|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
regan is true fullback
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 Location: Granville. nsw
|
Post subject: | |
|
What I was objecting to was the sheer obsequiousness of the establishment's mourning of Churchill. In 1965 this was normal behaviour. I have nothing against Churchill himself.
Again, Hepworth's abuse of Menzies, although tasteless, was a reaction to the right wing press's fawning over Menzies death. As the cartoon said about Menzies and the press - kick a dog hard enough and it will come crawling back to you.
Santa and the judge, and Santa's little helpers, were members of a nasty fascist, mass murdering cult. Santa's hero was Mussolini. Their influence inside and outside the church should make us all very wary. Menzies and Churchill on the other hand were your common or garden conservatives. I bear them no malice. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
I heard they have a good influence and the church should make us all wary. |
|
|
|
|
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Stereotypical gay characters may be frowned upon nowadays, but there's certainly no law against such things. I saw a Spanish film a couple of years back which was essentially Are You Being Served on a plane, lisps and all. It wasn't well received, but it was still chosen to open the local film festival in front of a couple of thousand people. So, it's not really accurate to say that such things couldn't be made today; just that, reasonably enough, TV producers are a little more sensitive about such matters, aware that gay people form part of their audience and are accordingly attuned to the need to present more three-dimensional characters. There may be a fear of offence present too, but then it's not as if Christianity is immune to that or seen as total fair game.
Mugwump wrote: | ^ I expected you'd go with the "religion is chosen, homosexuality is inherent" argument, and I considered it myself. In the end, though, I think the relevant point is that both Christianity and being gay are ways in which people define their identity, and it is not really their ideas, but their identity you insult when you crudely foul and viciously (this word is key) mock what they love. Love for a dead child is also chosen ; is that ok for you to deride ? You say that a "system of thought" is fair game. But the culture in which people were brought up is also, in many respects, a system of thought. So are many of the forms of life (mannerisms, clothes, ethics) that gay people choose. Is it ok to mock that viciously ? Where are your limits ? Where does a system of thought end and a way of life begin ?
A film like this is not a critique designed to dissuade people from falsehood, not an argument - it's just a kind of puerile defecation on an image, to provoke (let's face it) a community of people you do not like. I find the god hypothesis impossible to believe, so I'm not talking my book. But it still seems to me illiberal, bad-mannered and destructive behaviour. Not to be outlawed, not to be resisted with violence (a reluctance we probably got from Christianity).... but to be frowned upon by generous people who want to live in peace.
PS ref your post immediately above, nobody is suggesting you should hold Jesus sacred because others do. I'm just suggesting it's an act of aggression to go out of your way to foul his image, and not one conducive to the kind of broad-minded tolerance that you usually espouse. |
I think you have the wrong end of the stick here – my distinction here has nothing to do with choice; it's about the difference between a system of belief and a personal characteristic.
I'm not sure I even accept your dichotomy to begin with. What I'm trying to establish is what I see as a fairly fundamental difference between sacrilege and vilification, i.e. mocking Christianity, not the Christian. I just don't think you can make a similar division between homosexuality and a gay person, because these sets aren't sufficiently analogous – homosexuality here being more like Christianness than Christianity; and if you mock Christianness, you really may as well be denigrating Christians as a group. Likewise, Christianity is more analogous to something like a 'gay lliberation' ideology; and yes, I dare say that is as fair game as any other thought system.
We need to clarify something about this film, too, by the looks of things. It was not, as far as I can tell, designed to provoke or offend Christians; it was first and foremost a work of pornography aimed at getting gay men off. The worst you could say about it was that it sought to profit from the notoriety of its subject matter.
You speak of tolerance above. If we are to tolerate and accept the existence of Christianity (as I do), why can we not take the same approach to an irreverent pornographic film? So long as it is not beamed into Christians' loungerooms without their consent, is it not sufficient that they shrug their shoulders and go about their business? Why must we indulge such willful offence by 'frowning upon' something so harmless? |
Define harmless. _________________ Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Causing no objective harm. A rule of thumb might be something like this:
If Martha loves jazz and Mary tells Martha that she personally hates jazz, Martha may feel offended, but if so that's not Mary's fault – she's merely stated an opinion that no reasonable person could construe as a personal attack or act of vilification. If Martha tells Mary that she is an idiot, on the other hand, or that she hates people like Mary who don't get jazz, she has insulted her and Mary may justifiably feel offended.
Mary's remarks are harmless; Martha's aren't. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mountains Magpie
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Somewhere between now and then
|
Post subject: | |
|
Could be an oversimplification to compare people's musical tastes with their religious persuasions. I do get what you're saying though.
MM _________________ Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mountains Magpie wrote: | Could be an oversimplification to compare people's musical tastes with their religious persuasions. I do get what you're saying though.
MM |
Yes, it is. It's logical enough if you accept the initial premise - ie that a niche musical interest is comparable to a religious and ethical system that formed the basis of 2000 years of civilisation and identity for millions of people... and that saying "you don't like jazz" is equivalent to showing Charlie Mingus being sodomised to make that point. It should not be illegal, it's just provocative and puerile and designed to provoke in a completely unintellectual way.
Moreover, I do not think that it's just a device for gay people to get off, as David claimed above. David, normally very intelligently cognisant of the meanings of images and symbols, would not be so disingenuous about one of his preferred causes. I have to conclude it is just a blind spot. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Meh.
Mohammed was a pedophile (by todays standards) who created a religion of conquest to suit his aims at the time and made interpreting his word sufficiently complex to enshrine the role of Mullahs without ever allowing anyone to surpass him
Jesus was a man who a religion was created about post mortem to breathe new life into an egyptian sun cult. he wasn't the son of god, didn't die on the cross, he married Mary Magdalene. had children and died of natural causes in exile.
