racists (2 Viewers)

[ICUH8N]

He'd probably say

 

[Janer]

oh fuck off janer you tiresome rascist wanker

YOu are the racist, look at ur spelling of it!

 

[jane]

Fuck! I had that idea, i wanted to call it 'High Ace'.

Minnie Driver - Dahlia Malone

Ah yes, perfect. Cast the most spoilt, aloof, egocentric cow in Hollywood as a pennyless, down to earth dedicated mother.

Why not cast Liza Minnelli as Grandma Malone, the greasy haired, gravel voiced, pram wielding voice of wisdom.

Yes, and did you see the quote from Eddie Izzard, where he says that because he was a busker for a couple of years, he has a good idea of what it's like to be a Traveller? Cue Paddy Fucking Casey, et al deciding that all of a sudden he can understand the experience of one of the most marginalised groups in the Western world just because people don't like his songs. "I'm being discriminated against," says Paddy Casey, "Buy my album or I'll haul you into court under the Equality Act."

Funny how none of them mentioned actually, I dunno, like talking to a Traveller in order to get some idea of what, I dunno, they think? I love the tacked-on justification of 'raising awareness', when it appears more than highly unlikely that they included a single fucking Traveller in the process of writing the fucking show.

I'll stop now.

 

[La La]

 

[Osama Van Halen]

LIKE A HOBO I WAS BORN TO WALK ALONE...

BUT I'VE MADE UP MY MIND

I AIN'T WASTIN' NO MORE TIME.


I'M JUST ANOTHER HEART IN NEED OF RESCUE...

WAITIN' ON LOVE'S SWEET CHARITY..



AIN'T WE ALL COVERDALE.. AIN'T WE ALL.



I'D SING THIS EVEN MORE THAN I DO NOW IF I WAS OF NO FIXED ABODE.

ALLAHHOOBO!!!!

 

[Pedronimus]

LIKE A HOBO I WAS BORN TO WALK ALONE..

ah the original lyric... love the original video where the keyboard player has sex with his keyboard. Jon Lord I believe.

 

[Osama Van Halen]

ah the original lyric... love the original video where the keyboard player has sex with his keyboard. Jon Lord I believe.

GOOD LORD!! IT'S PRETTY MUCH A DIFFERENT SONG. LIKE SETTLERS AND TRAVELLERS... BUT THEY BOTH GOT PLENTY OF LEGS.

DANCE FOR YOUR DADDY ALL NIGHT!!!

ALLAHQUAANNNDO!!!

 

[Goff]

Funny how none of them mentioned actually, I dunno, like talking to a Traveller in order to get some idea of what, I dunno, they think? I love the tacked-on justification of 'raising awareness', when it appears more than highly unlikely that they included a single fucking Traveller in the process of writing the fucking show.

I wrote a sketch about Hitler once. I didn’t ask the cunt to help.

It’s fiction. Just because it’s about Travellers, we have to ask their opinion? I don’t understand why it’s necessary - just because they’re travellers.

If we have to check with all people all the time, we might as well kill the comedy now.

I reckon I’d like to see it before going to the bother of criticising it. Otherwise I might as well get out me “Down with this sort of stuff” and “Careful Now” placards now.

Or we could just start burning our Eddie Izzard dvd’s.

 

[Unicron]

Um, you do know that the real Bill Hicks died in 1994, right? There's a Bootleg Bill Hicks going around doing his material. But it's not Bill Hicks.

I bet that sucks. I'm a big Hicks fan but I haven't listened to any of the CD's in about 2 years as I knew all the routines inside-out.

 

[jane]

I wrote a sketch about Hitler once. I didn’t ask the cunt to help.

It’s fiction. Just because it’s about Travellers, we have to ask their opinion? I don’t understand why it’s necessary - just because they’re travellers.

If we have to check with all people all the time, we might as well kill the comedy now.

I reckon I’d like to see it before going to the bother of criticising it. Otherwise I might as well get out me “Down with this sort of stuff” and “Careful Now” placards now.

