Subject:
|
Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:02:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1100 times
|
| |
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:Guq6vs.DKE@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Siskind writes:
> > > > SNIP
> > > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=15562
> > >
> > > Wow. Ranks right up there with that Holocaust series of sets.
> > >
> > > Scott S.
> > > --
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > I have to ask if you are suggesting that it's innapropriate to use • Lego bricks
> > for the expression of social-political satire? Or are you suggesting • that any
> > social-political commentary outside official USA doctrine to be as • offensive
> > the Holocaust?
> SNIP
>
> 1. Are bricks an appropriate medium? It is not inappropriate to use • Lego(r)
> bricks for the expression of socio-political satire. They are a medium • of
> expression as are other mediums, and they are no more or less • inappropriate
> than billboards, finger paint, songs, or broadcast messages (just • picking a
> few at random) might be. I don't agree with those who say that because • they
> are primarily a children's toy that makes them off limits for art or • satire.
> (that doesn't mean that I might not request that my children not view • a
> particular expression, though, that's way different)
>
> 2. Are all commentaries outside official US doctrine equally offensive • as
> the Holocaust (not a commentary, but an actual happening)? I would say • no.
> NO commentary, no matter how much we disagree with it, can be equated • to an
> act of horror of the scope and magnitude of the holocaust.
>
> Or, if you meant, are all commentaries outside official US doctrine • equally
> offensive as the commentary on the Holocaust colloquially known as the
> "Holocaust LEGO(r) sets"? Again I would say no. There are degrees of
> offensiveness. Yours was rather shocking and thought provoking. • Further,
> what makes a commentary "offensive"? I'm not sure that even has • meaning. A
> commentary can be shocking, it can be designed to make people think • but
> unless it's physically repulsive to look at what does it mean to • allege
> something is offensive? I dunno. offensive != controversial to my way • of
> thinking.
What would peoples reaction have been had Daniel used 10036 "Pizza to
Go" as a backdrop for this?
Lawrence
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) Scott would have to speak for himself on what he meant (and he doesn't always read .debate so may miss this unless notified by email, and even then may choose not to respond at all)... but I did not take what he said as either of those things. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
