You must be using hyperbole? We do actually constantly rethink things all the time, but thankfully we do not act on them because all people have some conservativism too. — I like sushi

But we must act on them. We can not continue with the racism that prevents social justice for all. We can not continue living in denial of global warming and exhausting our resources. The longer we live in denial, the worse the reality will be. I don't want to be drinking recycled water, and I don't want to experience food shortages, and once good farm land turned into deserts. Living as people lived when the bible was written will not protect us from a harsh reality that is developing.

And making radical changes would likley result in millions dying but that is okay because it will benefit future generations. You know what I mean when I say we need to be cautious.

Imagine the hardship and suffering it woudl cause to ban people from using fuel, or switching to vegan diets. The best we can do is attack the problems we foresee from multiple angles. We are already doing so in many sectors and huge strides have been made already in terms of how we manage farming. In the near future we probably won't need farmland as hydroponic will have moved on a lot.

The only real threat I am concerned about is AGI, but I am not entirely sure that can/will happen anytime soon. Hard to say. If it does that has far more potential to ruin our lives as well as improve it dramatically.

I am not overly concerned about the future of humanity tbh. Someone needs to be and it looks like you are so that is enough for me.

I just don't see a past golden age in North American education, as experienced by the 90%+ of the population who were neither part of the elite nor had any likelihood of joining the elite. The elite received what I think you would consider a very good education -- heavy in the humanities, Greek, Latin, etc. For boys going into business, (even law, until relatively recently) higher education was of little use. — BC

I so want to respond to everything you said but I am exhausted and heading to bed. I am thrilled that you valued intellectual pursuits above material wealth. I hope I understand you correctly. Now for education. Have you tried buying old grade school textbooks? They were about preparing children for life, not just preparing them for jobs. Unless you see this for yourself what I am saying is just words with no meaning. Especially important was using our schools for Americanizing immigrants. This education was not about technology until 1917, and the US mobilized for the First World War. The war demanded technologically trained men, and we scrambled to prepare for the First World War.

I don't think anyone was thinking about what this would do to our economy. We had not experienced the level of technology that changed our reality rapidly because of wartime demands. Even those who fought in the Second World War, did not expect to pay income taxes because they didn't think they would ever earn enough to have to pay an income tax. We transitioned from an industrial economy to a service economy in the 1950's. You know, around the time Eisenhower was the US president and asked Congress to pass the National Defense Education Act.

You might notice I am saying the world wars changed education, and a byproduct was folks leaving the farms and moving into cities where they hoped to have better jobs and better lives. Adding vocational training to education was a wonderful benefit for thousands of Americans. But all this way, the priority of education was preparing the young to be good citizens, until the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced what Eisenhower called our domestic education with education for technology for military and industrial purposes.

That explanation is way too long, but I don't know what can be cut out of it. I checked with my favorite second-hand online book store, and they do not have The Democracy Series grade school textbooks. We were preparing for war with Germany at the time. One of the texts makes comparisons between our way of life in the US and Germany. It was believed that patriotism was the most important part of our national defense until the military technology of the Second World War.

This isn't very philosophical, but maybe someone can morph it into a philosophical statement. The old textbooks promoted families. Dick and Jane's mother stayed home to take care of the family. The father went to work to support the family. The grandparents lived on a farm. It was not gays who ruined family values. It was the National Defense Education Act and labor laws that changed the family with education for a technological society with unknown values. This has something to do with the cost of a high-tech military and modern warfare, and having a fully employed adult population paying income taxes. For military and economic reasons, Mom can not stay home and care for the family. A homemaker does so much more than prepare meals and keep the home clean. But who wants to be "just a housewife".

Have you tried buying old grade school textbooks? — Athena

No, but I did buy some old family / sex education books from between 1900 and 1920. Their advice on family and marriage (sex) was perhaps applicable before WWI; it became less applicable year by year. "Sex" per se didn't change, but the roles of men, women, and marriage were changing rapidly. Further, the culture was undergoing rapid multi-directional changes and so was the economy. The Crash of 1929, resulting depression, and WWII brought about even more dramatic changes.

