|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 15, 2018 20:41:55 GMT
You get half your wish: those people are all able to say all those things. The half that they - and you - don't get is freedom from any responsibility. What's the big objection to so-called political correctness? Silencing certain forms of expression, right? The problem with the approach you advocate is that it would do that very thing: silence opposition. It's a two-way street: if Gunn and Roseanne and Griffin and Trump and Emanuel - or whomever - want to exercise their freedom to do all that, then the freedom of others to make their objections known comes with the territory, and they have (to use an un-PC phrase) to man up...or shut up, and stop playing the victim to conjured boogymen like "PC," "SJWs" or "witch hunts." No one wants to silence any expression. You can SAY whatever the heck you want to say. What I have a problem with is taking away folks' livelihoods, taking away their platforms to say whatever they heck they want to say (which I want to grant the opposition, too), etc. Taking those sorts of actions is different than speech. Speech is fine. Some other actions are not fine. Let's make the world one big "speaker's corner." Anyone can say whatever they want. Anyone can say anything back to them that they want, etc. What we don't do is tell people that they can't say things in the speaker's corner, that they can't come to the speaker's corner, that if they say particular things in the speaker's corner they'll lose their job, etc. Your problem, then, is not with "PC" per se, but with the corporate entities that fired Gunn and Roseanne, about which no one need kid themselves: it's about money. These instances are nothing new, and were taking place decades before the term "political correctness" was ever coined. And "speaker's corner" or not, should those corporate entities not be allowed to decide who's to represent them in the public sphere?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 15, 2018 20:47:08 GMT
Also, I dont think there ever was a war where rape was seen as "not bad." At least not from the view of the women that were raped and that of their husbands.
What if the husbands are dead-then what? Spend the rest of their life as widows?
There's also said to have been a tradition in Feudal societies "droit du seigneur" where the landlord of the estate has the right to brides on their wedding night (though some dispute its historical accuracy).
There's a story I read in a book about the making of a movie. It was filmed around Spain and there was a boat operator with his wife who was transporting cast and crew to the location. He had met his wife by raping her as a teenager. They remarked how odd it was that she was ok with it. The author just shrugged it off as peculiarities of the local customs in the area.
If a society is built around the assumption that force and violence are common place, how unusual would it be? Slapping women and kids used to be common to, in movies and comic books. It wasn't seen as good, but it wasn't so bad as to made a federal case out of it.
I don't think Agamemnon treated Briseis badly. I am pretty sure he even said he hadn't even touched her. It was the symbolic act of him taking "what belonged to" Achilles that was the issue. She could have just said she didnt care where she ended up. And there's lots of references to the negativity of war in it so I think this was a conscious decision meant to highlight that while he was seen as a frightening warrior he was not regarded as such by her. Briseis is not a beefy character as I remember it so her motivations are murky at best. But you make a good argument there. The book is old enough that your take is as good as mine or anyones.
However, "What if the husbands are dead-then what? Spend the rest of their life as widows?"
Uh YEAH! Or find a good man. Rape is their only option according to you? That's a pretty bleak world view you got there.
"There's also said to have been a tradition in Feudal societies "droit du seigneur" where the landlord of the estate has the right to brides on their wedding night (though some dispute its historical accuracy)."
Its also referred to as Prima Nocte. Yeah, and those guys were assholes, and the husbands whose wives were being raped the night of their weddings were none too happy about it, not to mention the women themselves obviously. Those motherfuckers only got away with it because they were backed by garrisons of armed soldiers against mostly unarmed peasants, otherwise there would have been quite the number of slaughters.
Dude, I'm not sure what you're arguing FOR here.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 15, 2018 21:12:57 GMT
Dude, I'm not sure what you're arguing FOR here.
I'm arguing that if violence and rape were commonplace it would not be like a standard modern politically correct movie where it is regarded as a monolithic state of total evil by the participants (both victim and abuser). The relationships would be more complex. Especially if it was as part of war since sex slavery would have been anticipated. The women of the same village would expect that to happen to women of a tribe their husbands were invading too.
