Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But that was exactly my point: the data is so inherently fungible that you can take it and prove entirely opposite (and equally well-made and sincere and socialist and/or feminist) cases with it.
I think the burden of proof is on the person arguing for increasing criminalisation though.
... (e.g. NZ-style decriminalisation hasn't diminished the rate of child prostitution yet, but maybe we should give it another 7 years?).
This point’s being covered by Russell, but I think it better to have laws focused on what is actually wrong (such as child prostitution).
and to blog for money.
Aw, bless. No, clearly we're the sort who'd do it even if we didn't get paid.
Clearly. I’m sure Russell isn’t sharing the millions he must make off advertising with you. (I myself made 11 cents off Google adverts on my blog in three just three years! ... wait, it just clicked over to 12.)
Interestingly my reasons for disliking Inglor-whatever ...
Funnily enough, my main annoyance with Inglourious Basterds is actually the hassle of making sure I misspell the first word properly.
... I found the anti-German message very hard to stomach, probably through long association with Germans, who are just people. It hid behind "anti-Nazi", but there was not one single German character in it who was not a Nazi.
Wasn’t one of the ‘Basterds’ a German who killed Nazis?
-
Both of them are age old human practices, both of them will still exist even if they are banned by law, both of them can cause demonstrable harm, both of them can be associated with crime and violence.
Gambling and sport?
It strikes me a useful (if not foolproof) test of any argument about sex is whether it looks vacuous when applied to something OTHER than sex.
In principle, it should be okay to exchange sex for money. Compare: It should be okay to play sport for money, to write stories for money, and to blog for money.
Anecdata, I know, but I'm sure we could science it up a bit and make it stick.
Well, as long as you’re sure.
-
Nobody was abused in the making of Pan's Labyrinth (apart from the miserably cold location shoot), and I'm still pretty relaxed with the R16 classification that makes it a criminal offence to show the DVD to my eleven year old grand-nephew. Wonderful film, but I'm not too torn up with the idea that he can wait a few more years to see a film that contains some astoundingly graphic violence, including the abuse and eventual murder of a child.
As was pointed out earlier, classification isn’t the same as censorship. But anyways, I’d be pretty relaxed with the idea that parents/guardians could choose to let their eleven year olds watch Pan’s Labyrinth without being considered criminals.
Something genuinely beautiful & creepy, for the feminists & those not partial to Lady Gaga.
I’m partial to Lady Gaga, but I still quite liked that.
So in the case of American Psycho, Christian Bale isn't really a psychopath and nor is Bret Easton Ellis.
With musicians, there is a vague tradition that you sing about your actual life, or a poetic variation it. So when a rapper comes across as a misogynist psychopath, there's an expectation that they really *are* such a person,I believe Bono made a similar point in regard to criticism of Eminem. It’s a fair point, too, except that no one here seems to be saying they think King is a misogynist psychopath.
"My whole thing is to push the limit ... People in the hip-hop community [are saying] this is the best New Zealand hip-hop video to date."
Uh.
-
In keeping with female equality aspect of the thread. I wonder what the reaction might have been if the script had been flipped and it was a female killer preying on male victims in the vid ?
Actually, there was a male victim as it was – his role was just incidental, and his killing largely off screen and quick. It’s that the vid focuses on the torment and brutality inflicted on the woman character – by the protagonist/rapper – that indicates it is dwelling on misogynistic violence. I think that’s why some find it repellent. I can understand that, other than to say the mistake seems to be in taking it seriously. King may think he looks creepy and sinister, but it all looks pretty try hard.
I'm normally pretty easy going when it comes to "artistic" depictions of violence (I mean, my favourite show is Dexter) but I wastched that video last night and it was just pointless and stupid.
One of the producers said something on 3 News about how this video was partly inspired by Dexter, and that they were just making a standard horror narrative. That’s about right. It was more derivative than Lady Gaga, for sure. Speaking of whom...
Ooh, spill! In particular, what is she doing that is more interesting than what Madonna was doing (omg) 20 years ago?
Better songs, on average. I agree she does seem largely the sum of her influences, though.
because we are, surely, concerned with cases where the work will certainly (or almost certainly) lead to someone being abused now or in the future.
