Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Turtwig

Oh my

Peregrinus

Links234 wrote: »

So in essense Peregrinus you are saying that if someone takes issue with someone taking issue over someone taking issue... where were we?

It's not that difficult. Concentrate hard. Now, come on, I know you can do it! There's a drink in it for you!*

1. Jank takes issue with certain criticisms of 50 Shades.

and

2. You suggest that, because he has done so, jank is saying that "criticism is bad and freedom to protest is wrong".

but

3. Jank hasn't said anything remotely like that.


* [Obligatory Father Ted reference]

Links234

I got what you were saying perfectly fine first time around, I was being jovial.

Peregrinus

That would be an ecumenical matter.

jank

Well the RCC were behind the ban of "The life of Brian" and if they could not have banned it they certainly would have been behind a boycott, saying prayers and all that stuff (which they are entitled to do).... All I am saying that groups be it conservative, feminist or 'liberal' in asking others to boycott movies or books (again which they are entitled to do) are generally there to be laughed and pointed at.

Can't put it any better than this...

Pherekydes

Links234 wrote: »

I got what you were saying perfectly fine first time around, I was being jovial.

But today's Friday!

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

Feminist activists urge boycott of 50 shades of Grey equating the movie is akin to 'promoting' domestic abuse.



Not ironic seeing as the target audience of the books and the movie are women in their 20's and 30's? Never mind the author is also a woman. (God help us if it were a man!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-purcell/fifty-shades-of-grey-feminism_b_2395932.html

The unholy alliance is also getting in on the act.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/02/12/feminists-moralists-conservatives-slam-fifty-shades/23297675/

Feminists the new conservatives? Quite possible.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tens-of-thousands-urge-boycott-of-fifty-shades-of-grey


Anyway, men are at fault and to blame again...
http://theconversation.com/fifty-shades-of-grey-is-just-an-old-fashioned-romance-thats-the-problem-37440

Am I missing something or is there no part of this post which explains why you think they are actually wrong for calling on people to boycott it?
What's wrong with a boycott, it's just asking people to voluntarily not go see it.
Do you expect is to join in your distatse simply because feminism is involved?

shruikan2553

My experience of fifty shades is mostly from this
http://www.fiftyshadesgenerator.com/

But it does actually seem like an abusive relationship. Im most people wont bother to see it anyway, if I want to watch something about sex I'll find better videos online.

Nodin

shruikan2553 wrote: »

My experience of fifty shades is mostly from this
http://www.fiftyshadesgenerator.com/

But it does actually seem like an abusive relationship. Im most people wont bother to see it anyway, if I want to watch something about sex I'll find better videos online.

It has a 12 cert in France apparently, so you can guess how "wild" it is from that.

KomradeBishop

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, what you are saying, Links, is that if somebody ever takes issue with any particular criticism or any particular boycott, they can be taken as saying that criticism in general is bad and freedom to protest is wrong.

There was no attempt to discredit the criticisms against the book - so it very much just appears to just be taking issue with people for having legitimate criticisms of the book.

Taking issue like that, apparently without any reason, isn't really anything more than scoffing - and this scoffing seems to extend to the idea of protesting/boycotting against stuff in general.

Paraphrased, it might as well just be: "Those lefties/feminists, with their protests and boycott's :rolleyes:"

Links234

jank wrote: »

Well the RCC were behind the ban of "The life of Brian" and if they could not have banned it they certainly would have been behind a boycott, saying prayers and all that stuff (which they are entitled to do).... All I am saying that groups be it conservative, feminist or 'liberal' in asking others to boycott movies or books (again which they are entitled to do) are generally there to be laughed and pointed at.

I don't know if you're really this disingenuous or you just like janking people's chains, but there is a world of difference between banning something and criticizing it. Ireland has had a long history of film censorship, many movies were banned, which is indeed a shameful and ridiculous thing, but that is a far cry from a hashtag calling for people to donate to women's charities instead of seeing a movie. Now, were our government to ban it, you and me would be very much on the same side, but that's not what is happening at all.

Controversy and criticism can be productive, it gets people talking, there are conversations about the kind of relationships depicted in 50 Shades happening, and that's good. There are calls for people to see Secretary instead, and that's a protest I can get behind, because the world needs more James Spader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFma24S-Uvw

shruikan2553

I have yet to hear about feminists having it not be shown. Same cant be said about members of a certain religious group in Craggy Island Inishowen (think it was Inishowen anyway)

Turtwig

Secretary actually has full frontal nudity. According to the reports Fifty Shades, surprisingly, has none. My issue with it is that it's regarded as 'romantic'. Releasing the film on Valentines day. Now, maybe the film is a lot different from the books. The book however was mostly about an abusive relationship and the 'victim' of that relationship sticking with her abuser, thinking she could find a way to satisfy him. It is utterly fcked up to consider it romantic material.

shruikan2553

Nodin wrote: »

It has a 12 cert in France apparently, so you can guess how "wild" it is from that.