Unless it was some isolated community that hadn't been in wars for a long time and were hopelessly naive-like the Swedish.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 15, 2018 21:22:17 GMT
I understand the PC mentality and whether or not I go along with it in real life is one matter. And everybody has their own opinions about what is correct and proper and right and wrong. Okay, fine. But, what about when it comes down to a work that stems from the creative impulse that is deep inside the person? Whether it be a song or a movie or a book or a painting or a tv show? Should the individual who creates something feel any obligation towards political correctness? My feeling is that there is no place for PC in the arts and, if anything, it is a total detriment to creativity and it is completely destructive to the most underlying and basic reason why creativity is so essential in the first place. For better or for worse, I'm about as apolitical a person as you could ever meet, and I really can't muster up a bare minimum of respect for PC in real life, though I can understand the whole "changing times" thing. On the other hand, for the person who is endeavoring in some way to be fully and effectively and passionately creative (and what would be the point of wanting to create something, if one weren't being passionate about it?) , I would find the whole notion of political correctness to be counter-intuitive and irrefutably repellent. There is absolutely NOTHING colorful or interesting or amusing about political correctness. Any thoughts? That's predicated on some misconception that being considerate towards others means lacking creativity or that creativity only comes from being an asshole. In what way was it detrimental to someone like Mr. Rogers? How was his creativity stifled by being so politically correct that he invited black people onto his program to show races can get along? PC is a trigger phrase the right came up with to trick people into thinking it's a bad thing to not be nice to each other. Now that is irrefutably repellent.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 15, 2018 21:36:57 GMT
Speaking of rape and political correctness, there are cases where a work sets out to be politically correct by committing a rape.
The movie DUCK, YOU SUCKER for example. Rod Steiger is a Mexican peasant who hitches a ride in a stagecoach and is made fun of by the wealthy passengers. He then reveals himself to be a bandit and takes one of the women who had insulted him and rapes her in a barn. From the movie's perspective, it appears the rape is meant to symbolize his triumph over the petty bourgeoisie.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 15, 2018 21:48:33 GMT
No one wants to silence any expression. You can SAY whatever the heck you want to say. What I have a problem with is taking away folks' livelihoods, taking away their platforms to say whatever they heck they want to say (which I want to grant the opposition, too), etc. Taking those sorts of actions is different than speech. Speech is fine. Some other actions are not fine. Let's make the world one big "speaker's corner." Anyone can say whatever they want. Anyone can say anything back to them that they want, etc. What we don't do is tell people that they can't say things in the speaker's corner, that they can't come to the speaker's corner, that if they say particular things in the speaker's corner they'll lose their job, etc. Your problem, then, is not with "PC" per se, but with the corporate entities that fired Gunn and Roseanne, about which no one need kid themselves: it's about money. These instances are nothing new, and were taking place decades before the term "political correctness" was ever coined. And "speaker's corner" or not, should those corporate entities not be allowed to decide who's to represent them in the public sphere? The reasons those decisions are made is because of PC/SJW culture. In decades past (prior to PC culture, that is, which started becoming popular as PC culture in the early 90s), no one was fired, ostracized, etc. for off-the-cuff speech. What I want to do is change our culture. Not necessarily our laws.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 15, 2018 22:22:52 GMT
Your problem, then, is not with "PC" per se, but with the corporate entities that fired Gunn and Roseanne, about which no one need kid themselves: it's about money. These instances are nothing new, and were taking place decades before the term "political correctness" was ever coined. And "speaker's corner" or not, should those corporate entities not be allowed to decide who's to represent them in the public sphere? The reasons those decisions are made is because of PC/SJW culture. In decades past (prior to PC culture, that is, which started becoming popular as PC culture in the early 90s), no one was fired, ostracized, etc. for off-the-cuff speech.What I want to do is change our culture. Not necessarily our laws. McCarthyism and the Red Scare prove that's not true.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 15, 2018 23:07:38 GMT
The reasons those decisions are made is because of PC/SJW culture. In decades past (prior to PC culture, that is, which started becoming popular as PC culture in the early 90s), no one was fired, ostracized, etc. for off-the-cuff speech.What I want to do is change our culture. Not necessarily our laws. McCarthyism and the Red Scare prove that's not true. Off the cuff speech = believing that people are communists. Okee dokee. Also, aside from that, we're not talking about widespread public pressure in that situation, and you're going back four decades prior to the rise of PC culture for an example, contra the weekly or even more frequent examples presently.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 1:24:01 GMT
