TV, and the decline of our culture, again

[elder999]

So, stuff I’ve enjoyed on television: Comedy channel:The Daily Show, Crank Yankers (it’s funny, one of the things I did in my sickbed as a kid was play with puppets ALOT,and I love crank calls.It’s a stupid show, but I can’t help but laugh). Sci-fi channel: oh, a bunch of stuff. Cartoon Network: old classics and anime. I like the Last Comic Standing-there, that’s a “reality show”- and that’s about it. There’s a bunch more I haven’t really liked at all, and some things are just plain starting to scare me-what does it say about a society that they find things like Fear Factor ,Jerry Springer, and the Man Show entertaining? (Has anyone seen the commercial for the "all new Family Fear Factor where the mother says to her daughter,"Are you gonna cry? Don't cry."? I'd like to take that bitch on a one way hike in the San Juans...she's cry.)

It is difficult to be optimistic about this culture. It seems to me that what we call culture promotes and values everything that is crass, mean, ugly and vulgar. Why does it have to be that way? Why won’t those of us who know better speak out against this abusive ugliness? Why do we collectively pretend that outrageous trash is art? What does it teach young people when adults behave like idiots? Why are we so terrified of being called judgmental; why is it that anything goes? Why do we continue burdening successive generations with obviously failed social engineering? In the typical manner of dysfunctional families, we’re trying to get used to the smell of smoke as we ignore the house burning down around us.

The social rot is manifest in small ways and in huge ways. The celebration of ugliness is evident in the widespread use of the “f” word. I can’t think of an uglier, more vulgar word. Why do people think it is cool, sophisticated, or urbane to act common and use crude language? It takes no special talent to use obscenities. In fact, it requires a lack of social skills and respect for others to express yourself in so base a manner. Don’t give in to this. Don’t participate in this abusive, disrespectful behavior. Resist it. It is not acceptable.

I’m not advocating that we be puffed up and full of ourselves. There is much to be said for a casual approach to life. We can enjoy a laidback lifestyle and still treat each other respectfully, can’t we?

After my post on non-violence, a member wrote to me asking, “What rock did you crawl out from under?” Despite the hateful, mean-spirited tone of her letter, it got me to thinking. Where in the world did I come from? What societal values contributed to the creation of the ego-historical personality of Aaron Jeffrey Cuffee ? Well, here’s a little glimpse of what life was like under that rock. Teachers were respected and trusted to educate children. They were never told how to do their jobs by semiliterate, slack-jawed, lowbrow parents. If you were determined to be a criminal or a gangster, they let you go out and do that, as well as face the consequences. They didn’t keep your sorry, good for nothing rear end in school, so that you could disrupt everyone else’s education. There were criminal gangsters in our community, but they were not generally admired as role models-nor did they expect to be. Respectable people didn’t allow their children to act like gangsters, talk like gangsters or dress like gangsters.My brother and I were raised to be gentlemen and my sisters were raised to be a ladies. We all still (mostly) behave that way. Good manners provided a pleasantness and grace in social interaction then, which is rarely seen today. I was raised to value a gracious lifestyle that included respecting myself and treating others with respect. There was no need for metal detectors or police officers in school. Most people didn’t even lock their doors. It was not a perfect world, by any means. There was much about that society that needed reform. There were elements of that world that were unjust, repressive and restrictive, but for all its faults, it was more functional, safer, and there was far more beauty and compassion than you see today. Despite the pressure to conform in the society I came out of, there was more freedom of thought and right to differ, than today. I was fortunate enough to have been educated before educational standards were lowered or abandoned. That’s a little of what life was like under that rock, before I crawled out into this McCulture.