Or we could just start burning our Eddie Izzard dvd’s.

Good fiction is well-researched fiction. If Eddie Izzard thinks that it is enough to believe being a busker is akin to being a member of the Travelling community, then that is not good fiction. Even if the writing were good, it does not suggest that he is prepared enough as an actor to portray anything except a caricature based on outside perceptions. With that logic, you could also argue that someone doing shows in blackface was just as legitimate because it's 'fiction'. Perhaps I should point out that I was emphasising the cringe factor in the media coverage, and said that perhaps the show will be good.

The Sopranos is so damn good because Italian-Americans are involved, and frankly, the whole Italian American Anti-Defamation outcry is kind of bullshit because for one, it doesn't glamourise the mob, nor does it legitimise the misogynistic currents that run through Italian-American culture. It shows the interesting cultural tropes, perceptions and habits without either explicitly moralising or legitimising them. By being honest and forthright, it manages to critique both the culture of organised crime as well as the perception that all Italian-Americans are part of that world -- I can't think of any fiction that has managed to use an honest and interesting portrayal of people in their own worlds in a way that makes so many interesting statements and critiques at once, without weighing down the story or undermining the depth and dynamism of the characters. The anti-defamation people just can't handle the truth. I'll admit it was pretty cringey to see something so familiar on television, but the reason it's such good fiction is because it's real.

The best fiction is composed when people write what they know. If all someone knows is a settled person's (and a settled non-Irish person's) perception of the Travelling community, that's what the fiction will be. I'm not saying that only Traveller actors can play the parts, or that only Travellers can write about Travellers (because then we're all limited in terms of our subject matter), but was merely pointing out that in the descriptions of the show do not suggest that it was based on actual knowledge of Traveller culture, but on the Traveller as some kind of 'noble savage'. Perhaps it will actually be a good show -- who knows. The icky suspicion that I have is that the Travelling community was a 'safe' minority to parody, since people in the US will not be as familiar with the issues of Traveller discrimination.

One thing that actually undermines my own comparison is that Italian-Americans are not discriminated against or marginalised in the way that Travellers are in Ireland and the UK. So it's not the same thing. Italian-Americans are much more integrated into society, and actually, it's a lot less sinister -- I think -- to satirise someone who is part of society than it is to direct it at someone who is kept on the outside of it.

Of course you don't have to have Hitler's consent to write a script about him, but if it were shittily researched, then it would be shitty fiction.

 

[Goff]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with some of that, Jane (though not all).



"Good fiction is well-researched fiction."

Good fiction is good fiction. Period. Granted, good research can make a difference and make a situation more "real" (The works of John Irving spring to mind), but it's not the decider. Fiction is just that. Fiction. Made up. There are some great books out there by some great writers that have never been researched. Just made up.



"The best fiction is composed when people write what they know."

Not at all. What about Science Fiction? There's a lot of that made up. Asimov was a gas one for just making up mad things. The difference between a good writer and a mediocre writer is that a good writer can write about anything, not just what they know. There'd be an awful lot of boring material out there otherwise. That's why "first novels" are usually not up to par. Get the semi-autobiography out of the way, then get on to writing.


"The Sopranos is so damn good because Italian-Americans are involved"

The Sopranos is so good because of great writing, acting, and production values and a commitment to quality that are rare to find on television. I'm sure it has benefitted greatly because of the Italian-American involvement, but it's not WHY.

And remember, not everyone likes The Sopranos.



"Of course you don't have to have Hitler's consent to write a script about him, but if it were shittily researched, then it would be shitty fiction."

Ah, Jane. Come on.... It's not a biography we're talking about; it was a short sketch. It was a makey-uppy; a pretendy; imaginated; a letting-onsies. Fiction has to be made up. That's its point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle
That's made up. There's not that much research gone into it. It's usual Phil Dick stuff. Not as made up as "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" though. That was completely off-the-wall imaginary and brilliant story-telling.

