posted
Do you believe it's justified, or deserved, when a racist has his personal property destroyed?"
What personal property, by whom and under what circumstances? Merchandise in a store is very different from other property, as the intention is to sell it.
Generally, I do not believe in the destruction of property, but the circumstances here are special. Mr. Cohen destroyed allot of frankly hideous pieces belonging to a man who was something of a jerk and who had no intention of keeping them the shop owner was compensated.
"Many store owners don't care what you do with something once you purchase it, but many do care, and would not sell you something knowing you were going to turn around and destroy it."
I work in amateur theatre, we frequently buy antiques and "destroy" them, and I have never felt guilty about that. And I am a member of the American Archaeological Institute and frankly much more concerned with material evidence of the past than most people. It is not my opinion that most items ending up in small antique stores are of great academic interest, nor, in this case, of great aesthetic value.
To be clear, I would be quick to condemn the destruction of property without recompensation of the destruction property that was not available for purchase under any circumstances. All I am really saying is that, in this particular circumstances, my sympathies are not with the shop owner and I feel no guilt in having laughed at the wreckage nor in having economically supported the wrecker.
Mr. Cohen was unquestionably rather rude, as is the nature of reality-based situational comedy (for want of a better description), but I cannot see him as having been seriously immoral. After all, it was a buisness transaction in which both parties profited.
And, clearly, this man had no qualms about being filmed, having the film shown publicly (he was not drunk) and is not suing. I do not thing we should be offended for him if he is not (and the evidence suggests he is not.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe he just wants to spark discussion and make people think about their predjudices for more than the 84 minutes people sat and watched his film for.
But that sort of thing DOESN'T make people think about their prejudices. That's my whole point. It just makes people go ha ha, what a stupid racist. About OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES.
posted
I'm not offended for him. I think you're wrong to say a racist deserved to have his property destroyed, regardless of it was on sale or compensated for or not.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What ElJay said. I don't think anyone deserves to have their property destroyed, regardless of their beliefs.
Posts: 511 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've heard about that particular scene, I have every confidence that it wouldn't offend me at all.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also don't think that scene is indicative of the majority of his comedy, or the kind that I or anyone else has been commenting on in this entire thread.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: From what I've heard about that particular scene, I have every confidence that it wouldn't offend me at all.
Oh, not what I was saying at all my friend. Regardless if one is offended at seeing a fat man's nublets - the fact that you are indeed seeing a fat man's nublets is something that could be considered crude.
edit: That scene is extremely funny though, lol.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure it is. You said that we who didn't like Cohen's comedy were "easily offended by crude humor"
Since there are very few scenes in his comedy that could be considered "crude" and since no one here has actually spoken about those particular scenes, your statement is irrelavent yet surprisingly caustic and confrontive.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well am I not right, for the most part? We've got people here raving that they refuse to watch it because he breaks someone's Civil War memorabilia, and others almost calling him the devil for making moronic sexist fratboys and idiotic white-trash racist people look bad.
Get over yourselves already.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not speaking FOR others lamebrain. Half of the people in this thread haven't even seen the film and they are lambasting it because they are ignorant.
A lot of you people still need to get your heads out of your asses.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watching this kid post is like watching a train wreck.
But how many times does he have to jump into a thread about books, TV, or movies and call everyone who doesn't like what he likes ignorant before we just stop ignoring him altogether?
Or do we need him around so we all feel a little better about not being quite so closed-minded?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: Watching this kid post is like watching a train wreck.
But how many times does he have to jump into a thread about books, TV, or movies and call everyone who doesn't like what he likes ignorant before we just stop ignoring him altogether?
Or do we need him around so we all feel a little better about not being quite so closed-minded?
Actually people jumping into a thread and being called things started way before I got here. Might want to read before making assumptions.
And you're calling me closedminded? Wow, you are the best example of 'imbecile' I have ever seen.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you were saying that some people here were offended by crude humor. In other words, you were saying, on their behalf, what it was that offended them about the movie. Or, in shortened form, speaking for them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you were saying that some people here were offended by crude humor. In other words, you were saying, on their behalf, what it was that offended them about the movie. Or, in shortened form, speaking for them.
lol@nerds
No. I was speaking ABOUT them. Kind of like how I'm calling you someone with their head in their ass? Like that.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've reported you to the administrator, PUNJABEE. I think we'd all appreciate it if you took it down a notch, and quit the personal attacks.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that sort of thing DOESN'T make people think about their prejudices. That's my whole point. It just makes people go ha ha, what a stupid racist. About OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES.
That's definitely true in some cases, and perhaps in most cases it is true. But it also helps people to see how ridiculous racism really is. I've not seen this movie, but this discussion reminds me of some of Dave Chappelle's racism sketches. He feels that by making racism look ridiculous and stupid and by getting people to laugh at some of those silly notions, he is increasing awareness in a subject that is often times ignored. At the same time, though, there are many people that feel that Chappelle's sketches just incite more racism by making it seem acceptable as something to joke about, not as something to take seriously.