I think we're all used to films being made as child friendly as possible to cash in on the bigger potential audience. Its a shame. Its all about making money so my complaint is probably more suited to the other thread :P

Nodin

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I think we're all used to films being made as child friendly as possible to cash in on the bigger potential audience. Its a shame. Its all about making money so my complaint is probably more suited to the other thread :P

Tis true. Movies not made, movies made that should not have been.....
*sob

jank

Links234 wrote: »

I don't know if you're really this disingenuous or you just like janking people's chains, but there is a world of difference between banning something and criticizing it. Ireland has had a long history of film censorship, many movies were banned, which is indeed a shameful and ridiculous thing, but that is a far cry from a hashtag calling for people to donate to women's charities instead of seeing a movie. Now, were our government to ban it, you and me would be very much on the same side, but that's not what is happening at all.

Controversy and criticism can be productive, it gets people talking, there are conversations about the kind of relationships depicted in 50 Shades happening, and that's good. There are calls for people to see Secretary instead, and that's a protest I can get behind, because the world needs more James Spader

I remember seeing the secretary actually. I was a bit of a puzzling movie personally but overall I found it very funny with some scenes that still stick with me. However, I wonder would that movie if it were released today get the scorn of the illiberal left as I can't remember any big contraversy about The Sectary when it was released. I suppose they were the golden days the the Internet pre Facebook, twitter and all the crap that goes with it.

As I said, people have a right to protest, boycott anything they wish. People also have a right to take the piss out of these people who are protesting. I would have though my Father Ted image would have demonstrated that. Would you be so defensive if this movie was talking the piss out of Jesus and the Iona institute were asking for a boycott? I think not, in fact you would have ripping the piss out of them and rightly so.

Turtwig

To use a line of rhetoric that you frequently emply. Iona institute not one bit comparable to physical and mental abuse. Choose what you think should have the piss taken out of it, more wisely.

Links234

jank wrote: »

I remember seeing the secretary actually. I was a bit of a puzzling movie personally but overall I found it very funny with some scenes that still stick with me. However, I wonder would that movie if it were released today get the scorn of the illiberal left as I can't remember any big contraversy about The Sectary when it was released. I suppose they were the golden days the the Internet pre Facebook, twitter and all the crap that goes with it.

As I said, people have a right to protest, boycott anything they wish. People also have a right to take the piss out of these people who are protesting. I would have though my Father Ted image would have demonstrated that. Would you be so defensive if this movie was talking the piss out of Jesus and the Iona institute were asking for a boycott? I think not, in fact you would have ripping the piss out of them and rightly so.

I have a few friends who are into the kink scene and are critical of 50 Shades because as best I understand it, the book and/or movie have issues of consent and an abusive relationship, and gives a skewed perspective on what BDSM is. I've not read or seen it, so I won't comment on that. Secretary didn't have these issues, so it's a different kettle of fish and wouldn't have had the same criticisms.

But are you honestly trying to suggest that pre-internet, people didn't criticize or call for boycotts or worse, call for bans etc? Are you trying to tell me that the 90's didn't happen? Because I'm old enough to remember the moral panic "Ban this sick filth" hysteria over what were quite frankly some crappy horror movies, or similar controversies over anime because some folks didn't know Akira wasn't for kids, or similar again with games and moral crusaders like Jack Thompson and all that noise.

Anyway, to your point about Iona...

You're asking me, what if a completely different bunch, called for the boycott of a completely different movie, for completely different reasons? Yes, I might consider that situation somewhat differently and my reaction to it might not be the same.

So this brings us right back around again to my initial post on the subject, are you saying criticism and calls for boycotts are bad? Because you're offering absolutely nothing about why this is bad, no argument against the criticisms or why they're wrong, etc.

silverharp

Links234 wrote: »

So this brings us right back around again to my initial post on the subject, are you saying criticism and calls for boycotts are bad? Because you're offering absolutely nothing about why this is bad, no argument against the criticisms or why they're wrong, etc.

just jumping in here but as a general point I 'd say that boycotts against a piece of "art" for want of a better term is pointless and maybe more about a particular organisation wanting to get itself some free publicity. Criticisms are fine, they are called reviews. Boycotts are better used if it might reduce a real life activity that is deemed bad for whatever reason.

Hotblack Desiato

Jank what's your opinion on the UK feminist 'ban page 3' campaigns? I'd agree with pointing out it's undesirable* and sleazy, but don't agree with banning it should an organisation decide to persist with it in spite of it being undesirable and sleazy.


* There is more than a slight hypocrisy here, they are not seeking to ban out and out porn afaik because of free speech, but they do object to sexual images in mass media, so it's kind of an inverse agumentum ad populum argument - porn is ok provided it's slightly harder to seek out.

pH

I haven't read 50 shades, nor am I likely to or watch the movie but I just have to ask, where did people get the idea that "art" has to be of some sort of high moral value?

We have a book written by a woman, read mainly by women, and here come the usual suspects to tell these women they shouldn't be reading it and shouldn't be watching it, I guess a woman shouldn't be writing it either. Go watch something else, I know best! I'm amazed people hold such sexist and anti-women views in 2015.

K4t

pH wrote: »

I haven't read 50 shades, nor am I likely to or watch the movie but I just have to ask, where did people get the idea that "art" has to be of some sort of high moral value?