Your problem, then, is not with "PC" per se, but with the corporate entities that fired Gunn and Roseanne, about which no one need kid themselves: it's about money. These instances are nothing new, and were taking place decades before the term "political correctness" was ever coined. And "speaker's corner" or not, should those corporate entities not be allowed to decide who's to represent them in the public sphere? The reasons those decisions are made is because of PC/SJW culture. In decades past (prior to PC culture, that is, which started becoming popular as PC culture in the early 90s), no one was fired, ostracized, etc. for off-the-cuff speech. What I want to do is change our culture. Not necessarily our laws. That's a good example of, as I said earlier, "playing the victim to conjured boogymen." What you're talking about is merely negative public reaction to unpopular statements, stances or acts, off-the-cuff or otherwise, which - as I also pointed out - is nothing new. To cite an example of "decades past," John Lennon remarked in a 1966 interview that The Beatles had become "more popular than Jesus," resulting in a weeks-long firestorm (including literal bonfires upon which Beatles albums and promotional paraphernalia were tossed) consisting of outraged editorials, radio blacklisting and even death threats, ultimately culminating in the group's decision to retire from touring. That very remark became an element of Chapman's motive for Lennon's assassination. Fourteen years earlier, Charles Chaplin, on route to London for the premiere of Limelight, was barred from re-entry to the U.S. pursuant to an order by the Attorney General, as a reaction to his outspoken opposition to HUAC activities and trials of accused communists. Two years before that, Ingrid Bergman was denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate - called “a powerful influence for evil” who “had perpetrated an assault upon the institution of marriage” - after she left her husband for director Roberto Rossellini. These are a few of the most notorious examples of what would now be called "politically correct" ostracization. Or rather, would, if they didn't reflect what are recognized in today's climate as conservative views. That's the ironic insidiousness of gasket-blowing on the right over "PC," and typical of the cynicism of accusing others of one's own behaviors, as mikef6 's post on Page 1 correctly observes, and of which reaction by them to Michelle Wolf's WH Correspondents' Dinner routine is a recent example. And more irony: at its beginnings, all "political correctness" sought to do was "change our culture," in the interest of making it more civilized and kind.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 16, 2018 1:35:48 GMT
And if I recall, in the version I have seen, the woman appears impressed by his appendage when he takes it out to show her. The English version I have seen he asks her husband: "can you make a baby?" and then says: "no but your wife can" and he takes her into the barn and drops his pants and she says "I think I am going to faint" and he says "you'll miss the best part."
Then they don't show it, only afterwards she takes her jewelry and they are left in a wagon. She didn't register any type of reaction that would indicate she considered it a positive (or negative) experience--since the message appears to have been to humiliate them for their class snobbery and racism.
Another one is OPEN SEASON where the woman (who is the mistress of a married man) appears to abandon him for Peter Fonda as a necessity of survival since he is too weak to protect her from the hunters who kidnap them. The actress performs it in such a way that we can't be sure--just enough conflict in behavior to keep one uncertain whether she is playing along with Fonda for her survival or sincere (Fonda's character remarks later that there had been other women who thought they could escape by a similar attitude). In this case I think their relationship (mistress and sugar daddy) was presented as a negative from the get go. They were two opportunists and the hunters were like a Purgatory experience for them--but they were damned anyway. Great performance by her though. Wow. Cornelia Sharpe doesn't have a wiki page.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 16, 2018 1:58:44 GMT
Another example of PC blowback in film is the "magic negro." This was originally meant to make whites think blacks are their best friends, but it quickly became an insult, especially to blacks.
There is a Glenn Ford movie (RANSOM) where his son is kidnapped and he breaks down and weeps in the arms of his black butler. Poignant, but I wondered when watching, was he only able to cry in front of the black man because he didnt regard him as his equal? I think the message is fucked up.
Same with ZULU. It ends with the Zulus showing mercy on the soldiers, they salute "fellow braves" as the Boer guide says, and leave. Multicultural harmony.
But now, it is seen as supporting white colonialism! If they had followed the actual truth---the Zulus retreated when the relief column showed up, it would have been more respectful of the Zulus.
PC liberalism ruins it because it is based on ideology, not reality.
Too many movies of the modern era have this problem. As I mentioned, in SCREAM they have the father tied up in the closet even though it is physically impossible for Neve Campbell to have moved him there. They could have knocked him unconscious or had him help her (but cant have that--male authority figure doing a positive).
