"This 20th century slang phrase is irrelevant to the film, since Hudson is engaged in a hetero relationship. So you are applying a modern phrase to a character in early 19th century Ireland, before the footwear in the phrase was invented. You are mis-applying the actor's homosexuality to the character. And none of it actually deals with the film. I am sure you can come up with a much more appropriate review. Could you please resubmit one. Thank you."
I'm not one to complain about rejected reviews, so I won't.
But can I just point out that "Factually Inaccurate" would have sufficed?
Edited by - Gentleman Ghost on 03/10/2009 20:04:15
You already posted your guess here too, didn't you? "Lightfoot in his loafers." I don't think the problem is the phrase (although anyone who would use it in or out of a review would have to be rather lame), but if the character isn't gay then it obviously makes no sense. The MERP should just have said that.
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/11/2009 15:07:56
(although anyone who would use it in or out of a review would have to be rather lame)
FREEZE!
O.K., this is the sort of stuff that causes problems. That is an ad hominem argumentative fallacy, and it is not polite (and even worse, it's effectively speaking an insult about a person who is right here in the room as if he isn't).
Like an unexpected third-party stepping on a game of jacks being played by several innocents, you abruptly curtailed Ro�kie's bit at a harmless trivia challenge, and then you issued an unfounded insult (and don't tell me that the term "lightfoot" is so intrinsically offensive that you just had to do something; there is a plethora of gay jokes and puns on this site, and there are even a few "N" word references, but everyone accepts this as good-natured wordsmanship in context).
Nobody was trying to be offensive! The game curtailing was unsporting, and the insult was unnecessary and unkind. I would ask you to apologize, but since the Gentleman is a Ghost, he appears to be dead and probably cannot hear you. (Damn, Sal: you're insulting dead people too! That's just mean!)
(Notice the absence of invective here: there are ways to express disapprobation without callin' motherfuckers "assholes," ya know.)
I don't agree at all that the propogation of offensive phrases is harmless. I think it is quite the reverse.
quote:don't tell me that the term "lightfoot" is so intrinsically offensive that you just had to do something
It's "light in one's loafers" that is the intrinsically offensive phrase. Had to? Depends how one defines it. I felt like I wanted to and that it was valid, and I still feel just the same.
quote:there is a plethora of gay jokes and puns on this site, and there are even a few "N" word references, but everyone accepts this as good-natured wordsmanship in context.
"Everyone" certainly does not accept that. There are many deeply homophobic terms all over this site and I have said so several times before. I only don't complain about them more because people moan whenever anyone points out that humour is not ethereally distinct from the rest of our humanity.
The few n-word (I'm surprised that you put it so coyly when citing it but I'll follow suit, though I won't on the capitalisation) references are very different unless I have missed some. They are ones that ridicule or otherwise discuss racism. The hundreds (very possibly thousands) of homophobic 'jokes' on here are nothing like that: they are just demeaning in their very nature. There may be some 'jokes' against black people but none spring to mind and so I cannot believe there are as many, and I wouldn't approve of them either. There are more reviews about Jews and Muslims than black people, but again only a low proportion are as offensive (although quite a few may be rather cliched which in itself is disempowering). It's not just homophobia that is widespread, though. There are lots of sexist references: you'd have to ask a woman to judge how bad they are en masse. And some of the worst ones are against disabled people, especially those with learning disabilities. Another issue is that you can decide if you are offended by the n-word in a non-commentating context, or indeed if you want to use it yourself (although I'd be very surprised). But I cannot tell you not to be offended by it (and imagine if any white person did!) and you'd sure as fuck be pretty fucked off if I used it myself in that way. And it wouldn't be much better if I used some term that is less commonly cited as being extremely offensive. I can use some terms that I would not mind a gay person using, but that doesn't make it O.K. for straight people to use the same terms or for others to be used at all. (Certain straight people face to face whom I know well might be an exception, but maybe not even then.) That's just the way it is.
quote:Nobody was trying to be offensive!
So what? It's the casual use of that kind of phrase as if it is not intrinsically offensive that is the problem. As I have said when this has come up before, meaning is not transmitted by magic. Other than some changing very slowly over time, words' meanings are attached to them wherever they go.
quote:The game curtailing was unsporting, and the insult was unnecessary and unkind.
