| Author |
 Topic  |
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
 Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:45:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Um... I don't think the movie is about hunting RAcoons.
Just in case you didn't get it...I was aware of that. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 17:03:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
The point being, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder and as time goes by, it becomes harder to determine what is going to be offensive.
This arguably applies to some terms (i.e. ones which were intended to be politically correct), but not to ones whose origins are in explicit prejudice. Re: P.C. terms, those originating from/promoted by the groups themselves do not pass on in this way. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 17:13:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
My point is, you don't have to be gay or a person of color to have suffered from discrimination. Most of the gay kids and Black kids were much more liked and treated better than I was.
If you mean actual discrimination (which means negative behaviour towards people based on a category in which they fall), then sure. Then you know how you feel about a generic demeaning term applying to you. If you just mean being badly treated on an arbitrary, individual basis, then that is still very bad, but a different type of thing.
My point was that Sean falls into no identifiable category that experiences prejudice. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/24/2007 17:18:02 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 17:16:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I can pretty much guess how our Black users would feel about adding film titles including the word "coon", and my guess is that they would not appreciate it.
OK, but can equivalently prejudiced terms appear in reviews? |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 18:27:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
So what are we going to do about THIS film?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0149551/
Answer in beige:
Kill that faggot nigger jew!
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 18:48:42
|
| You're a riot, bafta! |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 20:27:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]The only reason I don't use the term "nigger" is because if I did I'd probably be punched in the face by someone who incorrectly assumes that my use of the word illustrates my racism.
This is clearly false. You do not use that term in your reviews and there is essentially no chance of your being punched in the face based on people reading this site. Also, I find it rather bizarre that fear of violence to yourself is a stronger motivation to you than not wanting to demean others.
My mistake, I should have put ' ' around the phrase 'punched in the face'. Obviously (to me) I was referring to being metaphorically punched in the face. Essentially I was saying that a strong adverse reaction to something someone says may imply that what they said may have been inappropriate. |
Edited by - Sean on 01/24/2007 20:28:49 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 21:03:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I can pretty much guess how our Black users would feel about adding film titles including the word "coon", and my guess is that they would not appreciate it.
OK, but can equivalently prejudiced terms appear in reviews?
Is it fair that everybody picks on bigots? They're becoming a persecuted minority! |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 21:18:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I would say that this, and especially fag, are preferable to the above too, perhaps because they do not refer to certain types of behaviours. This, poof and especially queer are used by gay people in something like the manner of nigger by some black people. I don't think that straight people should use them, but they are not so bad. Faggot is perhaps the worst of this set, though.
I had full blooded Aboriginal friends in high school and they didn't have a problem with me calling them whatever they called each other. They didn't tell me what words I could or could not use.
If I am able to call someone a wog, dago, wop, salami muncher, ding, greaseball...etc, then I don't have a problem with someone calling me that, even if they are not one.
|
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 21:57:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
This actually makes quite a good point. This product is not tarnished by using this name, because the word is actually now relatively obscure. A lot of young people would not know what it meant. Therefore, it is possible to let these terms enter virtual obsolescence - but continuing to use them, in any sense, will counter that.
This refers to the cheese in Oz called Coon. I live in an Aboriginal town in the north of Australia, and while occasionally I hear some of the rednecks use the word 'coon', most of my Aboriginal friends have not registered the word as one used to talk about them. When I pointed out how common in the US and used to be in the UK , they really had to think about that. We still haven't worked out where the name came from applied to cheese - but I'm not Aussie born. Anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 22:02:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]So, I approach "homophobic" terms in the same way (IMO there's no such thing as homophobic language, only in as far as it reflects homophobia in the user).
I know that this is your whole concept, but it's just off the wall. Like I've said again and again, nuances are a real part of words' meanings. Thus if I use a word not intending all of its nuances, that is just my fault. All the terms in question were coined specifically in the context of demeaning gay people. Their tone irrevocably encapsulates this.
