| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
 Posted - 01/25/2007 : 19:47:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It does not. It may be objectionable to any number of people, but it is not hypocritical, since there is a discrete distinction. People can be criticised for their choices. People cannot rightly be criticised for their essences. Similarly offensive slang referring to instrinsic categories of people demeans people. Offensive slang not referring to intrinsic categories of people does not demean people. Personally, I doubt I would use slang to refer to members of any religions, but religions are concepts and can thus be argued against. Arguing against a sexuality or skin colour is not even meaningful.
Sal, I have no wish to get into a slanging match about whether sexuality is inborn or a preference. For you, your sexuality is a huge part of who you are and I am not trying to belittle that. However my religious beliefs are part of my "essence" as they help to define me. They are core to my values which impact my decision making and relationships. Hopefully they make me a better person. To come back with a "that's not valid" equates to a Monty Pythonesque contradiction.
It seems quite acceptable to give the church a mouthful in the press (sometimes it deserves it) but substitute any of the other minorities mentioned in this thread and woo boy. (I was listening to a community radio station and they had a recorded comedy(?) spot really getting stuck in to the church in the US. Some of the things he said really got up my nose so I turned off the radio, blew my nose and did my shopping.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 20:08:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Sal, I have no wish to get into a slanging match about whether sexuality is inborn or a preference.
I utterly promise as much as any other thing in the world that it is inborn. (I used to think it was genetic, but accept that the womb can play a part.) There is zero choice.
quote:
For you, your sexuality is a huge part of who you are and I am not trying to belittle that.
In a sense yes, in a sense no. It plays no real external part in my life. The important point is that it is not a choice.
quote:
However my religious beliefs are part of my "essence" as they help to define me. They are core to my values which impact my decision making and relationships. Hopefully they make me a better person. To come back with a "that's not valid" equates to a Monty Pythonesque contradiction.
Yes, I was getting into tricky territory with essence. I imagine that you feel no choice but to be Christian - that's just what you think is true. But the same applies to people's political views. People's opinions come from their genes and experiences. Since their experiences come from their opinions and their previous experiences, this ultimately boils down to genes like anything else. Free will is a bit of a meaningless concept, I.M.O. However, I do think it is valid to criticise people for their opinions, despite this. While I seem to be talking myself away from the distinction I made, it is still clear for me. Someone may think that people can be criticised for their inborn traits as much as I think people can be criticised for their developed ones, but I really think that my position (on this abstract point) is the one that is intuitively correct. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/25/2007 20:09:34 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 20:13:11
|
Put it this way - I hold an unusual and extremely black-and-white opinion about a certain issue. I get hassle about this a lot. It is annoying but other than that, I could not care less. It is not the same as homophobia, much less of which I experience.
Anyway, you think that you are going to heaven, so people disagreeing with you are going to get their comeuppance surely, I.Y.O., so won't that do?  |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 20:39:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
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.
one bad thing about electronic communication -- it's hard to tell if someone is being sarcastic.
If you're wondering about my comment "nice post," I can assure you I meant that with full sincerity. It was a very good post!
I'm pretty sure that's what you're wondering about, but you might have been referring to the rest of my comment. I don't know if "sarcasm" is the right word for it...but I was trying to make a humorous observation. A lot of people seemed to be waiting to hear from you and MG, as if the whole question of whether or not it was okay to include these films would be answered once and for all depending on what you think, because then we'd really know how blacks feel about movie titles that use the word "coon." This is ridiculous of course, but it's something people do quite often when dealing with under-represented groups, usually without even realizing it. "Is this okay? Well, let's go ask the black guy." (or the gay guy...or the Asian guy, or the Muslim guy, etc)
It's quite a privalage, isn't it? How many WASPs get the honor of speaking for all of "White America?" |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 20:44:42
|
Oh, and my fellow FWFRers:
I reject the notion that it's impossible to write a review of a film with a racist title that makes reference to the title itself without also being racist. I just did it with "The Nigger," the only question is whether or not it's too generic. The name of the film is not in the review, but the review IS about both the title and the film itself.
You'll know it when you see it. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 21:13:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
Why should they be allowed in illegally when I have relatives that have been trying for many years to get into the country legally and can't? |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 22:36:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
Did you consider that this may have been the result of the way you asked him to remove it? There's a big difference between asking someone to do something and demanding they do something. Like the "Farm AIDS" 'review', it's clearly wrong, but if I owned the site it would have remained on the site until such time as I was asked in a respectful manner to remove it.
Sorry for digging up old ghosts but I can't let this one slide as AC has retired from the site. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 22:39:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
However, I do think it is valid to criticise people for their opinions, despite this. While I seem to be talking myself away from the distinction I made, it is still clear for me. Someone may think that people can be criticised for their inborn traits as much as I think people can be criticised for their developed ones, but I really think that my position (on this abstract point) is the one that is intuitively correct.
Now that GHCool has started a new thread to cover the original post...
I love to discuss, debate etc with people from different backgrounds as it helps me to better hone my own beliefs and understandings. One of the great benefits of forums is the chance for us to engage in dialogue with people outside our normal social groupings. I appreciate that the vast majority of the time our Fourum is extremely civil despite the diverse array of reviewers who enter these discussions.
Censorship can severely curtail such dialogue. I've mentioned the Racial & Religious Vilification Act in Victoria. It is aimed at removing offensive behaviour from our society which is laudable. In practice it has become one of the more divisive pieces of legislation I've had the misfortune to experience.
