How I think vulgar humour is more influential then violence in pop culture
In my opinion I think vulgar humour is more influential then violence in pop culture.When I was little in the 90's I remember hearing so much stuff about how bad the influence of violence is but relatively by comparision not that much on how bad vulgar humour is (at least as far as I can remember).Then again this probably mainly due to the fact that I was little and likely to imitate violence.Keywords there being "likely to imitate violence". Most grown ppl have better sense then to drive at dangerous speeds,imitate a flashy but totally impractical fighting style or quickly use force to resolve something that is an apparent threat that will cause conflict.However humour,esp.the verbal sort is much easier to imitate even when not in the context that you first saw it in.Humour is far more versatile (and is even quite a good teaching tool when used well) while violence largely is a means of destruction or a vivid response to some sort of conflict or violation.Thus it can leave a deeper impression then violence which can more easily be shrugged off as unreasonable.This leads me to ask what's more influential?.The violence of a show like Dexter or CSI and the gruesome gore and blood that results from such violence or vulgar humour from a show like Two and a half men or South Park where things are subject to be satirized (humour with the intention of teaching or sending a message:good or bad) as well as parody (making fun of something b/c it's apparently game) along with particulary in the case of the latter blood and gore are played and presented for gags and the object of a crude dark humour that takes everything too lightly and cruelly/indiscriminately makes a spectacle of it?.Thanks for your time.
|
Threaded Mode
