Of Sense and Censorship and Sea Monsters

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

firework

@firework

Navigator

Posted: 10 years ago

#51

Originally posted by: Quixotic5

If i am not mistaken , your previous UserName was Oblivion, wasn't it ?..or may be i am confusing you with someone else .. either ways , i am jumping in to elaborate your argument in pink , hope you dont mind .. 😆

Judging the nobility of intentions is indeed tricky/subjective/relative , usually prevailing sensibilities play a rather important role in determining it but most importantly the context makes all the difference .. cracking a bomb joke in an airplane pretty much qualifies your intentions as ignoble irrespective of whether you were just joking or not ..same joke, if cracked on other appropriate occasions , perhaps a comedy event or when you are hanging around with friends or family, most certainly qualifies as just a 'joke' .. context made all the difference.. and context together with intent determines the credibility of most your actions IMO..

--------

I know if I say Bomb in a airplane/airport I will get bumb rushed or if I go upto Obama's face and say something I will get in trouble . But thats because my intention is evil .

^^ Hope that explains the context of my reply.

Edited by firework - 10 years ago

Quote

IAmLuvBolly

@IAmLuvBolly

Sparkler

+ 8

Posted: 10 years ago

#52

Return-to-Hades, thank you for your response. In line with statistics about STDs other sexually related (for lack of a better phrase here) in Europe, I believe they also have a much lower rate of drunk driving casualties especially among teens, and once again, Europe has no age restrictions on alcohol. Things to ponder. But yes I definitely agree that change in this regard, if it is indeed needed, will have to take time.

Also regarding what fiery.fawks (sorry if I got your name wrong) said about being able to say vile racist things. Yes one has the freedom to say those things as long as you are not saying it with intent to incite riots and violence. Society also has the freedom to react and verbally or financially respond. Paula Dean says racist things, people are outraged and decide not to watch her show, sponsors drop her, Food Network fires her because they are not making money off of her. By the same token, Whoopie Goldberg speaks against the war or Bush (honestly don't remember the detail), people get outraged, Jenny Craig drops her. I think Paula Dean is a racist dimwit, and I agreed with Whoopie. I'm sure there are others who felt completely the opposite of me.

No system or culture or society is perfect. Some need some work, others need a lot of work.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

IAmLuvBolly

@IAmLuvBolly

Sparkler

+ 8

Posted: 10 years ago

#53

Originally posted by: Franco

Camelman ???? I keep telling to you I'm from New York

No camels just too many Pigeons
😆

Why did I think you were Canadian?

Quote

870349

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#54

Originally posted by: firework

@bold: Please do this as a joke. I dare you. Why do you have to be silent when your intentions are good and you want to joke? 😲 😲 After all you're all for comedians and freedom of speech!

@red: Of course, they are just THAT good at reading your intentions! 😃

No that would get me arrested cause its not funny its criminal . Stand up comedy is not criminal 😉😉😉

Quote

870349

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#55

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

Why did I think you were Canadian?

IDK but I do have history with the brothers & sisters up north 😆😆😆

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 10 years ago

#56

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly
Also regarding what fiery.fawks (sorry if I got your name wrong) said about being able to say vile racist things. Yes one has the freedom to say those things as long as you are not saying it with intent to incite riots and violence. Society also has the freedom to react and verbally or financially respond. Paula Dean says racist things, people are outraged and decide not to watch her show, sponsors drop her, Food Network fires her because they are not making money off of her. By the same token, Whoopie Goldberg speaks against the war or Bush (honestly don't remember the detail), people get outraged, Jenny Craig drops her. I think Paula Dean is a racist dimwit, and I agreed with Whoopie. I'm sure there are others who felt completely the opposite of me.

No system or culture or society is perfect. Some need some work, others need a lot of work.

Yes. Society does have its own systems of checks and balances in place that prevents pure anarchy. The law need not overreach. This should address both Quixotic and Fiery Fawkes question of freedom of speech.

When a celebrity or any person for that matter says something questionable, it sparks a reaction. Some people support it. Some people condemn it. No one's right to support or condemn the person in jeopardized. If it is a significant enough deal there will be boycotts, shows dropped, endorsements lost etc. Some people will retract, apologize and make amends. Some people will just go on because they don't care.

Coming to recent issues in India.