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 16, 2018 2:41:10 GMT
Dude, I'm not sure what you're arguing FOR here.
I'm arguing that if violence and rape were commonplace it would not be like a standard modern politically correct movie where it is regarded as a monolithic state of total evil by the participants (both victim and abuser). The relationships would be more complex. Especially if it was as part of war since sex slavery would have been anticipated. The women of the same village would expect that to happen to women of a tribe their husbands were invading too.
Unless it was some isolated community that hadn't been in wars for a long time and were hopelessly naive-like the Swedish.
"...hopelessly naive-like the Swedish." LOL Okay that was funny, but still...
Something being commonplace, expected, or anticipated doesn't equal accepted; doesn't mean it less horrible. I'm gonna stand my ground on this one and say that even in the dark ages when such things might have been more common place it was still horrible to the victims and their loved ones.
And its because of that that laws were made, to govern the lawlessness that was going on. Laws and higher civilization are a direct response to human suffering. And even with laws and higher civilization we still fuck it up. Human nature? I suppose, but still there are those of us who see those things for what they are- horrors against humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 16, 2018 2:51:41 GMT
"...hopelessly naive-like the Swedish." LOL Okay that was funny, but still...
Something being commonplace, expected, or anticipated doesn't equal accepted; doesn't mean it less horrible. I'm gonna stand my ground on this one and say that even in the dark ages when such things might have been more common place it was still horrible to the victims and their loved ones.
And its because of that that laws were made, to govern the lawlessness that was going on. Laws and higher civilization are a direct response to human suffering. And even with laws and higher civilization we still fuck it up. Human nature? I suppose, but still there are those of us who see those things for what they are- horrors against humanity.
I am not saying its good, I am saying if we want to decipher a PC viewpoint, then one could say depictions of rape/slavery in war as you describe may also qualify--depending how it is shown. I remember a scene in Hercules tv series where he tells his friend the fat bearded guy that he is freeing him from slavery and the guy replies with something like: "But I like being a slave-I get my meals provided and don't have to think about housing." That's not quite what I am talking about in depiction, but along the same line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 16, 2018 2:54:33 GMT
"...hopelessly naive-like the Swedish." LOL Okay that was funny, but still...
Something being commonplace, expected, or anticipated doesn't equal accepted; doesn't mean it less horrible. I'm gonna stand my ground on this one and say that even in the dark ages when such things might have been more common place it was still horrible to the victims and their loved ones.
And its because of that that laws were made, to govern the lawlessness that was going on. Laws and higher civilization are a direct response to human suffering. And even with laws and higher civilization we still fuck it up. Human nature? I suppose, but still there are those of us who see those things for what they are- horrors against humanity.
I am not saying its good, I am saying if we want to decipher a PC viewpoint, then one could say depictions of rape/slavery in war as you describe may also qualify--depending how it is shown. I remember a scene in Hercules tv series where he tells his friend the fat bearded guy that he is freeing him from slavery and the guy replies with something like: "But I like being a slave-I get my meals provided and don't have to think about housing." That's not quite what I am talking about in depiction, but along the same line of thinking. In any case, we've gotten a bit away from the original question. Peace out and keep truckin!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 9:02:03 GMT
The reasons those decisions are made is because of PC/SJW culture. In decades past (prior to PC culture, that is, which started becoming popular as PC culture in the early 90s), no one was fired, ostracized, etc. for off-the-cuff speech. What I want to do is change our culture. Not necessarily our laws. That's a good example of, as I said earlier, "playing the victim to conjured boogymen." What you're talking about is merely negative public reaction to unpopular statements, stances or acts, off-the-cuff or otherwise, which - as I also pointed out - is nothing new. To cite an example of "decades past," John Lennon remarked in a 1966 interview that The Beatles had become "more popular than Jesus," resulting in a weeks-long firestorm (including literal bonfires upon which Beatles albums and promotional paraphernalia were tossed) consisting of outraged editorials, radio blacklisting and even death threats, ultimately culminating in the group's decision to retire from touring. That very remark became an element of Chapman's motive for Lennon's assassination. Fourteen years earlier, Charles Chaplin, on route to London for the premiere of Limelight, was barred from re-entry to the U.S. pursuant to an order by the Attorney General, as a reaction to his outspoken opposition to HUAC activities and trials of accused communists. Two years before that, Ingrid Bergman was denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate - called “a powerful influence for evil” who “had