| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:06:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
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."
This is a bit different. Qantas will have been using "offend" as code for "terrify about being bombed", in order not to make people actually worry even more about being bombed. Yes, there has been a huge overreaction about terrorism, but it is reasonable for Qantas to stop its customers being frightened. (If they were frightened for more irrational reasons, such as by seeing an Arab, that would be different.) |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:09:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
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.
Yes, and anti-disability prejudice. I am just commenting on the above two examples because (i) racism is the most absent type and (ii) I can judge the effect of homophobia better. The racism that there is seems restricted to anti-Semitism (if one classes that within racism) and anti-Far Eastern instances. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:13:16
|
No, Benj has the final say, but everyone's opinion counts and people can try to persuade him if they like. He is also a straight, white, able-bodied, non-Jewish, non-Moslem man and thus he also can only think about these issues abstractly, which is not necessarily the best position.
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
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.
|
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 14:13:44 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:17:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
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).
But why would you exercise self-censorship in those cases but not in all the perfectly serious gay-themed films whose pages you have filled with homophobic terms? What is the difference? Please tell me, because the only one I can think of is that it's only racism that you think is wrong. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 14:17:39 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 14:26:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, does anyone want to define the word "offense" for me?
I cannot define it in general (other than by copying from a dictionary, which you can do for yourself), but I would like to make clear that there is a big difference between being offended because someone mocks one's views and being offended because something essential and unchangeable about oneself is demeaned. (For this reason, I am happy to mock religions as ridiculous. Anti-Jewish and anti-Moslem comments fall between the two sides because they can, and probably usually do, refer to people because they are born into those cultures rather than because of their actual religious choices. I also take for granted that it is fine to use any words that do not refer to categories of people, i.e. fuck, cunt etc.) Some terms have demeaning connotations because they were/are used by dominant groups to distance others and define them as being inferior. Connotations of terms coined in this context do not just dissipate because people gain or pretend to gain attitudes of equality. Terms favoured by the subjugated groups themselves are the ones that need to be used instead. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 17:40:04 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 16:46:04
|
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.?
No, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "Politically Incorrect," and I'm in a line of work where it's important to stay on top of such trends. Black is still a more or less acceptable term to use, although it's definitely being phased out in favor of "African-American." I would say it's only offensive to say "black" if an African-American specifically requested "I would prefer if you used the term African-American" and one stubbornly insisted on using the older term anyway. Of course one can always play it safe by saying African-American anyway, but it actually hasn't been incorporated into certain terms yet...for example, February is still "Black History Month" over here.
However, in some parts of the country (particularly the West coast) many Latinos will bristle at the word "Hispanic," although it won't be interpreted as a bonafide slur like "Spic" or "wetback." It's seen as an extremely outdated word like "Negro." The word itself is not offensive, but it harkens back to a time when the prevaling societal views of such people WERE offensive. This trend doesn't seem to have hit the Northeast yet, but as a general rule it's probably safer to always say "Latino," "Latina." |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:01:31
|
I've noticed this discussion has begun to revolve entirely around the question of what is offensive and what people have a right to get offended at. But I'm not sure that's really the point. I've repeatedly pointed out there's a review of Schindler's List that I find extremely anti-Semitic and which also goes WAY over the line in it's message, and I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way about it even if I were a Goy. But not only do I not advocate its removal, I've resisted even singling out the review at all...even though it's obvious that the FWFRer who wrote it stopped contributing a long time ago.
There's very little point in debating whether or not various under-represented groups have a right to be offended by the use of slurs. Certainly everyone has a right to be offended by anything. But I think the real debate here is about censorship. Should this website be censored or not? You can always make a good case for why certain words, phrases, points of view, or whatever should be excluded. That doesn't necessarily mean we should do it. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:17:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Should this website be censored or not? You can always make a good case for why certain words, phrases, points of view, or whatever should be excluded. That doesn't necessarily mean we should do it.
Censorship NEVER!
But I defend my right to get offended at whatever offends me!   And to point it out, if I feel like it. 
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:33:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
But I think the real debate here is about censorship. Should this website be censored or not?
I think the real point is that all people should choose not to use offensive terms.
Even if certain things were disallowed here (which I doubt they often would be), that would not be against freedom of speech. This is a private website. No one has a right to get anything published here; it is all a privilege. The same goes for newspapers - I cannot have something offensive printed in one just because I want to. Freedom of speech is only impinged when the authorities disallow certain publications or forums from containing certain material.
I realise that you talked about censorship rather than denial of freedom of speech, but the more specific case that is the latter is the only one that I think can actually be argued to be wrong.
With regard to your example, Benj did delete the despicable "Farm AIDS", so regardless of your preferences over the Schindler's List review, it is already not his policy to absolutely ignore offensiveness. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 17:42:40 |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:38:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Censorship NEVER!
But I defend my right to get offended at whatever offends me! And to point it out, if I feel like it.
No need to defend it, as I doubt anyone wants to attack it. But I'll defend it, too, if need be. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:44:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think the real point is that all people should choose not to use offensive terms.
Is it? This thread is about whether racist movies with racist titles should be added to the database, or if they should be excluded simply because of their titles and content. It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. We're talking about censorship.
quote:
With regard to your example, Benj did delete the dispicable "Farm AIDS", so regardless of your preferences, it is not his policy to ignore offensiveness.
I have no objection to removing reviews that are inaccurate or simply aren't about the film in question. The fact that it features "risque humor" doesn't make it any less wrong. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:50:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think the real point is that all people should choose not to use offensive terms.
Is it? This thread is about whether racist movies with racist titles should be added to the database, or if they should be excluded simply because of their titles and content. It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. We're talking about censorship.
Yes, that is the topic GHcool started; I just meant that that is not the most important point as far as I see it. I don't mind whether those films are added or not - I just think that people here and now should not use terms like coon for 'humour' or otherwise. People should not have used them in the past either but we cannot change that. I think that censorship is fine within a private context, so long as it is applied to all participants equally. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 17:56:05 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:52:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
With regard to your example, Benj did delete the despicable "Farm AIDS", so regardless of your preferences, it is not his policy to ignore offensiveness.
I have no objection to removing reviews that are inaccurate or simply aren't about the film in question. The fact that it features "risque humor" doesn't make it any less wrong.
Come off it: it wasn't removed for inaccuracy. There are numerous reviews which are at least as inaccurate that have not been deleted (e.g. all the Gay Muslims ones that mention countries unconnected to anyone in the film). |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/23/2007 17:54:47 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:54:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I've repeatedly pointed out there's a review of Schindler's List that I find extremely anti-Semitic and which also goes WAY over the line in it's message, and I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way about it even if I were a Goy.
Which one is it? (I don't know what a 'Goy' is, by the way.) |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/23/2007 : 17:57:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I've repeatedly pointed out there's a review of Schindler's List that I find extremely anti-Semitic and which also goes WAY over the line in it's message, and I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way about it even if I were a Goy.
Which one is it? (I don't know what a 'Goy' is, by the way.)
goy = non-Jew
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Film of highly questionable taste
