Hollywood out of step with American morals: poll

[lightningandsnow]

From the "Smallest. Violin. Ever." files:

Among the survey's findings:

-- 61% of respondents agree that "religious values are under attack in this country," while 36% disagree with that statement.

-- 43% said that Hollywood and the national media are waging an organized campaign to "weaken the influence of religious values in this country."

-- 63% disagree with the statement that "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," while only 22% agree with that point. When ADL conducted its first survey on anti-Semitic attitudes, in 1964, nearly half of the respondents believed that the television and film industries were run by Jews.

-- Nearly 40% support the notion that "dangerous ideas should be banned from public school libraries," and nearly the same number disagree with the statement that "censoring books is an old-fashioned idea."

-- Nearly half of those surveyed -- 49% -- believe that the United States is becoming "too tolerant in its acceptance of different ideas and lifestyles; 47% disagree with that statement.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081117/entertainment/centertainment_us_poll

:nopity:

Tolerance, oh noes! I wouldn't be so pissed off about this "culture war" bullshit if not for the fact that me and my friends are always the ones the people with "moral values" love to attack. Well, as comedian Maggie Cassella would say, "Have a nice big cup of mind your own business!" Don't like the fact that I'm queer, or have a trans partner? Then don't date someone trans, or of the same gender! Don't like premarital sex? Don't have it! Don't like non-monogamy? Then don't have a non-monogamous relationship! Why is that so hard? Don't like Atheism, or Paganism? Then you can keep your own religion, thanks. Why is who people sleep with and how of such concern to this 50% or so? When did morality become about that, instead of being a kind, just human being who treats their fellow humans well? And who is "attacking" religion, exactly, and why are other people's beliefs of such concern?

Oh yes, and "too tolerant", my ass. This is why, in this day and age, people like Sanesha Stewart and Lawrence King can get murdered and people still make excuses for their killers.

I realize I'm mostly preaching to the converted here, but it's still frustrating.

[bunkerbuster1]

1. What percentage of Americans find push-polls to be suckass-ish?

I'd like to include that one, long as they're asking these loaded questions.

[Lint Head]

2. Movies do not reflect average society. It is fantasy land. It is

escapism. These people need to get a frigging clue. You generally don't have a villain that has societal motives. :dem:

[cobalt1999]

4. Exactly.

People aren't going to a movie to watch something they can see in their own life.

Movies are all about seeing something you can't see by watching your neighbor.

[Sinti]

3. Liberals need to reclaim this word for good

Morals have to do with that part of your behavior which affects others.

As a nation I would agree that we have very low morals at this point in history. We allow people to go hungry and homeless. We allow people to die, because they can't afford to pay to live. The dollar comes first, and everything else takes a back seat. We have totally lost our way, and our children learn to value life (their own and others) less and less. Tolerance, IMO, is a requirement for being a "moral" person - all life has equal value. Then again, I'm not religious.

The "religious values are under attack in this country" crowd is totally morally bankrupt by my own definition. They only care about sex, apparently they've getting none and want the rest of the world to suffer with them. Sex and food - that's all fundamentalist religion seems to care about - I guess they're the most visceral and universal things in human life, if they can control those, they can control the whole of a man.

We must reclaim this word, when talking about poverty and hate, particularly. It's morally reprehensible to allow these things to exist in a nation as rich in capital and diverse in culture as our own. The intolerant are very good at talking points, they repeat them ad nauseam until they're a permanent part of the lexicon - us not so much.

[lightningandsnow]

10. Yes.

Spot on.

[Neshanic]

5. Of course they are! But strangely movie theaters are full of people. Hmmm.

[shadowknows69]

7. Yep, still waiting on that boycott of movies, dvd's, most syndicated radio and television

Everyone must just like to watch how the other half lives I guess?

[treestar]

6. It's insecurity

since the relationships involve someone else. If you don't like non-monogamy you don't have to have such a relationship, but you always have the risk that the partner you have changes their mind about non-monogamy, and there is no social pressure for that partner to stay on with monogamy. What they want is societal pressure of the kind that used to be there - people had to brave the wrath of society if they wanted a divorce, etc. So it's not as simple as that - they have to be convinced that not only do they not have to be non-monogamous, but that they have to let others do things differently where it could affect them.

[Sparkly]

8. Question: What is a "religious value?"

Seriously -- what does that mean?

[lightningandsnow]

13. Apparently, intolerance and not getting laid.

That's what I'm getting from this survey.

[Bill McBlueState]

9. Hollywood isn't its own country

Since Hollywood is right there in southern California, "Hollywood morals" are by definition a subset of "American morals."

[rucky]

11. People can be as intolerant as they want to be.

As long as they don't try to push their closed-minded lifestyle on us.

[Greyhound]

12. Well, I guess it's time for the next round of failed pro-FSM crap.

Fortunately history demonstrates that after a year of lower revenues they will return to producing LCD garbage.

What happens when we become literally too stupid to eat?