It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:43 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10945
Location: Multiverse
Some people--usually men--have a problem with him as being effeminate. It sets their teeth on edge, roils their guts. It's weird. I still see it in all kinds of places, like where Doc in another thread dissed two unappealing (to him) lesbians as some sort of political statement. Some folks expect all of their media and public figures to fit very narrow standards of appearance and image. If they check all of those boxes, they're in. Hence the rise of the telegenic and the reality stars. But it's corrupting. Too much emphasis on easily edited appearance. I personally think this kind of narrow crap has produced worse popular music...now it's even harder to make it in music if you don't look great or have a gimmick. Video killed the radio star indeed. What are we headed for? The people on our screens have to make us hard or wet? Sounds like devolution to me.

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:52 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 19071
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
You are right. Lots of people have pretty fragile identities. I suppose it would not be conventionally macho to admire Fred Rogers. It is not conventionally macho to admire Jesus, hence:

Image

It is really strange how people demand others conform to their particular presentist images of masculinity and femininity. They freak out about differences. I think this is truer of the Right than the Left. On that topic, Haidt is pretty good reading.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:04 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7020
Location: Cassius University
cinepro wrote:
He wasn't saying "you're special so you don't have to do anything or accomplish anything in your life..." He was saying "Even if you aren't an Olympic Gold Medalist, Oxford Scholar or a billionaire, you have value and worth." This is very similar to what the LDS Church teaches in that everyone is a "child of God" and has value.


True. But this isn't a teaching that the Mopologists typically follow. I mean, what "value"--in their eyes--does Jeremy Runnells or John Dehlin have? How about Ed Decker? Sandra Tanner?

Quote:
As others have pointed out, he just wasn't in the age group (2-5 year olds) for the show. The show nationally aired in 1968, when Peterson would have been 13. He wasn't supposed to like it.


Interestingly, Dr. P. himself has never explained why he "couldn't stand the show." (And there is a difference between saying, "This clearly isn't for me," vs. "I couldn't stand the show.") In his "Sic et Non" post, DCP points out that Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is "a program that has often been criticized as, precisely, bland, unadventurous, and very vanilla." Of course he doesn't elaborate on this or commit to it as a reason for his own dislike, because...well, I assume you know why. Because guess what else is "bland, unadventurous, and very vanilla"?

Quote:
I have the same low opinion of the show "Barney", which was beloved by a generation of kids but aired when I was in my teens (and I would loudly complain when my younger siblings co-opted the TV to watch it). Hopefully that doesn't make me a bad person.


I don't think the comparison is an especially good one. Mr. Rogers was an actual, authentic human being with a multi-decade track record of unflagging kindness and decency--something that most of us can only aspire to. Barney, on the other hand, was a disingenuous purple dinosaur whose show was interesting mainly due to how surreal the whole thing was. Didn't you wonder on some level what the person inside the Barney costume was actually like? Imagine how "meta" this discussion becomes when you imagine that Barney was played by one of the Mopologists--say, for example, Matthew Roper.... Or, God forbid, Scott Lloyd.... the horror..... the horror....

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:16 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8091
Location: Cave
Professor, you’ve touched on a profound issue here. Cinepro brought up an important consideration: target audience. But here’s the thing. It shouldn’t matter.

If I say “I never liked Pee Wee Herman,” which is true, the reader or listener subconsciously does some math, and realizes I’m judging it with respect to its target audience. It would be quite odd for me to talk up Dora The Explorer for the sake of myself, and if I were to do praise Dora, the listener would immediately realize I’m praising it for its value for children, perhaps my own. Once a friend of mine went on a rant against Chicken and Cow. I knew immediately he was speaking in reference to his three small children who watched it.

Even for adult progaming, say Monday Night Football, if I went on a rant about it, it could be incredibly confusing without a proper explanation, because I’m not a football fan and so the listener may be left confused over whether there are really deficiencies in the programming or whether I just don't like football.

The point about target audience is quite damning if it holds, and I assume it doesn't. It’s a matter of empathy that causes a person to take into account target audience when offering an opinion about a show. If I dismiss The Bridges over Madison County as a “chick flick” or Mr. Rogers as a “kids show” well, in a sense, fine. Where it starts getting weird is if my criticism leaves it totally up in the air as to what the failings are with respect to target, and seems to imply I lack the social awareness to consider the value for its target. The music reviews in American Psycho illustrated this phenomena masterfully.

An adult dismissing (or praising) Mr. Rogers either means he or she has a problem with the shows value for children (or regards it highly); or it means he or she lacks the ability to empathize normally with other people.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:15 pm
Posts: 4387
Gadianton wrote:
An adult dismissing (or praising) Mr. Rogers either means he or she has a problem with the shows value for children (or regards it highly); or it means he or she lacks the ability to empathize normally with other people.


Keep in mind the phrasing that is under consideration here:

Quote:
I was, I have to admit, never a Mr. Rogers fan. I doubt that I ever watched an entire episode. I really couldn’t stand the show.


Until the recent documentary came out, I doubt anyone has really thought much about Mr. Rogers' show in quite a while. Peterson isn't passing judgement on the show as an adult. He's simply explaining the context in which he saw the documentary. Many people see the documentary through the lens of having enjoyed the show as a child (myself included). It's fair for someone discussing the documentary to explain if that's not the case for themselves.

_________________
Cinepro's Got a Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 29238
Location: Off the Deep End
Doctor Scratch wrote:
DCP wrote:
We’ve just returned from a showing of the documentary film Won’t You Be My Neighbor? about the legendary children’s television personality Fred Rogers, of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.

I was, I have to admit, never a Mr. Rogers fan. I doubt that I ever watched an entire episode. I really couldn’t stand the show. So I was a bit surprised at the news that we were going to see Won’t You Be My Neighbor? tonight. It was interesting, though. And there was one section, in the last quarter of the film, involving a young boy in a wheelchair, that was genuinely moving.

It occurred to me that there must be more to the blog comment than what you originally posted. Used the link. Guess what? There's not. That's it. That's his take away from the movie.

"It was interesting, though."

Admittedly I haven't seen the movie. I can't imagine coming away from it without appreciating the wisdom of the gifted teacher that was Fred Rogers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djoyd46TVVc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYAXD-Z-ztE

"Rich? Not rich. Famous? Well, it's more like Mr. Rogers is quietly powerful" ~ John Donvan

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 16802
Maksutov wrote:
like where Doc in another thread dissed two unappealing (to him) lesbians as some sort of political statement.

Don't project your crap on me, brother. If you think they were disgusting that's on you. My take was simply to point out that two chicks traipsing around with electrical tape on their door knobs was less sooper b@d4zz and more dip ____ ty and a clear example of dumbassery that isn't just relegated to the Right.

I admire Mr. Rogers for all the reasons discussed on this thread. He was a good man. The only issues I have with the effetes that post in the Paradise forum are their HUGE blind spots and smug superiority complex that is both misguided and a thin context for their obvious bigotries.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group