I learned to read using Dick and Jane readers. Sure, in the 1950s (I started 1st grade in 1951/52) some aspects of D's & J's world were familiar; many mothers were at home; most fathers worked. But even in the small town Podunk I grew up in, some mothers had to work, some fathers didn't, and there were some children who were clearly poor and not well cared for. We were poor; my working father did not wear a suit (it seems like the D&J father did).

Have you tried buying old grade school textbooks? They were about preparing children for life, not just preparing them for jobs. — Athena

Was D&J a good reading text book? I don't know, but at least it wasn't based on any of some of the very screwy ideas some schools use and fail to teach children how to read. I don't remember much about reading books after 1st grade.

The classrooms I remember from 1952-1964 were peaceful. Was this because Dick and Jane readers had modeled peaceful, cooperative, respectful behavior? I doubt it very much. We were peaceful, cooperative, and respectful because those were common family values and were expected. No, not every family transmitted or practiced these values consistently. Enough did that the "herd standard" worked pretty well. And we lacked diversity; we were all pretty much culturally the same.

It's axiomatic that life is always changing. There was no period in American / Canadian history when society was not undergoing significant change. As James Russell Lowell put it in his poem, Once to Every Man and Nation, "time makes ancient good uncouth".

They were about preparing children for life, not just preparing them for jobs. — Athena

Schools, teachers, and school books have always been preparing children for both LIFE and jobs. Only for the severely disabled or the extremely privileged will LIFE and WORK not be inextricably entangled. Didn't the Lord tell Adam and Eve that "from now on, you will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow"? Genesis 3:19. No more easy street for you, buddy!!! Now, get out of here, and get to WORK.

I am exhausted and heading to bed — Athena

Hope you are sleeping well!

Teaching by example; putting them in a difficult situation earlier than usual, such as by to operate a small town where they work fields, and run shops--- and other things you'd expect to see in a town, under the guidance of trained teachers.

Being civil and training them manners and to take pride in their chores(not just doing it for the parents), all by the trained teachers or parents doing this themselves, and asking them to pay attention.

I love your post. :heart: I have a very old eugenics book, along with very old books about family values. The author of the eugenics book said people should learn about birth control so women would have sex with their husbands instead of sending them to a brothel because they didn't want to get pregnant. He was very excited by what technology would do for us, and he would not have stood in the way of abortion, especially if the baby would be deformed. This is the thinking that Hitler adopted. Developing technology most certainly changed our moral perspective.

On the other hand, these old books tell me sex is okay, but a woman should never expect a man to help with the children! She must take care of everything so he is free to focus on his career. I sure would have liked a wife like that when my X walked out and I had to support the children. It would have been wonderful to have a full-time homemaker like many women were before women's lib. When I needed a wife like that, my opinion of worth as a homemaker went sky high. :lol:

On to textbooks, Dick and Jane textbooks were for the "see and say" method, which is highly dependent on memory and resulted in a large number of students failing. I am so grateful for my teacher grandmother because I could not learn to read and was put in the group for dumbies. She taught me phonics and used the Jerry and Alice textbooks. Those books were for learning phonics AND they brought in different values. A main character in the Jerry and Alice books was a single woman.

Back to war and education. In the US, the divorce rate went sky high following WWII. During the war years, the government, textbook makers, and media had strong relationships to maintain patriotism. After the war, there was a shift to strengthen family values. The Democracy Series of grade school texts and later Dick and Jane are good examples of this.

I want to stress the importance of this focus on values because of the herd of which you speak.

Enough did that the "herd standard" worked pretty well. And we lacked diversity; we were all pretty much culturally the same. — BC

That was very much the result of intentional government, bookmaker, and education goals. Now darnit and I am so sorry but I am going to break the ban on AI because this is a perfect time to use it and the health of our nation needs this information.

Contrary to popular belief, iconic family sitcoms after WWII like Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best were not funded by the government. They were commercial products of a flourishing post-war television industry, though they did reflect and promote the cultural ideals of the time.
The post-war context
Following World War II, a climate of renewed consumerism and Cold War anxiety contributed to a deep cultural emphasis on a secure and traditional family life. TV shows that presented idealized, traditional family models found a receptive audience.