There are some great stories about real-life people that have no similarites to the real people apart from what we think we know about them. There are some good movies out there using imaginary real-lifers. How many flicks have Einstein in them as a character even though they bear no similarity to the real man? And I'm talking more "IQ" and "Insignificance" rather than "Young Einstein" (Which was pretty well-researched it has to be said).

I do agree with other parts of your post (though I think the "Blackface" analogy was a bit of a bad reference/comparison).

To be honest, I think the show will be shite. Mostly based on the fact that I don't rate Eddie Izzard as an actor. However, even if it is shite, it might actually have a positive effect on Traveller's Rights. Even if they are charicatured to death and come across as cheeky chappies, it might make some people think of them in a different and more positive light.

Still, if it be good or bad, I still think it deserves its chance to shine. To paraphrase: "I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Jerry Twig]

Oh, I get it. It's our fault you're ignorant. Because rather than see the humour in your edgy pop-culture reference, we picked up on the ignorance that showed through it. Perhaps you didn't mean it. Fair enough. But don't blame the rest of us because you're shitty at expressing yourself using humour.

It's funny because Bill Hicks, were he still alive, would definitely have some shit to say about the whole 'meta-ignorance' thing. And while I can't speak for the late Mr Hicks, I can't imagine he would sound like you.

You know those travellers you 'happened across' in the cinema? Did they know that you would later use your allegedly sincere friendliness as leverage? People love when you do that.

Jane, honestly, despite what bandit said, this is just plain obnoxious.

 

[jane]

'Write what you know' does not mean 'describe your immediate surroundings exactly', and I'm actually a bit offended that you thought that was what I meant, when clearly, if that were what I meant then we'd only end up with shitty slice-of-life fiction. Good fiction that is makey uppy in a makeyuppy world involves a world that possesses its own internal logic and is consistent. It involves making up a world, getting to know it, and writing that world. As crazy and weird and fantastical as that world might be, the writer still has to understand it well enough to make us believe it exists, and in order to do that, the writer must know it including its logic. When it comes to characters, writing what you know about people results in believable characters. It doesn't mean that when you set your book on Mars, you just put a verbal likeness of yer ma there, but you take elements of human behaviour and you push them and stretch them, and then you can even turn them on their heads and make robot worms who breathe out their eyes and communicate through intricate trails of knotwork poo, so long as you make the reader believe it. And the way to make a reader believe it is to start with what you know.

Kurt Vonnegut makes up brilliant worlds that are suspended somewhere between our own world and a fantasyland, but he also captues those worlds, and makes us really believe in them, and see them, because he knows them, and he is writing what he knows. That's what I meant by that. Fiction is made up, but it is never just 'anything goes'.

The show about Travellers is not a makey uppy world using makey uppy space people, it is based on real people who exist in our own world, and as such, it must be researched. A work of, say, historical fiction, must be researched. There's a difference between a comedy sketch involving a tyrant who murdered millions of people, using a well-known figure and putting him in a fish-out-of-water scenario (like, I dunno, Hitler goes to the zoo), and taking a marginalised group, and assuming that just because most of the people watching the show haven't heard of the group, it means you can be lazy or sloppy or just promote stereotypes that are potentially unhelpful. Sometimes stereotypes can be turned on their heads, and sometimes -- like in the case of the Sopranos -- they can be used to satirise to great effect. There is a difference between using a section of society who are well-known and not outcast (like Italian Americans) or taking a well-known historical figure and placing him or her in unlikely situations, and using a marginalised and maligned group and pretending that it's not actually kind of irresponsible to do.

When you base something -- even fiction -- on a world or a group of people that actually exists, you should do what you can do get to know that world. Whether it's because you come from it yourself or not, you should find a way to have an intimate knowledge of that world and its internal logic, and then, the fiction itself must also possess another internal logic of its own - because fiction, yes, is made up, and you are still creating a fictional world.

My point was that to suggest that being a busker was adequately intimate knowledge is just skewed, and even if the writing is brilliant, and the characterisation on paper is brilliant and the direction is brilliant, if the actor thinks he's playing a busker on the run, that's how it's going to come out.

