 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:18 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I don't think anybody *wants* to be
> handicapped.
People who are handicapped and have learned to deal with it and lead what
by their own measure is a normal life are pretty amazing; nobody wants to
be unable to do things they want to, sure - but also many people who do
have permanent handicaps do not want to be treated differently or told
that they're not "normal". That reminder is quite painful for some,
because it focuses on what they *can't* do (or more often, on what abled
people think they can't do) rather than what they *can*.
That's the problem some of the people I know in that community have with
it - the idea that it focuses on what the injured soldiers can't do and
that they couldn't possibly lead a fulfilling life without being made
"whole". Again, based on a 3-minute trailer, so I'm reserving judgment
until I've had a chance to see it, but I can understand why it might piss
some people off.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> That's what I do to remember numbers. Say them out loud so I can hear
> them. That way there are two input paths ;)
>
And one output path, meaning you need to process and cache them while
you're saying them.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> That's what I do to remember numbers. Say them out loud so I can hear
>> them. That way there are two input paths ;)
>>
>
> And one output path, meaning you need to process and cache them while
> you're saying them.
>
That's easy :)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> That's easy :)
>
Well yes, I just tried to point out that it also has it's work in
remembering better.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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?
No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more
interesting, for one thing. Using stereotypes and characters based on
stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many
people.
> 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.
We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that
matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.
At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in
reality.
> 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.
Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to
have a problem. That's the problem. You generally don't find 30's
cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the
stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some
old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc
actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).
>>> 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.
Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things
like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness
that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in
general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me
understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a
good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is
trying to do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:45:57 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> No, but having more diversity in films makes the films generally more
> interesting, for one thing. Using stereotypes and characters based on
> stereotypes generally makes films less rich and less interesting to many
> people.
>
Saw it today. I think the stereotype goes both directions. He *could
have* got a spinal fix, but the military pay he got couldn't pay for it,
and no one else would either. In the end, the jerk he works for offers
it to him for how "valuable" he was to the cause, but... lets just say
that things don't quite work out with him getting it. One of the
comments he makes on why he went there, and even put up with some of the
comments made as he exist the ramp to enter the base is, "Maybe I got
tired of doctors telling me what I *can't* do."
Some people will be offended just to be offended. Nothing you will do
will satisfy them, and they will **usually** jump to conclusions. If
some people need to be more aware of their audiences, as you say, then
they audiences need to be more open to the reality that not everything
is about **them** either. They have their own "stereotypes", one of
which is, "Everyone else thinks we need to be fixed, and will be
assholes about it." It doesn't matter if you are or not, they will judge
you based on what they imagine, not on what you meant, intended, or implied.
>> 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.
>
> We're not talking about historical films (or historical fiction, for that
> matter) where events and specific personas are integral to the films.
>
> At least I don't *think* anyone's claiming Avatar has any basis in
> reality.
>
It was the only thing I could think of at the time. But you know what I
meant.
>> 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.
>
> Um, no, if you start painting with a broad brush, then you're going to
> have a problem. That's the problem. You generally don't find 30's
> cartoons on the air either, even ones that exist - partly because the
> stereotypes are considered inappropriate (in fact, I just watched some
> old Looney Toons cartoons dating from the 30s and 40s, and the disc
> actually included a disclaimer to that effect, much to my surprise).
>
True enough. You also don't see them on because the characters often did
some damn stupid stuff. The "Editing" done on the famous 'Daffy in a
devil suit with a gas can' episode being a good example of the
hyper-sensitivity some people have developed over some things. Last I
checked, no one of my parents generation tried to fry themselves, or do
any of the other stupid stuff, based on cartoons. A few, including my
own relatives, tried things, like jumping from a roof with an umbrella,
without even needing such prompting. :p
>>>> 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.
>
> Oh, sure, and I'm not saying that it's been done intentionally; things
> like this can be done unintentionally, and when someone raises awareness
> that it has been done (or may have been done), the response I expect (in
> general) is "gee, we didn't think of that - thank you for helping me
> understand" - because as a general rule, offending audiences is not a
> good way to bring in more money - and that IS what the film industry is
> trying to do.
>
> Jim
And, some groups are loud and obnoxious enough that you don't offend
them, on fear of offending someone else, for being identified as someone
willing to offending the first bunch, even if the original people are a
small minority, and the offense is bordering on the imaginary. They all
need to frakking grow up.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> That's easy :)
>>
>
> Well yes, I just tried to point out that it also has it's work in
> remembering better.
>
> -Aero
And so you did :)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> No, I'm pretty sure when the very first Star Wars film appeared, it said
> "Episode IV: A New Hope" in the opening title sequence. I remember
> wondering why...
Nope. When I went to watch the re-release before the second movie came out,
I went "WTF? Episode 4?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I *know* I can't spell for toffee.
I have found what helps is to notice what you regularly write but get wrong,
then looking for an mnemonic to memorize it.
Necessary. Embarrassed. Ridiculous. Conscience. Non-sequitur. All these are
words I had to consciously take time to just sit and memorize. It just
takes a bit of practice.
That works more poorly for idioms and such, if you're not a native speaker
of the language, of course.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