I have to modify that by saying the public broadcasting channels were government-funded and focused on values. :lol: Some people don't like the left-leaning programming, and perhaps "Jerry and Alice" were also left-leaning? I asked AI and found another disagreement with AI. :cry: I am losing faith in AI. But I am thrilled to find an explanation of our consciousness at the time.

That was when Billy Graham talked to Eisenhower about putting "God" into our Pledge of Allegiance and focusing on communist people, not being Christian people. AI saying the government wasn't involved with political media agendas may not be the whole truth. The Communists liberated women long before the US. At first, the USSR economy improved when women entered the workforce. However, divorce and abortion rates increased, and then increasing numbers of women and children fell below the poverty level. We can add to that, increasing women and children being more involved in crime and violence, both as victims and perpetrators.

I was horrified when a teacher expressed great enthusiasm for a new computer learning program that told the story of the new bully on the block, being a girl. This was topped by the popularity of Captain Underpants, and our local school library preferring socially inappropriate books to the classics because the children would read them. We have come a long way from our reading books, teaching our young good values, and creating a herd with moral values.

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

Do you prefer evolution to Creationism? The evidence I have seen on TV or read in books, and the college lectures I have learned from, say, the ape-like creatures that became humans succeeded because of the better social organization.

Bonobos have a different social structure than chimpanzees. They are female-dominated and more sexual, and more cooperative. Many of us have Neanderthal genes, but modern man won, possibly because of better social organization. Athenians held that you can not have too many people in a democracy because when we become strangers to each other, our social bonds break down. Our morality depends on our social bonds.

Exactly what was the point you were trying to make?

Teaching by example; putting them in a difficult situation earlier than usual, such as by to operate a small town where they work fields, and run shops--- and other things you'd expect to see in a town, under the guidance of trained teachers.

Being civil and training them manners and to take pride in their chores(not just doing it for the parents), all by the trained teachers or parents doing this themselves, and asking them to pay attention. — Barkon

I believe you are speaking of social bonds. I am quite sure mass murderers do not have good social bonds. How many people are in your town? Does your town have enough farm land and water to be self-sufficient? How does your town resolve problems?

The only real threat I am concerned about is AGI, but I am not entirely sure that can/will happen anytime soon. Hard to say. If it does that has far more potential to ruin our lives as well as improve it dramatically. — I like sushi

What is AGI?

About drastic change. We live on a finite planet, and we act as though there is an infinite supply of everything we need. But some folks know better so we have very expensive military power and wars. I would have more hope if people were more conscious of reality.

When I was microfilming old newspapers for a library, I read a warning in a 1920s newspaper. "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war." All Industrial economies collapsed, and the world went to war. I have a very low opinion of human intelligence.

On to textbooks, Dick and Jane textbooks were for the "see and say" method, which is highly dependent on memory and resulted in a large number of students failing. — Athena

One of the many things I don't much about are the theories (good and bad) about teaching reading. I have seen several studies that emphasize the importance of hearing A LOT of language in the first 4 or 5 years of life -- not babble from a television, but spoken by care-givers in a positive manner. The more complex, the better. By first grade (5 or 6 years) a child needs to have heard around 30,000,000 words. Being reared in a diminished and negative language environment can make acquisition of reading (and other school-taught skills) very difficult-to-impossible.

I grew up in a large family; positive speech was plentiful. I remember being read-to, comic books usually. I don't remember having any great difficulty learning to read. I attended a small-town school and most of my classmates also were successful readers.

The difficult transition for students who fail in school is when learning to read shifts to reading to learn. That has happened by 4th or 5th grade. I remember that in 5th grade I became obsessed with mushrooms, which I read about in the World Book Encyclopedia we had in the classroom.

What is AGI? — Athena

Artificial General Intelligence doesn't exist--yet. AI, and its large language models, are a step in that direction.

But my point is that your childhood influences don't always wither away. — Hanover

No. But you have to admit that as an adult absorbing all kinds of learning from your environment, that the childhood teachings we learned have been modified. And this is what I meant. It could happen that the values you learned as a child have been beneficial to you as an adult and so that's what you follow.

Additionally... 30 million words heard by age 6 isn't hard to achieve in a family that is literate, quite verbal, and engaged with it's children. That's your basic "middle class" family".