I disagree entirely. I'll start with an example that I know a lot about - olfactory sensory recall - I'll use wine as an example. I read a description of the bouquet of a pinot noir once (that's red burgundy for those interested) that was something like "a warm cricket pavilion on a Sunday afternoon". Perhaps that might appear a bit over-the-top but pinot noir has always been the wine variety that has caused wine writers to wax poetically-lyrical. So, is that aroma a good aroma? I'd say yes, it's obviously a complex wine, and for somebody it brought back memories of a pleasant Sunday afternoon watching cricket. But, what if in some hypothetical scenario there had been a fascist coup and the oppressors had used that cricket pavillion for public hangings of those who challenged their regime, perhaps including the brother of a wine drinker? Is that wine going to bring back pleasant or extremely painful memories? Olfactory sensory recall is as real as visual sensory recall or aural sensory recall, and undoubtedly people's reaction to an aroma will vary dramatically. So, what is the winemaker supposed to do about this? Knowing the horrors that occurred in that cricket pavillion, should he interfere with the wine and alter the aroma spectrum to avoid upsetting someone?
Back to "homophobic" language. I'm guessing you have been on the receiving end of homophobia for a lot of your life, so to you, most words that refer to homosexuals are "offensive" or "homophobic". A homophobe could use the word "gay" or "homosexual" in an offensive manner if that is their intent (even if it isn't their intent, if they are homophobic their use of the word will likely reflect their homophobia). I get the feeling that for you, there are no synonyms for "homosexual" that could be used as a noun without being at least somewhat "offensive" or "homophobic". I maintain that you're at the extreme end of sensitivity among homosexuals with respect to language used to describe homosexuals.
I fully agree that some homosexuals will have an adverse reaction to the words "queen" or "fairy" (or potentially all other words that could refer to homosexuals) - and that some will have a non-reaction to them. So, yes, those words contain nuances that will be perceived by some as offensive- - in my view this is probably because the words bring back painfull memories of past discrimination by homophobes. Likewise, a wine could contain nuances that could bring back painful memories of past events that a wine drinker would rather not recall, the same wine to another drinker will bring back only positive memories or at worst, no memories.
So we simply have a philosophical difference here. What to do about the potential for words to bring back painful memories or cause offense? I suggest do nothing whatsoever and use whatever words one wants and be prepared for the occasional adverse reaction. I don't see it as my fault if I use the word "queen" for example, and one out of ten gays (oops, I've just offended one out of ten - or perhaps one out of 100 by using "gay" as a noun) incorrectly assumes I'm a homophobe, or otherwise has an adverse reaction to it. Likewise, I don't blame the winemaker if a wine has an aroma that causes unwanted sensory recall.
I aim my language so as to be acceptable to the majority, hence I won't say "a nigger" or "a faggot" which almost everyone considers nasty. But I don't have a problem saying "a black" or "a gay" which undoubtedly some will occasionally find a wee bit offensive but most won't. Aiming language so as to be acceptable to the most hypersensitive individuals from persecuted minorities makes living a real pain in the arse. In fact it's the principal reason for the constant evolution (or de-evolution in my view) of political correctness. It's absolutely inevitable that as long as there is bigotry, bigots will begin using 'neutral' words as nouns/adjectives for minorites and therefore 'taint' those words to the point where they become offensive. The PC brigade to me resemble a bunch of cats chasing their tails looking for the ever-elusive politically correct neutral terms for minorites; they will chase for ever but are absolutely certain to fail as long as there is bigotry. Another way of looking at it:- bigots destroy the neutrality of neutral words for minorities by using them - likewise non-bigots could destroy the offensiveness of offensive words by using them (in the way that blacks are destroying the offensiveness of "nigger"). I say again, bring it on.  |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 22:36:02
|
I witness racisim on a daily basis from both Aboriginal and white people. Most disturbingly is being non-Aboriginal in a majority Aboriginal place, non-Aboriginal people feel free to talk to me about 'them', use whatever offensive words they want and act like they've got a right to talk in this way etc. etc just because I'm white.
I also know that just being white will get me called 'gardiya c***' sometimes, even though a person might not have a clue who I am - they are just generally pissed off with life. (Gardiya is a generic term, from the creole language here, meaning 'white'. Probably taken from the police 'guards' who chained people and escorted them away from their families for no particular reason other than they were Aboriginal and wanted to live where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years. This is within living memory for some of the old people.)
