| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Yukon |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 13:46:01
I wanted to get some input from other FWffers on the latest review I submitted (it hasn't been approved yet)
For Glory: "Spades of Glory"
The film is about black soldiers fighting in the U.S. civil war, and the it's a pun on the phrase Blades of Glory.
My only concern is 'Spade.' Is it a derogatory term for a black person?
I think of it as one of those awkward terms, like when my grandmother refers to black people as 'darkies.' She's not prejudice, that's just the term she used during her time.
I'd never want to submit something that's blatantly racist because I don't want anyone to read the review and think "That guy should change his name to YuKKKon!"
I'm not looking for a debate on offensive reviews. I just want to know if you consider spade offensive? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 07:37:16
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
Sorry to contribute to disproving the seven-page prophecy but I have to point out...
That though friends can call friends "fag" "spic" etc. and it is understood that the terms are being used ironically or whatever...
Here the reviews are DETACHED from ANY SOCIAL, CONVERSATIONAL or other CONTEXT.
Those "Speech Bubbles" our reviews appear in do not ACTUALLY issue forth from anybody's MOUTH in the course of a real CONVERSATION between people with a history.
That is all I hafta say.
Yes, indeed. I concede that it is difficult, given the restraints of the format, to make a fwfr with a review using those very bad words that is actually funny instead of just stupid and nasty.
I deny, however, that is impossible. I'm sure it can be done. |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 06:36:55
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I've never been offended in my life, so no, you won't succeed. 
I'll have a go....
Se�n, I took your sheep out last night.
Well as an Aussie you'll know what to do with it  ---> .
Now what am I gonna have for dinner? No lamb obviously. Guess I'll have pork.... |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 05:25:47
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I've never been offended in my life, so no, you won't succeed.
I'll have a go....
Se�n, I took your sheep out last night. |
| roger_thornhill |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 05:13:43
Sorry to contribute to disproving the seven-page prophecy but I have to point out...
That though friends can call friends "fag" "spic" etc. and it is understood that the terms are being used ironically or whatever...
Here the reviews are DETACHED from ANY SOCIAL, CONVERSATIONAL or other CONTEXT.
Those "Speech Bubbles" our reviews appear in do not ACTUALLY issue forth from anybody's MOUTH in the course of a real CONVERSATION between people with a history.
That is all I hafta say. |
| Mr Savoir Faire |
Posted - 04/03/2007 : 05:02:43
I am feeling too lazy to quote people in this post, so this post is a response to MisterBadIdea and Salopian's posts.
Insulting is an element of comedy. I speak firsthand, having participated in insult comedy on numerous occasions, and I don't mean standing around playing the dozens, but in venues.
My reviews are kept unnecessarily clean just to be on the safe side. This is because what is spoken has different connotations than what is written, even if word-for-word it is the same thing. For instance, if someone called me an idiot in real life I probably wouldn't think twice about it. If someone called me it in a forum post, I'd be hurt, because writing implies that they have more understanding, longer to think about it, and have calulated the consequences.
Slurs are usable for humorous intent when the people in the groups will laugh. i use slurs or racial insults when the races being insulted are present if they are funny enough. This is where I draw the line at least.
Carlos Mencia: I hate him. He reinforces stereotypes and not in a funny or satirical way. What's not a racial slur is a scatological joke. He's also a hack.
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 14:25:29
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
You mean the backwards fodha? 
That's it, I'm offended!!!!!
Mission accomplished
 |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 12:31:25
You mean the backwards fodha?
That's it, I'm offended!!!!!
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 12:28:53
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I've never been offended in my life, so no, you won't succeed.
But you spotted what I did? |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 12:26:17
I've never been offended in my life, so no, you won't succeed. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 10:46:50
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I agree with all of the above two posts. I do!
My guess is there's at least two pages to go on this thread. Normally these 'offense' threads last about 7 pages. 
Is that a statistical fact
Game on - Se�n is determined not to be offended by anything. How offensive is that I've just made an attempt to offend him, anyone spot that |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 10:33:54
I agree with all of the above two posts. I do!
Except that I've never heard of Carlos Mencia so dunno about that. But I doubt he'd offend me... nobody ever does... and if they did I wouldn't care at all. I just read a page about him on Wikipedia, and my guess is I'd like him if his style of comedy involves throwing petrol on the fire.