In the current society, the basest, most vulgar elements are in control. The inmates are in charge of the asylum. Try as I might, I’m unable to understand how a gangbanger, with homemade tattoos on his hand, playing midnight basketball, is just another equally valid expression in this wonderland we call American culture. Much of this gangsterism is multigenerational, and if those of us who know a better way are intimidated into silence, won’t the lunacy only get worse? The lowest common denominator oughtn’t be the standard. The ‘anything goes’ mentality is destructive. Everything is not beautiful in its own way. The social engineers who created this monster have lied to you,but you’re not a powerless victim. You can reclaim your power. You have the option to choose goodness, beauty, truth, compassion and love. Review your options. Resist the ugliness and vulgarity. Don’t give in.

[Mekugi]

I take it you don't watch South Park.

BTW...Jimmy & Adam ruled on the man show. I didn't even know they changed hosts.

Cartoon Network is awesome....Adult Swim was genious (if it's still on...).

When has the boob-tube been any good, anyway?

Well ok...Hitchcock, Twilight Zone and Outer Limits were good.

[Soulend]

Bravo, Mr. Cuffee. I have yet to understand why the base, the vapid, the crude, the criminal and the ugly are things to be desired or envied.

As for TV, it's mindless and I rarely watch it, except for news and the odd documentary. I've been down here for 4 years and I take pride in the fact that I don't know how to find a single specific channel. Don't know what their numbers are.

Oh well, time to crawl back under my rock...

[Wounded Ronin]

After a hard day at a toxic workplace with a corrupt boss and incompetent co-workers, people just want to watch something stupid on TV.

You make the mistake of thinking that what you see on TV reflects our society and culture in any realistic way.


As for public education, it's permanently broken. Not just because of parents but because of a multitude of factors including corruption in the system. I know because my mom used to teach in the NY public schools. But that's actually a seprate issue from what you see on TV.


I would say don't fall into the trap of being a culture snob. That's what will really make you start to look down on the other people in society and will make you think that you're somehow better than everyone else. That's a mental attitude that leads you to do bad things.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Wounded Ronin
After a hard day at a toxic workplace with a corrupt boss and incompetent co-workers, people just want to watch something stupid on TV.

You make the mistake of thinking that what you see on TV reflects our society and culture in any realistic way.

How doesn't it?



I would say don't fall into the trap of being a culture snob. That's what will really make you start to look down on the other people in society and will make you think that you're somehow better than everyone else. That's a mental attitude that leads you to do bad things.

I said I watch Crank Yankers. Have you watched it? It's often rather vulgar. I'm hardly a "culture snob,' and I'm certainly not saying that everyone should enjoy opera, just because I do, nor am I about to start looking down on anyone....
...even if I am better than they are.;)

[Chrono]

Originally posted by Mekugi
Cartoon Network is awesome....Adult Swim was genious (if it's still on...).


It is still on and better than every, I say. I love what they've done to it.

Reality shows are getting old, I think, and yet they're still coming out with some really stupid stuff. I like Last Comic Standing, but stuff like the Bachelor and Joe Millioniare has just got to stop.

[John Connolly]

... Amish in the City!

http://www.upn11tv.com/index.php?content=amish_in_the_city

[knotwell]

I'm unsure if this rant'll be on-topic or not.

As I get older, I have continually shrinking respect for the tolerance-uber-alles people. "You mustn't judge. Try to be more tolerant!!" they scold. "All viewpoints/cultures are equally valid," they'll plead*. While tolerance is generally laudable, I'd suggest it's like Crown Royal--best in moderation and an award-winning recipe for headaches and a sour stomachs when swallowed in abundance.

I figure it has something to do with collective guilt. Much like "social justice**," it's a concept well deserving of scorn.

*FWIW, given their previous environment, this is mildly amusing for people just outta college. It's mind-boggling that this continues to afflict some people a decade or two after graduation.

**what does *that* mean anyway? As far as I can tell, it's progressive public relations.

Now, please, complain that my first name isn't obvious.

[elder999]

Originally posted by knotwell


social justice**

**what does *that* mean anyway? As far as I can tell, it's progressive public relations.

Now, please, complain that my first name isn't obvious.

