Subject:
|
Re: Something not right about Captain Ahnee and the Dipwads?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:06:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
887 times
|
| |
|
|
Glad to read your post, Chris. We've got some disagreements, but I was
mainly concerned that my tone would come off as condescending or insulting.
Many discussions have shown that people can interpret animousity where non
is intended in these postings. Fortunately, your reply was as civil as I
intended my comments to be.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> 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?
I'm not sure if you're referring to the Jar Jar of the movie, or of the
online comic. "Lucky" is a strange word choice in either case, since both
works obviously required significant time and effort. It is more than
serendipity that divides them from documentary works. If, instead of a
humorous, ironic online comic, I was shown footage of a person beating
another to death as retribution for nonsensical babbling and clumsiness, I
would react with distaste...
> 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?
...but I recognize that the behavior of a fictional character cannot be so
easily equated with the real-life proclivities of the author.
> 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?
Fair. You're probably right, someone who annoyed me, yet presented no
redeeming qualities would probably stir feelings of animousity in me. This
is less than a perfect thing, and I guess I'm not quite Buddha/Jesus
material. But I do have the compassion, moral awareness, and sense of
responsibility to avoid violent conflicts with those who displease me.
But the situation we were discussing was unlike this. We weren't talking
about attacking people, we were talking about fictional acts of violence
against fictional characters. If these acts were non-fictional, I'm sure
we'd have a consesus against them. But with a fictional character, we've got
no victim, no rights, no compassion, except that which stems from the "what
if it was real" sentiment (and, as we both know, it's not real).
> > 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.)
You misunderstand me! I thought it was a bad movie, and I did feel kinda
betrayed, or at least let down. But not because it was FICTIONAL, just
because it had poor acting, weak characters, and a poorly presented plot. I
think our argument re: Darth Maul and Quigon is mostly a result of
misinterpreting each other's statements, so I'll drop it.
> > I don't really care. Your sense of humor / threshold of
> > offence are not an issue for me.
>
> It seems to be.
Sorry. My intent was to suggest that if you find a thing funny and I don't,
or vice-versa, then it's not that big a deal. I meant to say that I was more
interested in discussing our logic re: the relationship between an author
and his works, than in weighing the merits of our potentially differing tastes.
> I'm willing to step out now and state that I'm
> against the abuse of AIs preemptively.
Me too. When Jar Jar is a sentient AI, I still won't like him, but I'll try
not to send any viruses his way.
> And a further point is that portrayal of discrimination suggests an approval of
> it.
That's not a valid assumption. An easy example: Eric Cartman, one of the
main characters of the South Park movie and series, is known for his
extraordinary racism, chauvinism, and homophobia. Yet the creators of that
show are openly homosexual. By your logic, the existence of the Cartman
character suggests Parker and Stone approve of bigotry against homosexuals.
That doesn't make much sense. What othe conclusions can we draw? Well, how
about this: not every character in a fictional work is a representation of
the author. Or maybe this: some fiction exists merely for entertainment, not
as a moral parable.
> > If you don't like the comic,
>
> I haven't expressed this thought, so I'm not sure why you'd assume it.
"if"
> > 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?
well, as a parent, I think you're qualified to judge whether your kids are
capable of understanding such things, and you have the difficult
responsibility of monitoring the sorts of things they are exposed to.
Josh
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