Yes, the Sopranos is great because of the acting, directing, and writing, but also because part of the committment to quality is that everyone involved with it has been dedicated to constructing for themselves a way of being intimately familiar with the world in which it takes place. Juliet Polska, who designs the costumes, is not Italian-American, but she sure has managed to capture how New Jersey guineas dress. She couldn't get that knowledge by watching My Cousin Vinny a hundred times, but by actually making an effort to get to know it.

The statement that it is so good because Italian Americans are involved was not because they are just being themselves, but because by 'involved', I meant that everyone has a very strong sense of how that world works, strong enough to push at its boundaries and explore all of its corners and internal contradictions. You can't do that unless you are really familiar with the place you've constructed -- whether it's on earth or another planet or under the sea. Not all of them are Italian-American, but David Chase sure is. Tim Van Patten, who is one of the best directors they have, is not, but Chase and the actors and writers have worked so hard on the characterisations that it works beautifully. You don't have to like the show to be able to see that as a work of fictional drama, it is very successful.

I could feel quite comfortable writing about Italian-Americans, or middle class Americans, but even so, I still find myself researching aspects that I feel I don't sufficiently know. If I wanted to write, say, about Mexicans or Polish people or ninjas, I would expect that in order for the fiction to be good, I would need to know a hell of a lot about their realities before I could use any of the constituent parts as building blocks for a fictional world.

I do think that the blackface comment was relevant. Did blaxploitation films do anything for the civil rights movement? I doubt it. They may have served as a platform for a few people who managed to make lemonade out of a pile of cultural shit, but on the whole, they portrayed black people as caricatures of white perceptions, as exotic and comical jesters for white society. Did Darby O'Gill and The Little People do anything to raise awareness about what Irish culture is really about? Not really. People still think the Irish are 'quaint' and 'cute' and that Ireland is full of fairies and leprechauns. Not solely because of Darby O'Gill, and no, it wasn't created with the intention of raising awareness about Irish culture, but it still didn't do anything to stop Irish people from being seen as cute little drunks. Did Cowboys-and-Indians films do anything to help First Nations people? Not really. They portrayed them as either the 'enemy' or as complicit sidekicks and novelty acts. That didn't help people gain recognition, and in fact, the perception of First Nations people as savages was another stumbling block that people had to get over when they were fighting for tribal land rights, and for recognition that they are indeed full human beings with a perception of the world that differs from that of most of America (and which people pay lip service to, but scoff at when it means actually having to acknowledge it in any meaningful way).

Yes, the show will probably be shit, and my point was that one of the reasons it looks dodgy is that there doesn't seem to have been a committment to getting to know what Traveller culture is really about. And maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but it looks a little bit as if Travellers were an easy choice. Because Americans won't be familiar with them, it'll be easier to get away with shoddy portrayals. That's just plain stupid. If anything, caricaturing a marginalised group will result in the opposite of respect for their culture and their humanity. Recognition is not automatically a good thing.

 

[jane]

Jane, honestly, despite what bandit said, this is just plain obnoxious.

How exactly is that obnoxious now?

 

[Goff]

'Write what you know' does not mean 'describe your immediate surroundings exactly', and I'm actually a bit offended that you thought that was what I meant, when clearly, if that were what I meant then we'd only end up with shitty slice-of-life fiction. Good fiction that is makey uppy in a makeyuppy world involves a world that possesses its own internal logic and is consistent. It involves making up a world, getting to know it, and writing that world. As crazy and weird and fantastical as that world might be, the writer still has to understand it well enough to make us believe it exists, and in order to do that, the writer must know it including its logic. When it comes to characters, writing what you know about people results in believable characters. It doesn't mean that when you set your book on Mars, you just put a verbal likeness of yer ma there, but you take elements of human behaviour and you push them and stretch them, and then you can even turn them on their heads and make robot worms who breathe out their eyes and communicate through intricate trails of knotwork poo, so long as you make the reader believe it. And the way to make a reader believe it is to start with what you know.

I know all about how to write. But that's not what you said.

