| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:03:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
black memorabilia
When I was a small child, no one thought twice about golliwogs. One was even the mascot of a brand of marmalade. I had no idea what 'wog' meant until I was much older. I think only a black or mixed-race person could collect that stuff now; it would be disrespectful if others did. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:07:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Several uses of the word "faggot," that do not refer to cigarettes
N.B. A fag is a cigarette; a faggot is a ball of liver or a bundle of sticks.
I don't find it acceptable for straight people to use either of these terms in their slang sense. As I've harked on about before, the connotations of words do not go away just because the speaker/writer wants them to. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 11:19:21 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:13:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
It's certainly a legal requirement in the UK that part of what constitutes racist language is whether the ethnicity being mocked takes offense. Not whether the intention was to do so.
Quite. Sorry for stating this yet again, but this idea some people have that one's intention is all that counts, and that it magically transfers to others' minds regardless of what vocabulary is used, is completely absurd. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:20:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
I'm less inclined to agree with Baffy that focussing on pronunciation is necessarily racist. I think accents are fair game - ... Out here in the real world I'm quite an impersonator - I do lots of different accents in different situations and it's fascinating to see the reactions of those around me.
I accept some of that, but I still believe there's a difference in what you say in the real world -- particularly if you're addressing someone/s with whom you have eye contact - even phone contact. Because you'll be able to tell instantly whether they take offense. Intention isn't the issue, it's how what you say affects the race you're parodying. I, too, have a facility with accents and when I was acting I was lucky enough to work in a large variety of accents. One time I even had to re-voice a Japanese woman for a moving radio documentary about Atom bomb survivors because her own accent was just too incomprehensible to English ears. I studied tapes for weeks to arrive at something which was clearly Japanese yet didn't have a hint of parody. I learned a lot doing that, perhaps the most important being that to generalize about the 'r' and 'l' sounds isn't very accurate and can sound like racist short-hand; it's a cheap laugh. My Japanese co-producer was a wise and witty man. We were both able to laugh when what I was doing flopped over into the unacceptable.
The written language is something else. There is less/no room for interpretation. Mocking accents in print is different from trying to give a flavor of a dialect: e.g. using 'da' for 'the'
I know some here feel that anything goes. That if I'm offended when I see a woman [character name/actress name] referred to as a ho just because they've had an affair within the film plot - that it's my problem. Or that if, as someone born into a Jewish family [albeit one that was non-practicing and atheist] I still take offence at seeing Jews referred to in generalized terms as 'Yid' - though I've never seen 'kike' or 'Hebe' on these pages [an epithet with which I was taunted as a kid].
I dunno - I'm reluctant to carve out rules in stone [hell, I don't even know how to carve!  ] But I DO think it's important that before we write a FWFR which involves these issues we really do consider the implications.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 01/23/2007 10:34:49 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:26:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
The term 'black' was considered PC, but today it is not. [paraphrased]
Is this really the case in the U.S.? It is definitely the completely proper term here.
This is, of course, part of my point. In the US you might get in trouble calling someone 'black' instead of African American. You'd certainly get in trouble if you called an African American 'colored' today, but that too was considered PC in the US at one time.
What language is used in a movie is fact - we can't change that no matter how much it offends us. And I find it appalling that screenings of movies have bits deleted because those scenes might be offensive today (and that scene from Holiday Inn is a true reflection of the times it was made). No matter how good or bad a film is, it is a work of art. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Same goes for any type of art - music, theatre, paintings, sculptures, dance, etc.
On the other hand, how we review these movies is up to us today. I don't think we need to be overly sensitive, but sometimes we do go overboard (as Sal mentioned regarding Brokeback Mountain). We should feel free to make jokes, but we should also remember that if the joke is offensive, it may not get (m)any votes. And if MERPs think a joke is too offensive, they should be allowed to decline the review. I also think that if someone finds an accepted review to be too offensive to them, they should report it.
It is a thin line, but I think we can walk it if we all make the effort. Let's let Benj, the MERPs and those who read and vote on reviews decide if we've crossed it or not.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:28:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
if the joke is offensive, it may not get (m)any votes.