If NH!0 or any movie wants to use cuss words or unsavory language, the makers have creative freedom to do so. The censor boards job is to give a warning that the movie has certain language. People who dislike such language can skip the movie. People who don't mind it will watch it. If an overwhelming majority hates such language and doesn't support the film, the filmmaker will realize losses and start imposing some self censorship in the future. If that doesn't happen, it means there are plenty of people who don't mind and their freedom to watch movies with cuss language should be protected.

Let us take the case of PK. Aamir Khan has the right to make religious satire. While I don't think he targeted any religion, he has the right to target if he wants. India is a predominantly Hindi nation. If the movie was so grossly offensive to Hinduism, people wouldn't watch the movie. The fact that it was a runaway success shows many people including Hindus enjoyed his message. People who got offended too have a right to get offended. They can picket and protest outside the theater. They can urge people not to see the movie. They can start debates to address issues and speculations in the movie. They can buy ads condemning a movie. However, they should not have the ability to restrict what kind of cinema or any form of satire is made. I stand by this for all religions. Charlie Hebdo has the right to make fun of Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists all equally. It is bullshit that AIB apologized to Christians out of power and bullshit that Indian legal system gives religions that ability.

I'll skip the AIB issue for now, since it has been overplayed on IF.

The Pope recently said people who don't have children are selfish and called contraceptives, family planning sinful. This is highly offensive to millions of people around the world who use condoms, contraceptives or actively choose not to have children. When Indian figures like Baba Ramdev call homosexuality a mental illness or disease to be cured, it is offensive to millions of people who are homosexual or have loved ones who are. The hurt and offense caused by people who are dead serious in their allegations is far greater than anything that accidental offense caused due to stupid jokes. I still support their rights because it is indeed freedom of speech. All I have a right is to counter them.

Quote

1023720

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#57

Originally posted by: firework

A+

Somehow the skin lightening ads don't sit well on this forum.

But jokes repeatedly on someone's dark skin color on AIB ==> freedom of speech.

We wouldn't need skin lightening creams in India if every person regardless of their skin tone felt good in their own skin.

It is common in India to make fun of someone's skin color, especially when it is wheatish or dark it is considered unattractive, so AIB can't exactly be blamed either, but their show did absolutely nothing to push the envelope in comedy.

Such Irony eh, but then we are left with intent, context, consent to deal with. So it's alright to mock those as long as we have their permission. Sure the dark guy had no issue, but what about those who are dark skinned watching the show who may be offended or how about the consequences of such statements on the society where such prejudiced statements start appearing in the form of jokes on daily basis for decades and centuries. So much for being progressive 😆

Funny how even those advocating freedom of speech wanna place restrictions, but only the restrictions they seem appropriate (Democracy ? Really ?)

Quote

1023720

Suspended

Posted: 10 years ago

#58

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

Also regarding what fiery.fawks (sorry if I got your name wrong) said about being able to say vile racist things. Yes one has the freedom to say those things as long as you are not saying it with intent to incite riots and violence.

Hmmm really ? So there goes riots and violence and the guilty comes out with his or her defense "Ooopsie daisy, I was only joking O_O" "Why take my jokes seriously ?" "That wasn't my intention at all". So basically we can say shit cuz of course we know how billions of people will react to our statements and of course we know they'll take it as jokes even if the most vile and prejudiced shit was spewed under the disguise of freedom of speech. And of course how can one intent harm when the intent was not to incite anything considering we can read everyone's thoughts and whatever is cooking in their tiny little heads <---- Yup it shall work like a charm...

Edited by Fiery.Fawkes - 10 years ago

Quote

firework

@firework

Navigator

Posted: 10 years ago

#59

Originally posted by: Fiery.Fawkes

Such Irony eh, but then we are left with intent, context, consent to deal with. So it's alright to mock those as long as we have their permission. Sure the dark guy had no issue, but what about those who are dark skinned watching the show who may be offended or how about the consequences of such statements on the society where such prejudiced statements start appearing in the form of jokes on daily basis for decades and centuries. So much for being progressive 😆

Funny how even those advocating freedom of speech wanna place restrictions, but only the restrictions they seem appropriate (Democracy ? Really ?)

And then India is blamed.

I would like to see the jokes made on Arpita Khan and that other guy (all jokes referring to their skin tone) made by a white male comedian in the US.