First:Social Justice is a code that denotes that a person cannot be discriminated on the grounds of religion, sect, belief, gender, color, caste, wealth and social status. It also reflects rule of law for all without considering their position in the society.

Second: No, your first name isn't obviuous, nor is your last.e-Budo rules require that you post your true, full name. You can do this by adding it to your signature in the control panel. Please do so, or don't post.

[knotwell]

Originally posted by elder999
First:Social Justice is a code that denotes that a person cannot be discriminated on the grounds of religion, sect, belief, gender, color, caste, wealth and social status. It also reflects rule of law for all without considering their position in the society.

Ahh, I see. It's sad to see so many agitating for something else. . .because, as a matter of codified law, we're mostly there.

Second: No, your first name isn't obviuous, nor is your last.e-Budo rules require that you post your true, full name. You can do this by adding it to your signature in the control panel. Please do so, or don't post.

Fundamentally, the rule irritates me.

If someone decides I should be banned, that's fine. With <20 posts over two years, it's unlikely I'll be missed.

[kenkyusha]

Originally posted by knotwell
Fundamentally, the rule irritates me.

If someone decides I should be banned, that's fine. With <20 posts over two years, it's unlikely I'll be missed.
Why come to THIS board then? There are plenty of places that don't require full names... but if the level of discourse here is attractive, keep in mind that that is (in part) a function of people needing to own-up to whatever we write, good, bad or insane...

Be well,
Jigme

[George Kohler]

Originally posted by knotwell
Fundamentally, the rule irritates me.

If someone decides I should be banned, that's fine. With <20 posts over two years, it's unlikely I'll be missed.

After 14 posts and not following the rules, he is now in E-Budo Hell.

[Soulend]

He was right! I don't miss him in the slightest. :laugh:

[Chrono]

Originally posted by Soulend
He was right! I don't miss him in the slightest. :laugh:

I didn't know who he was and have never seen any of his posts except the ones above.

[Gene Williams]

Who?:confused:

[Chrono]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Who?:confused:

Where have you been, Gene? Well, it's just another guy that doesn't like the first rule of E-Budo and pretty much refuses to abide by it.

[Wounded Ronin]

Originally posted by elder999
How doesn't it?





Becuase it's not reality. It's for entertainment and as such has little to do with reality.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Wounded Ronin
Becuase it's not reality. It's for entertainment and as such has little to do with reality.

Tell that to those that died in the arenas of ancient Rome, in the name of "entertainment." :rolleyes:

[Wounded Ronin]

Originally posted by elder999
Tell that to those that died in the arenas of ancient Rome, in the name of "entertainment." :rolleyes:

That's a wild statement because it has absolutely nothing to do with TV entertainment nowadays. Generally speaking there are no live executions on TV, only unrealistic simulated ones.

If you took TV to be realistic the whole USA would basically be slim 30 year old white people who are rich. But that's not realistic, so TV entertainment dosen't actually reflect social reality.

[Chrono]

Originally posted by Wounded Ronin
Generally speaking there are no live executions on TV, only unrealistic simulated ones.


That's already pretty bad.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Wounded Ronin

If you took TV to be realistic the whole USA would basically be slim 30 year old white people who are rich. But that's not realistic, so TV entertainment dosen't actually reflect social reality.

Like Cedric "the entertainer," and Bill Cosby ,I suppose.:rolleyes:


Look, I'm no sociologist, but the fact that entertainment-for our generation and the previous one, now, T.V. entertainment-is a reflection of a society and it's values, is fairly well established.

If it isn't, then who the hell is watching this crap?


A whole bibliography on the subject can be found here (http://sp.uconn.edu/~yian/frl/23media.htm)

236 Popular Culture
An analysis of popular culture as a reflection of society, a factor in socialization, and an economic institution. Topics include popular music, television and films, comics and cartoons, and sports and games.

