MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is there a point to fighting against rud...

Is there a point to fighting against rudeness in entertainment?

posted 3 years ago by Solastine (1104)
6 replies | jump to latest

Just a thought, language seems to evolve to take offense over what the prior generation put out as a cleaner way of saying something. Particularly notable with intelligence, dumb, cretin, moron, retarded, special needs, every few years we come up with a new term to seem less insulting than the prior term.

It seems inevitable that every form of entertainment today will be considered rude by the next generation, regardless of how clean we perceive it to be. Language evolves, culture evolves, and usually what was introduced as a nicety becomes an insult.

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

Every piece of entertainment is a product of its time. Even stuff that seems ahead of the curve.

Star Trek is a good example. Gene Roddenberry was a progressive by 1960s standards. The original series was his vision of humanity putting its petty differences of race and nationality aside and heading out together to explore the stars...

... but he wasn't so hot on gender issues. And by the time of Next Generation, his attitude towards female characters became a serious problem for younger writers and the cast (and indeed significant parts of the audience). Things had moved on. Roddenberry (in that regard) had been left behind.

Does this devalue what Roddenberry did in the 1960s? No. It just places it in the context of its era. Just as Next Generation is now placed in the context of its own.

And it's important, I think, when watching older material to consider the context. So, say, the word 'cripple' used for people with physical disabilities may make us wince in the 2020s. But dismissing a film/TV show for using language that was current at the time would be silly. What's the context? What's the sentiment behind the story? What are its values?

Nobody's perfect. Nobody's future-proofed against standards they can't even imagine in their own era. Language and attitudes change. People should just do the best they can with what they've got.

[–] beantown23 (1438) 3 years ago

Harrumph. One thing I don't understand in the Me Too era is what ever happened to the statues of limitations? How is it that some sexual harassment 20 years ago is still a criminal charge today.

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

Not sure what this has to do with the topic in hand. Could you explain?

But, as far as I'm aware, statutes of limitation still apply. But just because you may not be able to prosecute someone for a crime they committed X number of years ago, it doesn't mean they didn't do it - and it doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for their actions in other ways.

How is it that some sexual harassment 20 years ago is still a criminal charge today.

No expert on the US justice system, but wouldn't that be - by definition - because it hasn't passed the statute of limitation?

Personally, I'm not sure there should be statutes of limitation for serious offences, especially given what is known about how long it can take victims to process this stuff and choose to come forward.

But none of this seems relevant to the OP's question about 'rudeness in entertainment', nor my response.

[–] beantown23 (1438) 3 years ago

The OP was talking about how behavior changes over time but IMO too man people don't want to let old transgressions go. Do entertainers really need to apologize for wearing blackface 20 years ago?

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

The OP was talking about how language and attitudes evolve over time; you were talking about sexual harrassment and jurisprudence.

They don't seem that strongly related to me, but fine: it's about 'people [who] don't want to let old transgressions go'? And crimes are equivalent to social norms in this regard? Are sexual assault, blackface and using now-outmoded language all essentially the same thing to you? I don't think you can seriously believe that.

Do entertainers really need to apologize for wearing blackface 20 years ago?

Well, it's polite, isn't it? It serves to demonstrate that they have evolved their views and now understand that the earlier behaviour was wrong.

If you met someone you'd hurt even in some minor way twenty years ago, and they said 'Do you remember that time when...?', would you not say 'Yeah, sorry about that. I was young, I was stupid, I let my mouth run'? You'd just say 'It was YEARS ago. Let it go!'?

Bigger the hurt, the more reason to apologise, I would think.

[–] sslssg (35192) 3 years ago

Harassment is one thing, but I can tell you that sexual abuse of any form sticks with a person. A lot of times people don't come forward at the time because it's not about sex, it's about power. Victims usually are stripped of that power.

May I ask if you feel the same way about victims of the catholic church who waited years to come forward?

I'm also curious as to which case you are referring to that resulted in criminal charges 20 years later.