Subject:
|
Reality == fiction?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:44:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
849 times
|
| |
|
|
OK, now we get to the heart of the matter that I was trying to put my finger
on when I started this... but before I comment on Josh's post let me say this...
Todd kind of backpedaled from his statement that he hates JarJar. I don't
think he should have! I hate JarJar too. I think it is ok to strongly
strongly dislike someone or something, and to choose not to help them or to
even work (in a lawful, peaceful way) to undo whatever it is that they are
trying to accomplish.
Heck, there's someone here on LUGNET that I hate, and I actively work to
undermine that person and their ideas when I can without being so disruptive
that I violate the ToS.
Where I draw the line is in advocating that because I hate someone, that we
ought to initiate the use of force against that someone.
OK? Really... I think Mark S said it quite well when he said that there has
been a lot of taking things out of context and a lot of overreacting. He's
right. In hindsight maybe I should never have brought up what I think is an
esoteric point if I didn't have it well formed enough to make clear what I
was getting at. Heck, maybe what I am about to say isn't well formed either.
But here goes anyway.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> Again: Digital representation of toy image of CGI construct of fictional
> lifeform from fictional planet =/= (does not equal) real person.
THIS is the crux of the matter, I think. IS this statement true? Is it
relevant? I don't know! Let's try it from another angle, step by step. We
will start far far away from the example in question.
Suppose I printed a poster of a real person "Bruce" who happened to be left
handed. In that poster I arranged for Bruce to be beat up by thugs (or
appear to be, actually Bruce agreed to the fakery of his own will), with
real blood, and captioned it "this is what should happen to all lefthanders,
because they are sinister" Further, I didn't do anything to disclaim that
this was satire or humor. I think we'd all agree that this poster was "hate
speech" and most of us would, if given a choice, choose not to be exposed to
it, and not expose our children to it either, because it was hateful and
because it was advocating the initial use of force. (note that I did not say
that I should be restrained from creating the poster, I made sure no rights
were violated in its creation..., or that people should be restrained from
viewing it if they so chose)
This is nothing like Dan's comic. It's a real person. I said I'd start far away.
Suppose I made up a fictional CGI rendered person, "Fred" who happened to be
left handed. And suppose that I then made up a poster that said "We all
should beat up all lefthanded people because they're sinister" and
illustrated it with Fred getting the stuffing taken out. Further, I didn't
do anything to disclaim that this was satire or humor. As before, I think
we'd all agree that this poster was "hate speech" <etc... insert tail of
last paragraph>
Dan's strip is nothing like that. Although Fred is an imaginary person, a
CGI rendered image, Fred is not a well known one, nor is it clear that the
poster is satire.
Now suppose I made up a fictional non human (but sentient) character, same
as before I make a poster with this character getting the stuffing beat out
of him. Same caption. Still bad. My point here is that the fact that a
character is fictional instead of real is NOT RELEVANT. Not in and of itself.
Now suppose that instead of actually advocating this beating directly, the
poster merely suggests that it might be OK to do it by showing good guy
protagonists doing it. Still bad. We're getting closer to Dan's comic. But
the key differences are legion. JarJar is already known to us and despised
for valid reasons. The protagonists aren't themselves good guys. But most
importantly, Dan's comic is (in hindsight) clearly satire. Mark thinks those
differences are enough. I'm not sure I can come round to thinking they are
too, I dunno.
Ok, here's another one. Suppose in a way that is clearly satire/political
commentary, I show Ted Kennedy drunk driving off a bridge with his secretary
in the car and comment that I think he got away with murder. I'm clearly not
advocating that we do the same with our secretaries. Clearly protected
speech and clearly not hateful, right? (by the way I have seen just such a
comic, it was an editorial cartoon)
Where am I going with this? I'm not sure.
But I do know this. I at least don't think the reality/fictionality of
characters is relevant. What is relevant is whether it's clearly not satire,
and whether it's clearly advocacy. Fail those tests and I'm against it.
(still protected speech, still OK to create it, just not going to be
counting me as a fan, that's all)
I'm convinced as ever that my kids can't quite make the distinction yet but
that is my problem, not Dan's... what I WOULD ask is that when people post
things that might take a little analysis by an unquestioning kid to
ascertain (since I as a parent don't want to *have* to pre-screen Lugnet, I
pay my membership to keep it as wholesome as practical) that they consider
suggesting that it's satire and not an advocacy, just to be clear, instead
of a bare pointer that just says "look at this" with no warning about
content. Do they have to? Nope. But it would be nice. Maybe that's not a
workable suggestion.
That's about it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) this... (...) He should have if that's how he feels. And really, he didn't backpedal so much as clarify. And why do you hate JarJar? (...) From a personal inner peace (and health) kind of stance, I think it's better not to. (...) Maybe. There (...) (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Huh? (...) Maybe this makes my opinion of JJB more clear: I would not hate JJB at all if he were in some cheezeball B-movie sci-fi flick. If he were, I could ignore him -- and I wouldn't have to hate him. It's the fact that he appeared in a (...) (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Clarity, of course, is subjective, and if the humor of a work involves subtlety, then the intent of the work will become unclear to the less perceptive. (...) Are you suggesting that irony requires an explanatory prefix to avoid offending or (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 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
|
|
|
|
