To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 28452
28451  |  28453
Subject: 
Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Followup-To: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:35:28 GMT
Viewed: 
170 times
  
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



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
 
(...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
 
(...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)

71 Messages in This Thread:


























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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR