Jump to content

Dambusters remake


Naïve Old Fart

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Jay said:

Can you explain why you think his post is a "troll post" and not a post saying "I would like this character to have his same name in a remake of this film" ?

Not to speak for him, just butting in again:

On 2/9/2021 at 4:58 PM, Holko said:

Context and intent matter. It seems to me that here the intent was completely irrelevantly manufacturing outrage - or outrage against an imagined future outrage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I don't want to speak for him either.  He should probably tell us what his intentions were instead of anybody else guessing on his behalf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wishes to correspond with me regarding that  post (I believe that we all know what I am talking about) is welcome to P.M. me. Public discussion of this matter has gone on for far too long, and I, for one, will not see anymore time taken up by people of good will being forced to explain themselves, ad nausem, to certain members of this community who have nothing better to do than to keep a dead subject from being laid, well and truly, to rest.

 

Put up, or shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jay said:

 

Can you explain why you think his post is a "troll post" and not a post saying "I would like this character to have his same name in a remake of this film" ?

 

 

I don't know what this sentence means.  Can you explain it better?

 

 

It sounds like you're more offended that the filmmakers chose to keep the dog's real name in their film, than you are that Richard mentioned the name of the real life dog / character when expressing his opinion about a remake.  If you are suggesting he should have been allowed to express his opinion, but that he should not type out the dog's full name when doing so, then that hasn't been made clear to me at all until this point.

 

 

I don't know if there is any person here who would prefer the membership of this place to only be white straight males?  If you think that, I don't know why you think that, or what Richard's opinion on this film has anything to do with the site as a whole.

 

 

I'm sure they'd be incredibly annoyed at Richard's post, and like I already said I certainly would never type that word out in any context myself, but I can't see why they'd be mad at the administrative staff of this site instead of being mad only at Richard.  He didn't break any board rules.  Because the moderators didn't see a need to edit his post doesn't mean they agree with his opinion or his word choice.  This is generally a forum where posts are almost never edited.  For the most part, people police each other here.  If people make posts that are ignorant, thoughtless, toxic, etc, other people are happy to call them out on their shit and not let it go unnoticed.  Others may choose to use the "ignore" feature to no longer see posts from certain users.  The moderating stuff doesn't have to start going around and editing anything anyone finds offensive.  We don't have time on our hands to do that, and it's a slippery slope anyway since everyone has a different opinion on what's offensive.

 

One at a time:

 

1. He knew posting that word would be triggering. The comment wasn't necessary, it didn't relate to the topic much, it was hot-button to be hot-button. Even if it is that serious to him (which I question the ethics of), we are now possible offending someone by having a discussion about it. This just doesn't seem like the place. Why not move it to a thread that makes it clear what it is, if you aren't going to do anything more about it. That way someone isn't blindsided by it.

 

2. If I am black and I am clicking around this site and I see someone using that word, I may be less inclined to continue clicking. Especially in that context. He says anyone who would change it can go pound sand, essentially. So now we have the word and an argument to keep it. He doesn't care if it offends anyone and says so.

 

3. The filmmakers haven't kept the dog's name and aren't going to. The point of his post was "(it will be good) as long as they keep (it)..." I didn't think I had to tell anyone that having that word expressed in an opinion would be triggering to a black person. But I also did multiple times express that a person of color should not have to see that. Maybe say "I wonder if they'll change the dog's name, I don't think they should." Still a debatable opinion, but at least it doesn't smack as hard.

 

4. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that this a very white space and that gives the conversation a certain entitlement it wouldn't have in a cocktail conversation with people of mixed races. If he can't say it out loud there (and I highly doubt he would), he shouldn't be able to type it on an online forum with over 6000 members, some of whom are guaranteed to be black. That is taking advantage of this being a white space, to type the word without impunity. Where else is he comfortably expressing this opinion to a massive group of people? We shouldn't facilitate that.

 

5. I don't see how. They have seen you move conversations for far less. Your response said he didn't do anything wrong, but I can't disagree more. Do you think a black person should see that word on this site? I don't. Simple as that. To not have conversations with racial slurs (something that really should go without saying) just seems like a small price to pay to make people comfortable at this site: Are we giving up that much?

 

This is the n-word we are talking about, right? I understand being on a first-name basis, but we still need to maintain objectivity. I would never have guessed that word would be allowed on this site. I cannot be the only person that thinks so. I have asked over a dozen people now just to be sure I am not over-reacting. I really didn't expect it to go on like this. When I reported it, I thought it would be taken care of and it would be over. I have no problem defending my opinion, just really didn't expect I would have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I, for one, will not see anymore time taken up by people of good will being forced to explain themselves, ad nausem, to certain members of this community who have nothing better to do than to keep a dead subject from being laid, well and truly, to rest.

 

Oh, come off it! You must have known when you made the original post that it would be provocative. It also seems a tad disingenuous to depict the argument as being between "people of good will" and argumentative time-wasters when you started it off talking about "woke assholes". Your tone may have been tongue-in-cheek (excuse the pun) but it was still confrontational. If you play with fire...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty weak sauce for Richard to expect people to PM him, instead of defending his post here, where it's being discussed.

 

Buck up, Richard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Richard and don’t think Richard is a troll.  I can see why Richard posted it - I get the instinct to post something as a “hey guys check out this nutty thing.”  I think Richard’s intentions were pure.  I also think intention ultimately doesn’t matter once something is received poorly - if I were in his place, I’d go back and edit some asterisks into the word.

 

I think giant ape fighting a T-Rex is neat and PJ found a neat violent as hell way for Kong to defeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

I’m sorry I mentioned the Dambusters at all! I don’t even care what they call the dog I just want to see Nazi dams blown up by bouncing bombs with modern film techniques. 

 

You're an instigator!  A pot stirrer!

 

3 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I also think intention ultimately doesn’t matter once something is received poorly

 

You lost me.  Intention always matters, even if it's not exculpatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

You're an instigator!  A pot stirrer!


 Believe me, my god, if I could turn back the clock on my pot stirring, I would certainly, reconsider it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tons of people do awful things for what they feel are good reasons.  People are abusive to spouses and children and believe they are doing what is right.  Those people’s intentions don’t matter.  They are abusers.

 

I am not equating Richard with an abuser, btw, but I will defend the idea that intent doesn’t matter.  Even in something as minor as a tiff with a spouse, one can and should acknowledge somebody’s hurt without having intended that harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intention absolutely matters, and Richard should tell us what his intentions were instead of us all guessing at them, IMO

 

The other side is also true - regardless of what his intention was, he clearly upset blondheim.  By staying silent Richard is effectively not even acknowledging that he did so.  Richard can choose to acknowledge it or not, and can choose to apologize for it or not, it's entirely up to him. The mods have no dog in this fight.

 

I will just say that if I were him, I would certain respond, here, in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was discussing the concept of accountability generally.  Richard is responsible for his action, which was making a shitty post on a message board.  Abusers are responsible for their actions: abuse.  If I make a joke that hurts my spouse’s feelings, I am responsible for that action.  The three are not equal, but in all three instances the person is accountable for their action and should acknowledge that hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bilbo said:

There’s a fair few gay members here. 

 

Yes, they are too many I think!

 

I'm sure somebody already thought about making a remake where King Kong would fall in love with a man, instead of a woman. 

 

Who would score that remake? :lol:

 

Meanwhile, let's listen to some real good music.

 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

If you want more diversity, I guess I'd look elsewhere. JWFan seems to appeal mainly to geeks.

 

fixed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I haven't seen the original Dam Busters yet, but it's on my to-watch list.


It’s kinda two movies in one but you’ll recognise certain shots and lines of dialogue from Star Wars. You can really see the influence of Dambusters and 633 squadron on the original star wars 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.