The show about Travellers is not a makey uppy world using makey uppy space people, it is based on real people who exist in our own world, and as such, it must be researched.

Why? WHY?!

A work of, say, historical fiction, must be researched.

Completely different kettle of fish.


My point was that to suggest that being a busker was adequately intimate knowledge is just skewed, and even if the writing is brilliant, and the characterisation on paper is brilliant and the direction is brilliant, if the actor thinks he's playing a busker on the run, that's how it's going to come out.

Fair point. Down to the limitations of the actor no doubt.


I do think that the blackface comment was relevant.

See now. You're changing the context of what you wrote.

Did blaxploitation films do anything for the civil rights movement? I doubt it. They may have served as a platform for a few people who managed to make lemonade out of a pile of cultural shit, but on the whole, they portrayed black people as caricatures of white perceptions, as exotic and comical jesters for white society.

That is so not true. And you denigrate the black people who made the movies because they happened to make money out of them as if that's a crime.

Did Darby O'Gill and The Little People do anything to raise awareness about what Irish culture is really about? Not really. People still think the Irish are 'quaint' and 'cute' and that Ireland is full of fairies and leprechauns. Not solely because of Darby O'Gill, and no, it wasn't created with the intention of raising awareness about Irish culture, but it still didn't do anything to stop Irish people from being seen as cute little drunks.

Was it meant to stop us being betrayed as a nation of drunks? It's a reputation that's probably well deserved anyway. Of it's time and harmed no one. rather, it entertained me as a child, as it did my parents and their parents. No one takes it seriously. No one. And if they do.... Well, so what.

If anything, caricaturing a marginalised group will result in the opposite of respect for their culture and their humanity. Recognition is not automatically a good thing.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I think a lot of americans came to this country thinking it was full of cute little drunks and went home pleasantly surprised at how different the reality was. And some who went home thinking it IS just like The Quiet Man. And there are still towns just like that. So good for them.

What's going to happen now is I'm probably going to watch this thing now, as I think we all should. Going on and on about something we haven't seen is a bit too Catholic Youth Defence outside a cinema for my liking.



Oh well....

 

[jane]

I know all about how to write. But that's not what you said.

But it seems you weren't giving me enough credit to be allowed to use the shorthand. Your response to me actually came off as if you think I'm a bit thick. Fair enough, maybe I am a bit thick, but whatever.

The show about Travellers is not a makey uppy world using makey uppy space people, it is based on real people who exist in our own world, and as such, it must be researched.

Why? WHY?!

Because the point is, when you base something on real people, you should know a little something about those real people before you fictionalise them.

A work of, say, historical fiction, must be researched.

Completely different kettle of fish.

How is that a different kettle of fish? How long before something is historical fiction? Why do you agree that historical fiction should be researched, and yet the fictional portrayal of people that is based on living people need not?

[My point was that to suggest that being a busker was adequately intimate knowledge is just skewed, and even if the writing is brilliant, and the characterisation on paper is brilliant and the direction is brilliant, if the actor thinks he's playing a busker on the run, that's how it's going to come out.

Fair point. Down to the limitations of the actor no doubt.

But this is what I meant by 'research', so actually, we are in agreement. Research doesn't have to mean going into a library and doing all manner of book learnin', it means understanding who you are trying to depict, and if you're basing it on people who are real, then you should not try to empathise with something you don't know.

I do think that the blackface comment was relevant.

See now. You're changing the context of what you wrote.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Did blaxploitation films do anything for the civil rights movement? I doubt it. They may have served as a platform for a few people who managed to make lemonade out of a pile of cultural shit, but on the whole, they portrayed black people as caricatures of white perceptions, as exotic and comical jesters for white society.

That is so not true. And you denigrate the black people who made the movies because they happened to make money out of them as if that's a crime.

Actually, it doesn't matter if they were made by black people, white people, or blue people. The very fact that they actually fall into a category that admits to exploitation in its name alone means that there was and is an awareness that that is what they were and are. There are plenty of people -- black and white -- who don't like them because of it, and frankly, they didn't empower people, they just made a few people rich. Money is not necessarily empowerment, and just as women can exploit other women, men can exploit other men, and black people can exploit other black people. It doesn't mean it's enlightened.