Much of the situation is about history, who will acknowledge the wrongs done in the past and who won't. Non-Aboriginal people suffered because they looked for gold and drove cattle across country and found the environment very hard. Yes, admire the pioneer spirit - but don't ignore the genocide. Aboriginal people don't want anything other than acknowledgement of what was done to them. They don't blame, they just want to move on - but they are not allowed to, thus the blame continues to be argued.
When in the company of racist white people, sometimes I take the bait, sometimes I don't. I know that many people don't actually have the first clue about Aboriginal people, so they are talking from a position of ignorance. If I can react in a calm way, and perhaps help provide some information for people to think about (without talking 'for' Aboriginal people), I will. I work in a social justice area, and after many years of watching the minority (in this context, although nationally of course Aboriginal people are a minority) continue to oppress and demean the majority, I can't help but put the 'other side'. So I'm called a white do-gooder. 'White do-gooder' is an offensive term to me - particulary since my bosses are Aboriginal and I don't make the decisions. I'm actually more offended by that than 'garidya c***'.
So yes, I agree that feeling offended is going to be in the 'mind of the beholder' because each person's history and background has created their mindset. If I saw a review refering to Aboriginal people that offended me, I'd have to acknowledge that it was me reacting. See next post
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 22:47:42
|
There is a review for Hotel Rwanda 'Machete importer makes killing'. This offends me, as I believe it is a sick joke at the expense of the Rwandan people, many of whom were slaughtered using machetes. I don't think it is really an accurate review - but perhaps the black marketeer in the film is shown with machetes in his warehouse - a small detail about the film I can't recall?
So, I didn't report the film because of not being sure of that detail - and also for some of the reasons stated in the discussion above, including the censorship topic. That this is my own personal, emotional reaction to the civil war in Rwanda is another reason.
Not quite the same as the discussion about racist labels etc, but perhaps relevant to the discussion about the acceptability of reviews and people's responses to ones that will offend them because of their own personal history or heritage?
PS I too have been upset by the number of homosexual referenced reviews for Brokeback Mountain - not least because they are almost all sexual in nature, as if sex was the only relevant thing in the film about the exploration of being homosexual in that environment.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 22:51:11
|
I happen to live in a city with a large gay population. I shudder even to write this, but "some of my best friends are gay." Perhaps the difference is that these men and women are living in a society which doesn't give a shit whether they're gay or not.
Whenever my wife and I visit one of our best friends in The Pines on Fire Island, we're suddenly in the minority because we're straight! So what? Let me assure you that we are immersed in gay culture when we're there, or when we attend certain dinner parties, or when we host certain dinner parties.
I can tell you that many, if not most, gay people in my experience use those "homophobic" words with each other, and laugh about them. [Example: one of our friends has a beautiful house in Tuxedo Park. We all call it the "Winter Palace," and frequently inquire if "the queen is in residence."] To some this might be offensive. To our friends it is not. This may be because they are comfortable in their sexuality, and they recognize that I am so in my own. These people are far from closeted, and in a society which seems rather enlightened, they're far from persecuted. But these exchanges are quite rare, because they don't spend their time talking about being gay.
If I were a total stranger wearing a NASCAR hat, my use of such words might feel different to them. But "homophobia" can be in the eye of the beholder; a word itself has no power without context. Black people have done a fine sociological job with "nigger," appropriating this word for themselves. But let me try to use it? Naaah.
What I would offer is that there is no such thing as a monolithic gay culture. Some gay people are hyper-sensitive about offenses, some aren't. Same with black people. Same, I would hasten to add as a member of the following minority, with Southerners -- and placism is a very real prejudice, especially up here in the North, if you happen to be attuned to it.
I think most of us can agree that there may be an individual something which has no place on our site, as Boat believes [me too]. The visceral reaction of most posters in this thread attests to that. But scrubbing this site for political correctness can only lead to breathing in too many toxic cleaning chemicals. That's not healthy. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Film of highly questionable taste
