| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
 Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:00:22
|
Again we get off point. I wasn't analysing the racist nature of the REVIEWS I was looking on those pages for racist WORDS
The question for this thread is 'do you give people the ammunition to be racist by giving them a RACIST word in the TITLE of the film to use in their review. Yes or no?'
My vote is NO, don't put films with a RACIST word in the TITLE in the fwfr database
As for the assessment of reviews - that's a whole other ballgame that is being discussed on the other thread
Yes, a poll would be good to allow people to anonymously register their preference |
 |
|
|
Sal[Au]pian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:04:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Again we get off point. I wasn't analysing the racist nature of the REVIEWS I was looking on those pages for racist WORDS
The question for this thread is 'do you give people the ammunition to be racist by giving them a RACIST word in the TITLE of the film to use in their review. Yes or no?'
I know, but I could see no good reason for that. All racism is wrong - words and opinions. If the titles would cause those words to be used more, we would also have to be concerned that they would induce other racism to be expressed.
The question here is not whether those words being in the titles give people ammo - it is just whether allowing those titles is in itself (or for any consequent reason) offensive. I don't believe that GHcool's specific concern was that they would encourage the same words to be used. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/27/2007 00:11:54 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:14:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Again we get off point. I wasn't analysing the racist nature of the REVIEWS I was looking on those pages for racist WORDS
The question for this thread is 'do you give people the ammunition to be racist by giving them a RACIST word in the TITLE of the film to use in their review. Yes or no?'
I know, but I could see no good reason for that. All racism is wrong - words and opinions.
The question here is not whether those words being in the titles give people ammo - it is just whether allowing those titles is in itself (or for any consequent reason) offensive. I don't believe that GHcool's concern was that they would encourage the same words to be used.
Well, I may have misunderstood and be be voting 'don't put them in' for different reasons to the reason GHCool brought up, but that's why I vote no. My previous post answered the question above about the offensiveness of the film titles in the first place - it's just my personal stance that I link the two together.
I'll get off this thread now. Ta ta  |
|
|
|
Sludge 
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:14:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
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.
I actually agree somewhat, and the review wasn't intended to "equate" the countries - as you say, it's obvious. I will say, I was just having fun with a phrase, but I was surprised at how many votes it got.
I don't know that I'd agree that "at the risk of offending one person" a policy should be enacted. If it's offensive but inaccurate, the review will be rejected or canned on follow-up. Icy Dead People is probably offensive to Titanic survivors and descendants of those who didn't survive. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:26:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Well, I may have misunderstood and be be voting 'don't put them in' for different reasons to the reason GHCool brought up, but that's why I vote no.
That's fine, but it doesn't make any sense to ignore other aspects of racism which could conceivably be induced by the racist titles just the same. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 00:28:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I actually agree somewhat, and the review wasn't intended to "equate" the countries - as you say, it's obvious. I will say, I was just having fun with a phrase, but I was surprised at how many votes it got.
O.K., so why is the review valid? Can one pun on France in a review about a film set in Germany? |
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 01:59:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I actually agree somewhat, and the review wasn't intended to "equate" the countries - as you say, it's obvious. I will say, I was just having fun with a phrase, but I was surprised at how many votes it got.
O.K., so why is the review valid? Can one pun on France in a review about a film set in Germany?
Sure, if it's set in 1942.  |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 02:03:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
Sure, if it's set in 1942.
 |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 02:51:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
I actually agree somewhat, and the review wasn't intended to "equate" the countries - as you say, it's obvious. I will say, I was just having fun with a phrase, but I was surprised at how many votes it got.
O.K., so why is the review valid? Can one pun on France in a review about a film set in Germany?
There's a major difference.
Germany and France were never part of the West Indies Federation.
Only one of the bobsledders has dreadlocks in the film - should any reference to "dread people" be deleted? ("Dreads on sleds" would still qualify since that character has more than one dread)
Looked at another way, if one were asked to guess which film "Trinidad and Toboggan" was about, would most modern film buffs be able to guess "Cool Runnings"? I'd say so.
