| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
<snip>
I'm having a hard time reconciling "Jason Rowoldt" and "merely another
slimeball" as phrases that belong in the same *post*, frankly. Jason has
done a great deal of good for the hobby with his efforts, I put him right up
there in the pantheon of leading lights that have grown the things that the
hobby is known for. (Along with you, you know...)
I think you may be overreaching a bit with that characterization.
LEGO is ultimately, at least in one sense, a medium of expression. While you
may have some merit in suggesting that non child suitable themes ought to be
disclaimed, are you suggesting that the Brick Testament ought not to be
viewed by children? *IT* uses LEGO as the medium of expression and *IT* has
sex in it, after all. And not just wholesome (to most people) missionary
style between married but otherwise unreleated people sex, but nasty (to
most) sex with rape and incest in it.
No one in their right mind would accuse BT of being porn. The sex alluded to
is there in the context of the story and is needful to move it along. I
didn't see any minifig genitals but it was clear enough that sex was happening.
You say "how can you know the characters are gay if you don't see them
having sex?" or words to that effect. Well, when I watch "Will and Grace" on
ABC, I don't need to see Jack actually having sex to know he's gay. He
*says* he is. The minifigs in the movie ARE depicted as gay and you know
what, 10% or so of us *are* gay and to most of us, there is nothing wrong
with recognising that fact and cherishing people for who they choose (or are
driven) to be.
My children have been told that people are gay and encouraged to think about
it and recognise it as a lifestyle choice that I don't necessarily recommend
(because society is so hard on gays) but will embrace if they choose it. but
they are 9 and 12. That topic ought not to come up with a 3 year old other
than in the "yes, Bill and Ted are a family" context. To deny that Bill and
Ted might actually *be* a family is to deny reality and to be insufficiently
tolerant.
You're more tolerant than that, John, I am certain of it.
Now you may not agree that the story needed to be told as much as the
stories in the old testament needed to be told, or that it's as important as
the story in the bible, but it's art. Art is defined as such by the artist
and validated by the viewers. We don't have to agree. You may find it to be
not art, but I do. And if some viewers find it to be art, it is. Hence it's
protected speech in certain ways. (in this case, it's on Jason's server.
He's paying the bills so HE gets to exercise his free speech rights and use
his judgement about what goes and doesn't. You do not)
I suggest you step back a bit and let this simmer for a while rather than
boiling over. Further I suggest you let this be discussed in ot.debate (I
set FUT there) as it's inflammatory. My kids aren't allowed to read
ot.debate... and I suggest yours ought not to be either. But let's not
pollute mediawatch further.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
