Recently, I found myself with a rare hour of free time and control of the TV remote—an opportunity that feels almost mythical in a household filled with children. The battle for remote control is fierce; it’s akin to the chaos in a scene from The Hunger Games. Usually, I don’t stand a chance because, to be candid, my kids can be quite intimidating.
On this particular day, the remote was conveniently left alone on the couch arm. Seizing the moment, I kicked off my shoes, propped my feet up, and began navigating the channels—though I must admit my skills are rather rusty due to my infrequent access to this coveted device. After a bit of fumbling, I landed on the prelims of UFC 188. Yes, I know, it was a Saturday afternoon, but between watching fighters in a cage and a landscaping program, the choice was clear.
As I settled in, indulging in snacks while witnessing intense combat—complete with blood splattering across the screen—I noticed something perplexing. The relentless bleeping of censorship was drowning out the fighters’ expletives. Words like “damn” and “shit” were not allowed to be heard, even as two men engaged in brutal physical confrontation.
It was 2:00 PM, a time when children could be watching, and I understand parental concerns about protecting young ears from profanity. However, the juxtaposition of censoring language while allowing the visceral violence on display seemed absurd. Here were two fighters, bloodied and battered, yet the words deemed offensive were silenced.
This is reality—no CGI or special effects here. Those fighters are not actors, and the violence is real. Yet, the focus is on muting language rather than addressing the graphic brutality unfolding on screen. It raises an intriguing question: Are there individuals who find certain words more distressing than the sight of actual bloodshed?
I am not advocating for censorship of UFC or mixed martial arts. In fact, I enjoyed the match, appreciating the skill involved, even though it sometimes made me cringe. However, it is curious that society prioritizes the censoring of language over the raw violence on display. If we are worried about children imitating behavior seen on TV, perhaps we should reconsider our standards. A child repeating a curse word may cause a momentary shock at the dinner table. In contrast, imitating a fight move could lead to a serious injury requiring a trip to the emergency room.
It seems logical that we should focus on the harmful impact of visible violence rather than muted language. Words themselves are not inherently damaging; it is their intent that can cause harm. In today’s world, where we are constantly reminded of violent acts in society, it seems we should be more concerned about children witnessing real-life brutality presented as entertainment rather than the arbitrary censorship of certain words.
So what can we do? Perhaps enrolling children in martial arts could be a constructive outlet, teaching them discipline and respect while also providing them with physical skills. And, just as importantly, it may help them channel their energy positively.
For further insights on similar topics, you may want to check out this post on home insemination kits, which also explores various aspects of parenting and preparation.
In summary, the dissonance between censoring language and allowing graphic violence to be broadcast highlights a need for reflection on our societal values. It poses critical questions about what we deem acceptable for public consumption and ultimately, what we want to teach the next generation.