A lot of people thought Crash was a very good movie while many others thought it was too preachy. I dont' know. It seems to go both ways. Since I haven't seen the movie, I can't comment on Cohen's methods, but sometimes "that sort of thing" can be an effective way to address racism.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I've reported you to the administrator, PUNJABEE. I think we'd all appreciate it if you took it down a notch, and quit the personal attacks.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you were saying that some people here were offended by crude humor. In other words, you were saying, on their behalf, what it was that offended them about the movie. Or, in shortened form, speaking for them.
lol@nerds
No. I was speaking ABOUT them. Kind of like how I'm calling you someone with their head in their ass? Like that.
No, you were saying that they were offended and identifying what offended them. And you were wrong about the second half of that, hence my initial post to you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I hope he doesnt. I rather thought everyone was doing a really good job of ignoring the... hmm... I guess I'll go with troll, in the corner. I'm really enjoying the conversation in this thread, and I do hope it doesnt get shut off just because someone has taken it upon themselves to act in an inappropriate manner. I know there are lines that shouldnt be crossed, and the PJ has to make that decision, but I think that most of the posters in this thread have a good handle on keeping things in check.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But after Punjabee's first post, nothing related to the original thread (or the current tangent thereof) has been said.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats not true. camus and Leonide were continuing a conversation after that. I'll tell you what. Why dont WE try to get it back on track? I'll start...
I think that Sascha Baron Cohen is a VERY good looking man. rrrrow. Hottie.
That being said, I also hate this particular type of humor. It makes me very uncomfortable to see other human beings humiliated, regardless of whether or not they "deserved" it. It makes me uncomfortable because of the sense of malicious righteousness I get when I see some dumb nut get caught out. It makes me feel, for lack of a better word, good when bad things happen to bad people. And I dont actually think that is a very healthy additude for me to hold. I think it says more about me and my judgementalness than it does about the person being embarrased.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Pel, if that's a copyrighted song, cut it down to two lines . If I'm displaying my ignorance of some pop culture uncopyrighted fab by the name of "Avenue Q", I apologize.)
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is illegal now to quote copyrighted material even with atribution?
Christ, if only my English teachers knew this, I would be in huge trouble over some essays I have written about books that are still copyrighted.
The lyrics are from a website that stores lyrics, which I assume to be legal, although God knows that copyright law becomes more paranoid and useless every day.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what all the legal issues involved are, Pel, and I'm personally not particularly interested in the debate at this time, but the request of the Cards has been that copyrighted lyrics specifically be limited to two lines. I'd appreciate it if you would edit your post to conform to that request.
posted
As far as I can tell, not being a lawyer, my use of lyrics is allowed by the Copyright Act of 1976 under fair use stipulations.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The request is made under the rules here, rules PJ is entrusted by the owners of this site to enforce. You post here at their pleasure, and you agreed to follow their rules when you signed up.
Your understanding of the law, however, is almost nonexistent. First, nothing in any copyright act makes it okay to distribute copyrighted material if you give attribution, though I will admit it is a common myth that it does.
Secondly, fair use guidelines are provided by the law, not specifics (with a few exceptions that do not apply here). Judges do use and have used those guidelines to lay out more particular boundaries.
So far no case I know of regarding posting of song lyrics has reached court, but that means little. For one thing, the default is that something is not fair use, not that it is. For another, song lyrics do not have some special status. Plenty of case law on excerpting has built up.
Sampling a song beyond the tiniest amount (unless for parody purposes -- parodies and a few other things have special protection) is a violation of copyright. In some cases, reprinting one paragraph of an entire book is a violation of copyright (there was a case on that involving Harper). It is abundantly clear that distributing most of the lyrics of a song is a violation of copyright.
Here's a simple guideline: if its a copyright work, you don't get to redistribute anything but small amounts of it, because the right to distribute it (among other rights) is reserved to its creator, as the laws on copyright explicitly stipulate. Several stanzas of a short song are not (edit: typo) fair use distributable.
Again, though, the reason you were asked to take down the lyrics was because you were breaking the rules, despite your agreement to follow them. Don't get all hissy because you think something's legal (despite it not being so) when the legality has nothing to do with your offense.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that sort of thing DOESN'T make people think about their prejudices. That's my whole point. It just makes people go ha ha, what a stupid racist. About OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES.
That's definitely true in some cases, and perhaps in most cases it is true. But it also helps people to see how ridiculous racism really is. I've not seen this movie, but this discussion reminds me of some of Dave Chappelle's racism sketches. He feels that by making racism look ridiculous and stupid and by getting people to laugh at some of those silly notions, he is increasing awareness in a subject that is often times ignored. At the same time, though, there are many people that feel that Chappelle's sketches just incite more racism by making it seem acceptable as something to joke about, not as something to take seriously.
A lot of people thought Crash was a very good movie while many others thought it was too preachy. I dont' know. It seems to go both ways. Since I haven't seen the movie, I can't comment on Cohen's methods, but sometimes "that sort of thing" can be an effective way to address racism.
