Though you have to admit that by even taking a stab at fact checking -- however despicable the motivation and however he planned to twist the results to suit his purposes -- the SOB displays a touch more integrity than most of his wingnut colleagues.
Frankly, I'm surprised they're even bothering with something this subtle when they have race-baiting and liberal-elitism at their disposal (which blend nicely to galvanize the uppity-nigger-hater vote, i.e. The South).
Not to mention good-old Islamophobia. Sure, he's actually a Christian, but for the substantial percentage of Americans for whom the prospect of hearing the phrase "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." induces fits of drooling, pants-soiling paranoid psychosis, such nuances are unlikely to register.
I apologize for the unfortunate phrase Darren used in his cogent post. I didn't want to delete the post, and asked him to edit it. He understands completely, but it turns out he doesn't have a paid account, and so can't edit it.
In context, no problem. He's obviously snarking on those who would use the phrase seriously. So don't take it out of context.
Ah. It's a paid account thing. Yeah - I should have probably at least put quotes around that phrase. But honestly, I don't think anyone who reads your journal is likely to mistake the intent.
I hate the "n-word" - few words have been used to inflict more hurt on more human beings. But to avoid its use in the context of creating a portrait of the type of miscreant who would wield it as a weapon (or worse in my opinion, those for whom racism is so reflexive and unquestioned that they use the word is as casually as any other noun) only legitimizes and perpetuates its status as the racist's ultimate weapon, the one they can whip out at any time to put a black person in his place, to negate his personhood.
Once in a while, I'll catch part of the 1981 Eddie Murphy film "Trading Places," on broadcast TV, "edited for television" by dubbing in lame, G-rated substitutes for any "offensive" language. And no matter how many times I see it, I'm always stunned and appalled by a particularly egregious and boneheaded bit of censorship. There's a scene late in the film where Murphy's character, Valentine, overhears Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy, their experiment in social Darwinism completed and their $1 bet settled, decide to get rid of Murphy because they "wouldn't want a n!gger" running their business.
Overdubbed for TV, "a n!gger" becomes "Valentine." This bowdlerization robs the scene of its power: even the knowing audience is shocked when the somewhat sympathetic character played by Bellamy -- who believed all along that Valentine was a product of his environment, and could acclimate to the world of high finance given the opportunity -- agrees with his brother's decision and accepts his racist statement with nary a wince. And Valentine's reaction - a moment of silent rage and hurt and wounded pride that is truly moving in the middle of a comic film - simply doesn't make sense as a result.
But there's more to it than that. Replacing all of the film's "fucks" with "frigs" and "shits" with "shoots" is annoying and insulting to the viewer. This particular moment is the crux of the whole story. Everything important the film has to say is contained in that 2 minute scene, and in that one moment in particular. By altering that one word, the twits in Standards and Practices kill the whole movie.
Now, I'm mostly just venting here because this little moment of TV censorship has been pissing me off for 20 years and its good to get it off my chest. But my point remains, right over there in that little hole where I ran it into the ground.
No doubt -- and that moment from that film is indeed key. Without it, it's a vaguely amusing comedy with a few good performances. With it... well, it doesn't become transcendent satire, but it does get a decent cred boost.
Like I said in private, I'm more worried about what traffic I might get from people putting that phrase into a search engine. Especially given this lovely story (http://gawker.com/tag/videuhoh/?i=395265&t=msnbc-reporter-calls-spike-lee-uppity).
A Democrat misremembers a detail (cf. Al Gore misremembering which FEMA official accompanied him to a disaster site) and it's a lie of world-destroying magnitude. But Republicans can tell complete fabrications, and it's ... normal, so nobody makes an issue of it.
This reminds me of the false claim that Senator Clinton refused to meet with Gold Star Mothers, which of course shows that she hates our brave soldiers. The organization's web site includes official refutation of this smear, which didn't stop the Usual Suspects from circulating it. (The refutation used to be on their home page; that it's been moved to the FAQs indicates that it must be mostly dead by now.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-29 03:34 pm (UTC)Though you have to admit that by even taking a stab at fact checking -- however despicable the motivation and however he planned to twist the results to suit his purposes -- the SOB displays a touch more integrity than most of his wingnut colleagues.
