| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Mark Larson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
But then I saw this picture:
I know Arkham Asylum isn’t a
standard mental health care facility by any reasonable measure, but the
attic torture room seems to be a bit much. In fact, the guards getting the
whip and the chainsaw ready, while the Riddler lies helplessly on the
electroshock table, reminds me of some of the Abu Graib pictures.
Concernedly,
Richie Dulin
|
This is an alarmist over-reaction, in my opinion. No offense, I believe
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you broached the subject and
here’s my opinion.
You seem to be implying that LEGO either is insensitive to the Abu Ghraib
controversy or is purposely making fun of it. Do you really think that’s
true? Abu Ghraib is a mess of complex political and military controversies,
the Arkham Asylum is a place where they hold Super Villians.
If LEGO had released a US military base and there were a torture chamber in
it, I’d think there was a big problem. This set is from a comic book where
very dark things happen. What did you expect them to have in the Arkham
Asylum, a community room with checkers and snacks?
|
OK. I’m with you to here. Not sure I entirely agree but it’s all reasonable.
| |
I also think it is terribly irresponsible to throw about accusations so
casually. Last year Denmark took some harsh reactions to a cartoonist and
were viewed as insensitive to Muslims, people burning LEGO in the streets. I
think you should think more carefully about what you say before you say it
because the implications you are making can be taken very seriously.
|
Here you kick into what I consider to be an alarmist over-reaction yourself. Do
you really think that a comment on a LEGO forum read by a small number of people
is comparable to a cartoon published in a newspaper (and then many newspapers)
which specifically offended certain aspects of a religion at a time of already
heightened tensions?
| |
Like everyone who responded I am trying to continue a respectable discussion.
My opinion however is strong on this one. I am simply tired of people finding
offense in everything and am upset to see it happen to my favorite toy...I
mean: artistic medium.
|
I agree. But I’m not sure being equally alarmist about the offense is a good way
to deal with it.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
Here you kick into what I consider to be an alarmist over-reaction yourself.
Do you really think that a comment on a LEGO forum read by a small number of
people is comparable to a cartoon published in a newspaper (and then many
newspapers) which specifically offended certain aspects of a religion at a
time of already heightened tensions?
I agree. But I’m not sure being equally alarmist about the offense is a good
way to deal with it.
Tim
|
Hi Tim! I’d rather be talking with you about MOCs, but what can you do, right?
Anyway, I’m sure the cartoonist who started that particular controversy thought
the same thing. Words affect things, people read stuff. I don’t think it’s an
over-reaction-things can have a butterfly effect some times.
I honestly don’t think Richie’s post is going to start global riots, but if the
wrong person read it, anything can happen. Comparing Arkham Asylum to Abu Ghraib
is much more alarmist than suggesting that people can be alarmist in reaction to
it.
I agree with you that I am exagerrating but I don’t think the alarmism is equal.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Mark Larson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
Here you kick into what I consider to be an alarmist over-reaction yourself.
Do you really think that a comment on a LEGO forum read by a small number of
people is comparable to a cartoon published in a newspaper (and then many
newspapers) which specifically offended certain aspects of a religion at a
time of already heightened tensions?
I agree. But I’m not sure being equally alarmist about the offense is a good
way to deal with it.
Tim
|
Hi Tim! I’d rather be talking with you about MOCs, but what can you do,
right?
|
But that is why we have .off-topic.debate ;) (which both of us forgot to move
to... sorry, Lugnet)
| |
Anyway, I’m sure the cartoonist who started that particular
controversy thought the same thing.
|
I suspect the cartoonist either didn’t think much at all or consciously set out
to be malicious but we’ll never really know the answer to that. I know that if I
was going to satirise a religious group I’d make sure I found out a bit about
what I was satirising before rushing to offend them.
| |
Words affect things, people read stuff. I
don’t think it’s an over-reaction-things can have a butterfly effect some
times.
|
I agree, but the buttterfly effect is arbitrary. There is nothing to say that
your response mentioning the cartoons may not draw a random search to Richie’s
post that sets any potential (and exceedingly unlikely) commotion off.
| |
I honestly don’t think Richie’s post is going to start global riots, but if
the wrong person read it, anything can happen. Comparing Arkham Asylum to Abu
Ghraib is much more alarmist than suggesting that people can be alarmist in
reaction to it.
I agree with you that I am exagerrating but I don’t think the alarmism is
equal.
|
I just don’t consider Richie’s point to be particularly alarmist (although I
don’t really agree with it either). He didn’t demand that Lego remove it or
anything, merely brought a certain disturbing similarity to their attention.
This is not without precendence given that LEGO have acted on disturbing
similarities before.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
I agree, but the buttterfly effect is arbitrary. There is nothing to say that
your response mentioning the cartoons may not draw a random search to
Richie’s post that sets any potential (and exceedingly unlikely) commotion
off.
|
Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon Richie’s
original post and get all up in arms over it and start some sort of movement
against LEGO. Putting the idea out there, anyone can read it and over-react
any number of ways.
| |
I just don’t consider Richie’s point to be particularly alarmist (although I
don’t really agree with it either). He didn’t demand that Lego remove it or
anything, merely brought a certain disturbing similarity to their attention.
|
He does suggest that it should be removed. This is posted on a public message
board which anyone could read and having no knowledge or familiarity with the
LEGO company could blow out of proportion. Much like some may think I’m doing.
But perhaps a better place to start would be to contact LEGO directly if he’s
that concerned.
Issues attract focus groups, focus groups pressure advertisers and that can
affect company’s profits and people’s jobs.
| |
This is not without precendence given that LEGO have acted on disturbing
similarities before.
|
In my opinion, there is no reason for LEGO to act on this particular issue. That
is my main problem with the original post. I respect Richie 100% but the
original issue does annoy me. I could probably use Tim as an example of how to
take that with a grain of salt. Thanks.
-Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Larson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.licensed.batman, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
I agree, but the buttterfly effect is arbitrary. There is nothing to say
that your response mentioning the cartoons may not draw a random search to
Richie’s post that sets any potential (and exceedingly unlikely) commotion
off.
|
Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon
Richie’s original post and get all up in arms over it and start some sort of
movement against LEGO. Putting the idea out there, anyone can read it and
over-react any number of ways.
|
Yes. But my point here is that by responding with a reference to the cartoon
you’re making it a little bit more likely to be seen by the very people that you
think may get upset. I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a calamity
but it pays to remember that the ‘butterfly’ in the ‘butterfly effect’ may not
be the one you expect.
| |
| |
I just don’t consider Richie’s point to be particularly alarmist (although I
don’t really agree with it either). He didn’t demand that Lego remove it or
anything, merely brought a certain disturbing similarity to their attention.
|
He does suggest that it should be removed. This is posted on a public message
board which anyone could read and having no knowledge or familiarity with the
LEGO company could blow out of proportion. Much like some may think I’m
doing. But perhaps a better place to start would be to contact LEGO directly
if he’s that concerned.
|
IIRC this forum exists as a way of bringing stuff to the attention of LEGO and
is occassionally perused by employees of LEGO. It’s also a good way to gauge
other people’s views (like your own) so that someone reading it from LEGO can
see both the original ‘issue’ and responses.
When people rang up to complain about Janet Jackson’s breast there was no-one
involved to say... ‘Hey, it’s just a breast’. Here, at least, someone from LEGO
can read your responses too.
| |
Issues attract focus groups, focus groups pressure advertisers and that can
affect company’s profits and people’s jobs.
|
I agree but I just don’t think that’s going to happen from a fairly obscure
internet forum.
| |
| |
This is not without precendence given that LEGO have acted on disturbing
similarities before.
|
In my opinion, there is no reason for LEGO to act on this particular issue.
That is my main problem with the original post. I respect Richie 100% but the
original issue does annoy me. I could probably use Tim as an example of how
to take that with a grain of salt. Thanks.
-Mark
|
In my opinion there wasn’t any reason to act on the first one either... but it
happened.
I think the main point I’m trying to make is that sometimes the response to an
issue can be as ‘alarmist’ (for want of a better word) as the original issue.
The Danish embassy may have remained unburnt had one person in an editorial
meeting in a small Danish newspaper had said “yes I think the response is
alarmist but oh well” rather than “yes I think the response is alarmist and it
should never have been made”.
Tim
PS. And likewise I hope I’m managing as respectable a discussion as I believe
you to be (since Dave reminded me of that last bit of your original post).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
I sincerely doubt that either post will cause a
| |
calamity but it pays to remember that the ‘butterfly’ in the ‘butterfly
effect’ may not be the one you expect.
|
Sounds like a great them for a time travel movie!
| |
I think the main point I’m trying to make is that sometimes the response to
an issue can be as ‘alarmist’ (for want of a better word) as the original
issue. The Danish embassy may have remained unburnt had one person in an
editorial meeting in a small Danish newspaper had said “yes I think the
response is alarmist but oh well” rather than “yes I think the response is
alarmist and it should never have been made”.
Tim
PS. And likewise I hope I’m managing as respectable a discussion as I believe
you to be (since Dave reminded me of that last bit of your original post).
|
Well, I still respect you. And I think we actually feel the same way about the
original issue at hand. I’m just more annoyed by it (alarm bells ring). I’m
going to go play with LEGOs.
|
|
|
