MovieChat Forums > eYeDEF
eYeDEF (5050)
Posts
Trump Supporter Resorts to Public Assassination Threats Against GOP Senators Open to Impeachment
Former Deutsche Bank exec under investigation for billions in loans to Trump kills self
eYe political commentary (surreal political/mob backstory unraveling before us) 11/25/19
eYe impeachment commentary 11/15/19
Former Israeli military intel officer claims Jeffrey Esptein and Gislaine Maxwell were Israeli assets.
eYe update and commentary. Happy Bombshell Fridays. Marginalizing the Barr! 10/25/19
eYe Insight and Update ... Annihilating Ambassador Taylor Deposition to House Investigators 10/22/19
eYe commentary on Rudy Arrest Watch ... 10/16/19
eYe update: Bombshell Mondays 10-14-2019
View all posts >
Replies
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Yeah it was a long interview and Joe gave him lots of space (a little too much imo) to just ramble unimpeded.
Great point, I'd forgotten about Cuba. You're right, they might be most insulated to withstand US pressure. Plus they'd probably like the chance to stick it to Trump after he reneged on Obama's rapprochement. They also have a history of granting asylum to US dissidents seeking to evade persecution.
Does Russia really want a new nuke deal? I'm not so sure. My understanding is that they were already breaking the terms of the START treaty that Trump backed out of, as the Nyonoksa radiation incident exposed their active development of mobile ICBMs. Plus I don't see Trump backing out of START if Putin really had a problem with it given how obsequious and deferential he is to Putin on every other issue.
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.
LOL! When you have to stoop to drawing the false equivalence between 'bitch' and the n-word it's because you know you lost the argument.
Incidentally, the n-word is used a lot in Deadwood too because that is how people talked in the 1800s. Sounds like you must hate that all time classic.
I don't see it as lazy writing, I saw it as an artistic decision to reinforce the low brow misogyny of the character by his choice of words.
I brought up Deadwood because the profanity is even more excessive and redundant where the writers were flying blind with their imagination of how people might have talked in western frontier towns. I found it grating initially just how often "fuck" was used for seemingly no purpose but to offend and grate on the ears. Doesn't change the fact it's an all time classic.
At least here there's more justification for Stratham's language because there are people that really talk like this.
Sorry, wasn't meant to be a slight against those with dyslexia. I thought maybe those with undiagnosed dyslexia could just be spending too much time focusing on the words. The other possibility is that they're just impossibly slow readers who struggle with comprehension.
View all replies >