nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Disrespect by children in film

mr_fegelien

Has anyone noticed that in many many TV shows and films, children talk to their parents in an abusive manner frequently.

As someone I heard say, if they even said a fraction of the things, they'd have a black eye or get kicked out.

Why is Hollywood normalising this? Zionist agenda?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Signore Fancy Pants

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

lol A lot of people won't see the joke in this.

The trope or the fact that a user with a chosen handle of a Nazi SS Commander is having a go at the "zionists"?

LOL indeed.

L.O.L.

LOL

L

Sigh

The One Doctor

I Am Nobody wrote: »

IMO your posts should fall under crimes against humanity.

It's common knowledge that Mr F is actually Kevin Myers.

Kylta

Potential-Monke wrote: »

People won't agree with me, but kids started being cnuts when you could no longer give them a smack. It's also one of the reasons why I won't have kids, because I was raised by a father who ensured you knew who was boss, and it did me no harm, kept me out of trouble and made sure I didn't turn out to be a criminal, which I very easily could have been. And I would mirror that approach.

This talking approach doesn't seem to be working as well.

To be honest I've seen some kids get battered by there parents and it was to no avail the kid would still go out and the same thing again. It didn't make sense to me then and it still doesn't any sense now. In regards to having kids you're kids might end up being successful with no flaws. But anybody lashing out at children is just frustrated at not getting the child to understand them.

McGinniesta

Deer wrote: »

It starts with Peppa Pig. Ugh.

Peppa Zionist pig.

Kylta

McGinniesta wrote: »

Peppa Zionist pig.

Can you eat Zionist pig? Is it a form of halal pork?

Chris_Heilong

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You mean you the Cleavers/Bradys/Waltons/Huxtables and so on?

There's a reason they died out. Nuclear families aren't the norm any more and pushing them as such promotes a happy society idea that is so utopian it alienates audiences; and angers non-nuclear families who feel stigmatised.

(Of course, it doesn't help when the actor portraying head of said family and chief idealist turns out to be a rapist...)

The nuclear family just means 2 parents, a man and a woman with children, people who have not divorced and remarried, I think it is the norm, not in film/TV but in real life as I already said why it is not used in film. Also based on what you said "alienates audiences; and angers non-nuclear families who feel stigmatised.
" why would the present portrayal of a broken family not make normal stable families feel "stigmatised"?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The nuclear family just means 2 parents, a man and a woman with children, people who have not divorced and remarried, I think it is the norm, not in film/TV but in real life as I already said why it is not used in film. Also based on what you said "alienates audiences; and angers non-nuclear families who feel stigmatised.
" why would the present portrayal of a broken family not make normal stable families feel "stigmatised"?

Are you saying non-nuclear families are automatically "broken"...? I'd aruge that that is most certainly stigmatising.

Neucelar families are not normal - they are traditional, and there's a difference. And traditions are not always positive.

Getting back to the point of entertainment, though: there are plenty of dysfunctional neuclear famliies in entertainment, e.g - Simpsons, Addams, Family Guy, Malcolm in the Middle, Married with Children...

Chris_Heilong

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are you saying non-nuclear families are automatically "broken"...? I'd aruge that that is most certainly stigmatising.

Neucelar families are not normal - they are traditional, and there's a difference. And traditions are not always positive.

Getting back to the point of entertainment, though: there are plenty of dysfunctional neuclear famliies in entertainment, e.g - Simpsons, Addams, Family Guy, Malcolm in the Middle, Married with Children...

You are focusing too much on the small details, My point being stable family leads to stable society and that is something that should be seen as the gold standard, we are going off topic because I think we both agree that having such in film and TV would lead to boring story telling.

4068ac1elhodqr

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Neucelar families are not normal - they are traditional, and there's a difference. And traditions are not always positive.

The traditional (hundreds of thousands of years, or longer) nuclear family, is not only most positive in the vast majority of cases, but also the best environment, as proven by nature and evolution to raise a family in.

Sure other methods can produce positive results (or not), but the defacto normal standard model is (on average) the best, and will likely continue to be.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

You are focusing too much on the small details, My point being stable family leads to stable society and that is something that should be seen as the gold standard, we are going off topic because I think we both agree that having such in film and TV would lead to boring story telling.

Yeah, I see your point - but you did throw me off with the "two parents - one male, one female bit"!

I agree with you though - it would certainly lead to more boring entertainment.

Abdiel Ashy Keynote wrote: »

The traditional (hundreds of thousands of years, or longer) nuclear family, is not only most positive in the vast majority of cases, but also the best environment, as proven by nature and evolution to raise a family in.

Sure other methods can produce positive results (or not), but the defacto normal standard model is (on average) the best, and will likely continue to be.

