| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Koli |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 05:57:40
FOUR YOUR CONSIDERATION - TREASURE HUNT
Put any five reviews you like in your F.Y.C. list.
The only main rule is to not use the ones from the previous round - you must change them every round.
Post here to declare that you've done it. Sooner is better than later.
Provide a spoiler warning in your post when appropriate.
You must read the F.Y.C.s of all participants.
The next round starts on Monday or Thursday at 6:00 a.m. FWFR time, whichever comes next.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 16:27:48
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I feel that my reviews are my responsibility, and if one of them offended, even unintentionally it might change my opinion on that review and whether it was worth keeping.
This is certainly a valid point. In particular, I would be probably delete it if requested to by someone. My main reticence then would only be the fact that there are so many reviews with actually offensive content here. My ideal would be that Benj would have a policy on these issues.
quote:
I didn't write "this is racist (and possibly generic)" because the potentially generic aspect wasn't the focal point of my post, obviously.
Fine, but when saying that someone may be being racist, I think it's best to explicitly mention other possibilities that one has thought of. Otherwise, it is sure to come across as that one does think the person is being racist. Note that even your suggested wording above would not be reasonable, though. You would still be stating that the review were racist, and just that it might be 'generic' in addition.
quote:
As for diamonds and spades the first one that sprang to mind was 'King Solomon's Mines', and that alone has been filmed three times.
I don't remember a spade in the one that I saw; I'll defer to your knowledge on the other two. As I say, if Benj declines it for being too generic, that is fine by me. Also, don't all those films also feature black people? Since your racist interpretation therefore seems at least as 'generic' (more so, I would say) as the straightforward interpretation, it seems strange that the 'generic' potential of the latter made you think my review was more likely to be racist. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/18/2007 : 06:15:51
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
No, she means THIS one!
Whippa's right - I'd already voted on your review, foxy.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 23:39:50
No, she means THIS one! |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 22:03:47
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Also, these 'generic' and racist points contradict each other. If a spade is so likely in any film about diamonds, then how can it be that it would not be thought of? 
Was there no Sam Spade movie about finding lost diamonds?
You mean this one? |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 20:01:31
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Also, these 'generic' and racist points contradict each other. If a spade is so likely in any film about diamonds, then how can it be that it would not be thought of?
Was there no Sam Spade movie about finding lost diamonds?
|
| demonic |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 16:39:37
No real conflict (diamond?) required. It is just a difference of opinion - and it's definitely an interesting arguement. I feel that my reviews are my responsibility, and if one of them offended, even unintentionally it might change my opinion on that review and whether it was worth keeping.
Very briefly to answer a few points from above -
I didn't write "this is racist (and possibly generic)" because the potentially generic aspect wasn't the focal point of my post, obviously. Also, human beings are on the whole, fallible, and unlike someone keen to score points, I don't forsee all angles of a conversation beforehand. 
As for diamonds and spades the first one that sprang to mind was 'King Solomon's Mines', and that alone has been filmed three times. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 03:19:32
|
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 03:17:37
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I am not dismissing demonic responded as he did - I am just denying that that is my responsibility.
Not coming down on either side, you guys can duke that one out! Just playing the devil's advocate  |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 03:10:49
I am not dismissing demonic having responded as he did - I am just denying that that is my responsibility.
The issue here is a more specific one than that in the other thread, though. Even if all actually offensive reviews were disallowed, a separate decision would then have to be made about reviews which people could misinterpret as being offensive. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 02:49:55
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Also, these 'generic' and racist points contradict each other. If a spade is so likely in any film about diamonds, then how can it be that it would not be thought of?
Yes, I agree with you , which is why I separated out the two points.
I haven't seen the film which doesn't help in talking about the generic aspect. But I suppose that's the point of this site. People look at reviews for films they have seen and ones they haven't seen. If they haven't seen them they have no way of knowing some of the plot points that people use in their reviews.
As you have already pointed out a couple of times, 'spade' is an homonym, and in a review for another film the use of 'spade' meaning shovel would be totally unambigous.
