TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 166

Thread: Screen art and racism

  1. #51
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    When the conversation devolves to 'no u' with a failure to understand what was an insult and what wasn't, let alone acknowledging the actual topics, it's obviously too stupid to continue; so I'm bowing out. As much as you won't, I'm still going to recommend you reread Thirith's post and do some self-searching.

    Everyone else, thank you for chipping in.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 12th Jun 2020 at 03:09.

  2. #52
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Example of tribalism right there. When you surround yourself only with views you agree on. Thus strengthening your own views since you never debate or hear/read counterpoints.
    I'm afraid it's something far less intellectual here. It was a simple time saver. Just in terms of e.g. the movie thread, you tend to praise poor, average or pulpy stuff while downplaying or just scratching the surface of better works (both in my opinion, and as generally established by film critics). That was not a matter of not wanting to hear someone else's different (but interesting) opinion, more like skipping posts by a guy who's too much in love with his own voice. Which is also visible here.

  3. #53
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    icemann, you are just about one of the least self-reflective people I know, and your arguments in this discussion boils down to variations of "I'm not racist, so what I do cannot be racist, what my friends do cannot be racist, what I don't consider bad cannot be racist, that's the beginning and end of it." I cannot remember a single instance where you have taken an actual look at yourself, your opinions, your reactions. What you're saying is incoherent as an argument, because it always refers back to you and your own attitudes. You seem unable or unwilling to examine those, only to reconfirm them and then dress them up in commonplaces - and you follow up by not engaging what people actually say in response, you just go back to your default position.

    You don't see the contradictions and gaping holes in what you post, because honestly, at times you seem to listen to what you're saying as little as you listen to what others are saying.

    What you're saying about the W word and the N word, I've read pretty much exactly the same statements by people defending the N word. If you were to follow your own logic, they'd be as correct as you are and any problem with the N word is just down to cultural difference. So why is there a difference? Because.

    And your defense of bassoferol's statement as sarcastic is another case in point: you just see what you want to see, without *any* evidence, and then that's it. You think he's sarcastic so obviously he's sarcastic, so obviously there's no problem with what he's said. Why do you come to that conclusion? Because.
    Originally I was going to respond to Sulphur's initial response about bassoferol other post, but got side tracked by the argument. My apologies.

    What I was going to say was that I was not aware of his other posts. I had judged incorrectly the intent of the post. As for the "You think he's sarcastic so obviously he's sarcastic" - I don't who he is. I've not seen his username here before. Judged incorrectly based on the 1 post alone as I said.

    [edit]
    Scratch that shit. Got overly sensitive with so many people coming out of nowhere with negative comments.

    So if you don't like what I have say? Well fuck you. I aint going nowhere so you can go to hell. If I irritate you - Good. Put me on ignore then.

    Oh and PS - FUCK YOU
    Last edited by icemann; 12th Jun 2020 at 06:34.

  4. #54
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    I'm saying you're incredibly wrong, though, and I doubt I'm alone in that.
    Late to the party, but +1 here too.

    EDIT: Just to point out a pretty basical logical error:

    "We call X people Y, but that's not racist, because Y is just a descriptor."

    No, X is the descriptor. Have a decent think about what the actual purpose of Y is. Why it was used at all, given the existence of X.
    Last edited by faetal; 12th Jun 2020 at 04:34.

  5. #55
    El Shagmeister
    Registered: Jul 2000
    Location: Under your fingernails.
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    And sure if that makes me a racist that's fine really. Never said I wasn't.

    I appreciate all of you in letting me know that my style of posting and opinions is not welcome here. Consider me gone from the forums. I'm done posting in it. Goodbye.












    PS. Gene Wilder deserves better than you using him as your final sign-off from TTLG.

    PSS. +1 to Sulph. <3

  6. #56
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    I like this song.


  7. #57
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDuck View Post
    [SIZE=1]PS. Gene Wilder deserves better than you using him as your final sign-off from TTLG.
    Go fuck yourself loser. Hope you get hit by a car.

  8. #58
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Go fuck yourself loser. Hope you get hit by a car.
    Hey man you sound upset. Are you sure a forum that makes you upset is right for you?

  9. #59
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    I'm over it. All good. Thought I was more appreciated. Now I know. Words were said that had to be said.

    And those that chose to kick a person when they were down will be remembered.

