Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> My point though is, that may be the "percieved" message to some people,
>> not what is at all intended. 
> 
> That's the problem in a lot of cases - it's not intended, it's not 
> thought about at all, though it should be.
> 
I am sorry, but.. Why? Are you seriously telling me that every person 
making **any** kind of film needs to put in some character of reference 
that side steps offending some group of people, based solely on the fact 
that they *might* be offending by it? That's completely ridiculous, and 
if you think about it, you know it is. No one would claim that you 
should, for example, make a movie like Braveheart, in which some of the 
British where not total assholes with clear intent to do harm to the 
Scotsmen, just because some English person might take offense at it. 
Claiming that you have to be "oh so terribly careful to not 
unintentionally imply to disabled people that *some* disabled people 
might actually care about what they *can't* do, isn't much different. 
Its not about them, its about the character in the bloody movie.


>> As with Warps example of the deaf kid, you
>> can get people who just flat out can't see past their own position on a
>> matter, and presume that there is a message that isn't there. 
> 
> Most people can't see past their own position.  Or are unwilling to, 
> because removing yourself from your own frame of reference requires 
> effort and a willingness to say "I might be wrong about this".  People 
> are generally stubborn about things like this and reject a view that 
> isn't their own because it isn't their own - and we all know that our own 
> views are the only thing that matters, right?
> 
Rarely. But then, my "views" include the idea that any good idea should 
be considered, bad ideas may be as much poor execution, or lack of 
thought, than truly bad, and that no view lacks *all* merit, even if the 
only merit is to show that there are ideas that mesh *very badly* with 
what most people recognize as rational, and understanding why is critica 
in understanding, also, why people think what *is* rational is rational.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message