Jump to content



Photo

Mr. Rodgers in the News


18 replies to this topic

#1 poko

 

poko

    Singer of Show Tunes

  • Members
  • 20,440 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Art Building.
 

Posted 30 April 2010 - 09:46 PM

In the land of ridiculous non-reality, that defines modern television media, Fox News has hit a new low:

An Evil, Evil Man.


Apparently, according to one Fox News anchor, Mr. Rodgers was evil.
Thats right, Mr. Fred Rodgers, the conservative ordained minister who never met a person he didn't treat with consideration and love is evil. The world never knew a more kind, earnest man. I don't care if you found his show boring, his puppets creepy, his religion meaningless or his sweaters dated (made by his mom). Everything about Mr. Fred Rodgers was real. Every ideal he preached he lived and thus preached by example to every kid in America.

Mr. Rodgers didn't teach kids that you didn't have to work. In fact, he taught self-control and following through on your projects. He taught kids that they were worthwhile, not that they were more worthwhile than anyone else. The sense of entitlement comes from the parents, not Mr. Rodgers.

Whoever that news anchor is, she should be slapped. :P

15 Reasons Mr. Rodgers was the best.


Next up on Fox News, Gandhi hated India and Mother Theresa was a lazy freeloader.

-Doctor-

"The universe is big, its vast, and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes - very rarely - impossible things just happen and we call them miracles."

"Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold."

Posted Image

Facebook Comments Below ( All comments made with your Facebook account are subject to moderator discretion )

#2 JulesLuvsShinzon

 

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Pick Your Own Title

  • Members
  • 3,149 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bath, England
 

Posted 01 May 2010 - 11:38 AM

Well, what I saw was some quite light-hearted banter (which is about the most intellectual Fox News can manage) about the various merits or otherwise of Mr Rogers' philosophy which has - if the pundits are to be believed - has influenced a whole generation of American kids. I think the dubbing him "evil" was just tongue-in-cheek.

In general, and speaking as the mother of a very successful 18 year-old who was appointed Head Student after only transferring to her school the previous year, there is nothing wrong in nurturing a child's self esteem. What is wrong, however, if telling that child that he/she is "special" and giving that child a disproportionate view of his/herself that leads him/her to believe that he/she is "better" than anyone else, or entitled to more than anyone else. Some idiot parents say this srt of thing to their kids because they actually believe that themselves. In point of fact, what we should be doing is recognising a child's potential and giving them the tools and the guidance to go out an achieve it. I've met too many kids who seem to think that being "special" is a gilt-edged invitation to be rude/lazy/ignorant/greedy in the real world because their parents have nurtured these traits at home.

In point of fact, the word "special" is so misapplied to inappropriate people that in the UK it has now become twisted around into an insult because people are so fed-up with hearing that the most pointless people are "special". Trust me, anyone calls you "special" in the UK, they are not complementing you if they fall about laughing afterwards.

#3 poko

 

poko

    Singer of Show Tunes

  • Members
  • 20,440 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Art Building.
 

Posted 01 May 2010 - 02:34 PM

Well, what I saw was some quite light-hearted banter (which is about the most intellectual Fox News can manage) about the various merits or otherwise of Mr Rogers' philosophy which has - if the pundits are to be believed - has influenced a whole generation of American kids. I think the dubbing him "evil" was just tongue-in-cheek.

In general, and speaking as the mother of a very successful 18 year-old who was appointed Head Student after only transferring to her school the previous year, there is nothing wrong in nurturing a child's self esteem. What is wrong, however, if telling that child that he/she is "special" and giving that child a disproportionate view of his/herself that leads him/her to believe that he/she is "better" than anyone else, or entitled to more than anyone else. Some idiot parents say this srt of thing to their kids because they actually believe that themselves. In point of fact, what we should be doing is recognising a child's potential and giving them the tools and the guidance to go out an achieve it. I've met too many kids who seem to think that being "special" is a gilt-edged invitation to be rude/lazy/ignorant/greedy in the real world because their parents have nurtured these traits at home.

In point of fact, the word "special" is so misapplied to inappropriate people that in the UK it has now become twisted around into an insult because people are so fed-up with hearing that the most pointless people are "special". Trust me, anyone calls you "special" in the UK, they are not complementing you if they fall about laughing afterwards.

Yeah it was mostly banter but it's Mr. Rodgers. :(

No, calling someone special in the US can be an insult. It's short for 'special needs,' or children who can't be in normal class settings due to a disability, mental or physical.