perpetrated an assault upon the institution of marriage” - after she left her husband for director Roberto Rossellini. These are a few of the most notorious examples of what would now be called "politically correct" ostracization. Or rather, would, if they didn't reflect what are recognized in today's climate as conservative views. That's the ironic insidiousness of gasket-blowing on the right over "PC," and typical of the cynicism of accusing others of one's own behaviors, as mikef6 's post on Page 1 correctly observes, and of which reaction by them to Michelle Wolf's WH Correspondents' Dinner routine is a recent example. And more irony: at its beginnings, all "political correctness" sought to do was "change our culture," in the interest of making it more civilized and kind. So let's deny that there is such a thing as political correctness and then finally summarize what it's trying to do? At any rate, I explained to you the sorts of things I want people to be able to say that they're prevented from saying. That's all you initially wanted to know, isn't it? Why attempt to keep arguing about it by changing the goalposts continually, first by noting that people will try to effectively prevent people from saying those things (yeah, no shit, but that's my problem with it and it has no impact on what I want people to be able to say); then by trying to argue that my problem isn't actually with PC/SJW culture (yes it is--my problem is people wanting to control other people in that way, to be able to control what they say, for example, by pressuring companies to can them via threat of lost patronage); then by attempting to point out that either it's nothing new (so what? If it were nothing new that wouldn't imply that I don't have a problem with it) or by attempting to deny that it exists in the first place (while comically then summarizing what it's trying to do)?
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Aug 16, 2018 12:56:04 GMT
I certainly hope not. But alas...
I just finished watching two episodes from the 1970s BBC TV series THE GOODIES. The first one was KUNG FU KAPERS, which involved one character appearing in "blackface".
I followed it up with SOUTH AFRICA, an episode which viciously lampooned the racism in South Africa at the time. And yes, more actors in "blackface". However, even though the episode was against racism, it'd probably still be considered unacceptable by today's standards.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 13:13:50 GMT
McCarthyism and the Red Scare prove that's not true. Off the cuff speech = believing that people are communists. Okee dokee.Also, aside from that, we're not talking about widespread public pressure in that situation, and you're going back four decades prior to the rise of PC culture for an example, contra the weekly or even more frequent examples presently. Yep, that's exactly how it happened. People were dragged into HUAC hearings based on merely saying the wrong thing, or based on someone else having said the wrong thing. Far worse than some outrage on twitter. And yes, "prior" to the rise of PC culture. You were under the mistaken assumption that it never happened "before" PC culture. That was incorrect. As history is more than happy to show.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 13:32:57 GMT
Off the cuff speech = believing that people are communists. Okee dokee.Also, aside from that, we're not talking about widespread public pressure in that situation, and you're going back four decades prior to the rise of PC culture for an example, contra the weekly or even more frequent examples presently. Yep, that's exactly how it happened. People were dragged into HUAC hearings based on merely saying the wrong thing, or based on someone else having said the wrong thing. Far worse than some outrage on twitter. And yes, "prior" to the rise of PC culture. You were under the mistaken assumption that it never happened "before" PC culture. That was incorrect. As history is more than happy to show. First, believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments. If you believe those putatively two different things are actually the same thing, we'll need to figure out why you believe that.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 13:37:48 GMT
Yep, that's exactly how it happened. People were dragged into HUAC hearings based on merely saying the wrong thing, or based on someone else having said the wrong thing. Far worse than some outrage on twitter. And yes, "prior" to the rise of PC culture. You were under the mistaken assumption that it never happened "before" PC culture. That was incorrect. As history is more than happy to show. First, believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments. If you believe those putatively two different things are actually the same thing, we'll need to figure out why you believe that. Again, a lot of people were dragged into senate hearings based on nothing more than off the cuff comments. Which is far worse than what's going on now. So if anything, things were far worse before PC culture. And second?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 13:51:44 GMT
First, believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments. If you believe those putatively two different things are actually the same thing, we'll need to figure out why you believe that. Again, a lot of people were dragged into senate hearings based on nothing more than off the cuff comments. Supposing that's the case, it's irrelevant to the fact that believing that people are communists and having a problem with that isn't the same thing as having a problem with word choice in off the cuff comments.
|
|