It's an unfortunate 'clash of the homonyms' in that the film is set in Africa, and the word 'spade' is one that will suggest use of a racist term to some people. One of the main points that came out of the other threads on the use of 'racist terms' was that people respond to these in very different ways. You cannot dismiss demonic finding the review you wrote as appearing racist, because that is what he felt when he read it. As for whether the review should stay is down to the policy on the site, which is the tricky debate that was never concluded on the other threads. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 02:21:33
Also, these 'generic' and racist points contradict each other. If a spade is so likely in any film about diamonds, then how can it be that it would not be thought of? |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:41:00
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
 Is this shovel incident in the movie really significant to the film - to the extent that anyone who has seen it (unlike me) will immediately know 'spade' refers to this incident? If not significant enough, then I agree that other movies containing those coveted gemstomes and mining could be 'diamond(s), spade(s)'. Hence, generic (I think I should write a research paper on the 'definition of generic and disputed examples of same on fwfr')
I have covered this above (and had really covered it before your post or demonic's last one). If Benj rejects it as too 'generic', that is fine.
quote:
 I don't think it is fair to say that someone who interprets a word as potentially racist holds some racism within themselves. Quite the opposite - it demonstrates a sensitivity to words or actions that might offend someone even unintentionally.
It's not definitively the case, but I still think it is possible in some instances. I know that I for one would not jump to that conclusion unless there were significant racist evidence.
quote:
I have not seen the film, but knew it was set in Africa. I am sorry to say that I reacted the same way as demonic, because the use of the word 'spade' in the singular did not suggest to me a significant shovel incident in the film. I realised that shovels would likely feature, but the use of the singular did indeed make me think it referred to one of the African characters (if it was diamond mining in Australia I would possibly not have had the same reaction). This despite reading Salopian's posts and knowing that it was unlikely to be racist. Sorry
If I think someone's unlikely to be racist, I personally do not jump to the conclusion that they suddenly are being racist when there is a perfectly plausible non-racist explanation. Also, I submitted it in the singular precisely because that in fact does make it specific to the spade. Although one black character is central, there are loads of others. There are not loads of spades (other than perhaps in wide shots); there may not even be more than the main one.
There are numerous actually racist, homophobic and sexist reviews on the site. I would think that energies would be better spent objecting to those. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:29:27
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I realise that I may seem disingenuous and that 'really' I intended both meanings. I promise that this is not the case. I made it clear in the other thread that I thought of "Diamonds, spades" long ago as a possible example for only theoretical discussion of the racist review issue and that I never would have wanted to submit it. I only submitted "Diamond, spade" after seeing the actual film.
I do believe that from reading your initial post on the matter in the "racist" thread. But I do think you are being disingenous now to claim that any accusations of racism would sit directly with the accuser and that your review is entirely innocent of any racist implication, regardless of your original intention.
This is clearly just a difference of viewpoint. I am not going to avoid perfectly innocent words like spade, chink, bitch etc. in certain contexts just because other people may lose their objectivity in those contexts. That objectivity is their responsibility. Conversely, though, I will always be happy to explain myself. If people make those inaccurate assumptions and then do not even raise this with me, then they are unquestionably to blame. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:25:17
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
If people misinterpret my reference to an everyday object as being an instance of the much rarer use of an offensive term, that is their own fault - perhaps their own racism.
So I'm a racist if I assume your review includes a racist word?
Do you not think a black person would not make the same assumption when they saw your review? I think you have to take responsibility for your reviews and whether or not you intend racism doesn't necessarily mean that they might not be construed as such.
This is covered by my previous response. The additional thing in this case is that the word is a very common one referring to an everyday concrete object. The racist term is vastly rarer. Even in the context of the film, I think the former is the more dominant sense. It is certainly sufficiently obvious a possibility that I indeed do not take responsibility for anyone who assumes that it is not the case. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 02/17/2007 : 01:21:28
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I quite agree, but this was discussed at length in the other thread. There is no point in going through it again here.
Yes, it's discussed, but not really at length - certainly not specifically, and not definitively because the topic moves all over the place. But I take it we agree that "spade" is a derogatory term for a black person, and intentionally or otherwise you've written a racist review.
Well, there were quite a few posts on the matter and my view was made extremely clear. I just responded as I did because you seemed to present your point as if I had not already made the exact same point. But no, I absolutely do not agree that I have unintentionally written a racist review. I made this viewpoint clear in the post to which you are responding. The two senses are not even etymologically linked. It is not racist to use terms that are homonyms of racist terms, even in contexts where some people might be racist. It is arguable that one should not only be non-racist but ensure that one is seen as being non-racist, but I don't subscribe to that (at least not in an exceptionless sense). I do not think it is productive when fear of seeming racist actually causes bias in people's behaviour.
|
|
|