Nice idea, but sadly all of these feeble, lazy puns get a bunch of votes. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 10:38:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
if the joke is offensive, it may not get (m)any votes.
Nice idea, but sadly all of these feeble, lazy puns get a bunch of votes.
Yeah, I've often wondered if ALL the FWFRs which depended on sexist/racist puns were removed from the site how many would be left?  We do have a section in the 4UM that covers 'alternative FWFRs'
I'm just saying ... 
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 11:15:54
|
I'm not so sure on the use of African-American. The people I know refer to themselves as Black. Or Black Americans. Or bi-racial, though that has multiple applications. My niece, for example, is married to a man who is Tahitian and French.
I stand corrected on the faggot, though one of the uses I found was in reference to Truman Capote.
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
though I've never seen 'kike' or 'Hebe' on these pages [an epithet with which I was taunted as a kid].
*winces* Those two words were ones I DID run across in searching for epithets. here and here.
|
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 11:19:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
It's certainly a legal requirement in the UK that part of what constitutes racist language is whether the ethnicity being mocked takes offense. Not whether the intention was to do so.
Quite. Sorry for stating this yet again, but this idea some people have that one's intention is all that counts, and that it magically transfers to others' minds regardless of what vocabulary is used, is completely absurd.
Yep that's totally absurd. That would imply the presence of telepathy which as you say, is absurd. Mind you, it's also absurd to expect people to know how others will take things they say. Sure, it's probably quite possible to go through life without upsetting anyone, but if everyone on the planet did that life would be unbearably boring.
When I die and go to hell as punishment for running FWPT, my hell will be filled with mediocre people afraid to say anything significant or funny for fear of upsetting someone.  |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 11:54:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I'm not so sure on the use of African-American. The people I know refer to themselves as Black. Or Black Americans. Or bi-racial, though that has multiple applications. My niece, for example, is married to a man who is Tahitian and French.
Ah... what one refers to themselves as is something different altogether than what one refers to someone else as! Sal finds "fag" offensive from a straight person - and rightly so. I know many homosexual men who like to call each other "queens" but I know that they would prefer straight people not use that, either. My best friend is a Lesbian or gay. I would never call her a "dyke", as I know that would be insulting to her - even though she referrs to herself as one. Me? Besides being a Jew, I'm also a Zionist in the purest sense of the word. But because of many negative connotations attached to that label, when someone else calls me one, I will wince considerably, since I know they're calling me a racist, among other unsavoury things.
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 12:08:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Mind you, it's also absurd to expect people to know how others will take things they say. Sure, it's probably quite possible to go through life without upsetting anyone, but if everyone on the planet did that life would be unbearably boring.
When I die and go to hell as punishment for running FWPT, my hell will be filled with mediocre people afraid to say anything significant or funny for fear of upsetting someone.
So are you saying that if you made a comment that mocked someone's race and they let you know they'd found it offensive, that you'd regard it as 'their' problem, and conclude they had no sense of humor? And that if someone is offended by a racist remark that they are a priori a 'mediocre person'? But - I bet you'd KILL if someone offered you a penguin sandwich 
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 12:28:09
|
I don't understand the concept of "being offended", I have never been offended in my life, and I'm pretty sure I never will. Hence I don't see "offense" as being something that someone does to someone else, rather it's a reaction by someone to a trait in another person that they identify as different to themselves. For example, Person A tells a dirty joke, Persons B and C laugh at it, and Person D is disgusted and "offended". Person D's "offense" is not "caused" by Person A, it's self induced and simply a result of a different sense of humour.
I see "taking offense" as primarily (note I said "primarily") a tool used to suppress dissent and/or manipulate the way others are perceived by third parties. Examples:-
a) Someone says "Hey, that's offensive!" upon hearing someone express an opinion that differs from their own. Their motive is to suppress that opinion that they don't want to hear and/or don't want others to hear. Their motive may also be to paint the speaker in a negative light by painting them as insensitive or bigotted when in fact they may be neither. Politicians use this a lot, as do many others.
b) Someone says "Hey, that's offensive!" to a dirty or bad-taste joke that others are laughing at but that they themselves don't find entertaining. Their motive is to prevent any further jokes of that nature. Who wants to hear unfunny jokes?
