|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 16:23:30 GMT
All of my earlier posts are still right where I left them, in their original wording, for all to see and from which they may make their own observations about what I did or didn't say. Oh, I understand the objections; I simply find them invalid, as I explained in my first reply to you about "freedom from responsibility." It's still a two-way street: when public figures put forth provocative or unpopular viewpoints, it's unreasonable to expect they'd be excused from the effects of public - or even corporate - disapproval, to which all those opposed are as entitled as the public figures are to those viewpoints. As some of the examples I've cited demonstrate, t'was ever thus. In your view, what determines whether any particular reactions to any actions (not just speech, but anything) are reasonable or valid? In other words, do you have some generalized principle(s) for that? A "generalized principle?" I'm not even sure what would constitute one, other than to examine the individual issue at hand. In this instance, I've stated - and restated - my reason(s). Not to put too fine a point on it - and to restate again in the chosen metaphor - it's a two-way street. Say or do something controversial, and those who disapprove of it will let you hear from them every time. There's no escaping it. To that last point, I will add this: what you characterize as "PC culture" is as much a byproduct of concurrent expansion of instant communication by way of the internet, social media and the like. If expressions of public disapproval have appeared more concentrated during the past 20-odd years, I'd submit that they've been facilitated by the at-your-fingertips ease with which those who might not have bothered to write a letter, make a phone call or send a card or telegram in previous eras can now make their displeasure immediately and widely known.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 16:38:27 GMT
I know, but that's not what a conversation is. Whether you consider it or not, we've been having a conversation this whole time. Personal definitions don't change actual definitions. And again, you can't make people agree with you just because you want them to. In any case, but on topic: PC culture did not create ruining people's lives based on something they said. McCarthyism did that decades before. And that's just in the past 100 years. No such thing as "actual definitions" contra "personal definitions" in my view. It's not a matter of "making people agree." It's a matter of whether they're capable of and willing to admit that they agree when they do. But there are, regardless of point of view. It's why we have dictionaries. To read actual definitions. Cool, that'll be your issue to deal with. As I said, you can't make people agree just by repeating your desire for it. McCarthyism was far worse than social media outrage. A twitter storm is nothing compared to be dragged in front of a senate sub committee facing actual legal repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 19:27:59 GMT
In your view, what determines whether any particular reactions to any actions (not just speech, but anything) are reasonable or valid? In other words, do you have some generalized principle(s) for that? A "generalized principle?" I'm not even sure what would constitute one, other than to examine the individual issue at hand. In this instance, I've stated - and restated - my reason(s). Not to put too fine a point on it - and to restate again in the chosen metaphor - it's a two-way street. Say or do something controversial, and those who disapprove of it will let you hear from them every time. There's no escaping it. To that last point, I will add this: what you characterize as "PC culture" is as much a byproduct of concurrent expansion of instant communication by way of the internet, social media and the like. If expressions of public disapproval have appeared more concentrated during the past 20-odd years, I'd submit that they've been facilitated by the at-your-fingertips ease with which those who might not have bothered to write a letter, make a phone call or send a card or telegram in previous eras can now make their displeasure immediately and widely known. So the situation is this: Given a particular action--in this case, particular utterances, there is a range of reactions (both actual and possible). We both believe that particular reactions to the actions in question are reasonable, but we believe that different reactions are reasonable or not reasonable. So, what determines which reactions are reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 19:30:01 GMT
As I said, you can't make people agree just by repeating your desire for it. And you can't say that you agree with me about anything even if you do.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Aug 16, 2018 19:36:56 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.
I'm not sure if Sweden (or Norway or Switzerland) are really naive. They're just pacifists who mind their own business. I have a lot of respect for that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Aug 16, 2018 19:40:49 GMT
To be completely honest I am on the fence. Let me explain why.
Take the TV show Game of Thrones. I love that show. In the show there are many instances of violence, foul language, nudity, rape and blood letting. Aside from being particularly well written show, one can make the argument that those things are the reason why the show is so good. One can also make the argument that those things are un-PC and should be changed. Neither argument is inherently wrong or correct. I can see both sides.
Personally, I wouldn't change a thing about the show, but that doesn't mean I don't see the other point. The thing is this: I think you should make the art you're going to make: TV show, movie, painting, novel, stand up act, etc. and then take whatever heat is coming your way. Take your stand. Even if its going to be negative.
Artists should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship, but you also have to be ready to face the fact that there are going to be people that wont like it if your art is about say for example rape. If you want to put that out there then you're the one that has to defend it.
There's an episode in GOTG where a bunch of soldiers take over a small village. There are no men there (they're off at war? I don't remember) so the soldiers gather up the women and have their way with them. Rape galore. And the show is graphic about it. No holds barred.
