Subject:
|
Re: Reality == fiction?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:20:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
881 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> ----------------------------
> A person who is unable to comprehend irony, and requires instances of satire
> to be labeled to facilitate their own understanding, lacks the degree of
> interpretive sophistication that I would expect from a High School student.
> ----------------------------
Fair enough. I agree with the above.
Clearly, some 8 year olds (not even mine, smarter than average that he is)
don't have that sophistication. I'm sure we'd all agree with that as well.
Taking that into account, and taking the relative likelyhood of issues
arising from these putative 8 year olds viewing stuff (which I'm coming
around to thinking is "low") into account, and taking the intent of the
Lugnet T&C into account, and taking that it's a parental responsibility, in
the end, for what that 8 year old looks at, and taking the doctrine of
attractive nuisance into account, what, if anything, should be done?
Ban posting of violent, ironic or satirical material, even by reference?
Require disclaimers in front of it?
Suggest disclaimers but not require them?
Require that it be referenced only from certain groups, to make it easier
for parents to filter out?
Do nothing?
Something else?
I'll tell you, after all of the discussion (most of which I feel has been
very reasoned and polite), even though I started this whole string... my
thinking now, for the general run of the mill satire/irony we see here,
including the comic violence level in the specific example that started
things...
my thinking about what we should do... is: "nothing". This isn't a big
"problem", and there is no "solution" that is better than the problem.
So was this entire discussion a waste of time so far? I don't think so. I
hope not. I've learned stuff, I hope other people have too. Is it over? I
don't think so, I think there are still interesting things to discuss.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Actually, I do to. But that "re-phrasing" isn't what he implied before. He suggested that "these" (the concepts under discussion) were jr. high level ideas and that we ought to simply agree with his obvious conclusion. That is a horse of a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Reality == fiction?
|
| (...) Well, that's an even less tactful way of phrasing it than mine, but I'm afraid you're reading the statement fairly accurately. I'll rephrase: ---...--- A person who is unable to comprehend irony, and requires instances of satire to be labeled (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
