[Heronymus_Anon]

Well, those religious prejudices and injustices aren't sacred anymore, but if you have a public reputation to loose, or don't want to get burned as a company, you should avoid being associated with stuff like gender- or racial-inequality.

(as long as you aren't targeting the Q-Anon or KKK crowd)

So it seems the definition of sacred is simply changing. (luckily)

At the time around '69 it maybe was like nothing was sacred anymore, and everything was being questioned, but i don't think you can apply this anymore. People later settled on some moral progressions, which are now being defended.

[TheUndead96]

I think we might be talking about different things here. Up until very recently it was against the code of most publishers to broadcast things like murders, offensive language, acts of violence and gore. Some might say that the societies of the past were overly prudish, but I believe that this development is predominantly negative. For a modern Netflix series to take off, it is basically mandatory to have full-frontal nudity in the first season. Nothing is shocking anymore, which is what I meant by "sacred".

Growing up I had a mathematics teacher that told me that if companies could get away with it, they would just show real murders all day on the TV. In that way, popular culture is like a barometer for morality of a population.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for gender or racial inequality.

[msla]

> For a modern Netflix series to take off, it is basically mandatory to have full-frontal nudity in the first season.

I can't really see why this is bad, which is kind of what we're talking about. I can see why full-frontal nudity is a tactical error in some contexts, in that you shouldn't do it because you'll end up in a worse position if you do, but I really don't get the apparent moral revulsion some people have regarding the naked human form.

This is part of what we're talking about because it signals that the traditionalists can't impose their revulsion on the rest of us. The recent successes of the Queer Rights movement also prove this: Same-sex marriage has gone from unthinkable to unremarkable. So has transitioning. The people who are most opposed to those things were utterly incapable of making cogent arguments sufficient to sway the societies in which they lived, so now they're widely accepted.

> Growing up I had a mathematics teacher that told me that if companies could get away with it, they would just show real murders all day on the TV.

No. Most people don't want to see that. Most people have a serious aversion to seeing real death and gore and so on, and it isn't feigned "virtue signalling" or similar.

> I don't think anyone here is arguing for gender or racial inequality.

Except the arguments against, say, nudity on TV come down to "I don't like it, so it's immoral" and that exact same argument has been used to argue against social equality of all kinds.

[jhbadger]

I don't think is is true at all. In anything, the past was much more into reporting sensationalist news about murder than now. The infamous UK "News of the World" tabloid, which existed to give titillating reports of murder and rapes, started publishing in 1843. It closed in 2011 in the wake of the phone hacking scandal because society began to care about victim's rights. The idea that the past was more moral than the present is just rose-tinted nostalgia without support.

[thaumasiotes]

> For a modern Netflix series to take off, it is basically mandatory to have full-frontal nudity in the first season.

Really? As much as nudity in television content has grown, I think showing genitals is still pretty much not done. For example, Narcos didn't do it, as far as I watched it.