IMO showing the horror of that was necessary to show because A) these are truly disgusting men and deserve their comeuppance, and B) rape and war are no joke. It is an artistic choice the show has made from day one to be graphic about said things (The show is also very big on characters going through A LOT of suffering before they triumph against overwhelming odds, but I digress).
On the other hand, did they have to show it quite so graphically? Its pretty brutal.
I think the real question is not what your topic is, but rather HOW you choose to depict that topic. In any case as an artist you should have the freedom to depict said thing in any way, but you have to ask yourself as said artist "what am I putting out into the world in depicting it any given way?"
Yes, there is a huge difference between having the courage of one's convictions and shock value for its own sake. All the difference in the world.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Aug 16, 2018 19:41:22 GMT
I think art should be left up to the artist, and that goes both ways. I hear just as much bitching from the opposite camp about political correctness, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Aug 16, 2018 19:46:05 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. Nope, there's a very big difference between not wanting to have to "walk on eggshells" and going out one's way to be an asshole. Mr. Rogers was a great human being. The thing, though, is that his goodness was a genuine and came from a place from deep inside. I have no problem with Mr. Rogers whatsoever. But not all of us can be Mr. Rogers. PC has nothing whatsoever to do with "being nice". It's a cover up that people buy into.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Aug 16, 2018 19:50:18 GMT
I want to have my super horned up main character, a 28 year old gay man, say to his attractive, brand new sex partner... "Let's get Chinese Eyes!"
That's one thing, anyway. There are others. How dare you refer to stoned eyes as Chinese Eyes Mr. Dirty! Are you implying that those of Asian ancestry are opium addicts?
I bet Chong was deeply offended, when Cheech told him he wanted to get Chinese Eyes! Ha! That's exactly where I got it from, Mr. Toasty! That movie was so funny, and also very un-PC. (Cheech is so cute.) The only change I made in my mind was that "Chinese eyes" would be referring to to something pretty different than getting stoned! (Kind of a take off on the song "I'm Turning Japanese", which was a great, clever, totally catchy song!)
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 20:14:33 GMT
A "generalized principle?" I'm not even sure what would constitute one, other than to examine the individual issue at hand. In this instance, I've stated - and restated - my reason(s). Not to put too fine a point on it - and to restate again in the chosen metaphor - it's a two-way street. Say or do something controversial, and those who disapprove of it will let you hear from them every time. There's no escaping it. To that last point, I will add this: what you characterize as "PC culture" is as much a byproduct of concurrent expansion of instant communication by way of the internet, social media and the like. If expressions of public disapproval have appeared more concentrated during the past 20-odd years, I'd submit that they've been facilitated by the at-your-fingertips ease with which those who might not have bothered to write a letter, make a phone call or send a card or telegram in previous eras can now make their displeasure immediately and widely known. So the situation is this: Given a particular action--in this case, particular utterances, there is a range of reactions (both actual and possible). We both believe that particular reactions to the actions in question are reasonable, but we believe that different reactions are reasonable or not reasonable. So, what determines which reactions are reasonable? I'd consider it to be in the "it goes without saying" category, but for the record, I'll say that, unless citing established fact, we're all merely stating our viewpoints here, in an "as I see it" way. Mine on this topic, without claiming access to either the sum total of knowledge or national consensus, is that it's unreasonable for James Gunn, or Roseanne, Kathy Griffin, Rahm Emanuel, Trump or anyone else making what you might call "un-PC" statements to do so free from any opposite reactions. Your mileage may vary, as they say. 'Zat sound reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 16, 2018 20:14:51 GMT
I'm not sure if Sweden (or Norway or Switzerland) are really naive. They're just pacifists who mind their own business. I have a lot of respect for that. If it was partly a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 20:56:59 GMT
So the situation is this: Given a particular action--in this case, particular utterances, there is a range of reactions (both actual and possible). We both believe that particular reactions to the actions in question are reasonable, but we believe that different reactions are reasonable or not reasonable. So, what determines which reactions are reasonable? I'd consider it to be in the "it goes without saying" category, but for the record, I'll say that, unless citing established fact, we're all merely stating our viewpoints here, in an "as I see it" way. Mine on this topic, without claiming access to either the sum total of knowledge or national consensus, is that it's unreasonable for James Gunn, or Roseanne, Kathy Griffin, Rahm Emanuel, Trump or anyone else making what you might call "un-PC" statements to do so free from any opposite reactions. Your mileage may vary, as they say. 'Zat sound reasonable? Again, I'm fine with opposite reactions being "other people saying other things in response."
