Subject:
|
Re: Something not right about Captain Ahnee and the Dipwads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:23:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> Chris...you've got some SERIOUSLY flawed arguments here.
Actually, I kind of think that I do too, but not the ones you mention. The
main two problems with my post were 1) that it was kind of more personal than I
wish I had made it, and 2) that I played fast and loose with attributing the
three statements that Mark made, capturing (IMO) the essense but not quoting.
So I guess not seriously flawed, but a bit flawed.
> > JJ is a portrayal of a fictional sentient being. One might assume from your
> > statements of vilification that you would feel that way about real people who
> > act like JJ.
>
> One certainly might assume this, if one had difficulty differentiating
> between fiction and reality.
How so? There are some strong negative feelings toward JarJar either because
he's goofy or because he's a marketing tool. The fact that he's ficticious is
lucky. What if he was not? Why would those negative feelings not still hold?
I have witnessed people hurt others simply because they were goofy. How is it
so ludicrous to extrapolate from expressed feelings toward that?
Is it possible that instead of I having a problem differentiating between
fiction and reality, you have a problem seeing how fiction and reality are
similar?
> > > That's why I have no problem being cruel to JarJar. He's a marketing tool
> > > that is an insult to the intelligence of us all.
> >
> > Is Quigon? Or Darth Maul?
>
> The clear point is that Jar-Jar creates animousity in many because of his
> high-pitched voice, witless jabbering, and omnipresent clumsiness, without
> noteworthy redeeming qualities.
I'm pretty sure that you will reference my psychological instability again for
this, but from your statement here, I think it reasonable to assume that you
would fell such animosity toward a clumsy person engaged in high-pitch
jabbering, but only so long as you didn't happen to know about their redeeming
qualities. Right? If not, then why not?
> The animousity does NOT stem from the fact
> that, like Qui-gon and Darth Maul, Jar-Jar is fictional.
I never suggested that their ficticious nature is the cause of the animosity.
I was presenting alternate characters who fit the criteria which were presented
as explaining Mark's animosity.
> Most Of TPM's
> audience (though you suggest an exception) are aware that they are watching
> a work of fiction - a two hour lie - and they do not feel betrayed by it.
Jeez. After the first three SW movies, you didn't feel betrayed by TPM? Most
of the people I know actually _did_ feel betrayed by the brayingly simple
(almost lack of a) story, and the appeal to cinematic gimicks instead of meaty
concepts. (Not that SW has ever been complex fiction, but there are limits to
how low it should sink.)
> But when they are presented with a level of humor (embodied by Jar Jar) that
> seems insulting to the intelligence of adult and child alike, their
> experience of the movie becomes vexing.
Oh, mine too.
> Perhaps you feel similarly about the comic in question.
Actually, I'm not really arguing about the comic. I was responding to Mark's
thrashing about.
> I don't really care. Your sense of humor / threshold of
> offence are not an issue for me.
It seems to be.
> > > I don't discriminate against anyone, for any reason.
> >
> > Unless they're only a CGI construct.
>
> Well, that's hardly discriminating against someone, then, is it?
In this case? What about in the future? I suppose if something is merely a
graphic representation, that's true, but what about in the next 20-40 years
when the CG characters are AIs? I'm willing to step out now and state that I'm
against the abuse of AIs preemptively.
And a further point is that portrayal of discrimination suggests an approval of
it. I'm not even that bent about real discrimination, so it's kind of funny to
be in this discussion this way, but I'm not in favor of humorizing
discrimination or violence.
> Again: Digital representation of toy image of CGI construct of fictional
> lifeform from fictional planet =/= (does not equal) real person.
How old must you be to _really_ understand this? How old are the kids who
might be exposed to the comic?
> If you don't like the comic,
I haven't expressed this thought, so I'm not sure why you'd assume it.
> I'm just a little
> concerned about your confusion of fiction and reality, and your projection
> of that confusion onto the author of the comic.
Don't be. And I haven't projected such.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
