Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Dec 2001 04:03:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2628 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Forgive me for jumping in late here, but I haven't been hanging around
> .debate much the past few days...
>
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > But I'm saying that it might not _be_ filth in my eye...or our kids'.
> >
> > But you agree that at some point it *could* be.
>
> And at some point it *could* be the finest piece of art ever crafted by
> humankind; *that* is the point at which we should decide. To enforce a
> summary prohibition before the fact is dangerously myopic and at best
> speculative.
Well, true significance of a work of art is often only realized until after an
artist's death. My point is that if Jason is linking to *all* submissions to
his site; it won't take long for some idiot to submit something that even Jason
will find offensive. And at that point I predict he *will* exercise editorial
restraint. Every decent human being has their breaking point (I say "decent"
because I know that there are some folks out there who would say that *nothing*
is indecent, and I would call them "anti-social").
Question: Why is someone who wants to create some guidelines for social
behavior "myopic" and "bigotted", and yet someone who is essentially an
anarchist labeled "enlightened" or "open-minded"? Wouldn't a truly open-minded
person be a hypocrite to speak out against such a myopic and bigotted person?
Talk about being hoisted by your own petard...
>
> > > I am not put off by 99% of pornographic content, but at the same time I am
> > > insufficiently familiar with the industry to give you citations of quality
> > > porn. And even if I did, you would -- I think, just say that you thought it
> > > was bad.
> >
> > hehe I know nothing about the porn industry, except that I hear it's huge, and
> > that it's largely due to the net. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance, but it
> > seems to me that porn exists for one reason, and it isn't "artistic" expression.
>
> Well, Snickers bars exist for one reason--because people want them. The
> same is true of porn and Beanie Babies and Christian bookstores. None of
> these fine institutions would continue to exist in the absence of adequate
> public demand.
But does merely the demand for them justify their existence? Again, I offer
child pornography as an example.
> Further, while it is true that the porn industry is huge because of the
> net, it can also be argued that the net is huge because of the porn
> industry. Just do a websearch for any of a dozen evocative porn buzzwords,
> and you'll wind up with millions of hits. For example, a search on
> Altavista for the word "porn" returned 5,610,985 results, while a search for
> the word "Christ" returned a mere 3,495,329 results.
> As a parallel, the VCR industry has also been recognized to grown
> hand-in-hand (insert favorite metaphor here) with the home-video porn
> industry; once people could view porn without going to a dirty, smoky
> theater, the market was much more free to expand to fit public demand.
Again, does demand justify its existence?
>
> > > Actually, I just thought of _Crash_. It borders on pornography and I consider
> > > it a good (if a bit twisted) movie. _Eyes Wide Shut_ bordered on being porn
> > > and bordered on being good.
> >
> > Missed them both.
>
> But why? If one would presume to judge what is and what is not filth,
> then one should have a reasonable (if academic) familiarity with it. And
> this isn't a case of "I don't have to fall in the mud to know it makes you
> dirty." At stake here is the very definition of "mud" (to continue the
> metaphor), and if a person makes no effort to look beyond his preconceptions
> and prejudices, then his opinion must be acknowledged to be deliberately
> limited.
Assuming of course that I haven't gotten muddy before, which, of course, I have.
That doesn't mean I have to keep on getting muddy. I can recall the experience
instead of having to continually re-experience it. It's called learning.
But that also might assume that "mud" can *ever* be objectively defined, which
it can't. So again, an open-minded person would be slow to condemn my
particular definition of it.
>
> > > It is caving in to political correctness. Since there isn't anything
> > > inapropriate (that I saw) for kids on the site, there is no need for an adult
> > > check system. To install one because a few users were raving would be silly
> > > and weak. People who are allowed to self regulate, can.
> >
> > Unless the webmaster saw merit in the raving? Then it would become sage
> > advice? :-)
>
> Smiley-face or no, if the webmaster bears primary responsibility for the
> site's content, then it is obviously the webmaster's choice to cave or not
> to cave.
I am surprised by your perjorative use of the term "cave". To exercise some
editorial control is hardly "caving".
>
> > Yeah, sex is good, until someone comes along and perverts it. And it seems
> > that someone is always coming along...
>
> and that someone is always declaring that somebody else's sexuality is
> perverse.
And I refuse to acknowledge your presupposition of moral subjectivity. There *
is* moral and immoral behavior. Some sex acts are *by definition* "perverted".
Everything is *not* relative. If one wants to have sex with a chicken, I'm
sorry, I will not stand by and say, "That's okay; whatever turns your crank".
That person is by definition a pervert; they have perverted the act of sex.
Plain and simple. In the same way, some people are bad people; some people are
evil, and that is regardless of what you or I think of them.
Getting back to the original subject of Brickfilms-- all I am saying to Jason is
that, if he wants to create a site that will some day be among the elite for
AFOLs and KABOBs (LUGNET, Brickbay, Brickshelf), he is going to have to be *
intentional* about the content of the site; TLC's reaction to it is already
evidence of that. And I agree with TLC; and I offer the label of hypocrite of
any "open-minded" person who finds fault with their policy-- it is TLC's
perogative. To rail against it only betrays the hypocrisy of the so-called
enlightened people who would not agree with it.
And, of course, if I state an opinion that is against *their* beliefs, I am
labeled "narrow-minded" and "bigotted".
-John
>
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