...and a search of the catalogue of virtually any university or college of note will reveal a "Popular Culture" sociology course of at least one sort or another, with the premise that entertainment is a reflection of society as its very core thesis.

[Lupin3]

Look, I'm no sociologist, but the fact that entertainment-for our generation and the previous one, now, T.V. entertainment-is a reflection of a society and it's values, is fairly well established.

If it isn't, then who the hell is watching this crap?

The implicit claim here is that television viewers watch the programming they do because it reflects their own worldview or socio-economic condition. This is a fairly broad claim and made without any substantion - much less proof.

Also, the claim that TV entertainment is somehow the definitive "entertainment" of any culture is groundless. More books are published and read today than in any period in history. More films are produced, more music performed (including "classical" music - in the popular sense), and more art created than ever before.

I'd suggest that, if one finds oneself dissatisfied with the culture one consumes, the issue may be the method by which culture is obtained. It's easy to turn on the TV or radio, harder to drive to bookstore or art gallery and expose oneself to something not available so quickly. It's harder still to find the books or paintings or symphonies that are really excellent, and to really understand them, to participate with them to own them...that's another challenge entirely.

Perhaps your dissatisfaction is an indication that you may be ready for a greater challenge than The Daily Show?

[Lupin3]

I'd like to add that I've seen George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead" many times and have never once had even the urge to shred, chew, eat, or otherwise consume human organs. Nor have I ever considered shooting, hacking, burning, or otherwise mutilating corpses (living or dead...). While this is an obvious response to the many fools who tried to shift the blame for Columbine to the feet of the video game and film industry (a pernicious lie at that), it might also suggest that for TV (or whatever) to reflect society, it may not be necessary or true to achieve this on a literal level.

I could go on but I'm sure I'm boring everyone already...don't get me started...:D

[elder999]

Originally posted by Lupin3
The implicit claim here is that television viewers watch the programming they do because it reflects their own worldview or socio-economic condition. This is a fairly broad claim and made without any substantion - much less proof.

No, the implication is that the pap provided by the people that produce it is indicative of what the market will bear, and that THAT is a reflection of the society that sits down and watches it.



Also, the claim that TV entertainment is somehow the definitive "entertainment" of any culture is groundless. More books are published and read today than in any period in history. More films are produced, more music performed (including "classical" music - in the popular sense), and more art created than ever before.

And perhaps I'll write about how worthless a great deal of the books, music, art and films produced are also indicative of a society in decline, but that would be another topic, wouldn't it?


I'd suggest that, if one finds oneself dissatisfied with the culture one consumes, the issue may be the method by which culture is obtained. It's easy to turn on the TV or radio, harder to drive to bookstore or art gallery and expose oneself to something not available so quickly. It's harder still to find the books or paintings or symphonies that are really excellent, and to really understand them, to participate with them to own them...that's another challenge entirely.

Perhaps your dissatisfaction is an indication that you may be ready for a greater challenge than The Daily Show?

It's a big assumption on your part.

Some months ago I posted about how I was watching television after going without for nearly a decade. I doubt that I watch it more than an hour or two a week. More than a few people here could accurately guess how my "entertainment" time is spent, and they'll tell you that there usually isn't a T.V. around....

I like the Daily Show; I don't see how anyone could like some of the other things that are so popular today, and i'm wondering what it means that so many find what is, frankly, tasteless, moronic, insulting trash,entertaining.

..and are so darn willing to defend it?

[Shitoryu Dude]

The problem with all of this is that it assumes that things were really any different before. So people watch mindless TV now instead of listening to mindless radio or reading pulp novels. Current forms of entertainment are always considered crap by the "intellectuals" of that era.

People may be more coarse and vulgar in public now, but they were that way before as well. Just because you kept it marginally hidden doesn't mean it wasn't there. Mark Twain caught a lot of grief for writing Huck Finn in the actual vernacular of the time and not using "proper English". I perceive the movement as one of being more honest and not putting on airs.

