| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
 Posted - 03/30/2007 : 09:30:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Anyways, who do I want to feel unwelcome? Hypersensitive people, mostly. People who can't appreciate a good joke because of some offensive language. I'm not saying offensive language should be tossed around carelessly in these things -- if it was, I'd like to think we the viewers wouldn't vote on it. But a good joke is a good joke; this is a humor website and refraining from offensive language is an unnecessary impediment to comedy.
I mean: "Homo on the range"? That's funny. I don't care if that word offends someone, the joke is solid.
Can we all not live in harmony? 
Anyhow, I don't see how much these (sensitive blokes, of you cannot clearly say that they "don't know comedy" cause they find some things offensive) and then I (who considers "sexual humor" and "bad taste humor" only funny in maybe 5% of the situations due to "my personal blasphemous philosophy" ) much block the way for people "who are not sensative" to come and vote in this relatively balanced site of the instances of all kinds o humor.
Personally for the likings of rabid  "a good joke" is a joke crafted in all the right ways, a joke completely outthought. Basically I tend to think that it's all in the craft, and if you say "I don't care if it offends someone" then you're not "crafting it right". For "sexual humor" I personally think "the craft" is in the subtlety... With that said I indeedly found a couple of the Cowboys reviews "subtle enough" some time ago. 
What I took this to mean was that 'crafting' a joke, or a review, does not start out with the statement 'I don't care if I offend someone'. You are crafting something to make it funny based on your own sense of humour etc etc. So if it ends up offending someone, that wasn't the original intention, just an unfortunate by-product of trying to making something funny. Is that right?
I also agree with the notion that a lot of the Brokeback Mountain reviews are not 'subtle' or clever at all. The good ones stand out because of that.
|
 |
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 12:43:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by rabid kazook
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I think you would have a very hard time finding many comedians and comedic entertainers that would agree with that statement, including those who's comedy would be considered "family friendly."
And I certainly don't give a poop if someone is offended by my own creative art.
No, no, no... you took it out of the context. I was referring on the "I don't givee..." part, not the "to offend part".
No offense, kind person, but... I've read that post a billion times and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
None taken, badidea person..
Anyhow twas just my take (as supernice person Shiv got it) that a real "jokes craftsman", "thinks of everything" and doesn't just like that dismisses spheres where is his/and how is his joke going to be applied (alas... "I don't give a...") and all that jibberish. 
|
Edited by - rabid kazook on 03/30/2007 12:57:43 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 14:52:16
|
| Well, my response was saying, basically, "Can't please everyone." Everyone's going to be offended by something. A much easier and faster way to offend people is through political humor, and no one's arguing that we should avoiding overt politics in our reviews. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 15:05:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Well, my response was saying, basically, "Can't please everyone." Everyone's going to be offended by something. A much easier and faster way to offend people is through political humor, and no one's arguing that we should avoiding overt politics in our reviews.
For sure. If everyone's sense of humour was the same it would be a pretty boring world But I suppose the point some are making is that if you're writing a review and you use a word that even just some people object to, and someone points that out to you, if you didn't mean to offend you might choose to withdraw the word. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:45:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
But I'm not sure why you brought this up? The discussion was about the words used to name 'groups' of people and the response of those groups.
Only as a point of interest in passing, since we were talking about people's response to that word. I was clear that I think the word is fine to use in practice for people who have been in a place the longest. Indeed, this is the only sense in which it can be used usefully, since as we've said only some Africans are indigenous to anywhere. Further, it would actually be better if people did not associate indigenous rights with people's very long history in a place. Being the first settlers is far more important a characteristic. For example, should the Aborigines have any more rights than the Maoris? I don't think so (apart from in places where they subjugated other people). Indeed, as I've said, I think even the Chagossians should be treated on essentially the same basis. But beyond even peoples, the strongest rights come from where one is born (although I would extend this to where one should have been born had one's parents or forefathers not been forced elsewhere). For example, I haven't the slightest clue how long my family has been in Britain and I think it makes no difference. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:51:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
He's brought it up because he is a pedant, and to him the point that aboriginal ancestors 40,000-70,000 years ago came from somewhere else is all that matters in relation to the literal meaning of "indigenous". To him words are not servants of thought, they are masters, and he must protect them from being abused, as he would see it, by being used in anything but the most literal sense. Of course he recognises the other senses exist, but for him they are always ultimately wrong. He thinks he knows how "indigenous" should be used, and you don't and this gives him his compensatory sense of self-importance, of role.
Oh dear, yet more misrepresentation from napper. It can readily be seen from my posts before his here that I think it is fine to use indigenous in its practical sense, and indeed that that should be applied generally. I certainly do not think words are the masters of thought. However, thankfully most people think that one has to use words that mean what one is trying to say.
quote:
Actually, he is not really right anyway, even in his own limited definition, as modern aboriginal culture is the product of some 50,000 years development and adaptation to Australian conditions, so their culture is indigenously Australian and they as a people, a central part of whose definition is cultural, are therefore indigenous too. They are no more the same people as their ancestors were 50,000 years ago than we are the same as our ancestors.
No, in the theoretical sense, indigenous does not refer to culture - it is much more basic than that. However, my previous Chagossian example amply shows that I consider culture originally developed in a place to fit with classifying people in the indigenous bracket (i.e. if there is to be one at all). |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/30/2007 18:10:25 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:54:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I agree with MguyX. The "Whipper attacks Salopian and Salopian responds with boredom" was entertaining the first few times but it's become rather tiresome and boring. You could at least make it funny.