Chapelle, at least from the few times these days that I bother with him, almost never seems like he's trying to poke fun at racism. Maybe it's just bad timing, but he always seems to be dissing white people whenever I watch him, and there's nothing particularly amusing about it. I've never understood why everyone but white comics somehow get a free pass to make fun of anyone they want, but unless a white guy is talking about white guy stuff, he's labeled as a gay basher, or racist, or mysoginist, or whatever. Granted that free pass doesn't let them get away with everything, but the fact that there is one at all is disturbing to me.
In relation to Borat, the thing about making fun of racists, is that the only people who are going to find it amusing are those that already aren't racist, and it's likely only to fuel antipathy towards racists. It's not a healthy vehicle for change, or discussion. It only pisses off the racist guy, which fuels his inner demons, and makes the rest of society less tolerant of their ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm rather intolerant of racism myself, but somewhere along the tolerance/intolerance line you start getting into thought police type stuff, and I draw the line there.
Basically: Mocking racists, with the claim that doing so will somehow fix the problem of racism is ludicrous. These guys aren't going to say "dear God, I never looked at it like THAT before" and change their ways.
I think what the guy at the rodeo (in I think North Carolina) said was reprehensible and offensive, but I also don't think for a minute that mocking him in a theater will get him to change his ways. If anything it only reenforces his predjudices. And I think Cohen is full of it if that is his honest reason for doing so.
Cohen has said that his movie is far more about mocking the people who hold misconceptions as truths, than on making misconceptions. For example, that Kazakhs are fans of incest, and all women are prostitutes, etc etc about Kazakhstan. Alright, when I first saw this movie I actually took it the way he says it was meant to be, that the whole thing was really making fun of stupid people who hold stupid untruths about places like Kazakhstan. The problem with this however, is the same thing with the racist. If you already know that it isn't the truth, this movie will come across as funny. If you DON'T know what the truth is, this movie is STILL funny, only now it's reenforcing your negative stereotypical misconceptions. I also totally dislike the fact that everything is represented as truth. When the Daily Show or Colbert Report mock something (often times for the same reason), we KNOW that they are kidding, and we KNOW that whatever the subject is, it ISN'T really true. Absent that, I disapprove of the way Cohen went about this.
Anyway, like my original blurb said, a couple pages ago, regardless of the controversy, I didn't even really find the movie super funny. The best part of the movie I thought was the kids running up to the ice cream truck and the bear roaring at them. But, even as I saw it, I thought it was obviously staged. Something about the kids all playing by the parking lot and running to the ice cream truck yelling "Yay!" screamed of staged to me.
It wasn't the best comedy of the year by far. It was the intellectual equivilant of fart jokes and pulling someone's pants down, which can be very funny, but isn't clever, and certainly isn't hard to do, so I have a hard time giving Cohen a lot of credit for it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fart jokes and pulling someone's pants down strays into the realm of the crude. And we've most definitely, without a doubt established that his humor is usually NOT CRUDE!!
quote:Chapelle, at least from the few times these days that I bother with him, almost never seems like he's trying to poke fun at racism. Maybe it's just bad timing, but he always seems to be dissing white people whenever I watch him, and there's nothing particularly amusing about it.
Hmmm...I've seen what you describe here in some Chappelle shows, but I've also seen sketches that definitely poked fun at black people because there were no white people to be seen and it focused specifically on African American culture. I have found some Chappelle skits to be hilarious, and others not so amusing.
I think his primary goal was to make people laugh, and he seemed successful at it. The Wayne Brady skit where Wayne is a pimp was pretty darn funny. And I can't help but laugh at the Racial draft - which poked fun at everyone.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Fart jokes and pulling someone's pants down strays into the realm of the crude. And we've most definitely, without a doubt established that his humor is usually NOT CRUDE!!
To each his own Leonide.
Naked wrestling with a giant naked man, hitting people with sex toys, and handing your dinner host a bag of crap, in my book, is crude. It's so far within the crudeness sphere it's taken up permanent residence, and has started laying sod.
It's not clever, it's rude, I'd call it crude.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chapelle, at least from the few times these days that I bother with him, almost never seems like he's trying to poke fun at racism. Maybe it's just bad timing, but he always seems to be dissing white people whenever I watch him, and there's nothing particularly amusing about it.
Hmmm...I've seen what you describe here in some Chappelle shows, but I've also seen sketches that definitely poked fun at black people because there were no white people to be seen and it focused specifically on African American culture. I have found some Chappelle skits to be hilarious, and others not so amusing.
I think his primary goal was to make people laugh, and he seemed successful at it. The Wayne Brady skit where Wayne is a pimp was pretty darn funny. And I can't help but laugh at the Racial draft - which poked fun at everyone.
In all honesty, I haven't watched enough of him to really have a good estimate of his comedy as a whole. Whenever I've given him a try, I've been totally turned off by what I heard. Just bad timing on my part perhaps.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