-Doctor-

"The universe is big, its vast, and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes - very rarely - impossible things just happen and we call them miracles."

"Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold."

Posted Image

#4 JulesLuvsShinzon

 

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Pick Your Own Title

  • Members
  • 3,149 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bath, England
 

Posted 01 May 2010 - 02:44 PM

Ah, so it's the same thing "Stateside"!

LOL!

There was a joke on TV recently in which a comedian was lambasting a well-known, cheap, stack 'em high supermarket here in the UK. He said something along the lines of the place being a real dump where only retarded people, chavs, and utter skinflints go to do their shopping. He said "Have you seen the Manager's special? Special - I should say so! He's out there licking the trollies!"

#5 poko

 

poko

    Singer of Show Tunes

  • Members
  • 20,440 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Art Building.
 

Posted 01 May 2010 - 02:53 PM

Ah, so it's the same thing "Stateside"!

LOL!

There was a joke on TV recently in which a comedian was lambasting a well-known, cheap, stack 'em high supermarket here in the UK. He said something along the lines of the place being a real dump where only retarded people, chavs, and utter skinflints go to do their shopping. He said "Have you seen the Manager's special? Special - I should say so! He's out there licking the trollies!"

I don't think they can call people retarded here in the US, unless you're speaking of politicians. :lol:

-Doctor-

"The universe is big, its vast, and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes - very rarely - impossible things just happen and we call them miracles."

"Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold."

Posted Image

#6 sevnson_71

 

sevnson_71

    TU Forum Manager - Resident killjoy

  • Forum Administrators
  • 13,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH USA
 

Posted 02 May 2010 - 10:02 PM

Not retarded, just insane.
Posted Image

So the combination is 1-2-3-4-5. That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! That's the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!- Dark Helmet; "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils." - Gen. John Stark; "Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it." -Robert Frost; "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams, Brewer/Patriot
FORUM RULES



#7 Russell Crowe

 

Russell Crowe

  • Members
  • 45,874 posts
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 01:02 AM

I get so used to "special needs" being a supportive and non-judgmental term that i forget people also use it to be douchebags :P "disabled" and "retarded", on the other hand, really shouldn't be a part of anyone's vocabulary.



Also, mr. rogers is pretty much the person i would like to model my life after and when i was a little kid i used to put on sweaters and pretend that i was him which i totally don't do any more, not at all.
Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the
earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of
all poems...

#8 Apocalypse

 

Apocalypse

    The Baron, Resident Duelist

  • Members
  • 13,081 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trapped in Aperture Science Labs
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 01:09 AM

"disabled" and "retarded", on the other hand, really shouldn't be a part of anyone's vocabulary.

Quick, Mark, there's a fire and someone [word not found] my flame-[word not found] foam dispenser!
Recent-ish blog entry: The D20-headed Knight, Chapter Six: The Prodigal Steve Returns
"Oh, come on... be reasonable. You can't destroy everything; where would you sit?"
-The Tick

#9 poko

 

poko

    Singer of Show Tunes

  • Members
  • 20,440 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Art Building.
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 01:16 AM

I get so used to "special needs" being a supportive and non-judgmental term that i forget people also use it to be douchebags :P "disabled" and "retarded", on the other hand, really shouldn't be a part of anyone's vocabulary.



Also, mr. rogers is pretty much the person i would like to model my life after and when i was a little kid i used to put on sweaters and pretend that i was him which i totally don't do any more, not at all.

Really? We can't call anyone slow, retarded, mentally disabled... so what do we call people? If we don't explicitly know their condition do we have to always call special needs people, special? What if they're a big jerk? (Like with any group of people not all of them are nice). Can I then intentionally insult them or is that as off limits as unintentionally insulting terms?

Seems like we're inventing a new label every 5 years or so to escape the negative connotation. Almost seems a lost cause. Might as well give it up as human nature.

-Doctor-

"The universe is big, its vast, and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes - very rarely - impossible things just happen and we call them miracles."

"Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold."

Posted Image

#10 Russell Crowe

 

Russell Crowe

  • Members
  • 45,874 posts
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 01:27 AM

Really? We can't call anyone slow, retarded, mentally disabled... so what do we call people? If we don't explicitly know their condition do we have to always call special needs people, special? What if they're a big jerk? (Like with any group of people not all of them are nice). Can I then intentionally insult them or is that as off limits as unintentionally insulting terms?