Neither was "devine", just men _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ I think that is probably correct, Stui, but lots of people passionately do not, and I don't think there's a lot of value in provoking them by making their deep personal beliefs pornographic, if we want to live together peacefully.
I am probably more sympathetic to New Testament Christianity, as it seems to me that what JC said is pretty remarkable given the violent, barbaric time in which he lived, and the story has the beauty of a powerful folk tale which says something about life - its naked beginnings, and the mortification and suffering which comes to most of us, in the end. If most people did what JC (NB not necessarily the churches) suggested, the world would be a nicer place. Having read the Quran, I do not feel that about Mohammed, who seems to me to have the morality of a warlord, but that's the power of culture for you, I guess. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, fair enough but no one's making them watch it
There's being sensitive to others opinions and then there's pandering to them, the latter IMHO leads to overly sensitive petals with delusions of righteousness (as evidenced by Charlie hebdo etc)
If someone wants to make stuff like that, if people want to watch stuff like that, good on em. it may not be tasteful but the market will decide and people are free to critique and complain, just not with AK47's or other weapons. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm not for banning it.
I just think it is - as you said - tasteless and decent people should recognise that, rather than consider it some brilliant form of free speech. if they want to make to and watch it, I do not say good on 'em. And I don't think it is "pandering" to others to avoid pornographising what they regard as sacred, when it is not necessary to do so.
I suspect you regard Australia as a little bit sacred. So this is like Muslims parading through the heart of Melbourne demanding that Australia is a wicked country and Australians infidels who must submit to Sharia law. I don't say "good on em" about that either. I say that they are allowed to do it under the law, but it is stupid and offensive.
On Charlie Hebdo, I don't think they were wise to show Mohammed as they did, but what happened was like giving a kid capital punishment for smoking a cigarette in school, of course. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mugwump wrote: | I'm not for banning it.
I just think it is - as you said - tasteless and decent people should recognise that, rather than consider it some brilliant form of free speech. if they want to make to and watch it, I do not say good on 'em. And I don't think it is "pandering" to others to avoid pornographising what they regard as sacred, when it is not necessary to do so.
I suspect you regard Australia as a little bit sacred. So this is like Muslims parading through the heart of Melbourne demanding that Australia is a wicked country and Australians infidels who must submit to Sharia law. I don't say "good on em" about that either. I say that they are allowed to do it under the law, but it is stupid and offensive.
On Charlie Hebdo, I don't think they were wise to show Mohammed as they did, but what happened was like giving a kid capital punishment for smoking a cigarette in school, of course. |
If/when a Muslim group did that, I wouldn't be offended at them, I'd just roll my eyes like I do at most demonstrations by IQ deficient tunnel vision cause focused numbats.
I'd be pissed off with any imbeciles who tried to justify their actions and support their cause if they weren't devout muslims.
About the only thing I hold sacred is my family. Mess with me there, the capstone is off. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | Mugwump wrote: | I'm not for banning it.
I just think it is - as you said - tasteless and decent people should recognise that, rather than consider it some brilliant form of free speech. if they want to make to and watch it, I do not say good on 'em. And I don't think it is "pandering" to others to avoid pornographising what they regard as sacred, when it is not necessary to do so.
I suspect you regard Australia as a little bit sacred. So this is like Muslims parading through the heart of Melbourne demanding that Australia is a wicked country and Australians infidels who must submit to Sharia law. I don't say "good on em" about that either. I say that they are allowed to do it under the law, but it is stupid and offensive.
On Charlie Hebdo, I don't think they were wise to show Mohammed as they did, but what happened was like giving a kid capital punishment for smoking a cigarette in school, of course. |
If/when a Muslim group did that, I wouldn't be offended at them, I'd just roll my eyes like I do at most demonstrations by IQ deficient tunnel vision cause focused numbats.
I'd be pissed off with any imbeciles who tried to justify their actions and support their cause if they weren't devout muslims.
About the only thing I hold sacred is my family. Mess with me there, the capstone is off. |
Fair enough - the point being that many religious people regard religion as being important as you regard family. I don't really get it, but it's a deep issue for them. So it's a good idea not to violate the symbols of their faith when you do not need to and you are not making a serious point by doing so. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mugwump wrote: | Moreover, I do not think that it's just a device for gay people to get off, as David claimed above. David, normally very intelligently cognisant of the meanings of images and symbols, would not be so disingenuous about one of his preferred causes. I have to conclude it is just a blind spot. |
Considering neither of us has seen the film and almost certainly never will, discussing the intentions of the (presumably pseudonymous) director is pure conjecture, really. If it had been an aggressive anti-clerical satire, I would have been all for it; it just seems unlikely to me that that was the intent.
What we know from the reports is that the JC connection was hyped in the promotional material but mostly absent in the film itself, which seems to have basically been plotless gay hardcore with a bit of narrative about the protagonist's erotic religious fixations jammed in-between the sex scenes – so, basically the same as every other 'classy' (we really are speaking in relative terms here) porn film from the '70s. In those days, the priorities seem to have roughly been, in order, 1) make a buck, 2) give audiences something to get off to and 3) chuck a bit of 'plot' in to attain some kind of legitimacy.
The blasphemous imagery in the film and its potential to offend may have been seen by the producers as entirely irrelevant, a positive by-product or perhaps a higher guiding aim. If their intent was the latter, it failed; the film seems to have made a few bucks, produced precisely no outrage and quickly disappeared into obscurity. Meanwhile, a non-existent film cooked up by pranksters a few years later provoked torrents of outraged letters and calls for state government intervention. I'm not sure what you can draw from that other than that God, if he exists, has a strange sense of humour. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|