Can you name such a work? Would Nathan King’s silly video be in that category? In his blog Rich of Observations did mention he was against “specific incitement to a crime that is likely to be acted upon” – is that the sort of thing you mean?
Um, the DIA banned an issue of Critic for objectionable content. No video, no pictures, just text that said the wrong thing.
To me, it’s that banning that is not part of civilised society. Not a mature one, anyway.
-
What is ultimately rational or reasonable about an argument that can never end, never be resolved, never come to any conclusion, never come up with any new points? It's actually more reasonable to accept the subjective nature of the subject matter, and move on.
In the wider sense of discourse humans are engaged in over issues such a morals, values, ethics, expertise, judgement, power, authority, freedom etc? That seems a simplistic summary of the situation. I think it very rational to continue the argument - continue the discussion. In particlular, I don’t see how we could ever know that no new points will come up. In terms of a specific argument at a given time, then yes people do sometimes reach an impasse (or what seems one at the time) and ‘agree to disagree’, but that happens all the time (well, maybe not on this thread). But it doesn’t seem to me you need to be a subjectivist to do that. (Even Libertarians – ‘Objectivists’ with a capital ‘O’ – have points they agree to disagree over. Well, so I’ve read.)
[Puts on invisibility cloak, which is now a plausible reality. Who knew?]
Yeah, I was pleased to see that too. About bloody time. If they can just get the Teleportors working properly, much of the requisite technology will be in place for The Plan.
Don’t worry. When I rule the world, I’ll ban all absolutism.
-
That would be because I am.
Yes but you have to say so that it gets through my dense head. You referred mockingly to "the Truth" before. I just wanted to be clear you were saying you disagreed with positions such as Rich's on fascism (namely that it is clear that it is only subjectively wrong).
Well no, because car is itself a subjective term.
Not in the context given. 'Which is the faster of the two cars' is the question.
-
...examining those thing that are [objective], and the relationship between them and the things that are not, might tell us more about the latter, and therefore about the nature of quality in art.
Well said.
Call it what you like, but which car is fastest in the context given is an objective truth.
But what is a legal car to use in a drag race? That's hardly objective.But (as you admit) the fastest car in the context given is.
Absolute truth.
Is wrong. Absolutely.
-
...do 9/11 "truthers" have an equally valid view of those events as you and I?
No. And the reason why they don't is that their appeal is bogus and their arguments dishonest. This can be exposed relatively simply.
Yes, but can you see how what you just said looks a lot like you are making an objective assessment about issues that relate to what is the truth?
Trying to drag me back into it?
No, it’s not like I manipulated Sacha into asking that question.
Best not lift it out of context or turn it into a straw man then.
If so, I certainly didn’t do it deliberately. Here’s the full quote, for the record:
Whereas from where I'm sitting it's simply a matter of having found Avatar awful and being willing to back it up with argument - an argument which is in turn open to being accepted or rejected on its merits.
There's been "arguments" both ways, and of course everything in them boils down to subjective opinion of artistic worth. After a while it moves from anything resembling argument, to cheerleading. I think this happened months ago, wrt Avatar.
People can judge for themselves, but “of course everything in them boils down to subjective opinion” doesn’t seem that far from “it’s all just opinion” to me. My summary was (obviously) a little flippant, but not unfair.
You're conveniently eliding the subjective element: that each car is being driven by someone.
I’m conveniently eliding many elements – that’s what people do with analogies. In any given race, the faster car might get hit by a freak bolt of lightening before it can win the race.
-
"well it's all just opinion in the end".
I don't think anyone actually claimed that, did they?
Well, I had in mind comments such as:
...everything in them boils down to subjective opinion of artistic worth.
-
Ha. No, in fact, it doesn't. That's not what drag racing is; drag racing is about which car can go fastest while satisfying an essentially subjective and arbitrary set of rules.
What, like, which car is fastest in a straight line, over a comparatively short distance? Call it what you like, but which car is fastest in the context given is an objective truth. Sacha had the better response here; the issue is whether the analogy has much relevance to assessments of the value of things such as films.