Seems like we're inventing a new label every 5 years or so to escape the negative connotation. Almost seems a lost cause. Might as well give it up as human nature.


i don't agree... it's not necessarily a matter of how well-intentioned it is. it's about the conceptual frame we use to view people's challenges. I can call someone "retarded" or "developmentally disabled" and mean it in a purely clinical non-judgmental sense.. but there's still a meaning inherent to those words that suggests a view of human existence that centers around problems and shortcomings. It's a relatively harmless process to re-frame our language to where we're talking about problems as a small part of a person's identity, rather than as a defining label for their entire life. I guess I'm not sure what the benefit would be to calling someone "retarded", in any context? If you're the person's physician, therapist, OT, family member, or whatever, you're probably going to know the clinical details, so you could talk about their Down Syndrome or their developmental disorder or their learning disability.... and if you're not one of those people in their lives, I can't imagine needing to know, honestly. If I bump into somebody (a stranger) in a public place who has, let's say, Fragile X Syndrome... I can't see why I would need to refer to them as "retarded" or "special needs" or anything at all for that matter. As far as my interaction with them extends, they're pretty much just a person.

Also i feel like your post, though you make a valid point, kind of validates the use of words like "retard" as pejoratives for people who are, admittedly, jerks by virtue of their own character. The problem is, that kind of reinforces my point about "retard", as a word, being more hurtful than helpful.
Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the
earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of
all poems...

#11 JulesLuvsShinzon

 

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Pick Your Own Title

  • Members
  • 3,149 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bath, England
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:53 AM

Yes, Russell Crowe,the term "retarded" can be hurtful, however, please note that my use of it with reference to the people the commedian was stereotyping as the typical clientele of the low-rent supermarket was actually applied in the satirical manner as people might refer to the people who habitually watch, let alone appear, on TV shows such as Jerry Springer and Ricky Lake. My usage of the term "retarded", as Poko understands, was therefore ironic and not actually referring to people with learning difficulties, but to a perception of stereotypical attitudes that might be regarded as "retarded" and limited due to lack of meaningful experience and/or education. Clearly you didn't get the ironic usage of the term and felt the need to wag your PC finger while adding further qualification as to your own impeccable conduct in this area. I'm not impressed. I rarely am when people set themselves up as morally superior to me, because I regard the compulsion to behave in that way fatally undermines the claim for the moral highground.

But this is an interesting topic for discussion, so I'll bite even if it means going futher off-topic:

When I was growing up, use of terms such as "mentally retarded" and "educationally subnormal" were common currency and used all the time. The secondary school I attended had a block set aside for the education of children with learning difficulties called "The Unit" and my parents, who were both teachers, used these terms all the time because they were the terms used in the books they read. Today, we might want to use the less harsh term of "a person with learning difficulties", which also covers the situation. I don't like the term "special needs" because it's too unspecific, although, I am obliged to use it all the time in my work because that's the official term. The problem is that "special needs" merely indicates that somebody has needs that go beyond what a "normal" person needs, but then "normal" is an unfocussed term too. In fact, "special needs" can refer to an extremely intelligent person who needs a far more stimulation and academic stretching than a person of average intelligence, and I don't think these people appreciate being dubbed "special needs" because, whichever way you cut it, there's no getting away from the fact that "special needs" is usually thought of us pertaining to somebody of sub-normal intelligence. The old terminology may not have been "kind" but it was at least descriptive.

Back in the 1980's there was a move towards removing the term "disabled" from common currency in favour of the - frankly - ridiculous term of "differently abled". Now, not only is that extremely patronising to the people who have to contend with ohysical difficulties and who are as bright as you or I, it is also a completely inaccurate way to describe a physical condition that is challenging. Fortunately, that one never caught on.

There are many such terms that have been imposed on the general public to use, most of which are frankly mealy-mouthed and unhelpful and, always, require qualification. At one time "spastic" was deemed a perfectly acceptable term for people born with cerebral palsy, for very good reasons this had to change when it became a joke term and was bandied about by kids in the playground, but at least "cerebral palsy" describes a specific related spectrum of disabilities that most people can understand and it's not an insult, whereas, the use of "special needs" must always prompt the response "yes, but what kind of special needs?".

