> In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case.
I don't think that's a fair statement. If you watch "R-rated" depictions of brutal violence, the probability that you will be adversely psychologically (or socially) affected by those depictions is pretty close to zero. This is not because you have committed acts of brutal violence yourself, but rather because you are capable of dealing with such things in a mature and rational way. Similarly, the argument here is not that high-schoolers will be unaffected by this film because they have practised the behaviour depicted therein, but because they have dealt with it and understand the implications of such behaviour.
Language is a particularly important case because people outside the school system (and even some inside it) tend to believe that children are unspoilt bundles of verbal innocence, whereas in reality the sort of language practised on a day-to-day basis by your average 13-year-old is probably considerably more offensive than the language used in this film. It's ironic that a film like this one should be crushed by the very veil of ignorance which it attempts to lift - social norms change, and the MPAA can't expect to be able to stick its head in the sand and assume that a ratings system based on a fairly static set of "family values" will be relevant forever.
Thank you for the explanation. I think your view of their position, that teenagers will not be adversely affected by exposure to the language is a better interpretation than how I took it when I read the article.
Wishful thinking it may be but I am more inclined to consider the typical 13-year-old as more innocent although I do see the potential irony.
Still, I would prefer my kids to see the movie without the more extreme curse words than with it so I feel like the MPAA is performing a useful role here; that of alerting potential viewers to the general level of 'unpleasantness' they will encounter.
Regardless of the rating we'll still watch it but if the threat of an 'R' causes the producers to bleep the worst language I think its a win since I don't think the overall message regarding bullying will be impacted.
The problem with considering the typical 13-year-old as innocent is that you end up making decisions based on inaccurate data.
The primary point of this film isn't to be entertaining or pleasing, but to help force people to confront the fact that this sort of thing is actually happening. Removing the unpleasantness would be counterproductive, even if you could still get the message through (less effectively) without the language.
I don't think that's a fair statement. If you watch "R-rated" depictions of brutal violence, the probability that you will be adversely psychologically (or socially) affected by those depictions is pretty close to zero. This is not because you have committed acts of brutal violence yourself, but rather because you are capable of dealing with such things in a mature and rational way. Similarly, the argument here is not that high-schoolers will be unaffected by this film because they have practised the behaviour depicted therein, but because they have dealt with it and understand the implications of such behaviour.
Language is a particularly important case because people outside the school system (and even some inside it) tend to believe that children are unspoilt bundles of verbal innocence, whereas in reality the sort of language practised on a day-to-day basis by your average 13-year-old is probably considerably more offensive than the language used in this film. It's ironic that a film like this one should be crushed by the very veil of ignorance which it attempts to lift - social norms change, and the MPAA can't expect to be able to stick its head in the sand and assume that a ratings system based on a fairly static set of "family values" will be relevant forever.