  10. #60
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    I'm over it. All good. Thought I was more appreciated. Now I know. Words were said that had to be said.
    Good, knowing is half the battle. I hope you stop and think about why this is, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    And those that chose to kick a person when they were down will be remembered.

  11. #61
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    lol

    I didn't see you telling Duck off for his underhanded comment.

    Anyways was some high levels of toxicity in this thread so I've got nothing else to say here.

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    icemann chill dude, i think you are ok, but you really need to avoid these kind of threads and stick to gen gaming. Sometimes there are people who are smarter and more erudite than yourself( and I include MYSELF in that), you just have to accept that.
    And the whole thing about the term wog is totally wrong. It came from an incredibly racist white australia in the 50's and 60's when a lot of greek and italians immigrated to australia after the war because we needed the workforce. Its exactly like the term nigger, black americans co-opted it as a reaction against the hateful origins of the term, just as comedians here did with wog. I dont know anyone that would use the term in casual conversation unless they meant it in a racist fashion i.e "those bloody wogs next door are having a loud party again!"
    I used to play in a band with a filipino singer, and she would regularly get the "you love me long time!" thrown at her at gigs, and this was in the late 90's early 2000's. Bullshit, and for you not to realize that this is an issue isnt a great look for you, you come across as kinda dumb, sorry.

  13. #63
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    lol

    I didn't see you telling Duck off for his underhanded comment.

    Anyways was some high levels of toxicity in this thread so I've got nothing else to say here.
    That's because I thought you deserved it. You seem to enter discussions convinced of your right, and nothing will dissuade you. You make up justifications for your positions rather than basing your positions on actual thought. Nobody can get through to you, and believe me we've tried.

    How many debates do you feel you've lost? I bet you think it's 0.
    How many times have you changed your mind because of something someone said to you personally? People are supposed to converse and sharpen/adjust their ideas based on solid arguments from others, not try to barrel through the opposition with whatever you can come up with. You're not supposed to be your own inviolate fortress of ideas that can never change.

    Please, listen to people when they talk to you.

  14. #64
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by PigLick View Post
    icemann chill dude, i think you are ok, but you really need to avoid these kind of threads and stick to gen gaming. Sometimes there are people who are smarter and more erudite than yourself( and I include MYSELF in that), you just have to accept that.
    And the whole thing about the term wog is totally wrong. It came from an incredibly racist white australia in the 50's and 60's when a lot of greek and italians immigrated to australia after the war because we needed the workforce. Its exactly like the term nigger, black americans co-opted it as a reaction against the hateful origins of the term, just as comedians here did with wog. I dont know anyone that would use the term in casual conversation unless they meant it in a racist fashion i.e "those bloody wogs next door are having a loud party again!"
    I used to play in a band with a filipino singer, and she would regularly get the "you love me long time!" thrown at her at gigs, and this was in the late 90's early 2000's. Bullshit, and for you not to realize that this is an issue isnt a great look for you, you come across as kinda dumb, sorry.
    Fair call. I went in too strong on that one. I apologize. There was A LOT of Greeks and Italians where I grew up. I would see them use the term OFTEN and others would use it as a descriptor. Many right up to present day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeshibu View Post
    That's because I thought you deserved it. You seem to enter discussions convinced of your right, and nothing will dissuade you. You make up justifications for your positions rather than basing your positions on actual thought. Nobody can get through to you, and believe me we've tried.

    How many debates do you feel you've lost? I bet you think it's 0.
    How many times have you changed your mind because of something someone said to you personally? People are supposed to converse and sharpen/adjust their ideas based on solid arguments from others, not try to barrel through the opposition with whatever you can come up with. You're not supposed to be your own inviolate fortress of ideas that can never change.

    Please, listen to people when they talk to you.
    I base my justifications from talking with my friends, family, students (as I'm a university teacher), some of it is from personal experience. Much I base from the friends, family and students. Personal experiences more on specific topics.

    How many debates do you feel you've lost? I don't know the answer. I've never thought of that question before. I can't think of many that I've won. Many stalemates. It's something I plan on working on, which is why I let myself get into these debates. To get better at it.
    How many times have you changed your mind because of something someone said to you personally? I spoke with my wife about this very one just earlier, and she responded that I'm stubborn to the point of being a wall, but then that some time after once I've cooled off then my mind changes on topics / I take other sides into consideration far more. In the heat of the moment though - brick wall.

    Please, listen to people when they talk to you - See this one I do. It's just that I have the habit of not responding to specific stuff they have said (like Sulphur said earlier). This I plan to work on.