People swear a lot and they always have. The like crude entertainment, and they always have. I imagine fart jokes have been around for millenia, merely because they are present in all human societies.

Our culture isn't in decline, it was always this bad.

:beer:

[Peter H.]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
People swear a lot and they always have. The like crude entertainment, and they always have. I imagine fart jokes have been around for millenia, merely because they are present in all human societies.

Our culture isn't in decline, it was always this bad.


Take a deep, hard look at Shakespeare: Much Ado About Nothing, Midsummer Night's Dream, almost all the comedies and even some of the tragedies (Romeo and Juliet) had crude an vulgar humor, and we let that be taught to school children.

[Goro]

I'm told that over in Cuba they only have TV from 40 yrs. ago?


If this is true then there must be a damn good reason for it.

A friend and I were just talking about this yesterday coincedentally, that there is an obvoius level of disregard for the human psyche within society today.

Even the damned commercials are like porn in that many of them try to inspire lust.

The media is dedicated to strengthening the ego and thats that.

If you can't seee that then you ARE hypnotized.

Personally, I just had a daughter close to 16 months ago, my firstborn, and I haven't had cable (by choice) for almost 3 yrs. now.
I could'nt ethically allow her to grow up like that.

just my 2 sense

Sincerely, Jason Whalen

[Lupin3]

Hey elder, the tone of your reply to my post was a little sharper than I expected, so if I came off sarcastic earlier, my apologies. However, I'd like to respond to some of the things you said in a bit more depth.

No, the implication is that the pap provided by the people that produce it is indicative of what the market will bear, and that THAT is a reflection of the society that sits down and watches it.

Actually, what you had said was "...T.V. entertainment-is a reflection of a society and it's values." Nowhere in this statement does the claim that "...the pap provided by the people that produce it is indicative of what the market will bear..." exist.

The idea that the actual product is determinative of what the market will bear is dubious, at best. It would require foreknowledge on the part of the content creators as to what their audience wanted. Overall, the track record of the entertainment industry is pretty dismal in this regard - and has actually lead to what is a serious problem (at least for Hollywood and the New York literati) for content creators. Generally, publishers and agents only take what they consider to be least likely to fail. This is obviously quite different than a criteria based on what is most likely to succeed, or even what is best.

A second counter-example, and one that is evidenced by the above claim, can be found in television ratings. These days, runaway hits on tv score ratings in the mid to high teens. So, in accordance with the industry standard method of determining relative programming success, the most talked about shows will still have a viewership of less than 1 in 5. I believe this is a direct consequence of the attitude mentioned above, where the greatest asset of any programming is its relative fiscal safety.

And perhaps I'll write about how worthless a great deal of the books, music, art and films produced are also indicative of a society in decline, but that would be another topic, wouldn't it?

Great! Post it, and I'll supply some responses!

As for the last of your comments, I'm not sure how to take them. Was it a big assumption on my part to suggest there are plenty of opportunities in this capitalist market of ours to find real, substantive and challenging culture? Or was it that you might be ready (and yearning...) for something better than the likes of "The Daily Show?" Not to knock the show, but its hardly Edward R. Murrow, is it?

And finally, what should one make of a critic who appears to embrace "the code of Social Justice" - with its Postmodern emphasis on value equivocation - while complaining sincerely about "...tasteless, moronic, insulting trash, entertainment." I don't disagree that such things exist, but how shall we determine what they are while still keeping true to the code of Social Justice?

Again, if I've come off somewhat aggressively here, its not intentional, its just that you've really piqued my interest, elder. Consider it friendly intellectual sparring, if you will. ;)

[Chrono]

Originally posted by elder999
And perhaps I'll write about how worthless a great deal of the books, music, art and films produced are also indicative of a society in decline, but that would be another topic, wouldn't it?