So when people recently objected to golliwogs being on sale in a shop here, was that unsporting, unnecessary and unkind? Think of all the fun children could have had playing with the woolly hair and marvelling at their goggly eyes.
quote:I would ask you to apologize
Ask away.
quote:Notice the absence of invective here: there are ways to express disapprobation without callin' motherfuckers "assholes," ya know.)
Precisely. I was extremely moderate relative to my feelings on the matter. I could have said "This is fucking outrageous in this day and age", since it was, but I didn't. One can argue that a kowtowing approach is necessary and/or preferable in the early stages of fighting for equality on some front, but even if that is the case it does not remain that way for ever. Ultimately, people being wronged can feel however fucked off they do.
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/12/2009 02:15:45
Offense is self-inflicted. When someone is stating their opinion they are stating a fact; that that is their opinion (however wrong they may be). There is nothing inherently offensive about any fact. Therefore 'offense taken' at someone's opinion is always self-inflicted.
Also, no language is inherently offensive or it would offend everyone. So if someone is offended by language the offense is self-inflicted.
I don't agree at all that the propogation of offensive phrases is harmless. I think it is quite the reverse.
quote:don't tell me that the term "lightfoot" is so intrinsically offensive that you just had to do something
It's "light in one's loafers" that is the intrinsically offensive phrase. Had to? Depends how one defines it. I felt like I wanted to and that it was valid, and I still feel just the same.
quote:there is a plethora of gay jokes and puns on this site, and there are even a few "N" word references, but everyone accepts this as good-natured wordsmanship in context.
"Everyone" certainly does not accept that. There are many deeply homophobic terms all over this site and I have said so several times before. I only don't complain about them more because people moan whenever anyone points out that humour is not ethereally distinct from the rest of our humanity.
The few n-word (I'm surprised that you put it so coyly when citing it but I'll follow suit, though I won't on the capitalisation) references are very different unless I have missed some. They are ones that ridicule or otherwise discuss racism. The hundreds (very possibly thousands) of homophobic 'jokes' on here are nothing like that: they are just demeaning in their very nature. There may be some 'jokes' against black people but none spring to mind and so I cannot believe there are as many, and I wouldn't approve of them either. There are more reviews about Jews and Muslims than black people, but again only a low proportion are as offensive (although quite a few may be rather cliched which in itself is disempowering). It's not just homophobia that is widespread, though. There are lots of sexist references: you'd have to ask a woman to judge how bad they are en masse. And some of the worst ones are against disabled people, especially those with learning disabilities. Another issue is that you can decide if you are offended by the n-word in a non-commentating context, or indeed if you want to use it yourself (although I'd be very surprised). But I cannot tell you not to be offended by it (and imagine if any white person did!) and you'd sure as fuck be pretty fucked off if I used it myself in that way. And it wouldn't be much better if I used some term that is less commonly cited as being extremely offensive. I can use some terms that I would not mind a gay person using, but that doesn't make it O.K. for straight people to use the same terms or for others to be used at all. (Certain straight people face to face whom I know well might be an exception, but maybe not even then.) That's just the way it is.
quote:Nobody was trying to be offensive!
So what? It's the casual use of that kind of phrase as if it is not intrinsically offensive that is the problem. As I have said when this has come up before, meaning is not transmitted by magic. Other than some changing very slowly over time, words' meanings are attached to them wherever they go.
quote:The game curtailing was unsporting, and the insult was unnecessary and unkind.
So when people recently objected to golliwogs being on sale in a shop here, was that unsporting, unnecessary and unkind? Think of all the fun children could have had playing with the woolly hair and marvelling at their goggly eyes.
quote:I would ask you to apologize
Ask away.
quote:Notice the absence of invective here: there are ways to express disapprobation without callin' motherfuckers "assholes," ya know.)
Precisely. I was extremely moderate relative to my feelings on the matter. I could have said "This is fucking outrageous in this day and age", since it was, but I didn't. One can argue that a kowtowing approach is necessary and/or preferable in the early stages of fighting for equality on some front, but even if that is the case it does not remain that way for ever. Ultimately, people being wronged can feel however fucked off they do.
quote:Originally posted by Salopian I can use some terms that I would not mind a gay person using, but that doesn't make it O.K. for straight people to use the same terms or for others to be used at all. (Certain straight people face to face whom I know well might be an exception, but maybe not even then.) That's just the way it is.
I asked you this last time you brought this up, you didn't answer, you just did your usual run and hide for a few days and let everything pass over. Please give me the list of words that I can't use! What gives you the fucking right to tell me what I can and can't say?