    I got bullied badly in high school many decades ago, and ever since I go into a stubborn headspace in debates / arguments. Rather than avoid them, I've been using them as a way to try and advance and be able to have a proper confrontation and not go into that place. It's the only situation where I'm a bit of a nutcase, and I freely admit that.

    I lost it, after reading Thirith's post. That post was just brutal harsh and cut deep. I don't normally react like that. But this place just holds a special connection for me, since I've been here so long. If this'd been on the RPS forums, or Facebook or whatever I'd have been like meh whatever, but when it's stuff said dating back years then it cuts deeper.

    So anyways, as said this is something I'll work on. Duck though is on ignore for life. If there is anything that I have learned from the bullying I went through in high school, is that it is often those who kick you while your down who are worser than the bullies themselves. That was just such a harsh uncalled for comment, and a jumping on the bandwagon type thing. And feel free to move on with on with the topic, we've talked about this long enough. Don't let it distract from the important topic itself.

  15. #65
    I have long been a believer of "words just being words". It's rather the intent and the context in which they are being used that is the problem, not the words themselves. At the same time, the same thing has been said about guns and I don't like those, so, yeah, double standards.

    I guess what I have long failed to understand is that, outside academic use, there are contexts, other than the current, so bad that the use of certain words can actually cause not just offense, but someone being scared for their life, because of historical or self-experienced violent connotations, even if the current context is benign. To me, it seems unnecessary to be the cause of that.

    At the same time, to be afraid of words in each and every context also seems unnecessary. I could tell someone to "just be rational about it" -- and also have in the past. This might just be me failing to understand that other people are more emotional than I am, though, and that they might not be able to rationalize their fears -- even when trying to.

    Now, I don't go around using these words anyway, because I have no reason to. That, in itself, doesn't make me a better person, though. Maybe not having a reason is the only reason. Maybe I only do it out of self-preservation and not because I really care. It's not up to me to judge my own character.

    I think my "words just being words" stance comes partly from being used to being objective and analytical, partly from a history of dissociation as a way of coping, and partly from growing up in a bit of a sheltered community (not gated, but sheltered). Lately, like in the last ten years or so, I have come to realize I, too, have, and have had, contexts, even benign ones, in which I feel threatened, because of a certain cultural norm of that context, and maybe I can use that to better understand others.

    So, what I'm trying to say is that I think I understand what icemann is saying, but also what Sulphur is saying. Yeah, I'm one of those people, looking at everything from all sides. That's probably why I've never been much of an activist, because that requires going to extremes. At the same time, in part I do have activists to thank for being able to be myself more than maybe I could have otherwise.

  16. #66
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    icemann: I think Jesh made the most productive post out of all of this. I'm going to call out a couple of things because I think a lot of what just happened is not okay and we can't just simply move on without addressing it:

    1.) You think that what Thirith said was harsh - maybe it is, I personally don't think so - but that doesn't make it untrue. You think what Duck did was uncalled for - that also doesn't make it untrue. The reaction to both of them was out of line and, frankly, immature.

    2.) Apologising for your stance on 'wog' is all well and good, but please understand that this does not address the core issue, which is an entirely more problematic thing: being unaware of why defending a term like this puts you squarely on the bigot side of social interaction.

    I can understand having deep ties to this place and suddenly seeing your relationship with it turned on its head, but these observations you took so badly to didn't develop overnight. People have been talking about this for a while, it takes being able to listen. I want to be sympathetic, but I don't think this is the time or the place to coddle anyone. We owe it to ourselves to be better.

  17. #67
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    There is one sentiment where I probably kinda agree with Icemann.

    It's just words. People are now fighting over words. Over symbols. Over images. This whole BLM thing started because innocent people were killed. Frequently. Without trial, without jury. By the police. Just because they did something small (like "a broken taillight"), and because they were black. George Floyd is dead.

    But now the problem is that the old colonel in Fawlty towers (a character, played by an actor) has said "wogs". BAN FAWLTY TOWERS ! Here in NL we now want to tear down all statues of our old sea-heroes. Sure, they were pirates, they were murderers, they did a lot of things wrong. They were racists too. But so was 99.9% of the people at the time. I read that Churchill's statue in London is now under attack. WTF ? Something different but related, is that JK Rowling is now under attack because she has said "sex is real". I wish transgenders (and everybody else) the best, I do. But in a way, if we all are going to pretend that sex isn't real, we've just culture-cancelled feminism. And the feminism-battle is far from won yet. Do you really wanna do that ?

    And again, the fight these days seems mostly about words and symbols. I don't know why. Maybe because that allows for nice tweets and cool pictures on Instagram ? I'm more left-wing than most people, and getting more extreme every year. The real problem in the world is money. Inequality of wealth and income. You know, capitalism ("everyone without money can go fuck themselves"), the 1% (aka the new aristocracy). But nobody talks about that. Racism and race-inequality is largely caused by poverty. But in the US, everybody thinks that helping poor people is socialism. "Helping poor people is bad, Jesus would never have helped poor people !". Supposedly we should accept the fact that poor people can only be helped by the rich people doing charity ("thank you masta for your kind heart"). Not because together we do useful and good things with our tax money. Nope. Doing things together is "socialism". Can't have that. Can't have proper education for all kids. Can't have proper healthcare for everybody. Can't have decent housing for poor people.

    That's the real problem. Money. I don't really care about words. But it looks like everybody else does. Politicians don't want to talk about inequality, because it won't get them votes. Voters don't want to talk about it, because .... I really don't know why the voters don't seem to care.
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 12th Jun 2020 at 10:42.

  18. #68
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Gryz: there's more nuance to some of these issues than you're talking about, and I'd prefer if you do that groundwork first. The JK Rowling thing, specifically, relates to her not understanding that trans people menstruate as well; it's not as simple as 'sex is a thing'.

    We've addressed products of their time and place in the previous pages. I think most of us are being reasonable - what do people want to do about problematic media? There's an entire flowchart of possibilities we've already discussed.

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Please, listen to people when they talk to you - See this one I do. It's just that I have the habit of not responding to specific stuff they have said (like Sulphur said earlier). This I plan to work on.

    I got bullied badly in high school many decades ago, and ever since I go into a stubborn headspace in debates / arguments. Rather than avoid them, I've been using them as a way to try and advance and be able to have a proper confrontation and not go into that place. It's the only situation where I'm a bit of a nutcase, and I freely admit that.

    I lost it, after reading Thirith's post. That post was just brutal harsh and cut deep. I don't normally react like that. But this place just holds a special connection for me, since I've been here so long. If this'd been on the RPS forums, or Facebook or whatever I'd have been like meh whatever, but when it's stuff said dating back years then it cuts deeper.
    It's good that you acknowledge the problem, and I hope this helps you work on it. For all our sakes, but especially yours.
    Since you say this is such a deep-rooted issue going back to childhood bullying, I think you would benefit enormously from therapy. I know people say this in jest or as a putdown, but I promise this is heartfelt advice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    There is one sentiment where I probably kinda agree with Icemann.

    It's just words. People are now fighting over words. Over symbols. Over images. This whole BLM thing started because innocent people were killed. Frequently. Without trial, without jury. By the police. Just because they did something small (like "a broken taillight"), and because they were black. George Floyd is dead.

    But now the problem is that the old colonel in Fawlty towers (a character, played by an actor) has said "wogs". BAN FAWLTY TOWERS ! Here in NL we now want to tear down all statues of our old sea-heroes. Sure, they were pirates, they were murderers, they did a lot of things wrong. They were racists too. But so was 99.9% of the people at the time. I read that Churchill's statue in London is now under attack. WTF ? Something different but related, is that JK Rowling is now under attack because she has said "sex is real". I wish transgenders (and everybody else) the best, I do. But in a way, if we all are going to pretend that sex isn't real, we've just culture-cancelled feminism. And the feminism-battle is far from won yet. Do you really wanna do that ?

    And again, the fight these days seems mostly about words and symbols. I don't know why. Maybe because that allows for nice tweets and cool pictures on Instagram ? I'm more left-wing than most people, and getting more extreme every year. The real problem in the world is money. Inequality of wealth and income. You know, capitalism ("everyone without money can go fuck themselves"), the 1% (aka the new aristocracy). But nobody talks about that. Racism and race-inequality is largely caused by poverty. But in the US, everybody thinks that helping poor people is socialism. "Helping poor people is bad, Jesus would never have helped poor people !". Supposedly we should accept the fact that poor people can only be helped by the rich people doing charity ("thank you masta for your kind heart"). Not because together we do useful and good things with our tax money. Nope. Doing things together is "socialism". Can't have that. Can't have proper education for all kids. Can't have proper healthcare for everybody. Can't have decent housing for poor people.

