You're clearly unfamiliar the history of the n-word that you'd think 'bitch' or any other word in the US lexicon is even remotely similar. I urge you to educate yourself. Meanwhile, using your brilliant logic, all derogatory expletives should be banned from movies because they cause offense, or at minimum a strict 'slur count' should be enforced to prevent their 'liberal use' according to you. Except this isn't Soviet Russia. We have a First Amendment. There is a ratings system in place designed for people with your sensitivities. If excessive derogatory profanity offends you, you can avoid subjecting yourself to movies above a PG rating.
Regardless, I don't have an issue with the use of the n-word or any other derogatory slur in a Tarantino or any other film despite being a POC. Unlike you, I don't draw arbitrary lines in the sand on what should and should not be appropriate artistic expression given that one man's art is another's pornography. If a director's work offends me, I have the freedom to not watch their movies. I also recognize that it's not my place to decide for others what they should find offensive or place limitations on artistic expression, no matter how bad or in poor taste I believe that art to be.
I brought up Deadwood to force you to think, since it liberally uses highly derogatory and excessive profanity yet it remains an All Time classic. It's why you refuse to engage in the comparison since Deadwood is a great work of art while Cellular is not. You know that as soon as you criticize one for excessive derogatory profanity and not the other, your entire argument falls apart. It's the price you pay for being a morality scold on artistic expression, it's either all or nothing.
reply
share
TMC-4 (19392)
4 years ago
I never said that "all derogatory expletives" should be banned because they cause offense. What I am trying to say is that there should be some sort of rhyme or reason for why such things are said and not because the filmmakers have to use such things as a crutch to the point of utter and sheer distraction.
And you are the one who brought up Deadwood in the first place so don't turn around and say that you refuse to engage in some sort of comparison. Of course, calling a black person the n-word at the end of the day, is more over the top than calling somebody a bitch. My point is that both Tarantino and the makers of Cellular seem to use said insults as some sort of cheap and exploitative call back. And you're utterly pathetic by implying that it makes what Tarantino says even more okay (as if you've granted his ultimate blessing) since you're a person of color even if it may or may not make sense in context.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
4 years ago
lolz! Have you bothered to think what you even mean by "no rhyme or reason"? How would you define "no rhyme or reason" compared to profanity being used *with* rhyme and reason? Would you institute a quota on how many times an expletive or slur can be used in a movie? If you make some effort to reflect on how you'd define what you're actually condemning you should arrive at the logical conclusion of the pure arbitrary nature of your subjective idea it was used as a "cheap and exploitative call back". My point about Deadwood keeps escaping you, since profanity (and not just the n-word) is used excessively with what can easily be called with "no rhyme or reason" and "exploitative" for shock value in similar respects. So should Deadwood be banned? Should it be censored? How do you condemn Cellular for excessive profanity with "no rhyme or reason" and not Deadwood? You deliberately avoid this question since it exposes your hypocrisy.
It's clear what I wrote completely flew over your head if you think I'm condoning using the n-word. I'm not. I said I don't have a problem with Tarantino using it because it's not my place to tell others what to take offense from and how to express themselves or their art. That's not the same as saying I approve of Tarantino using the n-word. You fail on nuance.
You're obviously unfamiliar with the famous quote by Voltaire "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It". I encourage you to look it up and educate yourself, as the ideal forms the basis of a free society and the cornerstone of the First Amendment. The downside of freedom is that sometimes people are going say things you find offensive. Your advocacy for censorship on speech as a solution is the antithesis of liberty.
reply
share
TMC-4 (19392)
4 years ago
Again, I'm not here to talk about Deadwood, so stop forcing that into the conversation when it's all but apples and oranges. That's a totally different animal if you want to call it that (especially if you won't give me a specific context in regards to said vernacular). Just about any and every show on HBO has excessive profanity and nudity (which they have the liberty to do since it's on premium cable) so why is Deadwood an exception to the rule? You might as well use any TV program or movie that uses excessive profanity to argue your point. We might as well be here all day. And you must've missed my first sentence when I said that no, I don't think that all derogatory expletives should be out and out censored from top to bottom.
And don't come in and say that I don't think that you're condoning a white filmmaker like Tarantino frequently using the n-word in his works and yet in the breath, say that you none-the-less don't have a problem since in your words, "it's not your place..." That's if anything double-speak. You're either for or against something plain and simple. And then you top it all of by using a fallacy about how I must be against the first amendment if I don't like it when a movie script goes overboard with the usage of one particular term of words.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
4 years ago
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" means exactly what I think of Tarantino using the n-word in a movie. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can make this point. It's not double-speak. It's the basis of the First Amendment.
So was Voltaire guilty of double-speak when he said this? If not, then how can I be? Your ignorance on this issue reflects just how little you've actually thought about this.
reply
share
TMC-4 (19392)
4 years ago
Well, if we're going to go down that route...:
https://www.quora.com/What-significance-does-the-phrase-I-disapprove-of-what-you-say-but-I-will-defend-to-the-death-your-right-to-say-it-commonly-attributed-to-Voltaire-in-the-18th-Century-have-in-our-technology-oriented-future/answer/Paul-Pasquale-1
I haven't given serious thought to this statement in quite a while. I used to believe in the idea, but now that I hear and read the astounding statements manufactured by holocaust deniers, deniers of the Sandy Hook school massacre, Obama-Communist conspiracy "thinkers", I'm not sure I would die for their right to continue to spout such garbage.
For right now, "I disapprove of what you say, and you can rattle on and on, but I will defend to the death my right and the right of others to sue your prevaricating a—."
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
4 years ago
What's your point? Of course anyone has a right to bring a civil suit for defamation or libel like in the case of Sandy Hook. The First Amendment is not absolute. You don't have a legal right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater without facing legal consequences.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We were discussing the use of expletives in a movie; a fictional work of art. You might want to try thinking about this issue for yourself rather than cutting and pasting a response that you think sounds good but doesn't actually apply to the the censorship on artistic expression that you're advocating for but there are no legal restrictions on.
reply
share
TMC-4 (19392)
4 years ago
You're the one who brought up Voltaire in the first place. And my point is that just because you may stand by that theory, doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't flaws or there aren't people who may take said statement to the proverbial extreme to formulate their own argument.
econlib.org/archives/2015/01/voltaire_recons.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6tn9sj/i_disapprove_of_what_you_say_but_i_will_defend_to/
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
4 years ago
First, it's not a 'theory'. It's the principle on which the First Amendment was formed. Nor are the exceptions carved out by the courts 'flaws', but instances where explicit material harm to aggrieved parties is quantifiable and can be proven.
I brought up Voltaire to counter your nonsensical accusation that I was engaging in "double-speak" for supporting Tarantino's right to express himself, however profane, while not approving his use of the n-word. Your failure to grasp this nuance and call it "double-speak" made your ignorance of Voltaire and this principle behind the First Amendment obvious. You then chose to deflect and distract by cutting and pasting nothing of relevance in addressing this point.
reply
share