It's been over 12 years since the Columbine massacre. Get over it. There are many more things out there right now that are much less PC.

I appreciate your post and I have to agree with your criticism of the article. While the show does seem to delight in "going too far" as it were, its provocative subject matter is excused, at least in my opinion, by its profound approach to rather difficult social issues. In addition to your argument I would add that the line drawn by the author is completely arbitrary. As other blog responses have suggested, the show is packed with gruesome subject matter and undertones of an even more depraved ideology. So to take a shot at a school shooting just because it is a rather accurate depiction of one indicates to me the guy was really just trying to raise a few eyebrows on an otherwise slow day in entertainment news.

Do you live under a tree, Tre? Watch any given episode of CSI, Cold Case, or Criminal Minds, and you stand the risk of seeing the incorporation of children being hurt or killed. The good thing about it is it's TELEVISION and eventually gives a moral to the story, justice served, etc. I didn't see the episode in question so maybe it's worse than I realize, but really?!

Did I ever say that it was not incorporated into any of those shows? Any show at all? You have proved my point Sandra, because all you saw was an attack on your favorite television shows, not the fact that my point was that the complete opposite. We see that shit too much, and eventually it just becomes a normal everyday part of our lives, like on your favorite tv shows, like CSI, Cold Minds, or Criminal Case. I live under a big sycamore in Anmoore, West Virginia.

Mr. Bell, your perpetual hostility dilutes the profundity of your argument. I admire your passion but don't you think there is a more productive (and quite frankly articulate) way to convey your point? The notion that humans become desensitized after over exposure to horrific happenings is relatively probative, but I think it assumes more than is justified. For example, what if we as a society didn't observe (and for that matter didn't permit the observation of) scenes depicting some of the subject matter that gets under our skin? Would the world really be a better place if we were under-sensitized in a manner such that we could display no empathy when traumatic events did unfold? Consider some of the real tragedies you know of: the holocaust, the shootings in Colorado, the recent shooting of Congresswoman Gifford; and consider the respective culprits in those cases. As a society, couldn't one argue we are better equipped to handle such things, and maybe even preempt them, if we are exposed to and understand the various elements leading to them? Of course the knee-jerk reply to such a thought (if I am arguing on your behalf) is desensitization via the insensitive media is in some way the proximate cause of such behavior. But I find that hard to believe considering humanity's rich history of violence that stretches eons before mass media. Rather, I think shows like AHS make some of the more nuanced psychological tendencies that underscore such evil behavior accessible to the masses in a way that arms the thoughtful with tools necessary to facilitate the development of a more peaceful society. A society that understands people like Tate, and can help him before he breaks. I admit though, that is but one way to view it...as the show helpfully pointed out last week, an intelligent person should know "there are realities other than the one we see." If we replace the word "realities" with the word "ideologies" and the word "see" with the word "possess" (which I assume was the point the point though I have no scholarship to quote as the show is but seven weeks old), we have been hit with a powerful notion indeed.

Ms. Lane, thank you for replying. Far enough and long enough, in my opinion, are ratios that measure provocation in proportion to profundity, rather than linear measurements that track the distance some theme treads toward the periphery of the aggregate of social sensitivity. Admittedly, such a formula purports its conception in objectivity only as far FOX or CNN may purport to be genuinely objective in their own subjectivity (a little cynical I confess, but the metaphor works). However, it helps me to view the morality of broadcasting as a balancing act. If a provocative show is proportionally probative, even if I disagree with its ideological underpinnings and/or am uncomfortably with the subject matter in the abstract, I am obligated to accept, respect, and condone it. If however, a show is pushing my buttons to sell me a ticket, I find it neither socially beneficial nor worthy of my time. Anyway, thanks for the forum, I love talking about this kind of thing. If I may ask, what are your thoughts on the matter?

Well, when you're right you're right, but take the fact that me saying fuck a few times bothered you. I say it, hear it, fuck man, I do it all the time. Haha. Anyway, if you grew up around the people I grew up with me and my friends instead of, well, whoever you grew up with, it wouldn't faze you. Repetition. And I don't give two shit's about adults dropping dead, that's what we do best, but not kids. It's just me, but anything about that turns my stomach. Gotta be a sick bastard to enjoy that shit, but this is my last post so have fun enjoying your show.