The Act doesn't allow for intent but only judges on whether someone was offended. We had the ridiculous situation where 2 pastors running a course on Islam were taken to court for quoting the Koran by 3 Muslims who went along to the meeting with the intention of being offended. So instead of promoting goodwill in the community, this hodge-podge of political correctness is causing division by stifling debate and discussion.
In regards to the Aussie government's solution to boat people, I'm not a fan of the Pacific solution but the tough stance has definitely slowed the numbers of illegal immigrants risking their lives on unsafe boats from attempting to enter the country.
I'd be more in favour of increasing the numbers through humanitarian migration by processing refugees in the camps rather than them having to feel the need to risk their lives dealing with people smugglers.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 22:41:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
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."
Well, at least you shudder. I cringe so much when anyone says that. It's like a carte blache claim to innocence.
Well it is a claim to innocence. If some of his best friends are gay, then he's not a homophobe. If he is a homophobe, he wouldn't have best friends who are gay! The fact it's a cliche doesn't make it incorrect. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 22:58:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Why do you find gay sex funnier than straight sex?
It comes down to commonality. How many gay cowboy movies are there? One that I'm aware of. If gay cowboy movies become a new genre, I'd say it's certain that by the time the third movie is made the "gay cowboy sex" jokes will have dried up.
Same for the hair-gel scene in Something About Mary, if they made a sequel where she uses the same hair-gel, you'd get a few more jokes, by the time the second sequel was made they'd have come to an end. Same with Sharon Stone's flash in Basic Instinct, the sequel has a few mentions of it (whether it's there or not) but let's say BI3 also has a flash, very few would mention it as it would have become boring by then. So there's no requirement for homosexuality for 'funny' wordplay, just sex or nudity in an unusual setting.quote:
You may try to deny this, but I also very strongly suspect that you would not be happy for Lost in Translation to be suffocated by reviews on one unimportant matter, such as Scarlett Johanssen being an inadequate bore.
You're dead right I'll deny it. I'm actually quite consistent here. Scarlett's character was boring, she was a 'nobody' (although a likeable nobody, she was just existing), and played it brilliantly. I fully understand that there were people who saw LIT who didn't get it at all, were bored out of their skull and are quite vitriolic about it. That's a shame, but it's their problem. I care as much about whether others 'get' LIT as whether they share my love for olives, or penguins, or death metal etc. Sure, I'd like everyone to like everything but I'm not losing any sleep if they don't. So, they can write whatever reviews they want.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 23:09:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Sal, I have no wish to get into a slanging match about whether sexuality is inborn or a preference.
I think for a change I'd better come down on Salopian's side here. It is absolutely, totally inborn. The only reason I can think of for people thinking that it's a choice is if they have ancient writings - the source of which they consider to be beyond question - that state it's a choice. In my view those who wrote that simply got it totally wrong.
So yep, this one will end up rather Pythonesque. "Yes it is!" No it isn't!" etc so I'll.... wait for it.... say no more! |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 00:55:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Sal, I have no wish to get into a slanging match about whether sexuality is inborn or a preference.
I think for a change I'd better come down on Salopian's side here. It is absolutely, totally inborn.
And yet there are "former homosexuals" - how can it be? I typed that phrase into Google and came up with 34,500 hits (not a very scientific approach I admit but...). Some links may be of interest but generally people who have very strong views on topics aren't keen to be persuaded regarding ideas outside their personal paradigm (including me ).
Former Homosexual Says 'No one is born gay'
Confession From A Former Homosexual
Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth?
I do remember reading an article from a homosexual activist in Sydney who expressed that he wasn't born gay but it was a lifestyle choice he had proudly made - I just wish I could find it. 
In the end though we'll probably agree to disagree. |
Edited by - Conan The Westy on 01/26/2007 01:12:42 |
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 01:26:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
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.
Thank-you. I just wanted to get someone else's opinion on that review. As I say, I have thought a lot about it and it is obviously just something that offends me for some inexplicable reason. I was having difficulty seeing how it was a review of the film but you have answered that.
|
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 01:28:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
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.
Is there an official policy? I haven't seen that answered in the discussions
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 01:46:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Sal, I have no wish to get into a slanging match about whether sexuality is inborn or a preference.
I think for a change I'd better come down on Salopian's side here. It is absolutely, totally inborn.
And yet there are "former homosexuals" - how can it be? I typed that phrase into Google and came up with 34,500 hits (not a very scientific approach I admit but...). Some links may be of interest but generally people who have very strong views on topics aren't keen to be persuaded regarding ideas outside their personal paradigm (including me).
Former Homosexual Says 'No one is born gay'
Confession From A Former Homosexual
Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth?
I do remember reading an article from a homosexual activist in Sydney who expressed that he wasn't born gay but it was a lifestyle choice he had proudly made - I just wish I could find it.
In the end though we'll probably agree to disagree.
I'll read those links later, as I'm curious, but I'm guessing people who "change" their sexuality would have to be bisexual, i.e., they're happy to "bat for either team". Or they may be asexual. Neither bisexuals or asexuals are qualified to talk about what's possible for homosexuals or heterosexuals without asking them.
I recall stats in the Western World are something like:-
Hetero - 90-95%
Homo - 5%
Bi - 2%
Asexual - 2%
I'd guess it would be as easy for a homosexual to change their sexuality as it would be for you or me to change ours. The very thought fills me with absolute revulsion (as I'm hetero), which I suspect is the principal reason for homophobia.
Shiv, there are no absolute rules for threads, but netocol suggests that the thread initiator starts it for a particular reason, and it's not good form to hijack it for a different purpose. Note that GHcool has had to start a new thread as this one went off on a tangent. It's not a terribly big deal though, lively discussion rooms tend to go that way. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Film of highly questionable taste