Not sure you can claim nature and evolution prove anything there - we've evolvied into a more diverse non-tradional society - and for the most part survived pretty well. And thee are plenty of disfunctional traditional families out there too, and there's no denying that; but back on topic.

Kids in film. Needs the conflict to be watchable. We don't live in a utopia, no point in pretending we do or looking down on people for creating perfectly adequate suitable alternatives either by choice or chance.

Plus there's enough boring preachy **** on the telly on any given night as it is.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that in many many TV shows and films, children talk to their parents in an abusive manner frequently.

As someone I heard say, if they even said a fraction of the things, they'd have a black eye or get kicked out.

Why is Hollywood normalising this? Zionist agenda?

Wow.

So, are you suggesting there's a zionist conspiracy to greenlight films where the children are more bratty than say, your limited circle of what you think the average child was like growing up?

And if there is some conspiracy, can you tell me what the selection process is like. Are you saying it's Jew producers that influence the writers to write the characters more abusive? And when they take the risk of giving budgets for these films, who's responsible for taking the hit of losses? And how do they measure a films success? If the film bombs in the box office but has lots of bratty, abusive kids, is that still a win for the zionist agenda you speak of?

Do think films are dramatised? Do think if you showed aliens Hollywood films that they represent reality or cinematic vision of reality?

Do you think films would be as dramatic if the children were just complacent? Could be in the realm of possibility that films rely on drama, action, death, suspense and these things are written because it's interesting? There for it increases the probability that you are seeing children take up more dramatic characters on screen?

Annasopra

The One Doctor wrote: »

It's common knowledge that Mr F is actually Kevin Myers.

Kevin Myers is a Tanzanian bisexual?

Kylta

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Kevin Myers is a Tanzanian bisexual?

So I'm wrong again, I though Myers was a **** stain. Feg stood for fu¢king engineered game(gimp).

[Deleted User]

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that in many many TV shows and films, children talk to their parents in an abusive manner frequently.

As someone I heard say, if they even said a fraction of the things, they'd have a black eye or get kicked out.

Why is Hollywood normalising this? Zionist agenda?

Yes, George Soros is mind controlling them and using it to hypnotise the viewers.

Feisar

Kylta wrote: »

To be honest I've seen some kids get battered by there parents and it was to no avail the kid would still go out and the same thing again. It didn't make sense to me then and it still doesn't any sense now. In regards to having kids you're kids might end up being successful with no flaws. But anybody lashing out at children is just frustrated at not getting the child to understand them.

Being battered by a parent who isn't in control themselves isn't going to instill discipline. As the poster said and same as myself he knew who the boss was. It didn't do me any harm plus it toughened me up for life's knocks.

Kylta

Feisar wrote: »

Being battered by a parent who isn't in control themselves isn't going to instill discipline. As the poster said and same as myself he knew who the boss was. It didn't do me any harm plus it toughened me up for life's knocks.

I have recieved my father and mothers( she always hit harder it seems) had on many occasions and probably rightly so. But a box or a clatter is one thing and at times can be impulsive from a parent. But a parent giving a child a hiding with feet and fists I don't think it works, and if it has no effect on the child well it definitively doesn't work. Just about toughening you up for lifes hard knock. Did you not get thoughen up by fighting other kids in your area? Or outside your area for that matter?

Feisar

Kylta wrote: »

I have recieved my father and mothers( she always hit harder it seems) had on many occasions and probably rightly so. But a box or a clatter is one thing and at times can be impulsive from a parent. But a parent giving a child a hiding with feet and fists I don't think it works, and if it has no effect on the child well it definitively doesn't work. Just about toughening you up for lifes hard knock. Did you not get thoughen up by fighting other kids in your area? Or outside your area for that matter?

A garden cane was the tool of choice!

Kylta

Feisar wrote: »

A garden cane was the tool of choice!

Alas how fondly we dwell on our childhood and youth.

topper75

Some of those kids though are tough cookies. Iron like lions.

[Deleted User]

There seems to be a common belief that it's a case of physical punishment OR disrespectful, cheeky children.
There IS an in-between where children can be disciplined by explaining consequences of actions, ie. playstation/phone/activities being taken away or whatever - with a follow through if misbehavior continues. Clear guidelines on acceptable behavior and reasonable boundaries can be achieved without the belt.

There are some bratty TV children that stress me out and I end up having to switch off - especially the ones where it's supposed to be cute or funny when they are cheeky. Grrrrr

SoupMonster

bluewolf wrote: »

This is like one of those recipes that starts talking about their whole life story and random stuff first

I can't stand those recipes that come with a full back story of inane drivel before they get down to business. Are those Zionist propaganda too?