"Normal" people want to be liked by others, hence will change their language/jokes/expressions of opinion etc based on the audience. E.g., I've got some absolutely filthy jokes that I reserve for people who find such things funny, but certainly won't tell to a stranger. And some "religious jokes" that I won't tell my vicar uncle. Etc. Note that this is all self censorship, I don't need anyone to tell me not to swear in my uncle's house.
But censorship imposed from above is fascism and I resist it totally and utterly. It's so dangerous as there's no logical end to it, it's level will be dependent on the motives of the person(s) appointed (or self-appointed) as censor. Take the recent example of the guy banned by Qantas from boarding a flight from Australia to UK because he was wearing a T-shirt with a mugshot of George Bush and the slogan "World's #1 terrorist". Qantas said "Whether made verbally or on a T-shirt, comments with the potential to offend other customers or threaten the security of a Qantas group aircraft will not be tolerated." I find that quite scary as I think it would have been unthinkable six years ago. The opinion expressed on the T-shirt was not their business, neither was it the business of any other traveller. Qantas used "offense" as simply an excuse to suppress an opinion that they don't share.
As far as fwfr goes, there's only one opinion that counts as to movies or reviews on the site, and it's the site owner's. IMO we fwfrers have been as considerate as one would expect towards the sensitivity of other users, and use the levels of self-censorship that we probably use in daily life. That's what I do, anyway. So IMO there's nothing to worry about, we aren't all gonna become racist bigots if those "coon" movies are added. I doubt I'll be reviewing any of them though (call it self-censorship).
So, does anyone want to define the word "offense" for me? I'm curious to hear what it actually means to others. Think of it as explaining the colour red to a blind man, I'm the blind man as I've never been offended, so my only experience with "offense" is observing others who claim to have been offended. I've heard many people talk about things that offend them (as in provide examples), but I'm not sure what they think "offense" actually is. Enlighten me. 
It's bedtime for me, so I'll check back in the morning to see what others have to say about this undoubtedly offensive post.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 13:49:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Mind you, it's also absurd to expect people to know how others will take things they say.
In a completely general sense, this might be true. However, one knows perfectly well that certain items of vocabulary are intrinsically offensive. Thus in most general contexts, if not all, one just has to not use those terms. I know that you think people just shouldn't be offended and that's the end of it, but when it comes down to it, however much of the world you have seen, you are a straight, white, well-educated, able-bodied, non-Jewish, non-Moslem man from a country which no one dislikes, and thus you simply have no first-hand knowledge of the effect of demeaning vocabulary being at large in society.
I would also like to reiterate the relative lack of racist 'jokes' here. There is not a single one for this film. Let's not be under the delusion that if it were called 10,000 Gay Men Named George you and many others would not have submitted numerous homophobic 'jokes'. The only possible interpretation is that people rightly find racism unpalatable, but to some degree they find homophobia acceptable. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 14:14:18 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:01:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I don't understand the concept of "being offended", I have never been offended in my life, and I'm pretty sure I never will. Hence I don't see "offense" as being something that someone does to someone else, rather it's a reaction by someone to a trait in another person that they identify as different to themselves.
This is very telling. There are lots of things which I do not think or experience, but that doesn't mean that "hence" I am unable to empathise with their positions.
Put it this way... What if someone did not mind being kicked in the shin? Could he therefore go around kicking other people in the shin (even in a pre-law society) because he felt like it? It would be wrong even if he had no interest in their viewing him positively. It is not acceptable to negatively impinge upon other people unless a positive need or at least benefit outweighs this. A bit of mediocre 'humour' does not justify demeaning people. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:05:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The only possible interpretation is that people rightly find racism unpalatable, but to some degree they find homophobia acceptable.
Perhaps, but apparently sexism is okay as well.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Film of highly questionable taste
