Post by snacky on Apr 21, 2014 5:36:16 GMT
I've read the term "moral panic" several times over the last couple of weeks. No need to rehash the news stories, but they applied both to the US and Canada. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
In short, moral panic is about looking for an easy scapegoat when horrible things happen. Assigning blame enables people to avoid considering the need for fundamental changes in society, which might prove too inconvenient, difficult, or self-image-conflicting for them to consider. Take "crime": is it easier to deal with it if the problem is poverty or the problem is a bad person that can be locked up?
The wikipedia article has an even more interesting concept: "moral entrepreneurs" - people who promote moral panic when the "solution" promotes their agenda. Sort of like when a country sets up a threat to justify a police action or declaration of war. Or when a pharmaceutical company invents an illness then sells the cure. Or when gang members extort "protection money" from businesses so they will be safe from the gang members.
I don't think violence comes from seeing examples of how to commit violent acts. While I'm sick to death of violence-porn TV, I wouldn't try to censor it. Does slaughtering cartoon kittens float your boat? Here, have some Kitten Cannon: www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/228520
I confess to getting some stress relief from nuking cities in Civ III back when I had a stressful job. That would not tempt me to start pushing red buttons if I ever become President. Examples of violence only become tempting if there is some situation calling for a violent response. The question to ask is why violence was under consideration as a response? What were the other options, and why were they discounted?
In this multicultural, largely secular age, society struggles to provide equal and accessible options for problem-resolution or getting justice. That responsibility belongs to either of us: just declaring life unfair only works for people when life is unfair in their favor. The individual also has a responsibility to make analysis of moral dilemmas part of their education and to learn about the options that might be available to them (and advocate for more options if necessary).
This is why I think Americans especially need more shows like MM. It's not that we need our media controlled to brainwash us into being good people. But as long as the humanities are devalued in our schools, our social institutions are broken, and our media is dominated by "moral entrepreneurs", it's good to have some place to go to see people thinking through moral problems and trying to be good people. The problem in the US is this sort of TV is usually sponsored by particular religions and swamped with religious messages. One thing I like about MM is different characters can have different religious beliefs and commitments, but when they are balanced against each other, the show comes out as neutral. I.E., you don't have to take Jesus as your personal savior to do the right thing.
In short, moral panic is about looking for an easy scapegoat when horrible things happen. Assigning blame enables people to avoid considering the need for fundamental changes in society, which might prove too inconvenient, difficult, or self-image-conflicting for them to consider. Take "crime": is it easier to deal with it if the problem is poverty or the problem is a bad person that can be locked up?
The wikipedia article has an even more interesting concept: "moral entrepreneurs" - people who promote moral panic when the "solution" promotes their agenda. Sort of like when a country sets up a threat to justify a police action or declaration of war. Or when a pharmaceutical company invents an illness then sells the cure. Or when gang members extort "protection money" from businesses so they will be safe from the gang members.
I don't think violence comes from seeing examples of how to commit violent acts. While I'm sick to death of violence-porn TV, I wouldn't try to censor it. Does slaughtering cartoon kittens float your boat? Here, have some Kitten Cannon: www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/228520
I confess to getting some stress relief from nuking cities in Civ III back when I had a stressful job. That would not tempt me to start pushing red buttons if I ever become President. Examples of violence only become tempting if there is some situation calling for a violent response. The question to ask is why violence was under consideration as a response? What were the other options, and why were they discounted?
In this multicultural, largely secular age, society struggles to provide equal and accessible options for problem-resolution or getting justice. That responsibility belongs to either of us: just declaring life unfair only works for people when life is unfair in their favor. The individual also has a responsibility to make analysis of moral dilemmas part of their education and to learn about the options that might be available to them (and advocate for more options if necessary).
This is why I think Americans especially need more shows like MM. It's not that we need our media controlled to brainwash us into being good people. But as long as the humanities are devalued in our schools, our social institutions are broken, and our media is dominated by "moral entrepreneurs", it's good to have some place to go to see people thinking through moral problems and trying to be good people. The problem in the US is this sort of TV is usually sponsored by particular religions and swamped with religious messages. One thing I like about MM is different characters can have different religious beliefs and commitments, but when they are balanced against each other, the show comes out as neutral. I.E., you don't have to take Jesus as your personal savior to do the right thing.