Frankly, I'm surprised they're even bothering with something this subtle when they have race-baiting and liberal-elitism at their disposal (which blend nicely to galvanize the uppity-nigger-hater vote, i.e. The South).
Not to mention good-old Islamophobia. Sure, he's actually a Christian, but for the substantial percentage of Americans for whom the prospect of hearing the phrase "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." induces fits of drooling, pants-soiling paranoid psychosis, such nuances are unlikely to register.
Still, a moral victory.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 06:15 am (UTC)Context
Date: 2008-06-06 05:58 pm (UTC)I apologize for the unfortunate phrase Darren used in his cogent post. I didn't want to delete the post, and asked him to edit it. He understands completely, but it turns out he doesn't have a paid account, and so can't edit it.
In context, no problem. He's obviously snarking on those who would use the phrase seriously. So don't take it out of context.
Re: Context
Date: 2008-06-06 07:07 pm (UTC)I hate the "n-word" - few words have been used to inflict more hurt on more human beings. But to avoid its use in the context of creating a portrait of the type of miscreant who would wield it as a weapon (or worse in my opinion, those for whom racism is so reflexive and unquestioned that they use the word is as casually as any other noun) only legitimizes and perpetuates its status as the racist's ultimate weapon, the one they can whip out at any time to put a black person in his place, to negate his personhood.
Once in a while, I'll catch part of the 1981 Eddie Murphy film "Trading Places," on broadcast TV, "edited for television" by dubbing in lame, G-rated substitutes for any "offensive" language. And no matter how many times I see it, I'm always stunned and appalled by a particularly egregious and boneheaded bit of censorship. There's a scene late in the film where Murphy's character, Valentine, overhears Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy, their experiment in social Darwinism completed and their $1 bet settled, decide to get rid of Murphy because they "wouldn't want a n!gger" running their business.
Overdubbed for TV, "a n!gger" becomes "Valentine." This bowdlerization robs the scene of its power: even the knowing audience is shocked when the somewhat sympathetic character played by Bellamy -- who believed all along that Valentine was a product of his environment, and could acclimate to the world of high finance given the opportunity -- agrees with his brother's decision and accepts his racist statement with nary a wince. And Valentine's reaction - a moment of silent rage and hurt and wounded pride that is truly moving in the middle of a comic film - simply doesn't make sense as a result.
But there's more to it than that. Replacing all of the film's "fucks" with "frigs" and "shits" with "shoots" is annoying and insulting to the viewer. This particular moment is the crux of the whole story. Everything important the film has to say is contained in that 2 minute scene, and in that one moment in particular. By altering that one word, the twits in Standards and Practices kill the whole movie.
Now, I'm mostly just venting here because this little moment of TV censorship has been pissing me off for 20 years and its good to get it off my chest. But my point remains, right over there in that little hole where I ran it into the ground.
In conclusion: I like pie.
Re: Context
Date: 2008-06-06 07:19 pm (UTC)Like I said in private, I'm more worried about what traffic I might get from people putting that phrase into a search engine. Especially given this lovely story (http://gawker.com/tag/videuhoh/?i=395265&t=msnbc-reporter-calls-spike-lee-uppity).
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-29 04:23 pm (UTC)This reminds me of the false claim that Senator Clinton refused to meet with Gold Star Mothers, which of course shows that she hates our brave soldiers. The organization's web site includes official refutation of this smear, which didn't stop the Usual Suspects from circulating it. (The refutation used to be on their home page; that it's been moved to the FAQs indicates that it must be mostly dead by now.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-29 05:28 pm (UTC)The comment threads on those posts are really an eye-opener though. The sort of eye-opener that makes you want to close your eyes again real fast.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-29 05:40 pm (UTC)