    That's the real problem. Money. I don't really care about words. But it looks like everybody else does. Politicians don't want to talk about inequality, because it won't get them votes. Voters don't want to talk about it, because .... I really don't know why the voters don't seem to care.
    I don't think Fawlty Towers should be banned, but the statues really do have it coming. Monsters should not be venerated in public. "Everyone did it" is an indictment of those times, not an excuse to keep honoring mass-murderous assholes.
    You're right that a lot of it is just symbolic politics that don't do much for the average joe, but I'm not sure those are related. The right has been in power for ages now in the Netherlands, and has been on an upswing for the past decade or two worldwide.

  20. #70
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2005
    Location: Netherlands
    I don't think Rowling's snarky tweets are the best way of going about these things. She has written an essay about how she feels about the issue. The subject is very sensitive and I'm still in the learning process of becoming more sensitive about trans and feminist issues so any opinion I could voice would come from a place of limited knowledge. According to trans activists Rowling gets it massively wrong, and for now I'm going to take their word for it.

    However, there were some side points in the essay that triggered a response in me. She said that some activists now refer to cis women as 'menstruators' or 'people with vulvas' and that this kind of language comes across as hostile and alien to some women. Now I know people are trying to be inclusive, but to be honest, I can also see why being referred to by these terms bothers some women. Rowling also says she get hundreds of e-mails of women saying they feel threatened by modern activists, and assuming Rowling isn't lying and while maybe there really isn't much cause for feeling threatened, I do think we shouldn't dismiss these women's feelings immediately either. At least listen to why they feel that way.

    But overall, I think Rowling would do wise to lay low and apologize for any (maybe unintended, but still) mental harm caused by her careless remarks.
    Last edited by Harvester; 12th Jun 2020 at 11:18.

  21. #71
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    On Fawlty Towers and the removal of media, Gryzemuis said it so much better than I could.

    Maybe I'm being stubborn on the topic (as I've been known to be). But I just feel that racism is subjective. Offensive content is subjective. All down to the individual. That's all I was trying to say. If you, or someone else finds something offensive no worries. But what is wrong, or right changes with time, which was why I used the Song of the South example earlier as that at the point in time that it was made was not deemed racist, where as now it TOTALLY is. And that is completely justified. I just think that such things should not be removed for people to view.

    Have a opening bit at the start explaining exactly what's wrong with it, what the views were back then, why it's wrong now. Etc etc. Then have it shown as is.

    On symbols, take the Nazi symbol. It's origins pre-date the Nazi's back to (according to Wikipedia) Hinduism. It was NEVER intended as a source of evil and racism, but now it is as the Nazi's used it. Things change. If you had a movie produced prior to the rise of Nazi's with the symbol in use, but then it was viewed today with our knowledge of what happened after. Is that racism? And that's an open question, I'm not going in there with an assumed answer. I'm curious as to opinions there.
    Last edited by icemann; 12th Jun 2020 at 11:23.

  22. #72
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Maybe I'm being stubborn on the topic (as I've been known to be). But I just feel that racism is subjective. Offensive content is subjective. All down to the individual. That's all I was trying to say. If you, or someone else finds something offensive no worries. But what is wrong, or right changes with time, which was why I used the Song of the South example earlier as that at the point in time that it was made was not deemed racist, where as now it TOTALLY is. And that is completely justified. I just think that such things should not be removed for people to view.

    Have a opening bit at the start explaining exactly what's wrong with it, what the views were back then, why it's wrong now. Etc etc. Then have it shown as is.

    On symbols, take the Nazi symbol. It's origins pre-date the Nazi's back to (according to Wikipedia) Hinduism. It was NEVER intended as a source of evil and racism, but now it is as the Nazi's used it. Things change. If you had a movie produced prior to the rise of Nazi's with the symbol in use, but then it was viewed today with our knowledge of what happened after. Is that racism? And that's an open question, I'm not going in there with an assumed answer. I'm curious as to opinions there.
    Song of the South was always racist. Yes, cultural attitudes towards racism change, but that just means that racism was more acceptable then and there, not that it was not racist for the time. At least, supposing we accept that we are more correct about what is and is not racist than we were in the past. I don't really want to have to specify that with every discussion:
    "Hey bro that's totally racist (USA 2020)"
    "Nah bro it's not racist (DE 1934)"

    The other thing you mention, the Swastika and the definition of words, is just accrued baggage for symbols being deemed too excessive. The Swastika and words like "retard" or "negro" have gotten negative connotations that they didn't always have. That doesn't mean much, and shouldn't result in the censoring of uses of that word/symbol from before that baggage was attached (or way elsewhere like Swastikas in south Asia).

  23. #73
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    But what is wrong, or right changes with time, which was why I used the Song of the South example earlier as that at the point in time that it was made was not deemed racist, where as now it TOTALLY is. And that is completely justified. I just think that such things should not be removed for people to view.
    I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. There were protests at the time. And the reasons *why* the film is racist were racist back then. What has changed isn't whether the film is racist or not, it's whether people with power or money or the ability to speak their minds care enough or not. If you are truly interested in the issue, there's a very well researched, well written podcast series called You Must Remember This that did an entire season on Song of the South. But saying that the film wasn't racist at the time is naive, ignorant or disingenuous. You tell me.

    What you're saying is akin to, if not quite as bad as, saying that in the 1930s Germans not liking Jews was just what things were like, and obviously we think that's offensive now, and that's perfectly justified, but- No. Because these things are not just attitudes or opinions. They feed into social systems, they create social realities, and that was the case 'back then' as much as it is now. Apart from anything else, the views you've expressed in this thread on what history was like are largely ahistorical. If you want to use history to back up your argument, you need to know history better.

  24. #74
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    On symbols, take the Nazi symbol. It's origins pre-date the Nazi's back to (according to Wikipedia) Hinduism. It was NEVER intended as a source of evil and racism, but now it is as the Nazi's used it. Things change. If you had a movie produced prior to the rise of Nazi's with the symbol in use, but then it was viewed today with our knowledge of what happened after. Is that racism? And that's an open question, I'm not going in there with an assumed answer. I'm curious as to opinions there.
    Sigh.

    The swastika that the Nazis adopted was, firstly, reversed, which shows you how well they got things. We still use the swastika today, dude. You'll find it swinging from a rickshaw mirror in India from time to time amongst other places. It's not changed its meaning in its original culture because racists made a bad copy of it.

    Not only did the Nazis attempt to co-opt a religious symbol that has nothing to do with race or Nordic superiority, the entire Nazi ideology was based on a racist colonial theory to justify the UK's stance on occupying India. I don't need to tell you it's not true, but then you can't be too sure in this the year of our lord 2020. Evidence.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 12th Jun 2020 at 12:08.

  25. #75
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2004
    Location: Back Home
    Big topic. Not going to solve it with this post for sure!

    On Fawlty Towers for instance, is the Major celebrated for his views? I think if anything the show makes him out to be a daft old bugger and all his views are portrayed as fairly questionable. And when Basil attacks the Germans, or is shocked to see a black doctor, I've always thought the joke was how intolerant he was. The problem with this kind of humour though, is that it also works for people who think it's fun to make light of Hitler to Germans, or that it is shocking to see a black doctor. Maybe that's what some people laugh at. It's a tricky one. Another programme recently removed was the League of Gentlemen, which has the Papa Lazarou character, which is an example of blackface, but I've always thought more of a mockery of the style of blackface rather than an attempt to portray an actual black person. I suppose this still could be offensive, however. I do think it's in a different League (alol) to Little Britain and its ilk though.

    In terms of Gone With the Wind, I think there's little doubt that it romanticises and even celebrates a vision of the old South (which is not a realistic portrayal of history anyway), and I think black people may well have considered that offensive then as well, but either didn't have the voice to express it (any who actually would have had a platform to speak, eg. actors, would have had to be extremely careful about speaking out on such issues for the sake of their careers), or were so used to such portrayals that it wasn't viewed as unusual. That doesn't mean they weren't hurt or offended, or that it didn't do damage. The damage in that case is also related to the white audience's perception of that period of history, because despite the fact that educated people might "know" it's not accurate, powerful stories really get under people's skin and do meld their perceptions. And yes, even a "positive" portrayal such as Mammy does damage (ooh look first black woman to win an Oscar, clap clap clap), and all the happy slaves... it's not great however you look at it.

    Icemann, you say about Song of the South not being deemed racist at the time... by who? Who had a voice at that time to express such opinions? Who would have dared? And did they think it would accomplish anything? Best not get uppity, after all. I think when you're an oppressed minority you probably have to pick your battles, and maybe at that time there were bigger issues around segregation to worry about rather than portrayal in the media.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •