible since they are the ones that let their children sit in front of the TV for hours on end unsupervised.

<font color=red>Did you ever wonder WHY aliens only abduct idiots?</font color=red>