Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Prudence
I guess I question their motives. Is the point to make adults stop and think? Or to upset kids who are too young and powerless to have any say in the world and hope that crying kids will shame adults into changing behaviors? The former has its place. The latter is itself shameful.
|
"You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Prudence again."
I wasn't sure exactly how I felt about this, or how to put it into words, and Prudence did it for me. Well said.
But along the lines of their cultural status, my kids have no idea what a smurf is. However, if they came across this commercial or movie or whatever the hell it is, they probably would be upset at what they saw. My wife and I screen stuff for them, but if we're familiar with the general stuff, we let them watch it (like Winnie the Pooh - who needs to screen Pooh?). If they came across the smurfs on TV, I'd say, OK - go ahead. I wouldn't be happy if they were exposed to them getting firebombed. Pricess Diana didn't start a cartoon campaign with...Winnie the Pooh, say...walking through the Hundred Acre Wood stepping on a landmine and becoming horribly disfigured.
With adults, though, I have no problem with a certain amount of shock, but targeting is so important.
One of the best sermons/speeches I ever heard was by a man named Tony Campolo (yes, I am aware he and Clinton were buddies). He was at the pulpit, and said "Christians need to start giving a sh!t that there are people starving in the world." He paused about 5 seconds and said "And most of you are probably more upset that I said 'sh!t" than the fact there ARE starving people in the world." He was right. So I wonder if people are more upset about the shock value of using Smurfs or the ugliness of firebombing. The issue should be firebombing, not the use of Smurfs.
To again give kudos to Prudence, it is the target audience that is issue.