| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
 Posted - 10/05/2006 : 00:40:17
|
What's the general take on language restrictions, particularly in regard to ethnicity and sexual orientation? I really don't think I have a prejudice bone in my body, but being verbally oriented...as undoubtedly any enthusiastic member in here is...I find offensive wordplay to be hilarious. There are two review entries that I have withheld, simply because of the potential backlash this issue might prompt. Clearly vulgar and sexually offensive titles are accepted. What parameters are in play for other crude, mean, obtuse, and morally bereft references? Inquiring minds, and perspiring hinds, want to know.
|
|
|
Salopian 
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 00:46:42
|
They are unlikely to be more offensive than anything already on the site. Personally, there are some terms which I feel inherently contain offence (due to how they have developed), but I have gone into detail over this before and don't have more to add now.
If you want to check, do a Google search of the site to see whether the terms are already used. |
 |
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
East Yorkshire, England.
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 00:51:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
What's the general take on language restrictions, particularly in regard to ethnicity and sexual orientation? I really don't think I have a prejudice bone in my body, but being verbally oriented...as undoubtedly any enthusiastic member in here is...I find offensive wordplay to be hilarious. There are two review entries that I have withheld, simply because of the potential backlash this issue might prompt. Clearly vulgar and sexually offensive titles are accepted. What parameters are in play for other crude, mean, obtuse, and morally bereft references? Inquiring minds, and perspiring hinds, want to know.
If you can come up with anything more crude than this you are doing well.
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 00:54:27
|
Anything offensive to any identity group and you'll be immediately ostracized from the FWFR community. There's no place for hate in four words. Or something like that.
Seriously though, as far as I can tell there's really no restrictions on anything like that, although benj may ask you to try not to make it obviously gratuitous. But you can get away with almost anything if it's clever. There are so many offensive reviews here that a few more wouldn't matter, and I'm not just saying that because I wrote several of them. Some people choose to self-censor, and that's okay. But you're under no obligation to do so. |
|
|
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:08:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
What's the general take on language restrictions, particularly in regard to ethnicity and sexual orientation? I really don't think I have a prejudice bone in my body, but being verbally oriented...as undoubtedly any enthusiastic member in here is...I find offensive wordplay to be hilarious. There are two review entries that I have withheld, simply because of the potential backlash this issue might prompt. Clearly vulgar and sexually offensive titles are accepted. What parameters are in play for other crude, mean, obtuse, and morally bereft references? Inquiring minds, and perspiring hinds, want to know.
Yeah, this issue has come up for films such as Brokeback Mountain, which is almost entirely devoted to slurs on homosexual sex. Of course, they are all in poor taste, but many of them are also quite witty.
Personally, the only reviews that get me a little irked are reviews that are insenstive to the Holocaust. I know that nobody here is mocking the tragedy of Holocaust when they write a four word review for movies such as Schindler's List or The Pianist, but still, there is something distinctly not funny at all about anything having to do with that event in history. That's just my feeling anyway. |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:17:52
|
Although vulgar sexual terms may offend, sometimes they are completely within context of a movie's topic. Josh the Cat advanced the reviews of "Chatter Box", but that movie dealt with a talking vagina. Crude references were invited by title. I guess I'm policing myself, but I can think of a really good, though politically incorrect and ethnically offensive review of a Spielberg movie...it's probably not the one you're thinking of. There's also a recent Eric Bana movie that can be tainted. I'll let your imaginations run rampant.
For my money, the ugliest words aren't body references. I think more people have been hurt, perhaps justifiably so, for hateful employment of the N word and stuff like that. This all being said, censorship sucks.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:23:54
|
There are a couple funny reviews of Life is Beautiful, but that may be a testament to how effective the film was at achieving its goal.
I'd hate to think you're depriving us of a good laugh Catuli, but if you don't feel comfortable publishing a review that's entirely your business and it's totally cool. (but remember you can always disown a review and none of us will know it was yours) |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:24:40
|
| It would be boring of me to go on about this again, but I have also mentioned before that racism is seen as less valid in jokes than sexism or homophobia, both on this site and in society. I illustrated this by pointing out that "N***** gets run down" (not with the asterisks) would be very unlikely to be considered acceptable, although it were simply referring to a name and fact from the film. |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/05/2006 01:25:19 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:27:08
|
After posting that, I have to withdraw it, since I see that Whipper has in fact got a similar review approved. However, at the time (a long time ago), people seemed to mainly agree.
The next question is whether to vote for it or not... It is making an anti-racist comment, but I still think that some words should never be used outside quotations... But then, naming someone is slightly like a quotation... Hhmmm... |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/05/2006 01:29:58 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:31:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
(but remember you can always disown a review and none of us will know it was yours)
But in all seriousness please do not do this. I think that people should stand by or delete all reviews, but especially ones that could offend. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
The Hub of the Universe
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:32:35
|
| I really don't agree at all but I don't want to argue about it. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
The European Union
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:35:52
|
| O.K., (but) let me put it this way - the Alan Smithee Brokeback Mountain reviews offend me more than almost all of the others, since they seem insidious. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
New Zealand
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:39:43
|
I wrote a good one for Schindler's List a year or two ago, then deleted it from my pending pile, then resubmitted, then deleted it again. I just know that there are people who would have absolutely hated it. I think it's about the only time I've self-censored. 
It did for the Holocaust what "Brother gets own bedroom" did for WW2 or "Selfish bitch hogs float" did for the Titanic.  |
|
|
|
Catuli
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 01:42:47
|
This issue has been broached in competitive Scrabble, in which I have participated gamely. Prudes object about certain words, but the overriding rule is that any word cited in the dictionary is acceptable. Those who object to certain words are ironically conveying that they not only know the word, but they explicitly understand its definition. I'm not sure if the same standards apply in FWFR.
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
Los Angeles, CA, USA
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 05:28:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
This issue has been broached in competitive Scrabble, in which I have participated gamely. Prudes object about certain words, but the overriding rule is that any word cited in the dictionary is acceptable. Those who object to certain words are ironically conveying that they not only know the word, but they explicitly understand its definition. I'm not sure if the same standards apply in FWFR.
My feeling is that Scrabble is less about words than about valid combinations of letters. Therefore, if a word exists in the English language, it should be valid for use in Scrabble. Since FWFR is so much about context, I would say that it is not really fair to compare the two games. |
|
|
|
Warzonkey 
"Seriously Lo-Res"
Littleborough, UK
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 09:21:44
|
As a relative newbie I had a dilemma a few months back about a certain review. It wasn't sexually crude and I certainly wouldn't regard it as racist, but it was in bad taste and possibly could have upset a certain ethnic/religious group. It was accepted by the MERPs, but shortly thereafter I withdrew and deleted it because I just wasn't sure about the etiquette of the site and how it would be perceived by fellow FWFRers. I don't usually go out of my way to offend, but by the same token I don't buy the whole political correctness gosh-we-can't-possibly-upset-anybody attitude. I guess I just decided that in the context of this site, and as a relative newbie, I'd rather just keep it friendly. But personally, I wouldn't be offended by anything anybody else chose to put in a review, except maybe something like "Warzonkey is a paedophile." but I can't think of a movie that would fit - so I'm safe.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Language Restriction