As to whether certain words "should" or "shouldn't" be part of anyone's vocabulary is down to the individual conerned. Smart people know that to use certain terms - especially in front of someone to whom it might apply - is not the thing to do, but very often, with the relentless march of the political correctness Police, even ordinary people like you and I are going to get caught out using a term that somebody somewhere has suddenly decided is offensive and has consigned it to the linguistic equivalent of a Bunnie incinerator. I once got caught out referring to somebody as "of mixed race" by a community healthworker and sharply told that the new official term is now "of mixed heritage". I recently had a very interesting argument with a white, middle-aged woman who refused to accept that her persistent use of the term "half-caste" was no longer acceptable, although it had been common currency when we were both growing up. Apparently the "N word" (which I had to type out many times for my dissertation because I was doing it on black writer James Baldwin who freqently used the term himself) is unusable by anyone who is not black, but is frequently currency amongst some black people who use it about themselves as a way of flipping something intensely negative by making it their own. In the same way, my gay sister often refers to herself as a "dyke".

I have a high-functioning friend who has Asperger Syndrome. She refers to herself as having "autism" because she sees, quite correctly, that her condition is actually a spectrum or related disorders and is happy that people know her for what she is and what she can do because of an inspite of that. Because she is such an incredibly artistic, intelligent, and articulate person she basically redefines what many might regard as a disability and use to judge her. In fact, because I know her via the internet, I had no idea that she was on the autistic spectrum. I just knew her as an incredibly vibrant lady who made me laugh. She chose to make me and the community aware of her Asperger Syndrome. She has two autistic children for whom she has had to tirelessly campaign for better understanding and help. So this idea that we always meet people and appreciate them as "persons" before we reognise disability is often a load of BS, and sometimes contrary to the needs and rights of that individual who want the world to see that they have challenging conditions but are able to overcome them.

While I hate the way in which political correctness has massively overstepped it's original useful and well-meaning boundaries to become a kind of tyranny effectively neuters our language, there are some words that I myself would like to see consigned to history, most of them vile terms used against a person just because she happens to be female. I'd dearly love to see the C-word, the word that refers to a sex act with one's own mother, and various derogatory terms used to describe female sex workers, and, while I'm on a roll here, I'd dearly love to see any slang that likens a woman to anything that isn't human, completely outlawed.

I'm unlikely to get my own way here, of course, but the words "should" of "should not" ought to be used with a little more discretion too.

Edited by JulesLuvsShinzon, 03 May 2010 - 10:07 AM.


#12 Russell Crowe

 

Russell Crowe

  • Members
  • 45,874 posts
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 12:55 PM

Yes, Russell Crowe,the term "retarded" can be hurtful, however, please note that my use of it with reference to the people the commedian was stereotyping as the typical clientele of the low-rent supermarket was actually applied in the satirical manner as people might refer to the people who habitually watch, let alone appear, on TV shows such as Jerry Springer and Ricky Lake. My usage of the term "retarded", as Poko understands, was therefore ironic and not actually referring to people with learning difficulties, but to a perception of stereotypical attitudes that might be regarded as "retarded" and limited due to lack of meaningful experience and/or education. Clearly you didn't get the ironic usage of the term and felt the need to wag your PC finger while adding further qualification as to your own impeccable conduct in this area. I'm not impressed. I rarely am when people set themselves up as morally superior to me, because I regard the compulsion to behave in that way fatally undermines the claim for the moral highground.


I appreciate where you're coming from with this, but I do disagree about there being "less offensive" uses of the word. I certainly claim no moral high ground (nor am I seeking for you to be impressed with me :P ) I certainly use tactless and tasteless language on a regular basis.... but I shouldn't, and just because I *do* it is no reason for me to excuse it in myself or anyone else I know. Granted I have exactly zero control over what comes out of other people's mouth, but that's no reason not to advocate for the adoption of a more positive vocabulary. Using, in your example, "retarded" to mean attitudes that are "limited" in some way would clearly not carry any recognizable idiomatic meaning without an understanding that "retarded" is a pejorative term to mark someone off as "less than" in some way. We can try all we want to use it in non-stigmatizing ways - and it may well be done, as it seems to be here, with the best of intentions - but calling a slur "ironic" doesn't make it any less of a slur.

in my (relatively) humble opinion :P


I don't have any objection whatsoever to use of terms like "autism" and "cerebral palsy" or "Asperger's" (although it looks like this last one is going to be removed from the mental health lexicon eventually). Those are descriptive clinical terms to characterize real disabilities (a word I don't object to) that real people struggle with every day. "Retard" and "disabled", on the other hand, are words that cannot really make that claim. To my knowledge there is no inoffensive application of the word "retard". I will happily recant this if somebody has a good example to the contrary.