I had a review that never did get approved, which attempted to point out the [exploration of?] political incorrectness in Pulp Fiction: "Dead N-word storage", because it had a white guy, Tarantino, using the N-word (which should, one could argue, be a dead word in the realm of white guys) casually. But then, the character was addressing one of his closest friends who is black, and referring to someone neither of them knew, suggesting Tarantino and Jackson's characters were close friends to the point Tarantino was comfortable using the word in front of Jackson without Jackson taking it personally. It also comes from one of Tarantino's lines ("Is there a sign on the garage...?"). So I believe this review successfully points out that the film itself is a kind of "Dead N-word storage", but I can accept the approvers disagreeing.
But I'd hate to see so many reviews, and it would be many many many reviews if you're going to go in that direction, lost in a whirl of political (or, in the case of Cool Running, geo-follicle) correctness. I've been involved in a lot of political movements and found that this approach isolates rather than expands the discussion, and it is basically a mechanism (intentional or not) for some people to control others.
This brings to mind the consensus process (a kind of ruling process different from democracy or dictatorship). It's politically correct to embrace a process of consensus, but the formal consensus process becomes useless if one person exercises the option to "block" because they have some other agenda or just, perhaps, need attention. I don't say that has ever been the case here, but this is what I have seen happen in consensus. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 03:05:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sludge
Germany and France were never part of the West Indies Federation.
That would be a small difference if many people were aware of that Federation and France and Germany had never been part of the same empire, which they have, at least twice.
quote:
Only one of the bobsledders has dreadlocks in the film - should any reference to "dread people" be deleted?
I agree that that is also inaccurate, but I do not think hairstyles are as important to people as nationalities, in general. Also, it is just inaccurate in plurality, which makes it even more minor.
quote:
Looked at another way, if one were asked to guess which film "Trinidad and Toboggan" was about, would most modern film buffs be able to guess "Cool Runnings"?
I would think so too. This means it is not 'generic' - I did not question that.
quote:
But I'd hate to see so many reviews, and it would be many many many reviews if you're going to go in that direction, lost in a whirl of political correctness.
I don't think it's really reasonable to compare referring to a country in question rather than another one to political correctness. One thing I hate, for example, is people using England when they are actually referring to Great Britain or the U.K. - but at least it's part of the country in question. |
Edited by - Sal[Au]pian on 01/27/2007 03:06:15 |
|
|
|
Sludge
"Charlie Don't Serf!"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 03:11:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Again we get off point. I wasn't analysing the racist nature of the REVIEWS I was looking on those pages for racist WORDS
The question for this thread is 'do you give people the ammunition to be racist by giving them a RACIST word in the TITLE of the film to use in their review. Yes or no?'
My vote is NO, don't put films with a RACIST word in the TITLE in the fwfr database
As for the assessment of reviews - that's a whole other ballgame that is being discussed on the other thread
Yes, a poll would be good to allow people to anonymously register their preference
I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?
;-)
Okay, well even here, I don't like creating a rule about it but I sure don't go looking to add those titles. I think if someone has seen Bicentennial N---- and has a workable FWFR they should get to submit it. This film title has the N word and features Sidney Poitier, Cedric the Entertainer, Don King, Shawn Wayans and a couple of republicans.
However, considering the title, perhaps a way out of this would be to have the N word replaced by "N-----". People will know what it means, if not they can click the IMDB link, and that way the word itself doesn't become a magnet for the folks who marched through Skokie. Not that, you know, they don't have a right to review films here. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 03:22:30
|
| It would be pretty bad form to hijack GHcool's thread again. He's already had to restart it. There's at least a page in this thread already that isn't on the subject of the "coon" movies. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 05:11:15
|
| Third time lucky? |
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 05:11:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
It would be pretty bad form to hijack GHcool's thread again. He's already had to restart it. There's at least a page in this thread already that isn't on the subject of the "coon" movies.
Yeah, if we're going to hijack, let's do it with the preferred topic of cheese puns.
Sound gouda? |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 05:18:23
|
| I'll b-Edam-ned if I'll do that. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Racist films (2nd try)
