| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
 Posted - 01/26/2007 : 07:39:26
|
I have to echo what my girlfriend told me last night: Keep 'em in.
|
 |
|
|
Sal[Au]pian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 09:51:17
|
| Please see my answers in the other thread (i.e. to your actual question). I don't really want to have to retype them. Personally, I do not care whether they are added or not. There are upsides and downsides. It is not offensive to cite offensive material from the past, but there are other potential negative implications. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/26/2007 09:59:48 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 09:52:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Self regulation is noble but not always effective. However denying the sins of the past can become a great way to end up repeating them.
I agree on both counts. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/26/2007 09:57:06 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 09:55:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I'm not even sure whether this site gets through content filters.
I used to usually visit the site at my gym and a lot of pages were blocked - I could usually not enter a lot of threads, for example, and some films. |
|
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 20:36:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
Posted on the other thread but apparently overlooked:
*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*
Wild's just saved me the trouble of doing lots of typing, and she puts it better than I would have done. Hence...
I agree. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 21:32:15
|
This should not be a matter of censorship. It should be a simple matter of voluntary good manners not to ask for such films to be included. They are clearly offensive titles and it seems unlikely to me that there will be any positive value in their inclusion.
The comparison between this site and IMDB is facile. It would be like comparing conversation at dinner with the words in a dictionary. Dictionaries have to include all words for completeness and reference, but that is no reason to think that all of those words are acceptable conversationally.
If you ask someone whether a review would be offensive, it is NOT an answer to say we do not censor based on taste. The response quite obviously does not answer the question.
The difference between the offence which may be given by porn reviews and those which may be given by racist reviews is that the former does not pick out an ethnic minority for ridicule and vilification and humiliation and dehumanisation.
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 01/26/2007 21:33:24 |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
|
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:09:38
|
| None of the film titles suggested by Josh The Cat have a racist word in the title, which from my understanding is what is being discussed. |
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:23:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
None of the film titles suggested by Josh The Cat have a racist word in the title, which from my understanding is what is being discussed.
No they don't but some of the reviews do. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:28:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
The difference between the offence which may be given by porn reviews and those which may be given by racist reviews is that the former does not pick out an ethnic minority for ridicule and vilification and humiliation and dehumanisation.
But what about these
I Was A jewish Sex Worker (1996)
Jews And Buddhism: Belief Amended, Faith Revealed (1999)
Worst Jewish Football Team In The World, The (1999)
Gay muslims (2006)
Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World (2005
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=16099
I suppose none of these have the capacity to offend. A large number of people have written reviews that I (even if clever enough) would not write.
Not looking for an argument but most films offend somebody if we censor some then censor all and consign this site to the bin (trash for our American members).
Cheers
Josh the cat
The right of the freedom of speech must always be weighed against the responsibility as to its consequences.
Human beings are required to use their judgment on what is acceptable and what is not, depending on time and place and circumstances. To say that because we have some films which may give offence we may as well include any films regardless of how much offence they may give is blatantly not a good argument. Rather, the world is imperfect and difficult and sometimes we may give a certain level of offence to some people, either accidently or deliberately, but that does not mean we should try not to give offence when it is not necessary to do so or where there is no good to come of it.
|
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 22:40:49
|
Something people do on the Muslim films that I hate is referring to any old Muslim country unrelated to people in the film. I think this is racist: it amounts to saying "They're all the same, aren't they, those people?"
Another instance along these lines is "Trinidad and Toboggan". Jamaica is (obviously) a separate country from Trinidad and Tobago, not in the same part of the West Indies and not particularly similar to it.
Sorry, GHcool, we're off titles again, but at least we're still on racism.  |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 23:03:32
|
| It would be good to have a polls feature here. Benj, could that be set up? In the meantime, I have started this - please join! |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/26/2007 23:35:12 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 23:17:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh_the_cat
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
None of the film titles suggested by Josh The Cat have a racist word in the title, which from my understanding is what is being discussed.
No they don't but some of the reviews do.
I just looked at these sites and cannot see any racist or homophobic words, just tasteless reviews using every day words from those social/racial contexts, and playing by the rules of fwfr. There's much more offensive use of words on Brokeback Mountain than I saw here since people have focussed mostly on the sex scene - but from discussion elsewhere people think that's fair game also.
In my view this is different to what is being discussed here. The tasteless reviews may upset some people - probably people surfing the site rather than taking part in it. But wouldn't it be more offensive if the words (apologies, apologies for using them here) 'kike' or 'faggot' were used in these reviews for no reason other than to denote a Jewish person or a homosexual person? Surely the MERPs wouldn't pass those?
If those words were in the title they would inevitably be used.
That's the simple question here - do you give people the amunition by providing the offensive word in the title of the film. Many, many people will genuinely be playing the fwfr game by using it, but it also gives free licence for others to express their prejudices. How do you distinguish when the word is in the title?
To repeat myself, surely MERPs censor these type of words when looking at reviews? If someone used the word (again, apologies) 'coon' (the word in question in the film GHCool raised) in a review of Shaft only for the purpose of refering to Richard Roundtree or Samuel Jackson, wouldn't they reject that (there is no conceivable reason for using that word in a review of those films)? But if the word is in the title, they can't reject reviews based on the use of the word - even if it is clear that they are using it in a racist way rather than as wordplay.
When people are talking about censorship here, are they really saying that clearly racist reviews/words should be allowed if they fit the review rules in every other way? |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 23:30:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
I just looked at these sites and cannot see any racist or homophobic words, just tasteless reviews using every day words from those social/racial contexts, and playing by the rules of fwfr.
I wouldn't call it tastless to imply that all Muslim countries are synonymous - I would call it racist.
quote:
In my view this is different to what is being discussed here. The tasteless reviews may upset some people - probably people surfing the site rather than taking part in it. But wouldn't it be more offensive if the words (apologies, apologies for using them here) 'kike' or 'faggot' were used in these reviews for no reason other than to denote a Jewish person or a homosexual person? Surely the MERPs wouldn't pass those?
I wouldn't see faggot as being worse than inappropriate gay sex references: both are homophobic. Worse still are the sordid term for gay people that specifically refer to sexual acts.
quote:
If those words were in the title they would inevitably be used.
I'm not so sure. If they were, I think it would most likely be to make e.g. anti-racist points. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/26/2007 23:31:28 |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 23:36:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
at least we're still on racism
That didn't last long... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Racist films (2nd try)
