| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 01/25/2007 : 00:17:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
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've voted for this as it's clever. There are two meanings:-
a) The machete importer bears some responsibility for the genocide by supplying the weapons, i.e., he has helped make the killlings. I can't see anything offensive about this.
b) The machete importer made a lot of money importing and selling the machetes, i.e., a "killing". This is also very likely although it wasn't discussed in the movie. I can't see anything offensive referring to this likely fact either.quote:
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.
Not necessarily the only thing, but the thing that people have written reviews about. You could say the same for There's Something About Mary, the reviews suggest she spent the entire movie applying 'special hair-gel'. That's just the nature of fwfr, people tend to see opportunities for wordplay and humour in the same places. I find the front page of Brokeback very funny, as to the countless people who've written (and voted for) 'naughty' reviews for the movie.  I'm an unashamed toilet humourist.  |
 |
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 00:35:47
|
| This is all a fine debate, but can we please stay on the topic that I started this thread for? That topic is the "official" FWFR policy on films with racist epithets in their titles. |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 01:54:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
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.
The sound helicopters make is wop-wop-wop-guinea-guinea-guinea-dago-dago-dago. Does anyone have any bad jokes about people of Scandinavian descent? In addition to the fact that we tend to be dreadfully obnoxious?
Sorry GH...you know these things take on a life of their own.
My best friend (very blonde, Dutch looking), who left her cheatin' SOB husband last summer, is dating a beautiful, kind, and very funny man who is half Mexican/half Apache. He's gorgeous! My best friend's brother-in-law is a redneck from the Ozarks who has begun cheerfully referring to my friend's boyfriend as "Pedro." So now the question is, is our handsome Hispanic friend hypersensitive about being Hispanic, and will he be upset if the redneck bil greets him as, "Pedro?" Or will he merely laugh and make a good-humored comment that he expected the redneck to have fewer teeth and oh by the way why aren't there more hubcaps on the trailerhouse? From what I know of the boyfriend (who is also a dear friend of mine), the latter is the most likely reaction...and his fanclub will get bigger. |
Edited by - duh on 01/25/2007 02:07:16 |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 02:57:46
|
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.
And neither would I.
sorry i'm so late to the thread.
damalc, a black fwiffer, says:
i'm against racism, of course. but i'm against censorship and fascism even more. if i want to make it illegal for someone else to say something, then somebody else can make what i want to say illegal. that's a slippery slope, not worth stepping on. my personal feelings, i can deal with myself, or deal with the person who may have violated them, in a rational, adult manner. i will defend anybody's right to say what they want, though i may disagree. in the free marketplace of ideas, truth and logic will always win, given equal time, against lies and nonsense. i also think it's nonsense to make rules about what group can say what. if it's ok for spike lee's characters to say nigger, it has to be ok for qt's characters. (rant over)
as far as being offended at a movie title, my second fwfr was for "The Legend of Nigger Charley." (btw, my favorite video store, Wild and Woolly Video, has a handwritten disclaimer attached to that film's box)
guess who added the title. give up? MguyX! (the only other black fwiffer that i know of. i'm sure there are more)
i find an insensitive fwfr much more offensive than a movie title. for instance, i think "Chink in Japanese armoury," for "Fist of Legend," is over the line. but i'll defend Mguy's right to say it.
bottom line, i think films with offensive titles should be allowed.
"Being offended is an occupational hazard in a free society." -Ursula Owen, chief executive, Index on Censorship.
btw, before i started this post i did not know that was Mguy's review. |
Edited by - damalc on 01/25/2007 03:15:48 |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 03:07:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
Sorry to wade in so late but your sensitivity to homosexual vilification combined with the judgemental generalities you've trotted out about religion and swearing smacks of hypocrisy.
As a WASP (white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) I'm certain that I belong to the only category in my state (Victoria, Australia) with no protection under our draconian religious and racial vilification laws.
I dislike bad language, I'm not a fan of many reviews lambasting Christ but I exercise my democratic right to not vote for those reviews and I move on.
I'm with GHC... is there a place for the films mentioned on page 1 or not? I'd be interested to hear from Mguyx on this topic. (Thanks damalc. You must have been adding your post as I was organising my thoughts.)
Sorry if this comes across as a bit strident but reading 7 pages straight was tough going. |
Edited by - Conan The Westy on 01/25/2007 03:47:44 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 03:48:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Sorry if this comes across as a bit strident but reading 7 pages straight was tough going.
It was tough writing, too!  .... 
Sorry for my contribution to the verbose rantings. 
It was a good discussion though, I've bookmarked it so the next time this topic comes up (as is inevitable) I can link to it for some light reading before people dive into rant mode again. I seem to say the same stuff over and over again whenever this topic comes up which must be boring for the old timers.  |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 07:39:53
|
*takes a deep breath*
Okay. I'm willing to venture out without another long viewpoint to give a straight up yes or no answer to say that if it's listed in IMDB, which is the Bible of the site, then yes, it should be included, regardless. If we start by censoring inclusion of a film based on words in the title, then the next step could conceivably be to censor inclusion of a film because of its content. No one is shouting to remove the porn titles, though they certainly may offend someone. A while back, I asked someone if something would be offensive and the answer I was given is that we don't censor based on taste. If someone should find it offensive, they certainly have a choice in not voting for it or reviewing it.