Where it is difficult for a child to hear 30 million positive (non-command / non-curse) words is in poor families, especially poor black families. Children from these families may arrive at school with a 10 million-word deficit, and a lot of the words they have heard have been negative, commands, or curses. Again, it is the language of the caregiver, not the television or uninvolved people that matter.

I bring this up because for these poor children, remediation of language deficits is very difficult, and by 3rd grade, the child has often fallen far behind--which becomes yet another barrier.

IF there is a solution for this language deficit, it is to train caregivers to "start talking" positively and a lot. The sort of talk that helps is, for instance, describing to the child how the bed is made; how the laundry is done; how the dishes are washed (all at the fairly early language learning stage). Praising the child is important. What the child needs to hear a lot less of is the negative language one sometimes hears on a bus, from parent to child. It can be very harsh.

Can parents be taught? Yes, provided there are funds to launch the kind of intensive outreach that is needed, and to maintain the instructional programs for years on end.

One of the many things I don't much about are the theories (good and bad) about teaching reading. I have seen several studies that emphasize the importance of hearing A LOT of language in the first 4 or 5 years of life -- not babble from a television, but spoken by care-givers in a positive manner. The more complex, the better. By first grade (5 or 6 years) a child needs to have heard around 30,000,000 words. Being reared in a diminished and negative language environment can make acquisition of reading (and other school-taught skills) very difficult-to-impossible. — BC

Thank you so much for saying something interesting about education and learning. What you said justifies the Head Start program. I watched a cognitively-challenged mother raise her children, and she herself did not have the vocabulary nor the wit to talk to her children. I encouraged her to do so, but she could not understand the importance. We have a housing project for low-income families with Head Start and child care on the grounds. These challenged people need that for so many reasons. They love their children, but their judgment is lacking and the State may take their children. We need more housing that supports these parents and prepares children for learning.

I recently found math books for children that are stories that can be read to a child at bedtime. These books are awesome as they do more to help children understand math concepts. Far back in the day, some school textbooks also taught math by telling stories, and values like being considerate and cooperative were also in the stories. It is quite obvious to me, children learn language but fail to learn math because we ignore math but talk all day, every day.

I had the most fun with a great-grandson who was in my care because he was a very active child, and I introduced math when walking. His whole body was learning math. One of my math books suggested the need to actively learn math.

Oh my, I am so moved and passionate about this. When people say education is about preparing children for industry, I have to argue that many teachers teach because they love the children and teaching. What can be more rewarding than opening a child's mind to the marvels of learning? We need to give back the teacher's authority over his/her classroom.

No. But you have to admit that as an adult absorbing all kinds of learning from your environment, that the childhood teachings we learned have been modified. And this is what I meant. It could happen that the values you learned as a child have been beneficial to you as an adult and so that's what you follow. — L'éléphant

When my teenage daughter got in trouble with the law, she had to go into counseling and the counselor told her she learned better. She most certainly did. But the teen years are a form insanity. :lol: Back in the day, there was not the flood of books for the teen years that we have today.

Where it is difficult for a child to hear 30 million positive (non-command / non-curse) words is in poor families, especially poor black families. Children from these families may arrive at school with a 10 million-word deficit, and a lot of the words they have heard have been negative, commands, or curses. Again, it is the language of the caregiver, not the television or uninvolved people, that matters. — BC

I Googled, "Does TV influence teenagers" and AI gave a strong "yes, it does". I think we were much wiser in the past when we had censorship. I hope you look for more information. Maybe you can find a cite that supports your statement and share it.

I bring this up because for these poor children, remediation of language deficits is very difficult, and by 3rd grade, the child has often fallen far behind--which becomes yet another barrier. — BC

That I believe that is true. By age 8, our brains are literally changed and we do not absorb information as we do before age 8. But in some ways, our brains are better prepared for cognitive work.

Praising the child is important. What the child needs to hear a lot less of is the negative language one sometimes hears on a bus, from parent to child. It can be very harsh. — BC

That is something I did not understand. The harsh language was just wrong, but criticizing was showing I care. :worry: Like many in my cohort, parents meant well, but did a lot of harm because we were raised with a lot of criticism. I think the Great Depression influenced our parents, who meant well. I think the parents' sense of security influences how the parent understands life. Insecurity is very damaging.