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 21:02:56 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? That is an excellent point. And through expression of words about whatever—even if it is really much ado about nothing—there is bound to be a consequence and context and the 'extremity' of it is also key. The paradox is though, those corporate entities are making decisions based on what they think they should be doing—and ultimately, do they really give a s<>t themselves—due to pressure of what is 'only' perceived as political correctness. It is pandering to a mindset of the easily offended, when there is also a mindset of those that won't give damn about what was said and which mindset is in the majority.
If people want to Pfffttt Pffffttt, I say let them boycott whatever they feel disgusted or outraged by. By corporate entities 'not' doing what they think they should be doing, wouldn't that show more integrity than a handful of moral crusaders who's heads are exploding and wanting to dictate to others about what is acceptable and appropriate? The media also makes things appear to be of more significance and importance than what they really are. I say, separate the art from the artist. To your final point ("separate the art from the artist"), I can readily accede, and it's something I'm able to do in all but the rarest of circumstances (those being artists for whose art I had no great enthusiasm to begin with); I still consider Chinatown to be among the finest films ever made, and that Bill Cosby: Himself is perhaps the most brilliantly sustained 105 minutes of stand-up (or sit-down) comedy put to film or videotape. Their private sexual misbehaviors bring nothing to bear on the quality of those works. When it comes to those corporate entities, I'd also consider it to be among the rarest of circumstances that their considerations are not predicated on whatever they perceive as being in the best interests of their bottom lines.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 21:23:41 GMT
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. Nope, there's a very big difference between not wanting to have to "walk on eggshells" and going out one's way to be an asshole. Mr. Rogers was a great human being. The thing, though, is that his goodness was a genuine and came from a place from deep inside. I have no problem with Mr. Rogers whatsoever. But not all of us can be Mr. Rogers. PC has nothing whatsoever to do with "being nice". It's a cover up that people buy into. Actually, that's exactly what being PC is. Just be nice enough. But as Mr. Rogers proved, being PC does not stifle creativity. And Mr. Rogers fully believed we can all be a Mr. Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 16, 2018 21:50:55 GMT
I'd consider it to be in the "it goes without saying" category, but for the record, I'll say that, unless citing established fact, we're all merely stating our viewpoints here, in an "as I see it" way. Mine on this topic, without claiming access to either the sum total of knowledge or national consensus, is that it's unreasonable for James Gunn, or Roseanne, Kathy Griffin, Rahm Emanuel, Trump or anyone else making what you might call "un-PC" statements to do so free from any opposite reactions. Your mileage may vary, as they say. 'Zat sound reasonable? Again, I'm fine with opposite reactions being "other people saying other things in response." Unfortunately for those involved in such controversies, events sometimes gather their own momentum, over which little control can be exerted, and James Gunns, Roseannes, Shirley Sherrods, Van Joneses, Bill O'Reillys or Roger Aileses lose their jobs fairly or unfairly, Cosbys and Weinsteins lose their livelihoods and reputations, Chaplins are forced into exile, Spitzers, Craigs, Frankens and Weiners surrender their elective offices and Brennans lose their security clearances, because their deeds or words have offended either the populace at large or a powerful few. As these examples alone demonstrate, there's outrage sufficient to suit any ideology. There's theoretical recourse to those who misuse their authority to satisfy their outrage (contingent on the will of those in positions to apply that recourse), but little chance of reining in public opinion once it's aroused.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 22:27:15 GMT
Again, I'm fine with opposite reactions being "other people saying other things in response." Unfortunately for those involved in such controversies, events sometimes gather their own momentum, over which little control can be exerted, and James Gunns, Roseannes, Shirley Sherrods, Van Joneses, Bill O'Reillys or Roger Aileses lose their jobs fairly or unfairly, Cosbys and Weinsteins lose their livelihoods and reputations, Chaplins are forced into exile, Spitzers, Craigs, Frankens and Weiners surrender their elective offices and Brennans lose their security clearances, because their deeds or words have offended either the populace at large or a powerful few. As these examples alone demonstrate, there's outrage sufficient to suit any ideology. There's theoretical recourse to those who misuse their authority to satisfy their outrage (contingent on the will of those in positions to apply that recourse), but little chance of reining in public opinion once it's aroused. Right all of that happens. The question is should that happen? Is it reasonable? Is any reaction that people actually have a reasonable reaction just because they have it?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 16, 2018 22:35:32 GMT