Quite honestly, I could give a flying load of rat poop about "PC" (a concept which, let's be real here, doesn't really exist outside of college classrooms, for the most part). I do, however, care about people who've been marginalized and oppressed by our societies' unwitting and often well-intentioned use of language that has an effect of labeling and separating, rather than acknowledging challenges as a small part of someone's whole personhood. As far as advocating for awareness and resources for people (kids in my case) with disabilities or special needs, I totally agree with you, and it's a significant part of my job description. So I would hope you won't try to guilt me on that count :P

also "mixed heritage" is an absurd attempt at feel-good-ism. Though "mixed race" admittedly is less than useful, given our improved understanding of race as a social construct and not a hard-and-fast matter of biology. *shrug* I tend to agree with you on that one, though.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=iLpwWUKm6KA

this is my new favorite commercial and I think it does a really good job of making the point i'm clumsily attempting to convey.
Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the
earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of
all poems...

#13 JulesLuvsShinzon

 

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Pick Your Own Title

  • Members
  • 3,149 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bath, England
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 02:20 PM

Actually, I think that ad clarifies both our points. :)

To explain: Just about everybody you meet has areas of incompetence and things they do less well. For example, I am severely "Maths Impaired" and when confronted by figure work my head is inclined to fill with static. Alegebra is completely beyond me because - in spite of many, many efforts by well-meaning Math's majors and my father who taught Maths - I still cannot grasp how you can divide a letter by another letter. My lack of capability in Maths is virtually legendary and comes about in part from having suffered from the push for "Modern Maths" in the late 1960's and a move away from learning times tables by rote. But I am also very thick when it comes to arithmetic. I cannot do mental arithmatic at all, and have to work out even simple additions and subtractions with a pencil and paper. When my daughter was at primary school and asked me to check her arithmatic homework, I had to check the answers with a calculator! I've had to pass maths tests to qualify for jobs and the effort has been killing. Clearly, I'm not stupid and I have a good honours degree with at 60 credits towards a masters Teaching and Learning. I am very, very good at English Literature, but if I had to take one of those IQ tests I'd probably fail, or at least my IQ count would average out a lot lower than my actual mental capabilities. (Don't even ask me to do a logic test!) Arguably, my ability in Maths is retarded, and was retarded by short-lived trendy 60's teaching methods and a lack of ability in that area.

I'm also vocally challenged - my party piece is to murder Don't Cry For Me Argentina; it has moved people to tears and not in a good way, and I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. I can't do sport, but on the other hand I am a talented artist. If I were to be judged by the things I do less well, than I would be judged as quite slow and possibly stupid. I think that's what the ad says, that a person in a wheelchair can do a whole range of things that an employers would want and it's worth making the workspace adjustments to ensure that talent doesn't go to waste.

On the other hand, perhaps you're talking about use of the word "retard" as though it were solely a noun, i.e. something a person is, and therefore never acceptable. However, "retard" is also a verb - as in you can retard the growth of a child by failing to administer proper nutrition, or retard a child's development by failing to educate it properly. "Retarded", of course is an adjective and describes a person whose development, whether mentally or phsically, has been limited for whatever reason. While on the subject I took a quick peek in the OED to see what defintions it provides for "retard", and it pretty much says the same thing. It notes the offensive application of the term "retard" to somebody who "has a mental disability", and the adjective "retarded" as chiefly offensive (OED italics) towards people who are "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age." Of course, my application of "retard" was aimed at people who are less socially or culturally developed in general due to crass ignorance. I can't see that the application of "retard" or "retarded" as a verb or adjective is necessarily or automatically offensive if it correctly describes a condition or situation.

But there's an interesting dichotomy here about the function of comedy. I don't think you can always make a case for certain phrases and words being off-piste, so to speak. Basically comedy, especially the kind of comedy very that's popular today, is about labelling, stereotyping, and observations made about other people - usually derogatory in tone and which a skilled comedian exploits to create a kind of "them and us" bond between his or herself and the audience. Not many comedians get away with insulting their audience, but shared, knowing commentary about Other People, their opinions, their tastes and their habits, is grist for the comedy mill. Without the ability to label Other People, or other peoples, or our own misfortunes, would leave most sitcoms as simply dramas, and the comdey clubs would have to close down. We'd live in a sterile world where we were forced to take ourselves far too seriously. Nobody would be able to take the mickey out of the socially and intellectually challenged people who create the demand for mindless "reality" shows, and they'd have to take America's Got Talent off the air for exploiting talent-impaired people who go for the auditions. I don't think many comedians tend to touch the mentally or physically disabled as joke fodder (although I wouldn't be surprised if some do), but I have known at least one physically disabled comedian who is prepared to.