It doesn't. But neither is art subjective. There is good music and bad music, good movies and bad movies, good writers and bad writers. 50 shades of gray is poorly written. That's widely acknowledged by men and women and there is no harm in saying it. Would I ever want to see it banned for being poorly written or for its content ? No. Who the hell am I to say what is and isn't ok to be published. If the female character was 5 years old I'd still maintain it should be allowed to be published.

We have a book written by a woman, read mainly by women, and here come the usual suspects to tell these women they shouldn't be reading it and shouldn't be watching it, I guess a woman shouldn't be writing it either. Go watch something else, I know best! I'm amazed people hold such sexist and anti-women views in 2015.

Lots of women hate 50 shades of gray and think it's badly written. It's condescending towards women and insulting towards men to think it sexist or anti-women for men to criticise 50 shades and its writing and suggest both sexes go watch Secretary or read DH Lawrence.

Absolam

K4t wrote: »

It doesn't. But neither is art subjective. There is good music and bad music, good movies and bad movies, good writers and bad writers.

What are the objective criteria for music, movies, and writers?

pH

K4t wrote: »

It doesn't. But neither is art subjective. There is good music and bad music, good movies and bad movies, good writers and bad writers. 50 shades of gray is poorly written.

You're just saying that because it was written by a woman. If it was written by a man you'd probably think it was great.

And anyway that statement is a typical bait and switch, there are plenty of terrible movies, pretending that this hysterical fuss about 50 shades has anything to do with the quality of the film is downright silly.

Lots of women hate 50 shades of gray and think it's badly written. It's condescending towards women and insulting towards men to think it sexist or anti-women for men to criticise 50 shades and its writing and suggest both sexes go watch Secretary or read DH Lawrence.

Again, I'm not sure if you're trolling, confused or just trying to steer the debate away from the issues, but this has nothing to do with the quality of writing of the book or the movie, but has everything to do with the subject matter and story.

Actually, the condescension is in telling literally millions of women what types of fiction they should be reading or the movies they can watch, based on the fact that you believe their sub-standard minds can't figure out what they're watching for themselves, so best they not watch it.

K4t

Absolam wrote: »

What are the objective criteria for music, movies, and writers?

That they each exist within their own context. It is then subjective among those who dedicate themselves to those areas of specialty, the experts, to measure the importance and significance of them to that area of specialty. It's not the best way, but it's probably the fairest and most reliable to judge the value of art. So yeah, it is subjective, but subjective is a better measure of value than objective.

K4t

pH wrote: »

You're just saying that because it was written by a woman. If it was written by a man you'd probably think it was great.

George Eliot wrote perhaps the greatest novel of all time, and that kind of thinking belongs in the 19th century.

Actually, the condescension is in telling literally millions of women what types of fiction they should be reading or the movies they can watch, based on the fact that you believe their sub-standard minds can't figure out what they're watching for themselves, so best they not watch it.

Nobody is telling women what they can and can't do here, and nobody is accusing women of having sub-standard minds. This is what you wrote:

We have a book written by a woman, read mainly by women, and here come the usual suspects to tell these women they shouldn't be reading it and shouldn't be watching it, I guess a woman shouldn't be writing it either. Go watch something else, I know best! I'm amazed people hold such sexist and anti-women views in 2015.

That a woman wrote it, or that mostly women read it, or that mostly women will watch it, has nothing to do with both men and women criticising the book/film. And accusing those who do criticise it of sexist and anti-women views, is condescending towards women who dislike the book and the movie, and insulting towards men, who you think are only criticising the book and movie because they are sexist and anti-women.

K4t

Links234 wrote: »

I have a few friends who are into the kink scene and are critical of 50 Shades because as best I understand it, the book and/or movie have issues of consent and an abusive relationship, and gives a skewed perspective on what BDSM is.

It's a novel; not a BDSM guidebook or safety manual. :pac:

Absolam

K4t wrote: »

That they each exist within their own context. It is then subjective among those who dedicate themselves to those areas of specialty, the experts, to measure the importance and significance of them to that area of specialty. It's not the best way, but it's probably the fairest and most reliable to judge the value of art. So yeah, it is subjective, but subjective is a better measure of value than objective.

Hang on, the objective criteria for determining if music, movies or writers are good or bad is that they exist? So does that mean that all music, movies or writers that exist are objectively good, or objectively bad? Or are you revising your opinion and saying now that art is subjective? In which case, why is subjective a better measure of value than objective? Particularly in the case of art?

Nodin

pH wrote: »

You're just saying that because it was written by a woman. If it was written by a man you'd probably think it was great.

..............

That's a bit of an outrageous accusation, tbh.

PopePalpatine

Absolam wrote: »

Hang on, the objective criteria for determining if music, movies or writers are good or bad is that they exist? So does that mean that all music, movies or writers that exist are objectively good, or objectively bad? Or are you revising your opinion and saying now that art is subjective? In which case, why is subjective a better measure of value than objective? Particularly in the case of art?

Well, Battlefield Earth is certainly objectively bad. :pac: