| | | | |
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 Im not sure being equally alarmist about the offense is a good
way to deal with it.
Tim
|
Hi Tim! Id rather be talking with you about MOCs, but what can you do, right?
Anyway, Im sure the cartoonist who started that particular controversy thought
the same thing. Words affect things, people read stuff. I dont think its an
over-reaction-things can have a butterfly effect some times.
I honestly dont think Richies 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 dont 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 Im not sure being equally alarmist about the offense is a good
way to deal with it.
Tim
|
Hi Tim! Id 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, Im sure the cartoonist who started that particular
controversy thought the same thing.
|
I suspect the cartoonist either didnt think much at all or consciously set out
to be malicious but well never really know the answer to that. I know that if I
was going to satirise a religious group Id make sure I found out a bit about
what I was satirising before rushing to offend them.
|
Words affect things, people read stuff. I
dont think its 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 Richies
post that sets any potential (and exceedingly unlikely) commotion off.
|
I honestly dont think Richies 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 dont think the alarmism is
equal.
|
I just dont consider Richies point to be particularly alarmist (although I
dont really agree with it either). He didnt 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
Richies post that sets any potential (and exceedingly unlikely) commotion
off.
|
Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon Richies
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 dont consider Richies point to be particularly alarmist (although I
dont really agree with it either). He didnt 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 Im doing.
But perhaps a better place to start would be to contact LEGO directly if hes
that concerned.
Issues attract focus groups, focus groups pressure advertisers and that can
affect companys profits and peoples 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
Richies post that sets any potential (and exceedingly unlikely) commotion
off.
|
Which is exactly my original point. Any focus group could stumble upon
Richies 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
youre 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 dont consider Richies point to be particularly alarmist (although I
dont really agree with it either). He didnt 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 Im
doing. But perhaps a better place to start would be to contact LEGO directly
if hes 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. Its also a good way to gauge
other peoples 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 Jacksons breast there was no-one
involved to say... Hey, its 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 companys profits and peoples jobs.
|
I agree but I just dont think thats 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 wasnt any reason to act on the first one either... but it
happened.
I think the main point Im 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 Im 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 Im 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 Im 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. Im just more annoyed by it (alarm bells ring). Im
going to go play with LEGOs.
| | | | | | |