Generally, I don't tend to try and tell other people that certain words are off-limits because it's their choice to use them and their peril if the use it in the wrong place to the wrong person. I can't say to other people, don't swear, don't use this word, and always behave in the highest moral manner because I so often fail to do that myself, and I don't want to be a hypocrite.

Edited by JulesLuvsShinzon, 03 May 2010 - 02:25 PM.


#14 sevnson_71

 

sevnson_71

    TU Forum Manager - Resident killjoy

  • Forum Administrators
  • 13,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NH USA
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:11 PM

Not that this isn't scintillating and all, but it has what to do with the topic? :P
Posted Image

So the combination is 1-2-3-4-5. That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! That's the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!- Dark Helmet; "Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils." - Gen. John Stark; "Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it." -Robert Frost; "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams, Brewer/Patriot
FORUM RULES



#15 poko

 

poko

    Singer of Show Tunes

  • Members
  • 20,440 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The Art Building.
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:52 PM

Not that this isn't scintillating and all, but it has what to do with the topic? :P

How words make us feel would be a topic Mr. Rodgers would appreciate. :P

-Doctor-

"The universe is big, its vast, and complicated, and ridiculous and sometimes - very rarely - impossible things just happen and we call them miracles."

"Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold."

Posted Image

#16 Apocalypse

 

Apocalypse

    The Baron, Resident Duelist

  • Members
  • 13,081 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trapped in Aperture Science Labs
 

Posted 03 May 2010 - 09:55 PM

How words make us feel would be a topic Mr. Rodgers would appreciate. :P

So, "nothing," in other words?"

Edited by Apocalypse, 03 May 2010 - 09:55 PM.

Recent-ish blog entry: The D20-headed Knight, Chapter Six: The Prodigal Steve Returns
"Oh, come on... be reasonable. You can't destroy everything; where would you sit?"
-The Tick

#17 JulesLuvsShinzon

 

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Pick Your Own Title

  • Members
  • 3,149 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bath, England
 

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:54 AM

How words make us feel would be a topic Mr. Rodgers would appreciate. :P


Yeah ...that's exactly right!

I know we went off-topic for a bit, but it was an interesting conversation all the same, and I'm all for the organic development of good conversation!!

:wave:

#18 Russell Crowe

 

Russell Crowe

  • Members
  • 45,874 posts
 

Posted 05 May 2010 - 02:23 PM

Most definitely. A fruitful discussion from which I can honestly say I learned something. Which, with the exception of awesome sweaters, was pretty much the whole point of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood :P
Have you reckon'd a thousand acres much? have you reckon'd the
earth much? Have you practis'd so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of
all poems...

#19 JulesLuvsShinzon

 

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Pick Your Own Title

  • Members
  • 3,149 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bath, England
 

Posted 06 May 2010 - 02:32 PM

It's good to know that we would have made Mr Rogers proud - a fitting tribute to his memory!

It's funny how media pundits often spend a lot of time discussing how "pernicious" much-loved childhood figures were on the development of kids. I used to love reading Enid Blyton books (I read The Treasure Hunters five times!) and then trendy educationalists and stuffed-shirts began to condemn her books as too white, too middle class, and not relevant to today's kids (we're talking the late 70s here). Being a white middle class child myself, I thought they were charming and fun, and when I worked in a school library in the late 90s, I was immensely gratified to see that intelligent, white middle class kids still enjoyed books like Fifth Formers at St. Claire's and other books defined as "trashy", such as an entire plethora of pony books once adored by me. Yep, I was that kid who dreamed of owning my own pony and competing in local gymkhanas, while making do with a riding lesson once a fortnight at the local stables. My parents were affluent - just not that affluent!

I guess what's relevant to some kids is not to others, but there are times when I feel that our kids today are force-fed literature that they can't relate to because it's on some socially crusading educationalist's PC booklist. Fortunately, not every child comes from a broken home or a dysfunctional family, or has been affected by drugs or alcohol, or teen pregnancy. I feel that while there should always be a blend of opportunities to discover literature from other cultures and to read about other kids growing up in different circumstances etc, I really don't feel that books should be blacklisted because they're about a bunch of jolly kids who go on picnics and say "gosh" a lot, especially when they have the kind of freedom to have proper adventures that today's molly-coddled kids can only dream of.

Reminds me of my own unfettered, day-long wanderings in childhood with my bike, a bottle of "fizzy pop" and two jam sandwiches actually...

Edited by JulesLuvsShinzon, 06 May 2010 - 02:38 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users