And I want to say, my mother, like many mothers, was a single mother, and I was raised in a day care center, where I withdrew and stayed to myself. To me, the rest of the children were like animals and I didn't want to fight for a toy. Day Care may not be a good thing for all children.

Can parents be taught? Yes, provided there are funds to launch the kind of intensive outreach that is needed, and to maintain the instructional programs for years on end. — BC

My granddaughter took advantage of the Birth to Three program that was available in the city. I wish I had had such a supportive program when I was a young mother. My X kept the family isolated, and I feel for all the pioneer women who were isolated when we moved west and filled the wilderness with civilization. They should have at least had the Internet. That would have made life so much better!

... for all the pioneer women who were isolated when we moved west and filled the wilderness... They should have at least had the Internet. That would have made life so much better! — Athena

AT least the internet, but chances are the computers would not have fared well being banged around in the ox carts on the way west. Then there was the problem of a reliable connections, even with the extremely slow transmission rate, which was a bit slower than the average ox cart. Not to mention making the oxen hitched to the ox-powered generator run fast enough so you could check your e-mail. And we haven't even touched on the problem of dirt from the sod roof falling into the computer's hard drive and screwing things up.

No, back then civilization had a hard time. I mean, one's latest issue of The New Yorker was sometimes 6 months late! The local general trading store just didn't keep up with fashion, not to mention all the gnawing vermin in the cabin that were hard on one's wardrobe.

It was a great thing when the CBC finally started broadcasting life-saving symphony concerts and operas to the wilderness around Toronto, where paved roads and V-8s hadn't arrived quite yet.

I Googled, "Does TV influence teenagers" and AI gave a strong "yes, it does". — Athena

Well then, it must be TRUE. AI says so! But this is an old debate, and as I recollect there has never been a definitive answer to the question of whether, how, and how much comic books, movies, TV, video games, and music affect behavior. We know with certainty that billions of people engage with all these media, but to what effect is harder to say.

Untangling all the influences on a person from cradle to grave is an insurmountable problem--because we are always both the subject and object of our lives. There are too many factors for which an accounting would have to be made, and each individual brain is dealing with all these factors in a somewhat unique fashion.

It is clear that there are patterns in behavior observable in large groups of people. For instance, more women and fewer men are attending college now. That's a reversal. Why? That's much more difficult to get a handle on. We can both propose various reasons, as experts have, and the proposals both do and do not explain the changes. This is just one of a thousand patterns to account for.

Advertising, marketing, and sales data show that media messages affect consumer behavior to some extent. But even here, where whole industries are built on collecting and analyzing consumer behavior, there are few hard and fast rules one can count on. The manufactured objects themselves (everything from breakfast cereals to cars) are in themselves attractive objects. One doesn't have to have seen advertisements to buy packaged cereals. Seeing a new car on the street can stimulate one's itchy desires, even without media preparation. Or the car itself may have no effect at all on the viewer.

So, when we turn to deeper issues of influence -- one's habits of thought, ethics, imagination, complex behavior -- like parenting -- it is far more difficult to find clear, unmistakable connections between influences and practices. Still, it is obvious that there are connections--we just can't be precise about them, usually.

If one "examines one life" as the philosophers recommend, one will find both explainable and inexplicable patterns in one's life. That's true for everybody else, too.

When my teenage daughter got in trouble with the law, she had to go into counseling and the counselor told her she learned better. She most certainly did. But the teen years are a form insanity. — Athena

Good for her. Yes, in a way teen years are a form of 'insanity'. The overriding principles are recalcitrance and insubordination.

:lol: You really messed up my fantasy with your reality check.

Good for her. Yes, in a way teen years are a form of 'insanity'. The overriding principles are recalcitrance and insubordination. — L'éléphant

I just read

BC — BC

reality check on my fantasy of pioneer women having the internet, and maybe back in the day, survival needs made parenting easier. He sure drew a good picture of life being more challenging than it is now.

I keep studying just in case I find myself sitting at the large dining table in the sky with the Great Thinkers of history. I would love to hear what they have to say about our times. However, we do have the sentiments of a Sumerian father, whose son did not appreciate the good life his father gave him and did not focus on his education to become a scribe. It seems to be our nature to have difficulty getting through our teen years.

I have at least two reactions to what you said.

The first one comes from having social studies classes in college, and the impression that once something gets through the process of research, it resymbolizes reality as much as a plastic-wrapped steak resymbolizes the cow it came from.

You mentioned imagination, and I am thinking of the copycat crimes, and wonder if lives would be saved if we didn't give the world bad things to copy? The news might be important, and so might the delivery of the news be important. Personally, I am in favor of a higher standard of ethical professionalism.

Many people hold the parents responsible and say they should be able to prevent their child from watching TV programs that could have a bad effect. I think that is not realistic because this involves more than our own children. I think violent and cruel TV shows are socially bad for everyone. Kind of like Socrates saying we should be careful about the stories of the gods that we spread.

I know a frightening show can leave me feeling frightened, and one that makes me feel bad, such a show about a man abusing his wife, can cause me to feel bad for 3 days. I have to be careful about what I watch, and I know everyone is not like me. But I would not want my children to watch a show that is upsetting to me. Perhaps asking our children how they react to different shows could result in reasoning that is good for our own families?

And music- have you seen how Elvis moves his hips? :gasp: My mother thought he was an excellent entertainer. I think the music in my day got us out of Vietnam. Music is very important. And some rap music is good, and some is socially very bad.

that once something gets through the process of research, it resymbolizes reality as much as a plastic-wrapped steak resymbolizes the cow it came from. — Athena

Granted, one would not be able to imagine a cow based on a steak, but the steak is still 100% cow. So, even though social research generally examines just a small slice of the whole society, it still is society that is illuminated -- poorly, better, or brilliantly, depending. Having said that, we have all read social research to which the response is a resounding "what?" or "so what?".

One piece of research that does come to mind is this: People who watch a lot of local news organized around crime stories tend to be more fearful about their neighborhoods than actual crime would justify. That makes sense: there are too many repetitions of the same violent story line that are actually not relevant to 99% of the larger community. If you are not in a gang, dealing drugs, and so on, you are not likely to have somebody shoot you for non-payment or being on some other dealer's turf.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road was a disturbing story. I was going to watch the movie as well, but decided it would load way too many disturbing images into my head. I've read a couple of science fiction stories where the same thing applied -- the text was disturbing enough. So yes, material that is disturbing to adults is likely to be just as disturbing to children.

I am thinking of the copycat crimes — Athena

Some news media (in Australia) have made limited moves to limit the details of crime reporting, or limit the amount of coverage of sensational crimes. In a competitive environment that's hard to do, of course, and if all the other stations are covering it, well... But it makes sense that wall to wall coverage of every school shooting spree might inspire copycat behavior.

have you seen how Elvis moves his hips? — Athena

Elvis isn't one of my favorites, but I have lately been listening to a lot of popular music from the 60s and early 70s. There were a lot of great performers! Good looking young singers, great voices, sometimes great lyrics but sometimes vapid songs.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road was a disturbing story. I was going to watch the movie as well, but decided it would load way too many disturbing images into my head. I've read a couple of science fiction stories where the same thing applied -- the text was disturbing enough. So yes, material that is disturbing to adults is likely to be just as disturbing to children. — BC

Okay, and should we subject our children to that? When we had sensorship, we could tell the stories but make the show less sensational. Have you seen the original King Kong movie? The sexuality was there, but not in-your-face like the modern version of the movie. I much prefer the indoendo to the in-your-face sensationalism we have today; that is cheap and a jolt to my nervous system.

I watched Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with friends, and we were shocked by all the sexuality we did not remember being in the show. Disney's Fantasia is also very sexual. However, it is doubtful that those who are not sexually experienced would notice the sexuality. It is the difference between a strip tease and the in-your-face experience common today. And frankly, it is to me, a little gross. I think I am pretty liberal. I just don't like things done with no class. :lol: Oh dear, I may be a snub. But I think having standards are important to a civilization. I don't like bringing everything down to the lowest level, and I don't think that is good for society.

Reality check, I remember hearing songs were written by adults with standards until the Beatles came along with their own songs. AI agrees with me. :lol: This is appropriate for this thread because there is a long history of musical revolutions and parents fighting against it. I mean, touching while dancing is shocking! The waltz is immoral. :wink: How do we keep our children good when we are falling into evil?

At least we stopped advertising cigarettes. I think some agree there is a connection between what we see and what we do. For a very short time, I did advertising research until I realized how unethical that is. The average person has no defenses against the manipulation of advertising that is largely subliminal. People earn good money figuring out how to manipulate potential customers.

AI gives a different intent to Disney's Fantasia than I expected. :lol: It was not marketed for children, but adults, and it is too bad we cannot use AI quotes that make our post more interesting.

One of the problems with AI and it's large language model is that when it answers a question, it is drawing on that vast ocean of print which is what it has been 'trained' on. So, some of the material it is loaded with is good (high quality); some of it is bad (not immoral, but low quality); and a lot of it is indifferent. There is no artificial "intelligence" driving AI. What makes it tick is software instructions.

So, question: Where did AI get its opinions about Fantasia? Certainly NOT from watching the film as either a human child or an adult!

I'm not altogether against AI, but like electrification, mechanization, automation, the assembly line, photography, motion pictures, the telephone, radio, television, internet, and a lot of other industrial innovations, it will have both predictable and unanticipated + and - consequences. We can rest assured that the companies building and selling AI will not take responsibility for any of those consequences.

Granted, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is not up there with Giacomo Puccini. "Yesterday" by Paul McCartney is a good song by any standard. McCartney was 22 when he wrote and performed Yesterday. He's 83.

Yesterday
All my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday

Suddenly
I'm not half the man I used to be
There's a shadow hangin' over me
Oh, yesterday came suddenly

Why she had to go, I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday

Yesterday
Love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh, I believe in yesterday

I like operatic music, but some of opera's lyrics are slop -- slop set to sublime music, quite often.

Were the big stars of Rock and Roll and Folk music talented? Oh God, yes they were. But everybody wasn't a big star, up there with the Beatles, the Doors, Bob Dylan or PP&M. There were second and third string rock bands doing bubble gum slop (which, as it happens, isn't totally without merit; it doesn't have a lot of merit, but still...).

When we had sensorship, we could tell the stories but make the show less sensational. — Athena

Censorship is fine when one doesn't like the stuff the censor is shredding, anyway, but not so great when it is one's favorite books, poems, newspapers, magazines, films, etc. that are getting trashed.

In the good old days (which were not so good) censors worried about sexual content -- which back then was more like innuendo and suggestion. A glimpse of stocking was something shocking. CHOP! Married couples (in some films and tv programs, had "Hollywood beds" -- single side by side -- to avoid the obvious fact that couples slept together, quite possibly naked, and -- “QUELLE HORREUR!” engaged in sexual intercourse right there in that double bed!!! CHOP!

So sexual innuendo, and god forbid that the film should present a positive image of certain immigrant groups, certain political groups (leftist, labor, etc.) or socialism / communism CHOP! CHOP! CHOP! No homosexuals on screen, please, and no mention of the actor's homosexuality off screen. CHOP! No unwed women getting pregnant, no blacks and whites together -- absolutely not!!! It was OK to have Sydney Poitier sweating for a bunch of German nuns, but that was the limit. CHOP!

Donald Trump didn't like the Smithsonian Institution's display about impeachment (sore issue with Donald) so the display was withdrawn. CHOP!

Donald Trump doesn't like it mentioned that he lost the 2020 election. It wasn't stolen from him, HE LOST IT!!! CHOP!

Violence was never at the top of the list for censorship. Violence, mayhem, scary monsters, freaks, crashes, bullets flying, etc. were normally not viewed as problematic.

Oh dear, I may be a snob. But I think having standards are important to a civilization. I don't like bringing everything down to the lowest level, and I don't think that is good for society. — Athena

Of course it isn't good to bring everything down to the lowest level. Sex in itself is not a low level. It's a topic. It can be treated in a lot of different ways, some elegantly, some crude, some poetically, some politically. Sex can transgress standards and be worthy of a film, or be very pedestrian and belong on the cutting room floor, along with the pedestrians.

I don't have any ready made guidelines. I'm pretty tolerant on many topics (except certain political matters). Have I never been offended by a film? I suppose -- I went to see I AM CURIOUS YELLOW, the Swedish shocker sex film of the late 60s. It was a bore and I left with a headache. I saw DEEP THROAT in the 70s; I'm gay; its plot was pretty much heterosexual. Another headache, another bore. Quality queer sleaze doesn't offend me, but it's usually not worth movie-length treatment. 5 minutes is about right. "For god's sake, stop talking and DO SOMETHING!"

My daughter is a member of a LGBTQ group that does shows almost weekly. She lives to perform in the shows as a singer and travels to the cities from Los Vegas, Nevada, to Seattle, Washington. I am so glad she found something that gives her so much happiness. She is her grandmother's daughter.:lol: My mother sang for USO shows and moved the family to Hollywood, California, because she wanted to be in the movies.

About shows, I loved the Chippendale shows. And I don't mind eye candy.:grin:

I lost a very old book about marriage, which said sex is not a bad thing, and in its day, that may have been a shocking thing to say. My grandmother and her friends thought sex was for animals and not humans. In the old book, the author argued that good sex makes a marriage good, and an anthropologist argued that good sex can keep the man and woman together for longer, and that gives their offspring a better chance in life. Love improves our health. Being happy improves our health.

It is good for the children when the parents are loving and happy, and today, the parents can be of the same sex. Hopefully, we can work on having healthy attitudes with better science.

In the good old days (which were not so good) censors worried about sexual content -- which back then was more like innuendo and suggestion. — BC

But I like that innuendo and suggestion, and I don't like in-your-face anything. And I don't like being yelled at. When I was dealing with teenagers, I enjoyed heavy metal music, but that is not what I want to hear or watch today. My son liked Kiss, and I am quite sure my mother would say they were good entertainers. Should we start a thread about the popular music we listened to when we came of age?

Philosophically, we come from a long history of believing good music is important. AI makes an interesting statement about the history and science of good music. Too bad it is against the rules to quote AI. The AI statement would be a good way to start that thread.

I think each cohort has its unique music inspired by the time. AI says that during the Great Depression, bands offered escape and entertainment. Performing was very important to my mother and Bob Hope. Both of them wanted to make people happy. Back in the day we did not take happiness for granted.

For sure the mood of the country is different today than when I grew up full of hope that we would make a better world. I am trying to stay connected to the subject of this thread.

For sure the mood of the country is different today than when I grew up full of hope that we would make a better world. I — Athena

The mood of the country is different than it was say 70 years ago. But then those 70 years have changed us as well. So neither the world nor we are the same.

I think each cohort has its unique music inspired by the time. — Athena

That raises an interesting question: What features of a given time (say, 1890s, 1940s, 1990s... either 'inspire', 'cause', or 'influence' music's periodic changes? Ragtime became popular in the 1890s, at the same time that Jim Crow laws were most draconian. Despite Blacks being terrorized and excluded, Ragtime was very popular in the Black community where it originated, but it also became popular among middle-class whites. Why? How?

Two technical developments helped: one was the wide available of sheet music. At this time before radio and recorded music, many people produced music at home, and there was a large sheet music industry feeding the demand for interesting music. The other development was the increased availability of the player piano, which enabled households to buy performances of both classical and contemporary music. A roll of ragtime might better capture the rhythms than interpreting sheet music.

Black artists (like Scott Joplin) weren't celebrated; quite often the whole black origin of Ragtime was 'white washed'.

Are you familiar with Louis Moreau Gottschalk? He preceded Ragtime by 20 years, at least but he had a very strong influence on both Ragtime and later Jazz (he died in 1869). He wrote a lot of music for piano and orchestra; here's a short piano piece, which is a fair introduction if you have not heard him before: The Banjo:



Gottschalk, Joplin, Jelly Roll Morton. There were dance bands, and then big bands -- the kind you see in old movies, like Benny Goodman or Glen Miller. Then Rock and Roll, and here we are.

I agree that each sub-generational cohort has its preferred genre, but the varieties and the generations are kind of all mushed together. Hard to sort out one thing from another.