Unfortunately for those involved in such controversies, events sometimes gather their own momentum, over which little control can be exerted, and James Gunns, Roseannes, Shirley Sherrods, Van Joneses, Bill O'Reillys or Roger Aileses lose their jobs fairly or unfairly, Cosbys and Weinsteins lose their livelihoods and reputations, Chaplins are forced into exile, Spitzers, Craigs, Frankens and Weiners surrender their elective offices and Brennans lose their security clearances, because their deeds or words have offended either the populace at large or a powerful few. As these examples alone demonstrate, there's outrage sufficient to suit any ideology. There's theoretical recourse to those who misuse their authority to satisfy their outrage (contingent on the will of those in positions to apply that recourse), but little chance of reining in public opinion once it's aroused. Right all of that happens. The question is should that happen? Is it reasonable? Is any reaction that people actually have a reasonable reaction just because they have it? Yes, yes, no.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 17, 2018 1:36:54 GMT
Unfortunately for those involved in such controversies, events sometimes gather their own momentum, over which little control can be exerted, and James Gunns, Roseannes, Shirley Sherrods, Van Joneses, Bill O'Reillys or Roger Aileses lose their jobs fairly or unfairly, Cosbys and Weinsteins lose their livelihoods and reputations, Chaplins are forced into exile, Spitzers, Craigs, Frankens and Weiners surrender their elective offices and Brennans lose their security clearances, because their deeds or words have offended either the populace at large or a powerful few. As these examples alone demonstrate, there's outrage sufficient to suit any ideology. There's theoretical recourse to those who misuse their authority to satisfy their outrage (contingent on the will of those in positions to apply that recourse), but little chance of reining in public opinion once it's aroused. Right all of that happens. The question is should that happen? Is it reasonable? Each instance would need its own examination to address those questions, and different people would still reach different conclusions. In general, I'd say no, but you may not consider me the right person to ask: I still don't think it was reasonable for 63 million people to have cast votes for the Republican nominee in 2016, but they did. And probably tens of millions of those would still consider it reasonable to "lock her up" if the Democratic one was thrown into prison tomorrow without conviction, trial or charges, even if I and more tens of millions of others don't. But as any number of en masse exhibitions of public emotion have demonstrated, it's reasonable to expect people whose passions have been inflamed to do unreasonable things. For example, it was once considered "politically correct" - that is to say, acceptable - by a good portion of the south to conduct lynchings and other abuses purely on the basis of skin color. I don't call that reasonable, but those who conducted and cheered them, even proudly posing for photographs to commemorate them, did. Happily, time and enlightenment brought changes to what's considered "politically correct."
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Aug 17, 2018 1:39:02 GMT
Nope, there's a very big difference between not wanting to have to "walk on eggshells" and going out one's way to be an asshole. Mr. Rogers was a great human being. The thing, though, is that his goodness was a genuine and came from a place from deep inside. I have no problem with Mr. Rogers whatsoever. But not all of us can be Mr. Rogers. PC has nothing whatsoever to do with "being nice". It's a cover up that people buy into. Actually, that's exactly what being PC is. Just be nice enough. But as Mr. Rogers proved, being PC does not stifle creativity. And Mr. Rogers fully believed we can all be a Mr. Rogers. I am nice enough and maybe even a little bit more than that. I harbor zero compulsion towards being PC. I don't need to. It feels like PC is, at its very core, practically the definition of the word disingenuous. Not interested.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 17, 2018 10:01:21 GMT
Right all of that happens. The question is should that happen? Is it reasonable? Each instance would need its own examination to address those questions, and different people would still reach different conclusions. In general, I'd say no, but you may not consider me the right person to ask: I still don't think it was reasonable for 63 million people to have cast votes for the Republican nominee in 2016, but they did. And probably tens of millions of those would still consider it reasonable to "lock her up" if the Democratic one was thrown into prison tomorrow without conviction, trial or charges, even if I and more tens of millions of others don't. But as any number of en masse exhibitions of public emotion have demonstrated, it's reasonable to expect people whose passions have been inflamed to do unreasonable things. For example, it was once considered "politically correct" - that is to say, acceptable - by a good portion of the south to conduct lynchings and other abuses purely on the basis of skin color. I don't call that reasonable, but those who conducted and cheered them, even proudly posing for photographs to commemorate them, did. Happily, time and enlightenment brought changes to what's considered "politically correct." I'm not a conservative or Republican if you were gambling on that by the way. Anyway, okay, so when people have reactions that we don't consider reasonable, what should we do? Say that we're in the South in the 1930s and folks are lynching a black man just because he "dared to talk to a white woman," and most folks around us seem to be accepting of that fact, at least the local law enforcement, so that it does more bad than good for us personally in that situation to raise a fuss with them about it. Should we just sit by and say, "Well, that's their reaction. Nothin' we can do but accept it"?
|
|