*exhales* |
Edited by - w22dheartlivie on 01/25/2007 07:45:15 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 11:20:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I'm guessing you have a sensitivity threshold to "homophobic language" that is much higher than many other gays.
Sorry - I included this line in error when responding to a different point, and forgot to respond to this one.
This again is your central idea that the listener/reader is the one at fault in these situations.
However, I also think that your particular premise here is wrong. Everyone here is more articulate and interested in language than the average person, including me. I therefore may voice specific conscious objections more than some other gay people. It does not though logically follow that they find the terms in question to be fine. Also, people, including even you, are much less likely to use such vocabulary when gay people are present. Therefore, your judgment in this matter is naturally impaired by the fact you don't actually have the full evidence of how gay people would respond. Further, if it doesn't come up, people always assume that I am straight. I am therefore exposed to a lot more homophobic attitudes (in terms of a witness rather than more extreme but also more occasional instances as a recipient) than most gay people, i.e. I am more familiar than they with the level of prejudice by people who would deny it if asked (the most common kind). Thus, whatever your sources are for what gay people think about demeaning terms, they may in fact be worse placed than I to assess their usage. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/25/2007 17:24:13 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 14:44:23
|
Nice post damalc.
Part of the fun of being a member of a minority is that you get the honor of speaking for your entire race. |
Edited by - Downtown on 01/25/2007 14:44:48 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 17:09:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
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.
Well, I would hope I would never punch someone in the face in reality, and thus I hope the same metaphorically. However, there are plenty of reviews on here which I find absolutely base, as base as any using nigger would be. The worst of all is A.C.'s "Trans parent" because the unavoidable interpretation is that he considers gender and sexuality issues synonymous i.e. that I must therefore have some desire to be a woman. While it's fine to want to be a woman, this is offensive in a similar way to people getting confused between different ethnic groups (except that it is worse because at least different ethnic groups are the same category of thing). I immediatelt found him a suitable film for the review (so all arguments of 'humour' overriding anything are completely redundant), but he refused to move it or even have it moved and thus keep the votes that people had for some reason given it. If punching someone in the face were productive, i.e. the review would get removed, I'd consider it in that case. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 17:17:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by thefoxboy
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.
That was their choice (although Aborigines are deeply subjugated in Australia by all reports and my own experience, so whether that was really their 'choice' is questionable. Also, they were not in charge of the overall Aboriginal stance. Their accepting this extension does not mean that everyone would or should.
quote:
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.
Same again. Just as one black person accepting the term coloured does not mean that it is O.K. to force it onto others. In contrast, if any kind of significant number (doesn't have to be a majority) do not accept coloured (as is the case), then one just has to not use it with any black strangers or in non-black contexts. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 17:17:20
|
The only kind of discrimination I've suffered is from strangers giving me grief for being exceptionally good-looking. I'm obviously used to women coming over all-a-flutter when they meet me for the first time and speaking absolute gibberish, before going and hiding in my bedroom without their clothes on, but occassionally you get blokes in pubs who decide to have a crack. There are several lines of enquiry they tend to enter the debate with, normally something like, "You think you're special don't you?" (Said with sneer that indicates that they don't think I am at all). To which I come back with something along the lines of, "Well my mother always told me I was." There's the similar, "You think you're good-looking don't you?" This is a lot easier as you have a range of replies for this one"
- "Yes" or "no" seems to stop the conversation dead.
- "I wouldn't know, I'm partially-sighted" makes them feel a bit bad.
- "I'm flattered but I'm afraid I'm straight." This is the inflammatory one (my normal reply when I'm a bit pissed). They take extreme exception to this and normally roar, "I'M NOT GAY!" And then I'm straight back with, "Then why are you talking about my looks?/I'm sorry I thought you were chatting me up." In most cases the inbred who started this ill-advised heckling tends to slink away somewhat embarrassed.
One guy did wait for me outside a pub once. Even though I was with a couple of mates he started telling me how he was going to kick the living shit out of me. Which he backed up by taking a swing at me and punching the wall next to my head, breaking his hand in the process. I'm guessing that not only was I better looking than this guy, but also slightly more intelligent.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 17:27:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
One guy did wait for me outside a pub once. Even though I was with a couple of mates he started telling me how he was going to kick the living shit out of me. Which he backed up by taking a swing at me and punching the wall next to my head, breaking his hand in the process. I'm guessing that not only was I better looking than this guy, but also slightly more intelligent.
Or possibly just slightly less drunk? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 18:18:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
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".
No, I really haven't. Since strangers never realise that I am gay and I have mostly only known quite educated people, I have never received any overt homophobia. My opinions on this sort of matter are never based on concern for myself. As I said before (which I know I had not by the time you wrote this) though, I have witnessed it in people's comments on a huge number of occasions, because prejudiced people usually assume that others of the same race/sex/sexuality/etc share their opinions. You will have witnessed it too, but registered it much less, in the same way that both of us would respond to sexism. We will both have noticed any racist comments of equivalent degrees because racism is considered worse by society (though no worse than or indeed still not as badly as it should be).
quote:
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).
