We Need To Learn From The Lessons That Herbert West Showed Us.

So I have written something along the lines of this topic a couple of times but it is still something that bugs me. Remakes. This time I was set off because of a very specific remake: The X-Files. I love the X-Files, it was an amazing show, funny at times, tense at others. It balanced the monster of the week and drama genres really well. That being said, the show turned into something unwatchable by the end, mostly due to people splitting from the show as it convoluted itself out of existence.

When I wrote about Fringe I said that shows should get canceled before they get to the point of being terrible, and The X-Files certainly fails that test. It lasted like 2 years longer than it should have, but Fox (the network not the character) calling for 6 more episodes to be produced is fucking absurd. Its basically taking a dead show it ruined over a decade ago and trying to wring more money out of it's corpse. Fuck all that spending money on new shows that might be terrible, lets just Frankenstein this bitch and see how she does on the corner. Because, you know, that always works out for the best. I grew up watching shows like Star Trek TNG and The X-Files, but those shows are done, and I am comfortable with that. I am not craving to know the unanswered questions, I am just sad at how these shows turned bad at the end. Let them stay dead.

This might sound like I am overreacting, and to be fair I am being a little hyperbolic, but this trend also stifles creativity in mainstream media. Broadcast television is getting fucked by stuff like Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix and instead of trying to compete with them by making better shows, they try to scratch the nostalgia itch that these services provide (I have rewatched the X-Files two times in the past few years because of Netflix).

Seriously, thanks to Fox we got shows like the Simpsons, Futurama, The X-Files, Arrested Development, and Firefly. They clearly have the ability to get people who can create great works, so try to create the next Family Guy or King of the Hill rather then trying to rehash your glory days when you had those shows. Then again, they did cancel a bunch of those shows before they hit their stride, so maybe Fox just doesn't know what the hell they are doing. Incidentally, Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix don't just hit the nostalgia spot, they have also been creating new stuff that is good (Deadbeat and Alpha House come to mind) so maybe this is just the death throes of a dying form of media that is trying desperately to remain relevant.

What'd that Horse Ever do to You?

I have a bit of history with philosophy, Brian and I both do, philosophy is fucking awesome. Unfortunately the benefits of thinking deeply tend to only occur to those that have made an effort at it. The primary fields of philosophy considered most relevant to the real world are Ethics and Morality. Ethics is at its core the examination of The Social Good, codifying behavior on a large scale for the benefit of those present in the given society. Morality, on the other hand is an intrinsically subjective consideration of personal constructs of "good" and "bad".

The problem that catches me, and pretty much everyone else (whether they realize it or not), is the tendency to conflate the two. Not just conflating them but doing so with a painfully fucking egotistical preference towards morality. Now, I get it; everyone wants to think they have a monopoly on not being a dick, but it runs us into a shitty, postmodern clusterfuck. Morality is great; have some, by all means, but framing ethics on morality isn't just putting the cart before the horse, its killing the horse and declaring it heresy to move the cart.

Its actually a pretty easy distinction to make between the two. Morality comes down to how you feel about taking an action. If you don't like it, or don't feel like the likely consequences are worth it, don't fucking do it. Simple. Ethics establishes itself upon social good and that's where people tend to get turned around. If an action doesn't result in the direct physical or psychological harm of anyone who isn't an informed, actively consenting participant, ethics; and therefore law, has no right to interfere. Ethics doesn't, and in fact can't, concern itself with that kind of action because if it isn't negatively effecting people who aren't involved it isn't effecting society. My favorite example of this distinction is gay rights. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality as an individual, the simple fact that some people fuck in ways that make you feel ookie has nothing to do with those people. If thinking about homosexuals fucking bugs you, that's your fucking problem, not their's. Stop fucking thinking about it.

Now if a person who happened to be gay engaged in the kind of ridiculous bullshit they tend to be accused of by the idiot fringe, and any of that behavior happened to include someone who was either incapable of or not giving full, informed consent yes; that's fucking unacceptable and we can discuss how law should engage only those who harm others in such a way. That last bit is the key. We can't preemptively legislate against any action that doesn't intrinsically cause harm to those willing to enter into it, and we can't legislate against any group for the actions of one of its constituents. Fucking period.