Wednesday, July 25, 2007

This Blog is Rated PG-13?

I found a site that rates blogs and this one came up PG-13... I'm surprised. I would have thought it rated at least an R. Maybe it doesn't take the comments into account?



PG-13 is somewhat embarassing... Maybe I need to be more acerbic and profane in my postings?

16 comments:

Ceroill said...

Nah, this is America. Profanity alone won't get you an R. Not even violence will do that. You need sex to really qualify. After all sex is worse than violence...isn't it? [yes...sarcasm]

csm said...

Well, there is more than enuff porn on the web, so I won't be going there Bob!

Ceroill said...

Ok, well I guess you'll have to be contented with PG 13 then.

BAWDYSCOT said...

If you are really looking for an "R" rating, csm, this might help. I have gotten ahold of a treatise from an organization called Global Research(never heard of them, you?) which is about an Executive Order from our illustrious President called,"Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq". It is directed at US citizens(hell if you are an Iraqi you just get shot)and this organization(Global Research) has the beef that this will stifle dissent. Now I will have to admit, the verbage has to do with "violent acts", but as we all know, these kinds of terms can be relative. Are peaceful(relatively)demostrations going to be considered under this order? What happens if they end up with rock throwing and tear gas? Congress as of the writing of the piece(July 20th) has not answered Bush. All I can say is 2008 cannot come fast enough, go Ron Paul go(he was on NPR a few minutes ago). If this dirty shit doesn't get you an "R", it ain't happenin'. You might want to check this out.

csm said...

Thanks for the thoughts, Bawdy. I've never heard of 'em, either. Do you have a link you can share for that treatise from Global Research?

BAWDYSCOT said...

The website can be found at http://www.globalresearch.ca/. The story I referenced is at the top of the site right now. It looks to be a anti-globalization website. This would lead me to believe I would not personally care for this site in it's entirety, but anything which might impinge on my right to dissent would be worth fighting against, for sure.

derF said...

Well I am certainly opposed to any policy that undermines the democratic movement. If that means resisting schemes to consolidate property and power, I guess I must resist. So… I’ll give you a link, even if I have doubts about the reliability of the source.

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

jan said...

Yeah, I'm a graduate of Kent State University. The FBI followed me for about eight years. I've seen this part already. It's not fun.

Changing direction a bit --
I would exchange minimal bans on sex in the media for minimal violence in the media.

I don't mean no violence -- one of my favorite moives is "Natural Born Killers."

My point being, I think victorian sex mores (if I can put it that way) are harmful.
But I don't have the same stand about "censuring" violence. I'm okay with that, philosophically.

Any thoughts?
Is that hypocritical?

derF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
derF said...

”Five thousand years of empire, are you ready for a change” You'll have to look for it.

csm said...

I don't know that your position is necessarily hypocritcal, Jan. On the other hand, I advocate for complete and total free speech, which would include freedom to depict violence. Of course, I think there should be specific media outlets that would be violence-free -- specifically for those who want that sort of editing on the content they watch. Same for sexual content and perhaps language. In other words, I think the sensible thing to do is not edit everyone, but instead provide a few places that that are edited for those so inclined. I find this to be a more satisfying approach than the opposite (that is, edit everything and have a few places where language/speech/expression is free...

Ceroill said...

Here's a bit of my own thought. Violence is one thing, then there's either exaggerated violence (huge gouts of blood and a man flies back ten feet from a pistol shot to the shoulder), and sanitized violence (man gets shot in the shoulder, he staggers and grunts and grabs his shoulder, but there's no trace of blood at all...or the machinegun that sprays across the room, miraculously missing all the people, but doing immense property damage). I think if they're going to show violence they should show it the way it is (more or less, there are matters of taste and such). The point here is that giving kids false expectations about such things can be dangerous in itself. Not that I think we should inundate kid's shows with blood, of course. I just don't think we should 'dumb down' violence.

BAWDYSCOT said...

Let me weigh in with my belief an adult should be able to view or read anything the human mind can conjure up except for child porn(because there is a victim involved). Hate speech, perversions, treasonous tracts(treason is an action, not prose), anything. But then again, I place an individuals rights higher than the country as a whole. I believe we are a country of individuals first, a Republic of Free states second and the United States of America third. This is the reason, IMHumbleO, we became a great nation and that we now find ourselves underneath the outhouse because we have reversed the order.

As far as cartoon violence and realistic violence, I would say it depends on the designs of the author(director, playwright, etc.)and what they want to project. And it takes diligence on parents part to keep tabs on what their children are taking in. Though I will say my father could have cared less what my brother and I were reading(I read Catch-22 at twelve years of age, can't say as I understood everything going on, but even at that young of age I realized how good it was and that I couldn't put it down(literally)), just as long as we were reading something. I kind of feel the same way, children should be relatively free to read whatever(and I realize all children are different) as long as the lines of communication between parent and child are wide open, mainly to answer questions they may come up with. Why stifle their curiosity? But as a parent I would keep tabs on what they are reading and viewing just so you can anticipate the questions they may
ask and the ones the neighbor kids may ask.

csm said...

By the way, after checking the rating of this blog again today (7/28/2007) it is now Rated R.

I guess the Chuck Norris post coulda put me over the top, huh?

BAWDYSCOT said...

So now, csm, what do we have to do to get that NC-17?

csm said...

Is that a challenge, Bawdy? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!