I'm interested to know what they are.

[Lupin3]

Our culture isn't in decline, it was always this bad.

Actually, if you consider slavery, racism, chauvinism, economic inequity, our culture is actually much better now than it was in many ways, imho....

[elder999]

Originally posted by Lupin3

And finally, what should one make of a critic who appears to embrace "the code of Social Justice" - with its Postmodern emphasis on value equivocation - while complaining sincerely about "...tasteless, moronic, insulting trash, entertainment." I don't disagree that such things exist, but how shall we determine what they are while still keeping true to the code of Social Justice?


What in the world makes you think I embrace "the code of Social Justice?"

Fergodsakes, look where I work. Look at my family history, education and wealth. I'm all for equal "opportunity" under the law, but I'm as elitist as a black man can be.

[Mekugi]

Come on, if that were on TV today, we would all watch it.

Originally posted by elder999
Tell that to those that died in the arenas of ancient Rome, in the name of "entertainment." :rolleyes:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Mekugi
Come on, if that were on TV today, we would all watch it.

Well, it might depend on the skills of the contestants.....though I can honestly say that I probably wouldn't, any more than I watch any other "sports" on television.

Good point, though.

[Cady Goldfield]

Television today caters to the lowest common denominator of society. But then, so did entertainment before television. The elite had their theater and opera, and everyone else had their entertainment options: public executions, circus sideshows and traveling carnivals with dwarves, pencil-neck geeks, bearded ladies and hunchbacks to gawk at. Remember the "Hottentot" of the 19th century? An African woman from a southern tribe, who was essentially forced to stand naked in a cage so Euros could gape at her large buttocks. She later wrote an autobiography that revealed her deep intelligence and philosophical perspective of her life and how she was treated, but of course that was not what British "gentlemen and ladies" were paying to see.

Nothing has changed in humans' crass and banal interests. The only thing that changes is the vehicle that carries the same lurid and bizarre curiosities to us. Public executions -- "witch" burnings, beheadings, hangings -- are no longer available in Western culture, so we have other things to stand in for grisly entertainment. Instead of live freak shows, we get them on TV, radio, movies, the 'net.

[Lupin3]

Interesting post, Cady. This touches on the schism of Postmodernism. Before PM, culture tended to be defined as "high" (Shakespeare, Bach, Michaelangelo) and "low" or "pop(ular)" (you've provided a pretty good list).

Along comes PM, and POOF! Who needs Shakespeare when you've got Stephen King!

Well, that may be putting it a bit strong...

[Joseph Svinth]

Shakespeare, in his day, was not as hoity-toity as you'd think. Watch "Titus," and realize they bowdlerized it a bit for modern filmgoers. (Shakespeare was more violent than that.) Add a mostly drunken crowd with leftover vegetables to throw any time it got bored with the script, and you're starting to get the idea of the audience to which those plays were directed.

[Lupin3]

The audience to which those plays were directed was either King James or Queen Elizabeth. That Shakespeare could appeal to the masses while still holding a mirror to nature (and one that nearly always reflected royalty) is an example most contemporary "artists" forget all too quickly.

[CEB]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
....
Nothing has changed in humans' crass and banal interests. The only thing that changes is the vehicle that carries the same lurid and bizarre curiosities to us. Public executions -- "witch" burnings, beheadings, hangings -- are no longer available in Western culture, so we have other things to stand in for grisly entertainment. Instead of live freak shows, we get them on TV, radio, movies, the 'net.

Nothing changes period, except for technology. Read a book such as Republican Rome by HL Havell. You see the socio, economic, and political arguements that went on say before the 3rd Punic War read exactly the same as ones of today. Man has not changed in 5000 years that I can tell.

[Cady Goldfield]

Yup, CEB, that's what I was basically sayin'. People don't change; technology does. Thus, we now have cable TV bringing us freak shows, instead of traveling caravans bringing them live to our towns.

[kirigirisu]

Originally posted by Lupin3
Actually, if you consider slavery


Oh, it's still around. It's just been "outsourced" to third world countries what make all them athletic shoes the Basketball Star-du-Jour currently endorses, and what produce all them shiny rocks, dead severed plant genetalia, and blood money luxury items heavily advertized on the telly that seem to appease certain segments of the female population.

Hey, man, just so long as we don't have to look at it...

racism,


Still around. The smarter ones seem to know when to shut their yap about their B.S. middle-america-hillbilly/ghetto/barrio/Bed-Stuy/Little-whatever-town/country-club sensibilities in order to do business and make the mad pimpin' G-stacks.

Hypothetical Alleged Omnipotence help them if'n they catch their daughter "dating" one of those people.

chauvinism,

Still around. They call it "feminism," market it as "egalitarianism," and try to institutionalize a sort of 4-dimensional equality to vindicate years of oppression on the Universal Sisterhood of Wymyn through systematic vilification of the penis and its life-support system.

Winding up, eventually, with something just as bad as the thing it's intended to replace.

economic inequity


Not that I have that particular problem, but where the hell have you been for the last 4 or so years?

our culture is actually much better now than it was in many ways, imho....

No, it's just a little more presentable, if you ignore all the stuff people tend to sweep under the rug with the expertise of Guiliani "disappearing" loads of the homeless in his efforts to make the Big Apple more tourist-friendly.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Lupin3
The audience to which those plays were directed was either King James or Queen Elizabeth. That Shakespeare could appeal to the masses while still holding a mirror to nature (and one that nearly always reflected royalty) is an example most contemporary "artists" forget all too quickly.

Actually, it would depend upon when those plays were written. Prior to 1608, his troupe performed at the Globe, where the audience was composed of a mixture of gentry and commoners, and many of the jokes, innuendos, political sentiments, and much of the contact reflect this, whereas in 1608 his troupe was contracted to Blackfriars, where the audience was almost exclusively gentry and aristocrats, and the politcal sentiments had to be adjusted accordingly.

Although Shakespeare's language and classical references seem archaic to some modern readers, they were commonplace to his audiences. His viewers came from all classes, and his plays appealed to all kinds of sensibilities, from "highbrow" accounts of kings and queens of old to the "lowbrow" blunderings of clowns and servants. Even his most tragic plays include clown characters for comic relief and to comment on the events of the play. .

It also seems,-speaking of Shakespeare-that some of you may be confusing profanity with vulgarity. If I call a street walker a "ho" or the evil ex-girlfriend a "bitch", then that is profane, but if I call all women-girlfriends, my sisters and their friends "bitches and hos" then that is simply vulgar and inappropriate.

[Lupin3]

Elder, all of Shakespeare's plays, and Marlowe's, and everyone else's, were performed for the entertainment, at the request, and by the permission of the King or Queen. Either Elizabeth or James could and frequently did shut down entire districts because they did not condone the work done there.

Having said that, you're quite right about Shakespeare's playing to the various classes. It's just that the highest class was always his most important audience. After himself that is.

As to profane and vulgar:

Profane:
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.

Vulgar:
1. Crudely indecent.
2.
a. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
b. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish. See Synonyms at common.
c. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious: the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
3. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
4. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.

All of your examples were vulgar, none were profane.

[Lupin3]

Originally posted by kirigirisu
They call it "feminism," market it as "egalitarianism," and try to institutionalize a sort of 4-dimensional equality to vindicate years of oppression on the Universal Sisterhood of Wymyn through systematic vilification of the penis and its life-support system.

Winding up, eventually, with something just as bad as the thing it's intended to replace.

Now THAT'S funny! :D

[elder999]

Originally posted by Lupin3

All of your examples were vulgar, none were profane.

And I might argue that all of your examples, ie: Shakespeare, were profane, and none of them vulgar, except in the sense of being "common."