We have been through this issue before. It is not the same. What is objectionable then is their homophobia, not the word. When they use demeaning words, both things are objectionable. The demeaning words standing on their own (like on the racist posters I mentioned) are objectionable - being detached from the homophobe does not make them OK, just as when they are detached from an imagined proven non-homophobe they become not OK. (My position is that any straight person using those terms is displaying some unconscious or negligent homophobia, but even allowing for this not to be the case, as soon as they lose any context, the words revert to deameaning, not to neutral.)
quote:
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".
That is true, but it definitely originates from my general attitude about adjectives > nouns. When I was a child I would have known not to say "a black" - it just sounds ridiculous and kind of detached to me, and reminds me of South Africa. I did not invent this idea. This is actually played upon in Little Britain - Dafydd is not "the only gay in the village" because that sounds normal, but because it is a ridiculous way to put things.
quote:
I maintain that you're at the extreme end of sensitivity among homosexuals with respect to language used to describe homosexuals.
I still don't think so. I think I am just at the extreme end of familiarity with how language functions and I am more familiar with how many straight people have this lurid fascination with homosexuality. Also, I have made my points so firmly because the situation on here is really quite extreme. All films with Gay in the title or with a commonly known gay theme are immediately sabotaged with a barrage of reviews containing unpleasant terms or misplaced innuendo. I actually find this more depressing that any homphobia I have personally witnessed in the real world, because I value this site and am also very familiar with it, so I know perfectly well that this does not happen on films with black themes. I would say that films with female or disabled themes fall in between on this scale.
quote:
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.
I really think this is most, although of course this is difficult to prove. The fact that some may tolerate them more than me in your experience is just down to the fact that some people tolerate things they do not like (which is not a positive thing) and that I am more heavily involved in this site than in all likelihood they have been in the contexts you have dealt with them (just by the balance of probabilities I mean).
quote:
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.
These nuances are there as part of the word. Since human beings learn language perfectly well, they will know these nuances even if they do not articulate them. It definitely does not need to be based on personal experience, since I have never really experienced any discrimination (or even witnessed it in terms of the recipient being present). It is not personal association; it is not like your wine analogy. People could use gay (adj.) or white to me in however many vitriolic attacks they liked - it wouldn't make me imagine that those words themselves were demeaning.
quote:
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 promise that it is not to do with memories. Your wording at the end has tones of you having to deal with the reaction. This is not the problem. The person feeling that way is the problem, regardless of whether they overtly react. You being prepared for it or not does not make the slightest difference.
quote:
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.
I cannot empathise with this attitude. The words one chooses are one's responsibility. They come with meanings that are not detachable (leaving aside contexts where all parties who hears/reads them have made clear that they accept a different usage, just as a group could use elephant to mean antidisestablishmentarianism if they wanted, but this would not make that applicable to other contexts). If you use homophobic words in a general context (e.g. here or with strangers), you just are being homophobic. Homophobia means homophobic thoughts and actions, and comments are a type of action in this sense. When it comes down to it, there are not homophobes and non-homophobes, racists and non-racists. Everyone falls somewhere along a spectrum. I fully accept that I probably feature some (unidentifiable to me) level of racism.
quote:
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.
As I've already said, I can live with those terms being used as nouns. I have outlined the problem with this practice and I stand by that.
quote:
Aiming language so as to be acceptable to the most hypersensitive individuals from persecuted minorities makes living a real pain in the arse.
No, it does not. It is perfectly easy to always refer to categories of people in a respectful way without thinking twice about it. I also do not really recognise hypersensitivity as a meaningful concept. People are just sensitive to differing degrees.
quote:
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.
No, this is false. People think this because supposedly P.C. terms have gone this way in the past. This is because those terms did not originate from the groups concerned. It is not realistically conceivable that terms coming from the groups will be tainted when the internal and majority use overwhelms the use by bigots so much, both in terms of quantity and significance. This is why terms for mental disability tend to get changed the most - because this group is the least able to advocate for itself.
quote:
The PC brigade
Quaint how this expression always gets used.
quote:
ever-elusive politically correct neutral terms for minorites
Not elusive at all: they are here.
quote:
non-bigots could destroy the offensiveness of offensive words by using them (in the way that blacks are destroying the offensiveness of "nigger").
No, this is not how words function. They are highly stable and language can rarely consciously be changed (just choice of vocabulary usage can). |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 18:26:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
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 don't experience anything as strong as this, but I live in Peckham, which I would say is the area of London with the highest proportion of black people now. On the bus I do hear people denigrating white people, usually in terms of generalising/steretyping. This is at a low level though, though maybe not as low as overt anti-black racism from white people. Much higher is racism against asylum seekers - in the U.K. this has become the 'acceptable' face of racism. I get the impression that it is the same for Australia, except that the government there has a cruel policy of not letting people in and leaving them to die in ships/on Nauru etc. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Film of highly questionable taste