Did Darby O'Gill and The Little People do anything to raise awareness about what Irish culture is really about? Not really. People still think the Irish are 'quaint' and 'cute' and that Ireland is full of fairies and leprechauns. Not solely because of Darby O'Gill, and no, it wasn't created with the intention of raising awareness about Irish culture, but it still didn't do anything to stop Irish people from being seen as cute little drunks.

Was it meant to stop us being betrayed as a nation of drunks? It's a reputation that's probably well deserved anyway. Of it's time and harmed no one. rather, it entertained me as a child, as it did my parents and their parents. No one takes it seriously. No one. And if they do.... Well, so what.

No, it wasn't. But you were pointing out that perhaps the caricature alone could have knock-on benefits for Travellers, and I was just using a caricature to point out that this is not the point of caricatures. The point is to poke fun, whether you generally respect the people or not. And to be honest, since Travellers do not have widespread respect, poking fun at them would not be the same thing as poking fun at a group who have not been denied basic rights, or even an identity.

If anything, caricaturing a marginalised group will result in the opposite of respect for their culture and their humanity. Recognition is not automatically a good thing.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I think a lot of americans came to this country thinking it was full of cute little drunks and went home pleasantly surprised at how different the reality was. And some who went home thinking it IS just like The Quiet Man. And there are still towns just like that. So good for them.

But an American dramedy about Travellers is not the same thing as this. I was only using it -- again -- to point out that caricaturing a marginalised group does not equal a good thing just because people finally know who they are. The fact is, if an American came to Ireland and wanted to find out about Traveller culture, given that the prevailing opinion about them among settled people is that they are scum, they're not going to have and easy time finding the opportunity to have their perceptions challenged.

What's going to happen now is I'm probably going to watch this thing now, as I think we all should. Going on and on about something we haven't seen is a bit too Catholic Youth Defence outside a cinema for my liking.



Oh well....

Anyway, thanks for comparing me to Youth Defence because I actually happen to think that in order to create good fiction about a sector of society, it would help to know about those people. Yes, I'm very like someone who stands outside the GPO with pictures of dead foetuses. Definitely. I always find it funny how whenever anyone argues for social responsibility, the old chestnut of somehow being in favour of thought control get hauled out, when actually, a comment about a need for greater social responsibility is done in the hope that people might actually think about their actions, and is not a call to start going around controlling people.

I probably won't watch it, and I imagine that it won't air here anyway because it looks like it's going to be a flop, but anyway, I don't have TV, so I can't see it, and I'm not going to make the effort to. What I was giving out about was more the media coverage of the show, not the show itself, given that I did also point out in my original post that the media coverage was itself sloppy, and might not represent what the show is doing.


That said, I'm willing to assume that it might not be shit and offensive. I assumed for ages that the Sopranos was just going to be another boring, mob-glorifying, goombah shit-romp, and boy, did I find out I was wrong. But again, I was moaning about the ignorance in the media coverage, not the show, which I have not seen, and never claimed to.

 

[Goff]

Your response to me actually came off as if you think I'm a bit thick. Fair enough, maybe I am a bit thick, but whatever.

That might be what you read into it but I'm not responsible for any transference on your part. I know I didn't say nor suggest you were a bit thick. And I don't for a minute think you are. But it doesn't and shouldn't matter and I shouldn't have to say that. What I wrote speaks for itself. If that 's what you think I wrote, then run with it. But don't try and put words into my mouth or make it seem as if I said something I most plainly did not say.


Because the point is, when you base something on real people, you should know a little something about those real people before you fictionalise them.

Let's just disagree on that point. I'm not sure if you mean "real" people or characters.


How is that a different kettle of fish? How long before something is historical fiction? Why do you agree that historical fiction should be researched, and yet the fictional portrayal of people that is based on living people need not?