My guess is there's at least two pages to go on this thread. Normally these 'offense' threads last about 7 pages. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 09:16:44
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I respect that you are putting forward your opinion on how you would classify indigenous, but it is flawed when I look at my experience, and I think a bit academic/dehumanised for that reason.
No, definitely not. I mentioned the technical meaning as a point of interest only and clearly stated that it is fine to in practice use it to mean whoever was there first. Indeed, it is important to recognise that we are using it in the latter sense, in order to have any real understanding of the issue in question.
In reality, there are just people. What about all the people who are not indigenous to anywhere? What land do they get? None, that's what. When it comes down to the hard facts, what mystical right does anyone have to any land? (To be honest, without being too communist, I'm not sure that inheritance is really a philosophically viable concept at all.) but a person's culture stretching back a long way does not make it more important than for an individual whose culture doesn't.
Sorry, I cannot leave this unresponded to.
My point was not about land. The Aboriginal people I live with and work for just want acknowledgment of what was done to them. They are happy to share their 'land' and accept that the colonisers' ancestors and subsequent immigrants are here to stay. Aboriginal society is the most 'communist' in model that I know.
They do not have a cultural concept of ownership of anything, including the land. The land is them and they are the land - their language and culture reflects that. They are happy for us all to share it with them. They want to work with people to solve their social problems, and not be dictated to any more.
Their spiritual connection to the land is the mysticism, and it is what is being lost forever because people, very tolerant, non-racist and educated people such as yourself, cannot understand what is being stripped from them, because if you are not from an indigenous culture you can't possibly understand what all the fuss is about - because you don't understand who they are and what their culture and spirituality is about.
The point about the culture stretching back is about the KNOWLEDGE contained in that culture. We all came from similar 'cultures' that connected us to the earth. The 'feminine sacred' and 'paganism' all reflect that. Scientists working with indigenous people around the world are finding answers and sometimes solutions to all sorts of scientific and environmental issues. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 07:21:29
I sure don't agree with any of this!
quote:
Those words have meanings which do not just evaporate because your supposed intent is to be friendly.
Yeah... in the sense that if my friends call me by my nickname "Rabbit," the word "rabbit" still refers to a small woodland creature, even though that never at all entered into the intended meaning in that particular sentence in that particular context. If I hadn't been clear before, I call my friends "fag," "dyke," "spic," etc. because my friends are in fact fags, dykes, spics, etc. We toss these terms around all the time -- I myself have likely been the butt of more racial slurs than you all have even heard of -- and I will not hear nonsense that I shouldn't use a word because someone somewhere might get offended.
quote:
No they cannot - not by people outside those groups anyway.
Bullshit.
quote:
You talk as though the first is a given (i.e. that everyone considers this acceptable)
Correct. Not everyone considers this acceptable. Not everyone considers this unacceptable either. So what? If you're arguing that my position is untenable because I don't have unanimous agreement, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
quote:
You said that the humour justified offending someone.
Why shouldn't it? Why is it such a crime to offend someone? Even on the basis of categories that they didn't choose to be part of?
You want to know who offends me -- really legitimately offends me? Carlos Mencia. I think he's ignorant and unfunny. I think he should be off the air because he's annoying and he expresses simple-minded beliefs in a very boring way. So I don't watch his show. If you don't think that "Spades of Glory" review is funny, do what I would have done and don't vote for it. Millions of rappers are misogynist but they have tons of female fans -- including hip, smart, liberal-voting women; Elton John listens to Eminem. Those rappers ARE, in fact, using those words to demean women and gays. Why should the offended ones' opinions take precedence over those who aren't? |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 12:00:07
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Yep, me too.  People with ignorant or incorrect or 'nasty' beliefs are still ignorant or incorrect or nasty whether they vocalise their beliefs or not.
So that this mean that everyone finally agrees about everything?
That that. |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 11:40:54
Yep, me too. People with ignorant or incorrect or 'nasty' beliefs are still ignorant or incorrect or nasty whether they vocalise their beliefs or not.
So does this mean that everyone finally agrees about everything? |
|
|
