Am I the only one who thinks that the penn and teller show (title edited for the discreet) should be a bit longer -- at least forty-five minutes, if not an hour? It seems that they occasionally need to overstate their cases, somewhat, for the sake of brevity -- and let's face it, debunking is an activity that takes some time! Take Thurdsday's episode on recycling, for example. One argument they "debunked" was the notion that recycling creates nice, high-paying jobs. To "prove" this, they showed a bunch of people in masks and gloves going through a bunch of garbage and topped it off with an overdub full of rather florid language to the effect of, "This is a good job? That's Bull****!" Granted, sifting through garbage is a job that many of us might find distasteful, but I did not find that this segment very convincing. Perhaps the sifters in question DID like the job, did find the money they were making commensurate with the effort they were putting forth. even a single blurb with a worker saying, "Yeah, it sucks and I still can't make rent" might have won me over. Yet there was no such blurb.
Understand, I am not saying that they do not have valid points that should not be aired, I am simply saying that, occasionally, they take on topics which should be given more comprehensive treatment. Whereas I understand the premise of the show, that to call something by a vulgar name is less litigious than something more polite, I occasionally feel as if they use the vulgarity as a crutch to overstep subjects which I, personally, feel need more discussion.
Am I being too knee-jerk in my reaction, here? I am hardly a prude (in fact, I can cuss up a purple streak with the best of them, should the mood suit me), but, just occasionally, I feel that P&T are falling into a reductionist trap, here. Instead of always dealing with every topic fully, sometimes, they throw soundbites at a point to simply toss it under a rug and move on. Frankly, I think this show could do wonders to further critical thinking, but the way some shows are stuctured, it feels as if the two are simply trying to preach to the choir. And I don't care if they reach the choir; we're already singing. A bit more time might make this the groundbreaking show that, in my opinion, the world so desperately needs, right now. Any thoughts?
Understand, I am not saying that they do not have valid points that should not be aired, I am simply saying that, occasionally, they take on topics which should be given more comprehensive treatment. Whereas I understand the premise of the show, that to call something by a vulgar name is less litigious than something more polite, I occasionally feel as if they use the vulgarity as a crutch to overstep subjects which I, personally, feel need more discussion.
Am I being too knee-jerk in my reaction, here? I am hardly a prude (in fact, I can cuss up a purple streak with the best of them, should the mood suit me), but, just occasionally, I feel that P&T are falling into a reductionist trap, here. Instead of always dealing with every topic fully, sometimes, they throw soundbites at a point to simply toss it under a rug and move on. Frankly, I think this show could do wonders to further critical thinking, but the way some shows are stuctured, it feels as if the two are simply trying to preach to the choir. And I don't care if they reach the choir; we're already singing. A bit more time might make this the groundbreaking show that, in my opinion, the world so desperately needs, right now. Any thoughts?