It's got nothing to do with TIME. Historical Fiction is a branch of publishing of a particular type. It's implied in the medium that it has a modicum of research. Though not necessarily an awful lot.


But this is what I meant by 'research', so actually, we are in agreement. Research doesn't have to mean going into a library and doing all manner of book learnin', it means understanding who you are trying to depict, and if you're basing it on people who are real, then you should not try to empathise with something you don't know.


My point is these people aren't real. They're characters. It's not about the Mongans down in Ballyc. And I think we should always ALWAYS try to empathise with something we don't know. How else will we learn the truth?


Actually, it doesn't matter if they were made by black people, white people, or blue people. The very fact that they actually fall into a category that admits to exploitation in its name alone means that there was and is an awareness that that is what they were and are.


Not all so-called Blaxploitation movies were made as such. Some of them aspired to be good. They became a joke. But a successful one. And some of them were entertaining. Blaxploitation is no more a dirty word than exploitation when used in the cinematic faux-exploitative context. Just cos it has a BLACK sounding word.

Anyway, thanks for comparing me to Youth Defence because I actually happen to think that in order to create good fiction about a sector of society, it would help to know about those people. Yes, I'm very like someone who stands outside the GPO with pictures of dead foetuses. Definitely. I always find it funny how whenever anyone argues for social responsibility, the old chestnut of somehow being in favour of thought control get hauled out, when actually, a comment about a need for greater social responsibility is done in the hope that people might actually think about their actions, and is not a call to start going around controlling people.


See now that's a bit obnoxious. My point was exactly the same one I made in my earlier post about getting out the "Careful Now" posters, which in itself was a reference to the Father Ted very subtly done dig at Youth Defence and their ilk. Nowhere did I attempt to offend you or claim you're in favour of thought control. I included myself in the context of talking about something I have no idea about, not having seen it (that being the time-honoured CYD tactic). The point I was making was that I felt a bit hypocritical in doing what those fuckers do.

I probably won't watch it, and I imagine that it won't air here anyway because it looks like it's going to be a flop, but anyway, I don't have TV,

That's so 20th Century. I'm living the Future Dream. Watching TV in my way when I want. (er...downloading).

 

[Doctor Muscles]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Goff]

A well researched television show

Fuck. My sketch. Rumbled....!bog

 

[jane]

Actually, Goff, you are clearly more interested in trying to pick holes in what I am saying, and making all kinds of accusations based on what it would be convenient for me to have said, but did not. You've twisted my words to suit your argument, which is not a productive way to have a discussion with someone. What I said about empathy, I said to mean that in order to create an opportunity for the reader to empathise, you must create a character that is believable, and in order to do that, you must get to know that character really well, even if it is a spaceperson with robot nostrils and slugs for feet. If you are basing a fictional character on someone who is part of a particular category of society, you should make an effort to understand the kinds of mentalities -- the range of possibilities -- that exist, even if you want to do something different, rather than basing it on a stereotype, which is just shitty fiction, period. If I were writing a story about Ireland, and did not know anything about Ireland or Irish people, and made no effort to do so, I would be writing a wholly shit piece of half-assed fiction.

But you chose to twist it so that you can fault-find. And I would be very interested in having an interesting discussion with someone about the ethics of portraying marginalised groups, but this isn't a discussion, this is you just fault-finding and name-calling. I apologise for suggesting that you think I'm a bit thick because that's not it at all. It doesn't actually matter what I say -- thick or not thick -- you are not interested in what I have to say, except to twist it around to make accusations that I am obnoxious for suggesting that it would be wrong to say that blaxploitation films could contribute to civil rights. I never argued that they did, or that they tried to, I was simply providing an example to illustrate that maybe suggesting that a caricature of a marginalised group would not help that group gain rights is something worth really thinking about. You brought it up and then accused me of being obnoxious for disagreeing with it. Nice work.

Anyway, I concede. You're right. I was interested in a discussion, and you were just looking to name-call and fault-find. What did I expect, though, it's the internet. Anything goes on the internet and anyone who takes it seriously is just a fool. How convenient.