Apologies. Unfortunately, all of napper's posts are along the same lines (inaccurate, misrepresenting) and are therefore difficult to respond variously to. Were he making random posts, then of course he could be ignored, but while he is making personal attacks on me then I feel obliged to respond. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/30/2007 18:01:06 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 17:59:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by george_kaplan
I don't really care if one is black or white or whatever. We want this site to be welcoming to every visitor, which means making a moderate effort to avoid using terms that have historically been used as slurs. Of course there's gray territory between the slur and the non-slur (and the rules change all the time and it would be silly to be constantly PC-policing the site) but if "dwarf" falls in that gray area "spade" (by your own admission) falls firmly in "slur" territory, so it's a no-brainer not to use it--as one wouldn't use nigger or kike or spic or faggot or cunt, unless specifically citing the language of the film itself.
I broadly agree, but my understanding is still that dwarf is the preferred term by most dwarfs, so in the absence of a non-clinical alternative I shall stick with it till I see some reason to think otherwise.
I also think that cunt is in a different category. It is valid to find it offensive and also to think that because some people may do so it should be avoided, but it is a separate issue because it does not describe a type of person (well...) and thus is not demeaning. For this reason I think it is also valid to not think it should be avoided, despite its offending some people. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/30/2007 18:01:28 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 18:04:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Anyways, who do I want to feel unwelcome? Hypersensitive people, mostly. People who can't appreciate a good joke because of some offensive language. I'm not saying offensive language should be tossed around carelessly in these things -- if it was, I'd like to think we the viewers wouldn't vote on it. But a good joke is a good joke; this is a humor website and refraining from offensive language is an unnecessary impediment to comedy.
I mean: "Homo on the range"? That's funny. I don't care if that word offends someone, the joke is solid.
This falls back on the oft-repeated, but never backed up, idea here that humour is a separate thing, not part of normal life or language. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 18:07:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Well, my response was saying, basically, "Can't please everyone." Everyone's going to be offended by something. A much easier and faster way to offend people is through political humor, and no one's arguing that we should avoiding overt politics in our reviews.
Yep, but offending people because of views they have chosen to adopt (politics, religion) is completely different to offending them by demeaning categories of existence that they have not selected. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:24:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]
I also think that cunt is in a different category. It is valid to find it offensive and also to think that because some people may do so it should be avoided, but it is a separate issue because it does not describe a type of person (well...) and thus is not demeaning. For this reason I think it is also valid to not think it should be avoided, despite its offending some people.
You would probably feel differently were you American, where the term "silly cunt" is not generally used. To us it only has one meaning, only one connotation: the offensive one. |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 20:44:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]
I also think that cunt is in a different category. It is valid to find it offensive and also to think that because some people may do so it should be avoided, but it is a separate issue because it does not describe a type of person (well...) and thus is not demeaning. For this reason I think it is also valid to not think it should be avoided, despite its offending some people.
You would probably feel differently were you American, where the term "silly cunt" is not generally used. To us it only has one meaning, only one connotation: the offensive one.
Perhaps...but not everyone considers it some truly horrible curseword that's the worst thing in the world you could possibly call someone. It's no worse than calling someone any other bad words. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 21:00:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Anyways, who do I want to feel unwelcome? Hypersensitive people, mostly. People who can't appreciate a good joke because of some offensive language. I'm not saying offensive language should be tossed around carelessly in these things -- if it was, I'd like to think we the viewers wouldn't vote on it. But a good joke is a good joke; this is a humor website and refraining from offensive language is an unnecessary impediment to comedy.
I mean: "Homo on the range"? That's funny. I don't care if that word offends someone, the joke is solid.
This falls back on the oft-repeated, but never backed up, idea here that humour is a separate thing, not part of normal life or language.
Huh?
Not sure what you're trying to say I'm saying, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't actually say that. Rest assured, there is no separation between my jokes and my normal life and language; I use terms like cunt, fag, dyke, and spic whenever I feel it is appropriate. It's all in the intent, I say; usually I use them as friendly terms.
Besides which, a keystone of humor is the violation of taboos. I happen to know the difference between a good joke and a repulsive expression of hatred. I know the difference between Dave Chappelle and Carlos Mencia.
quote:
Yep, but offending people because of views they have chosen to adopt (politics, religion) is completely different to offending them by demeaning categories of existence that they have not selected.
True. But I think we've started debating separate things here. I'm saying that so-called taboo words can be used for reasons besides demeaning categories of existence etc etc. Heck, even done over-the-top enough, demeaning categories of existence etc. etc. can be funny, if it goes enough over-the-top that the joke is turned on the teller rather than whatever group he's belittling.
"I'm not looking for a debate on offensive reviews."
--Yukon, at the beginning of this thread six pages ago. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 21:18:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
"I'm not looking for a debate on offensive reviews."
--Yukon, at the beginning of this thread six pages ago.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure Yuke stopped reading at least 4 pages ago. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 21:55:56
|
| I just want to say that I am one of those people who is really sensitive to certain material. It has no place in my life or my home and yet I do not rant about the reviews on this site or the way any of you choose to talk. Am I still offensive to you? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Calling a spade a spade
